CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
FIFTH SESSION, HELD MARCH 8TH, 1886.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, March 8th, 1886, and following days.
BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JOHN STAPLES, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., Sir THOMAS GABRIEL , Bart., DAVID HENRY STONE , Esq., Sir THOMAS DAKIN , Knt., Sir WILLIAM McARTHUR , and Sir ROBERT NICHOLAS FOWLER , M.P., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., Recorder of the said City; POLYDORE DE KEYSER, Esq., and JOSEPH SAVORY , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q.C., D.C.L., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL.D., Judge of the Sheriffs' Court: Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
WYNNE EDWIN BAXTER, Esq.,
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
STAPLES, MAYOR. FIFTH SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoner's have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) 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, March 8th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. TICKELL, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
(See 4th Session, pages 404 and 419.)
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted.
ARTHUR KESTIN . I am managing clerk to a firm of West India merchants in Lime Street—on 16th December I was in the Gracechurch Street Post-office—I had a bag with me, in which there was a cheque book—these two cheques produced are two of the cheques that were in that cheque book—they were filled up in my writing; the signatures and endorsements are not mine—the date on one of the cheques has been altered from December 21st to the 29th—I do not know the prisoner; he had no authority to endorse or alter the cheques.
ARTHUR HENRY COLEMAN . I am a clerk at 21, Threadneedle Street—I have known the prisoner for some time—on 21st December I met him in Bishopsgate Street; he showed me this cheque for 6l. 16s. 6d.—he asked me if I would cash it for him; I told him I would pass it through a bank and give him the cash when it was cleared—he said he got it from a cousin of his—I passed it through a bank, it was returned to me on the 24th marked, "No account, stolen cheque"—I saw the prisoner the same day and called his attention to it—he said it was a mistake; he said he had sent me a telegram not to pay it in; I had not received it—I made an appointment to meet him at Dalston Junction; he did not keep the
appointment—he was to go with me to introduce me to the drawer of the cheque.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. No money was advanced on the cheque.
ELIZA GERTRUDE MILLER . I am the wife of Thomas Miller, of the Albion Tavern, Throadneedle Street—on 31st December the prisoner came there; he showed me this cheque for 25l. 14s. 2d. and asked me to change it for him—I understood him to say it had been given to him by his sister or sister-in-law, I won't be sure which—I said it was too large an amount to change, but I would pass it through the bank—he had 1l. on account that day—he called next day and had 3l. more on account—I asked him for a receipt, which he gave me—he was to come on the Saturday for the balance—I paid the cheque into a bank, and it was returned marked "No account, stolen cheque"—the prisoner did not call on the Saturday, I never saw him again.
Cross-examined. It was about midday when you called first, it was past twelve, and about the same time on the Friday—you did not offer me a receipt, I asked you for it.
HENRY BARKER . I am a dealer in building materials at Bow—I have known the prisoner for some few months—on 24th December I met him, he gave me this cheque for 29l. 19s. 11d.—I held an I O U of his for 3l. 0s. 10d.—he asked me to get the cheque cashed and deduct the 3l. 0s. 10d.—he said he got the cheque from his brother-in-law—I gave it to some one else to pass through a bank—after it was returned I saw the prisoner and told him it had been returned marked, "Stolen cheque"—he said, "Oh, nonsense, my friends don't steal cheques," and he made an appointment to come and see me about it; he did not come—I afterwards met him in Bishopsgate Street; I asked him to come and clear the matter up; he promised that he would do so, but he did not; he went away and I have not seen him since.
Cross-examined. I did not advance you any money on the cheque—I swear you said you had it from your brother-in-law—I know nothing of your family—I have been you about three times since the cheque was returned.
JANE CORLETT . I am a schoolmistress, and live at 17, Prior Street, Finsbury Park—Mr. Kestin is secretary to the school; he pays me my salary—this cheque for 25l. was drawn in my favour, it is endorsed "S. Corlet," that is not my writing or written by my authority—I do not know the prisoner; I am not his sister-in-law.
HENRY MUSKER . I am a schoolmaster, of 42, Citizen Road, Holloway—Mr. Kestin pays me my money—on or about 21st December 29l. 19s. 7d. was due to me—this cheque for that amount is made payable to me—the endorsement is not my writing or done by my authority—the prisoner is not my brother-in-law.
ROBERT LEAMAN (City Detective). On 19th January I saw the prisoner in Bishopsgate Street Station in custody—I said, "Is your name Henry Martel?"—he said, "Why do you ask me that question?"—I said, "I have a reason for it; is your name Henry Martel?"—he said, "I decline to answer that till I have seen my solicitor"—I said, "You will be detained on suspicion of being concerned with others not in custody in stealing and receiving a black leather bag containing a cheque-book and other articles from the post-office in Gracechurch Street last month; you will be detained for identification, and if you are identified you will
no doubt be further charged with obtaining 4l. on this cheque," Mrs. Miller's cheque for 25l., which I showed him—he made no reply—I sent for Mrs. Miller—she came and picked him out from among five others—he was then charged with being concerned with others in stealing and receiving a bag containing a cheque-book—when formally charged he made no reply—three hours later on I saw him in the cells at Bishopsgate Street Station in the presence of a person who represented herself as his aunt—I cautioned him as to what he was saying, and that I might have to make use of what he said before the Court—he said, "I got the cheque from a man named Martin to change for me"—I said, "Who is Martin?"—he said, "He is a bill discounter"—I said, "Where are his offices?"—he said, "I don't know"—I said, "Where does he live?"—he said, "I don't know"—I said, "Where did you see him, and when did you get this cheque from him?"—he said, "I usually meet him in front of the Royal Exchange"—I then said, "There is also another cheque that I find you negotiated, or tried to do so, with Mr. Clifford, of Bishopsgate Street"—he said, "I got that from the same person"—I said, "What have you done with that?"—he said, "I have returned it to him"—I searched him, but found nothing relating to this charge.
The prisoner in his defence stated that he received the cheques from a man named Martin, with whom he had several transactions.
GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MR. BLACK Prosecuted; MR. BURNIE Defended.
The money obtained was under a claim of right, and the RECORDER was of opinion that the evidence did not support the indictment.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. TICKELL Prosecuted.
WILLIAM JOHN MORGAN . I live at 34, Berwick Street, Oxford Street—I am a shoemaker, and am also secretary to the Soho Co-operative Friends of Labour Loan Society—it is a registered Society—I produce a copy of the rules of the Society—the defendant was one of the trustees; there were three trustees, the defendant, William Garrett, and John Rich—there was also a treasurer—we paid a dividend to the members—it was the duty of one of the trustees to draw on the treasurer for money to pay the dividends; it was not always the prisoner's duty to do that; he had the disbursing of them—a list of persons entitled to dividends was made up for him by myself; that list was put in the dividend book; that book was generally kept by the trustees in a box; I make the entries in the book, and the trustees have the custody of it—the money he had should have been placed in the box with the book—each of the trustees held a key, there being three locks—the total amount paid by the trustees for disbursement was 125l. 17s. 10 1/2 d.—according to the book 119l. 16l. 8 1/2 d. was paid over by the prisoner, leaving a difference of 6l. 11s. 2d.; 5s. 4 1/2 d. was found in the box—on 19th December we found the money was gone from the box—we spoke to the prisoner upon it at once, and told him we should take away the books, examine them, tell him what the exact amount was, and give him a week to make it up—
previous to that we asked him where the money was—he said he had made a fool of himself, he had used it; that was all we could get out of him—we asked him how much it was; he said it might be 2l. 15s. or 3l. 15s.—both the other trustees were present at the interview—we took the books and examined them, and made out this list, and we waited on the prisoner with the result, 6l. 0s. 8d.—he said he did not think it was quite so much.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. There were about 60 members entitled to dividend—it only amounted to a few pence each.
WILLIAM GARRETT . I am chairman of the trustees of this society—I was present at the interview of 19th December, I heard the prisoner say "I have been a fool, I have used the money"—next Monday I made a calculation and showed it to the prisoner—he said, "I did not think it was so much."
NOT GUILTY .
328. JOHN DONOVAN (20) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a purse and 1l. 2s. 3 3/4 d. from the person of Eliza Smith; also** to a conviction of felony in December, 1883, at this Court.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday, March 8th, 1886.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
333. HARRY PENDLETON (17) and WILLIAM MOODY** (17) to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin. PENDLETON— Three Months' Hard Labour. MOODY— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
334. SAMUEL DUNN (53) to stealing while employed in the Post Office a letter containing certain chattels, also another letter containing valuable securities, the property of the Postmaster-General.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted; MR. KEITH FRITH Defended.
ELIZABETH SADDINGTON . I am employed at the Tiger Tavern, Sidney Road, Hackney—on the afternoon of 6th February the prisoner came to the bar and asked for three of rum hot, and gave a florin in payment—I found it was bad, and showed it to Mr. Blondell, the manager, in the bar parlour—we returned to the bar and I said to the prisoner, "Do you know what you gave me?"—he said, "I gave you a good two-shilling piece"—I said, "No, it is a bad one"—Mr. Blondell said, "Have you anymore money?" and the prisoner then gave him another bad florin—Mr. Blondell then went out in the front to fetch the potman, and the prisoner
went out—we asked him where he got the money—he said "I am atone blind"—I then said, "If you are stone blind, how did you find your way here?"—he then said very foolish things about coming from the City—I said, "What sort of a shop did you get it from, a public-house or what?"—he replied, "I am stone blind"—I then went on serving other customers—the prisoner came back to the house round another street a few minutes after Mr. Blondell had gone out.
THOMAS BLONDELL . I am manager of the Tiger Tavern—on the afternoon of 6th February the prisoner came in—I served him before the barmaid with half a quartern of rum; he paid with three pennies—I thought his eyes were open, he took the drink up when I put it down—I then went into the parlour, leaving him there—shortly afterwards the last witness brought me a bad florin; I went into the bar and saw the prisoner still there—I said "Have you any more money"—he made no reply but save me another bad florin; I said, "This is another bad one"—I asked him where he got them, and he said in change for a sovereign—I asked him if he had any more money, and he pulled out some shillings and sixpences and half a sovereign good money—I then sent for a policeman—I went out and saw the prisoner come out, and followed him; he went round the streets and came back to the house; he ran along, not much like a blind man; I saw him the whole time till he turned the corner—a policeman was in the house when he came back, and I gave him in custody for uttering counterfeit coin; he said he was stone blind—I gave the florins to the constable, these are them (produced).
Cross-examined. There was not a minute between the time I lost sight of him round the corner, and the time he came back to the house.
ROBERT CHISWELL (Policeman N 462). On 6th February, between 3 and 4 p.m., I was called to this Tiger public-house and saw the prisoner there, and Blondell handed me these two bad florins and said, "I give this man in custody for uttering these two counterfeit florins"—the prisoner said, "I was in the City to-day and I changed a sovereign, I cannot tell where; how am I to tell whether the change is good or bad, as I am stone blind, and just left Moorfields Hospital?"—I searched him at the station, and found in his trousers pocket five shillings, nine sixpences, and 8 1/2 d. in bronze, and in his waistcoat pocket a half-sovereign and this bad florin—he then said, "I will tell you the truth, I have just come out from Woking prison, doing ten years for the same job."
Cross-examined. I went to the hospital in Moorfields and have no doubt that the prisoner is very nearly blind—I simply inquired whether he had been there or not.
Re-examined. He walked all right when I took him, I merely led him by the sleeve.
He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at this Court on 11th March, 1878.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
STEPHEN MARONEY (Police Sergeant). About 8.30 a.m. on 13th February I went to 11, Sweet Apple Court, with Detective Cooper and another constable—we went to the ground floor front room; Cooper knocked at the door, I can't say who opened it—the prisoner had just got out of bed and was in her night dress—I said, "We are police officers, and have a warrant to search your lodging for counterfeit coin and implements for making counterfeit coin"—she said, "You will find nothing of the kind here, whoever has given you information has told you wrong"—I saw nobody else in the room—behind a box which we could see very well at the side of the bed, I found this iron ladle, which appeared to have been recently used for melting; there were some bright spots on it—I also found this iron spoon on the washing stand by the side of the window—on a sideboard I found these two files, this tin containing a quantity of silver sand, and this copper wire—Cooper handed me a plaster-of-Paris mould from the chimney; the prisoner saw it in my hand, and rushed upon me and said, "You shan't have that," and in the struggle it was broken; these are the broken pieces (produced)—I had had time to look at it before, and I could see distinctly that it was a mould for making counterfeit shillings on both sides—he also handed me six shillings, five unfinished and one finished—I said to the prisoner, "You will be charged with making this counterfeit coin with intent to utter it"—she said, "I have not uttered any"—I said, "You will also be charged with haying a mould and implements in your possession for making counterfeit coin—she said, "You have not got the mould"—I said, "Yes I have, such as it is now"—as she was dressing she said, "I suppose I shall get seven or ten for this"—Cooper also handed me two pieces of metal called gets—I found this rent book in the room—at the police station she said, "You shan't have the pleasure of seeing me get seven years' for this, because I don't intend living long enough for it"—she had only one room.
Cross-examined. I am quite sure you made a rush and endeavoured to get hold of the mould, and in the struggle it was broken.
WILLIAM COOPER (Detective Officer). I went with Maroney and another officer to this house—I searched the room, and upon putting my hand up the chimney about 18 inches I found a cavity, and this plaster-of-Paris mould in two halves in it, handed it to Maroney, and the prisoner, who was sitting in a chair near the window two or three feet off, jumped up and said, "You shan't have that"—there was a struggle between them, and I found parts of the mould on the floor, which I picked up, and some was trodden under foot—these are portions of it—I made a further search up the chimney, and in a similar cavity on the opposite side I found five shillings in a piece of paper, and one shilling separate, and two small pieces of metal amongst some rubbish—I also found these gets, which I Landed to Maroney.
JOHN GILCHRIST . I am a doctor, and live at 11, Sweet Apple Square—I let this front room to the prisoner on 13th August last—she lived there by herself—this (produced) is her rent book—I did not recognise anybody but her as my tenant.
By the COURT. I did not know anything of this kind was going on—she told me she sold wearing apparel in the street—no man came there.
not enough to enable me to say that these shillings are made from it—these five shillings are unfinished; this other one is finished—these gets are formed in an opening of the mould, and are taken off afterwards—there are small pieces of metal on one of these files, and small particles of pewter on this ladle—counterfeit coins are made of the same stuff as pewter pots—this copper wire seems to have been used in a battery—these things are all used in the manufacture of coins; I do not think they could be used for anything else.
The prisoner in her defence said that it was not feasible that she should knock the mould out of the policeman's hand when there were three other men in the room, and stated that if she had not been drunk she should not have taken it in to mind.
(See Vol. LXI., p 304, and Vol. LXXXVIII., p. 676.)
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, March 9th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. SAUNDERS Prosecuted.
GEORGE KILPIN . I am assistant to Messrs. Harvey Bishop and others, watch and clock makers, of 4, North Audley Street—on 8th February, about twenty minutes to five, I was in the shop—there was a riotous crowd outside, our windows were broken and the contents taken away—this watch (produced) is one of the articles that were stolen—the value of it is seven guineas.
WILLIAM PURKISS . I am manager to Messrs. Saunders, pawnbrokers, at Kingston-on-Thames—about half-past ten on the morning of 10th February the prisoner came there and offered this watch in pledge—he said he wanted ten shillings on it—I saw that it was worth a good deal more, and having read in the papers that the prosecutors' premises had been sacked I sent for the police, the watch having their name on it—I asked the prisoner if it was his property—he said it was—he gave the name of Alfred Kennedy, of High Street, Woolwich.
GEORGE BOWLES (Policeman V 326). I took the prisoner into custody at the pawnbroker's—I asked him if the watch was his—he said yes—I asked him how long he had had it, and he said about three weeks—I asked him if he could produce the receipt—he said no, his sister bought it at Woolwich for twenty-five shillings at a public-house from a man—I asked where his sister could be found—he said she had gone to New Zealand—on the way to the station he asked me to take him down to the German lodging-house keeper—he said he took lodgings there on Monday night, 8th February.
Cross-examined. I did go to the lodging-house keeper—he told me he did not know you—he was at the police-court.
HENRY SCOTT (Detective Sergeant C). On 10th February I received the prisoner from the Kingston police—I told him I should take him to London for stealing a watch—he made no answer—in the train he said, I did not steal the watch, it was given to me by my sister last night,
she gave twenty-five shillings for it, and gave it to me as a present"—I asked where his sister could be seen—he said "It is rather unfortunate, this morning she left Woolwich for Plymouth en route for New Zealand"—I said then it was no use making inquiries in that direction—he asked me what time the riot took place—I said as near as I could say about half-past four—I did not say anything about the riot—he said the nearest he was to the West End was the City, and he could prove that at five o'clock he was taking a bath at Kingston-on-Thames at a German lodging-house—I did not go there—at the station he simply said he did not steal the watch.
Witness for the Defence.
GUILTY of receiving*. — Nine Months' Hard Labour.
MR. E. R. TURTON Prosecuted.
SAMUEL COOPER (Policeman X 71). About a quarter to five on the morning of 9th February I was on duty in Church Road, Hanwell—I noticed the prisoner coming along the road with a bundle under his arm—I asked what he had under his arm—he said, "It is a loaf some man gave to me at Uxbridge last night"—I asked him to let me see it—I did see it, and it was a pork-pie—I took him to the station and searched him—I found him wearing this new pair of trousers under his own—also five pairs of new stockings; one pair he was wearing, the other four pairs he had in his pocket—I also found on him a necktie, a new pair of compasses, an old knife, a half-sovereign, and ninepence in silver, and five shillings and fivepence in bronze.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You made no resistance or attempt to escape; you were about 50 yards from the station.
----NEWMAN (Police Inspector X). On 9th February I went to Hanwell Station shortly after 6—I went to the booking-office and parcel-office—I found five drawers taken out of the booking-office; the door had been broken open—I noticed the marks on the door, they corresponded with this knife—behind the door was a pick—in the parcels-office I found two pieces of brown paper, one addressed to Mr. Larcum and the other to Mr. Cole, and this empty hamper—the place was in great confusion.
CHARLES STACEY. I am a porter at Hanwell—on the night of 8th February I left the station about 12.30, leaving the parcels-office and booking-office fastened and locked up quite secure—among other things there was a parcel addressed to Mr. Larcum—this is the paper.
HENRY SNELL . I am a porter on duty at Hanwell Station—on the morning of 9th February I went there at 6.5—I found the booking-office and the parcels-office both broken open, and the drawers were all pulled out.
I counted the money—10s. was booked there to give change, half a sovereign in gold, a quantity of silver, and 5s. or 6s. in copper.
JOHN PHILLIPS . I am in the employ of Mr. Digby, of 120, Aldersgate Street—I addressed this piece of Drown paper to Mr. Larcum; it contained a pair of new trousers—these are them; I sent them off on that date.
Prisoner's Defence. I found the articles where I had been lying between 3 and 4 in the morning—I had been at Uxbridge the night before and got nearly drunk.
GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
MR. MUIR Prosecuted.
GUILTY of theattempt. — Two Years' Hard Labour.
MR. FULTON Prosecuted.
ANN CLERX . I live at 36, Martindale Road, Canning Town, and am a widow—on 23rd February the prisoner came to my house, brought by another lodger—he said he had been a fireman on board the Kangaroo, and that he had been out in her 11 months, and had got 32l. to take—he asked me to lend him 5s. till he was paid off next day, and I should go to the Home with him and he would repay me—I got 5s. and gave it him, believing his statement—next day I lent him a half-crown; he had 14s. altogether—I gave 4s. to some men for him—I could not get the money again, and I gave him into custody.
LOUISA CLERK . I am daughter of the last witness—I was at home with my mother when the prisoner came with another man—he asked mother to lend him 5s., as he was going to be paid 32l. next day—she gave him 10s.—he said he was on the Kangaroo, and had been 11 months.
JOHN MAHONEY (Policeman H 402). I took the prisoner into custody, and took him to the station—he said he had 32l. to draw—he was searched and his discharge was found on him—he had only earned 2l. 15s., and the balance of 1l. was due to him—he was a fireman on board—he signed as Thomas Wilson, but Murphy is his proper name.
The RECORDER was of opinion that the alleged false pretences were not sufficiently negatived.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FOOKS Prosecuted.
The RECORDER considered there was no case to go to the Jury.
NOT GUILTY .
SAVAGE also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction.
BRISTOW— Six Months' Hard Labour.
SAVAGE— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, March 9th, 1886.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
GEORGE SAMUEL SIMMONDS . On 10th February I was telegraph clerk at the post-office in Drummond Street, near Euston Station, and about 6.5 p.m. the prisoner came in for five shillings' worth of stamps, and put two florins and one shilling down—I noticed that the florins were bad, and put them on one side and sent the witness Palmer after the prisoner—he came back and then went out again and brought back the prisoner—I had informed a constable—I said to the prisoner "You had five shillings' worth of stamps just now"—he said "Yes"—I said that the two-shilling pieces were bad—he said "Well, if they were you had previously given them to me"—I had not done so; he had not been in the office before—a constable came and the prisoner was given in charge with the two florins—he was searched, and three other bad florins were found on him, and also 8s. in silver, and 8d. bronze, good money—he pointed to the constable and said he had placed the three bad florins in his pocket—I can't say whether they were in the same pocket as the good ones—the three florins were wrapped up separately in this paper (produced).
WILLIAM JOHN PALMER . I am a telegraph messenger at the post-office in Drummond Street—on 10th February the prisoner came in, and I followed him when he went out—I went up the right side of Drummond Street, but could not see him; I came down on the other side and saw him, and followed him from a public-house in George Street into the Lord Palmerston public-house in Hampstead Road—he went from there to the corner, to the Sol's Arms, and from there to a private house in Drummond Street—I went back and fetched a constable to the office, where I left him speaking to the clerk—I then went out again and saw the prisoner coming down Drummond Street towards the office with a young lady—I told him he was wanted inside—he went in and was then given in custody.
TIMOTHY KEOHAN (Policeman). About 6.30 on 10th February I was called to the post-office in Drummond Street—the prisoner was not there then—I afterwards saw him there, and Simmonds said "This soldier came into the office a few minutes past 6 and asked for five shillings' worth of stamps, and tendered two florins and a shilling, and after he had left the office I found the florins were bad"—I showed them to the prisoner and asked him whether he knew they were bad—he said "I did not know they were bad"—I searched him in the presence of the two witnesses, and found eight separate shillings and 8d. in bronze, good money, in his left hand trousers pocket, and in his tunic pocket this purse containing these three bad florins, wrapped up separately in this paper—at the station, in answer to the charge, he said, pointing to me, "That policeman put that purse containing the coins into my pocket"—I had not done so.
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, said that a young gentleman asked him to go and get five shillings' worth of stamps, that he went and got them, and gave them to him and left him, and that he could not account for the purse being found on him.
GUILTY. ( A furlough from the 14th of January to 24th February from the Curragh Camp was found on the prisoner.)—Judgment respited.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
CHARLES WHEATLEY . I am a tailor, of 125, Greek Street, Soho, over a beershop kept by Mr. Wilson—about 11.30 on 2nd February Brailey came to me and asked if I would have some drink; he is my nephew—my daughter Florence was there—he said to her "Go down and get a pot of four stout," and gave her a florin; she gave the change to him—he then went out and came back, and said he had a friend downstairs, would I mind his coming up—I said "No," and Hayes came up—about half or three-quarters of an hour after that they went away, and then came back—I was lying on the bed, as I had just got up from bronchitis—they said "Have a drop of something else to drink"—I said "If I have anything I will have the same as before"—Hayes then gave Brailey a florin, and Brailey gave it to my daughter Florence, who went and fetched the stout, and Hayes went and met the child on the stairs, and took the change from her—they both drank of the stout—Hayes sent for another pot; he gave the money to Brailey, who gave it to my child—three florins altogether were given to the child—my suspicions were aroused and I spoke to Mr. Wilson.
Cross-examined by Brailey. I have always known Brailey to be an honest lad; he works on the board with his father as a tailor—I had never seen Hayes before.
FLORENCE WHEATLEY . I am eleven years old—Brailey is my cousin—on 2nd February he came into my father's room and gave me a two-shilling piece to get a pot of four stout—I went down to Mr. Wilson's and got it and handed him the change, I don't remember how much-Hayes then came in, they remained and drank, and then went out together—they came back in about an hour and Hayes gave my cousin some money to give to me, and I went down to Mr. Wilson's again and brought up the pot—Hayes met me on the stairs and I gave him the change—after that pot was drunk they sent for another, Hayes gave my cousin the money and he gave it to me, and I went down and got the pot of beer, and gave the change to Hayes in the room.
JOHN WILSON . I keep this beershop at 25, Greek Street—Mr. Wheatley lives over it—on 2nd February about 4 10 p.m. Brailey came in and called for a half-pint of stout and mild, and tendered a florin—I found it was bad and broke it up, and then asked him where he got it—he made no reply that was intelligible—I sent for a constable, but I let him go before he came—about twelve o'clock the same night Brailey came to my house again and gave me four good shillings, and said it was in compensation for the money that had been passed in the morning—about 4.15 that afternoon Mr. Wheatley came to me, and in consequence of what he said I examined the coins passed by the girl, and found they were bad and
broke them—I had received no other florins—Brailey came in with his uncle at twelve o'clock at night and said, "Here are four shillings, and I will see that you have the other two shillings," the total amount being six shillings—I did not give him in charge for the last.
JAMES BURRELL (Policeman C 172). On 2nd February about 12.25 p.m. I was called to Mr. Wilson's—I was first called about 4 p.m. but I did not see Brailey—at midnight Mr. Wilson gave him in my custody for uttering a counterfeit florin—he made no answer—at the station when charged he made no reply—he gave a correct address—these are the four florins (produced).
EDWARD DARBY (Plain-clothes Constable). From a description I received I arrested Hayes on 5th February in Bond Street—I said, "Putsey, I shall take you into custody for being concerned with William Brailey in uttering on the 2nd inst three counterfeit florins"—he said, "All right, I will go with you; I had been doing a job and was paid some money, but did not know they were bad"—I took him to the station, where he was charged, and made no reply—he was placed with several others, and Charles Wheatley picked him out.
Brailey in his defence stated that he went with Hayes to Soho Square, where Hayes met a man and got some money from him, and that he asked him to lend him four shillings, and told Hayes to wait downstairs while he went up and treated his uncle; and that after he had sent for some beer he sent down for Hayes and he came up. Hayes in his defence stated that he made a coat for a man who he knew well, for fifteen shillings, that he went with Brailey to Soho Square and saw the man in a public-house and got the money, and that he lent Brailey four shillings, that Brailey asked him to stay downstairs while he went and treated his uncle, and that afterwards he called him up, and that he gave Brailey a florin to get some stout; that afterwards he was at the Princess's Theatre, and Charles Wheatley called him out and accused him of passing counterfeit coin at his landlord's, and not liking to get into disgrace he gave him four shillings to pay him back.
JOHN WILSON (Re-examined). I keep the big money such as half-crowns and florins separate from the shillings and sixpences, which I keep in a measure—I had received no other florins that day except the one tendered by Brailey and the three by the girl Wheatley—I had no money in my till from the previous day—until my attention was called to them I had not noticed they were bad—I take probably about 3l. a day—it is only a small beerhouse.
GUILTY . The Jury recommended Brailey to mercy. Hayes then
PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell on 5th February, 1883—HAYES**— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. BRAILEY— Discharged on his father's recognisances.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
ISABELLA WOODS . I am in the employ of Thomas Mackstead, dairy-man, of Halton Road, Islington—on the afternoon of 11th February the prisoner came and asked for four penny eggs and tendered a florin—I gave him a shilling, a sixpence, and two pence, and he left—I discovered it was bad and sent some one after him, out he could not be found—I
kept the florin till the morning of the 18th February, and then threw it in the fire, and it melted and ran through in about a minute—the prisoner came again about 4 o'clock that afternoon for four penny eggs, and tendered a florin—I gave him a shilling, a sixpence, and twopence change—I saw the coin was bad, but I was alone in the shop—two men came up in a van, and in consequence of what I said to them they went for a policeman—one came and I then told him that the prisoner had been twice in my shop uttering bad coins—he asked me if I wished to charge him; I said "Yes"—I have no doubt the prisoner is the some man that was there on the 11th—after he was brought back to the shop he said he had no more money.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You had a big overcoat on the first time you came in, I did not put the money in the till then—you stood in the shop while I sent for a policeman.
ANDREW GRIFFITHS (Policeman NR 20). I was called to Mr. Mackstead's shop on 18th February, about 4 p.m., and saw the prisoner detained there—Mrs. Woods said she would give him in custody, he had been in there on the 11th and 18th passing bad coins; he made no reply—I searched him in the shop parlour and found a shilling, three sixpences, a threepenny piece, and eightpence, all good money, and four eggs—at the station he said he did not Know it was bad—I said "Where do you live?"—he said "I have not got any proper address, I came over from Dublin two years ago"—I said, "Have not you been employed anywhere?"—he said "By a man at Holloway, but he wouldn't know me now"—he was then charged; he made no answer when Mrs. Wood said he had been there on the 11th.
Cross-examined. I did not hear you say in the parlour that you had never been in the shop before.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am not guilty; I was not in the shop on 11th February."
GUILTY of the second uttering. — Six Months' Hard Labour.
MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.
FREDERICK HEIMSEIGH . I am ten years old, and live at 23, East Street with my father and mother—on a Monday after Christmas I was going home from school and saw the prisoner; he said, "Tommy, go and fetch me a Nevill's loaf over the road and I will give you a halfpenny," pointing to Mr. Yaughan's shop—he gave me a half-crown; I took it to Mr. Vaughan and asked for a loaf—he said it was bad and went out with me, but the prisoner was gone—I afterwards picked him out at the police station from six others—I picked out the wrong man first, but I am sure the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I know you by your long coat—I could not pick you out at first because I could not look at you much—I know you are the man.
RICHARD VAUGHAN , I keep a dairy and sell bread—on Monday, January 25th, Heimseigh handed me a bad half-crown—I questioned him and went out with him, but could not see the prisoner—I kept it by itself and gave it to the police; this is it (produced).
LILIAN ROEDER . I am eight years old, and live with my father and mother at 9, David Street—I saw the prisoner one evening in East Street; he said, "Little girl, will you go and get me half a pound of sugar at Allcock's?" and gave me a florin—I went there and asked for the sugar and put the florin down—he told me to put the sugar down and go and find the boy—I went out, but he was not there—I afterwards picked him out at the station from, I think, seven others—I am sure he is the boy.
Cross-examined. I did not pick you out of first; I said, "I think that is the boy," and then I looked again and was almost sure it was—the constable told me to touch the one who I thought it was, and I touched you.
WILLIAM ALCOCK . I keep a general shop at 63, East Street—I know the girl Roeder; her father is a customer—on 17th February, about 7.30 p.m., she came in for half a pound of sugar, and tendered a bad florin—I asked her who sent her—she said, "A boy opposite"—I said, "You go and tell the boy I want him"—I followed her to the door, but she did not find him—he could see into my shop from the opposite side, and see that I detected it—I bent the florin, and in trying to straighten it it came in pieces; this is it (produced).
ELIZABETH KERR . I am getting on for eight years old—I live with my father and mother in East Street—I met the prisoner on a Thursday night; he said, "Go and get me two penny eggs over there," and gave me a half-crown—I went to Mr. Flood's shop, but he would not give them to me—I went out at one door and he at the other—I could not find the prisoner—I afterwards saw him at the police court and recognised him.
Cross-examined. When I was at the police-court I was crying—the policeman said "That's the man."
JOHN FLOOD . I am a cheesemonger, of Blandford Street, opposite East Street—on 18th February the last witness came in and tendered this half-crown for two penny eggs—I saw at once that it was bad, and kept it—I asked her who gave it to her—she said "A man over at the corner, with a long coat"—she went out at the shop door and I at the side door—I saw the prisoner standing at the opposite corner, and as soon as the girl got out he walked away up East Street and met another man—I passed them in East Street and spoke to a constable, and when the prisoner passed I said "That is the man who sent the little girl in to tender a bad half-crown"—the prisoner said "I hope you have not made a mistake"—the other man ran away.
Cross-examined. I could not see whether you spoke to the girl or not—I kept my eye on you till I met a constable.
WILLIAM WADHAM (Policeman). On 18th February, a little after 7 o'clock, Mr. Flood came to me in Paddington Street and pointed out the prisoner and another man—I told him to go and put his hand on them—he did so, and they both ran away—the prisoner, seeing me close behind him, stopped, and I detained him—he said "What am I going to be charged with?"—I said "Wait till Mr. Flood comes back," and when he came back I said "You will be charged with uttering counterfeit coin to a little girl"—he said "I think you have made a mistake"—I saw the girl Roden pick him out at the police-court on the 25th from five or six others—I told him to put on his overcoat, and she said "That is
him," directly—when Elizabeth Kerr picked him out I said "Look round and see if you see the prisoner"—I did not say "That is the man."
Cross-examined. She was crying a little; there were six or seven persons there, some private persons and some policemen—she hesitated a little till I made you put your overcoat on, but she recognised your face before you put it on—the little boy picked you out standing with others in the passage of the police-court.
EDWARD KISCHEN (Policeman D 208). I was present when Roden and Heimseigh identified the prisoner—they were brought in from the passage of the Court and were very frightened—we took them down to where we had put the prisoner with other men, and Roden said "I think that is him"—I said "Don't be frightened, go and touch him," and the same with the boy—no money was found on him, only three pawn-tickets.
Cross-examined. I did not say "Touch him; it is him."
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in a written defence, denied uttering the coins, and said that lie was arrested in mistake, owing to his wearing a long coat.
GUILTY of uttering the two half-crowns.
He then PLEADED GUILTY**† to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in November, 1883.— Two Years' Hard Labour.
FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, March 9th, 1886.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
348. HENRY BAKER (17), JAMES LINEHAN (17), and GEORGE MAY (16) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the warehouse of Albert Hern and stealing 36l. and certain valuable securities.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour each.
350. HENRY MYERS (34) to obtaining by false pretences from Edward Schultz 24 watches, and from Emma Stempfel certain bags and purses, with intent to defraud.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
The prisoner PLEADED GUILTY to writing the letters complained of which stated that Mr. East was a thief.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I made up the account and sent you a cheque for 13l. 18s. 4d. at the instance of your sister, Mrs. White, with a statement showing that was the amount I had—that cheque you returned to me with an endorsement—I wrote you saying that I was doubtful whether I was justified, after what had transpired, in paying to anybody but Mrs. Chapman personally—I have money in hand, and am ready to pay it.
GUILTY . The Jury added that they considered the prisoner had received great
provocation.—The prisoner undertook to abstain from any communication with Mr. East.— Discharged on her own recognisances.
SAMUEL MINNESS . I am a horse-keeper, of 9, Mason Place, Stoke Newington—on 1st February, about 9.30, I was in the Green Man, Shacklewell, where I had been chairman at a friendly lead for a chap that has lost his father and mother—I did not take the benefit money with me—when I got outside I saw two or three men; I could not say who they were—one of them said, "That is the b—s—that has got the money"—another one said, "Go and fetch the gang"—I was knocked down and kicked, and I knew no more till I got home—a plain silver ring, about 7s., and a tobacco-pouch were taken from me.
Cross-examined by MR. POLEY. The money was in my right trousers pocket—I cannot say how many people were outside the public-house, a good many people were coming down from the benefit—I do not know any of the men who attacked me—I saw Appleby, but not to know him—I know nothing of Claydon.
ELIZABETH MINNESS . I am the wife of the last witness, and was with him at the friendly meeting—when we got outside the Green Man I saw Eaton and Appleby; I had not known them before—they kicked my husband and beat him on his head and face, and he also beat me and punched me on my right side—Appleby punched my husband and used abusive language—when my husband got up his pockets were turned inside out—I saw Claydon come up; I did not see him do anything—I saw him on his knees by my husband, I do not know if he got down to help him or not—I and two women got my husband up.
Cross-examined by MR. POLEY. I did not charge Claydon with robbing my husband.
Cross-examined by Eaton. I did not get on a cab, I went with my husband—you were the first man that struck my husband.
Cross-examined by Appleby. I do not know who stabbed you—my husband could not defend himself, you had him on the ground insensible.
MARY WHEATLEY . I live at 10, Terminus Place, Kingsland—I had been to this benefit, and when I got outside the Green Man I saw Eaton and Claydon, but I think I am mistaken in Claydon, for there are two men so much alike—Eaton said, "Which one has got the b—money?" and then one of them punched Minness and knocked him down—the man very much like Claydon punched Minness as he was on the ground—Eaton punched Mrs. Minness in her side and kicked her in the leg, and Appleby hit her as she tried to help her husband up—Eaton said, "I have killed the bleeder," and they all ran back to the Green Man again.
Cross-examined by MR. POLEY. I think I am mistaken in Claydon—there was another man named Fingers there.
Cross-examined by Appleby. You were not inside the public-house.
Appleby halloaed out, "Tommy, Tommy;" he then ran and knocked down the first man that came along—I went up and caught hold of Appleby and said, "What are you doing that for? they have done nothing"—he said, "Do you think I am a b—fool?"—he then asked me if I would fetch the gang—Fingers came up; he said to him, "You are all right, you run up and fetch my brother and the gang"—I saw no more—Claydon stood on the kerb by the side of me, I saw him do nothing; he stooped to pick Mr. Minness up.
Cross-examined by MR. POLEY. As far as I could see he went to assist him up.
Cross-examined by Appleby. You rushed up when Raton went up—I heard nobody saying about any money—I don't know if you got stabbed—you worked with me for seven winters—I can say nothing against you; you are the first man to give a shilling, and not the man to take one away from any one.
ELIZA EATON . I was at this benefit—when I came out I saw Eaton and Appleby; Eaton struck Mr. Minness, Minness had done nothing to him before that—I could not swear Appleby did anything—Claydon was down by the side of Mr. Minness helping him.
By the COURT. I am not related to Eaton that I know of.
NOT GUILTY .
No evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. A. METCALFE Prosecuted; MR. FULTON Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CULPEPER Prosecuted.
ELIZABETH CLIFFORD . I live at 70, Azonby Square—I am the prisoner's wife; we have been married three years, but have not lived together for three weeks—about 1 o'clock on Saturday I went to the house, broke the window, and got in—my husband had sold a little of the furniture which belonged to me originally—while I was there he came, but I would not open the door; he got in the back way and I tried to run out into the street—he caught hold of me, I got a cut, but I don't know how—I did not see anything in his hand—a woman who was there held him back while I ran out, because I thought he would strike me—I gave him in custody in the street; I then said I thought he cut me with a knife.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I pushed against a window from inside and you from outside, and it broke and I got away—I never knew you use or carry a knife.
EMMA SANDERS . I live in Old James Street, and was at 70, Azonby Square on this night at 12.30—the prisoner knocked at the door—he got in at the back and ran after his wife into the front room; they went into the kitchen—I was there, and he took something sharp out of his pocket (I did not see anything in his hand) and made a blow at her face—she
put her hand up to take the knife away, but he put it in his pocket, I felt it touch my fingers—he hit her face, and I saw blood; I held him while she ran away—I felt a knife cut my fingers; we both ran after him—I saw her fingers and nose bleeding after the blow—the prisoner had had a little drink, but was not intoxicated—he said that he meant digging one of her eyes out.
Cross-examined. I said at Kennington Lane I put my hand into your pocket after the window was broken and felt something sharp; I said I felt the blade of a knife; I should know the difference between that and broken glass—your wife went away first—I did not know she was living with a man till after this happened; I know now that she was.
By the COURT. I did not see the prisoner on one side of the window and his wife on the other, nor did I see the window break between them.
JOHN BRYAN (Policeman P 321). About 1.15 a.m. I received the prisoner in custody, and charged him; he said, "No, nothing of the sort; my wife has done it herself by smashing the glass of the window"—he repeated that at the station—the prosecutrix was sober; her nose and fingers were bleeding—the window had three panes broken, and in the front door a panel was broken—the prisoner's wife acknowledged breaking that getting in—there were a few spots of blood on the door, some in the kitchen, and on his wife's apron—she said nothing about the glass.
Cross-examined. Your wife said she cut her finger by breaking in the front door—I found no blood except where she put her foot through the door.
GEORGE PHILP . About two o'clock on 20th February Elizabeth Clifford came to me—she had a very small incised wound on the right side of her nose about an eighth of an inch in extent and about an inch and a half from her eye—it might have been caused by some sharp instrument—on her right forefinger was a wound about three-quarters of an inch to an inch long, and one on her thumb—some sharp instrument might have caused that—I don't think glass would have done it.
Cross-examined. It was a very slight wound, and if done by a knife would have healed in twenty-four hours.
JOHN MULVANEY . This statement was made by the prisoner when charged. (This stated that his wife would not let him in the house; that he went to the back, where there were three glass doors; that he was pushing against the door from the outside and his wife from the inside, when the door burst open and the glass fell over her and cut her.
The prisoner in his defence stated that his wife was the worse for drink at 9.30 when she came into Peckham, and that she must have been cut by the glass.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CULPEPER Prosecuted.
JAMES HILES . I live at Faraday Road, North Kensington, and am an accountant—on 23rd February at twelve at night I was opposite 60, Lan-caster Road, shaking hands with Mr. Charles Barrell and wishing him good night when the prisoner knocked my hat off, put his hand in my pocket, threw me down, and took three sovereigns and two half-sovereigns—I knew I had them because I had not lone before changed a half sovereign at the Metropolitan Railway Station—I followed him—he ran faster
and got into Sylvester Mews—I saw him in there—afterwards I went back to Portobello Road, and at the corner of Cornwall Road I was talking to a constable and two others, and I saw the prisoner coming down—I said to the constable, "That is the person that has taken my money"—the prisoner heard that and ran away—the policeman ran and caught him at the bottom of Blenheim Crescent—I was sober, I had just been writing a letter.
BENJAMIN FULLER (Policeman X 81). At 1.30 p.m. on the 22nd or morning of the 23rd February I was on duty in Portobello Road, Noting Hill—the prosecutor came towards me and said something and I walked with him to Cornwall Road—pointing to the prisoner he said, "That man has robbed me of 4l."—the prisoner ran away—I caught him at the corner of Blenheim Crescent—I said, "You will have to go to the station, this man charges you with stealing 4l."—he said, "I have not got a penny, I never had the money, he hadn't it; I was at the Welsh Harp at 10.30 with my mate"—the prosecutor had been drinking—I should not call him drunk.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Your mate William Douglas ran with you from Cornwall Road to Blenheim Crescent.
Re-examined. I found a hackney carriage licence on the prisoner.
CHARLES BARRELL . I am a hackney carriage proprietor at Lancaster Road—on this night I went home with Mr. Miles—I had had a glass or two—I will not swear Mr. Hiles saw me home—I think it was near twelve or half-past.
The prisoner in his statement before the Magistrate said that he had been out with two or three friends, and was walking home with a friend, and that the prosecutor was a stranger to him, and he knew nothing of him or his money.
Witness for the Defence.
WILLIAM DOUGLAS . From 11.30 in the morning the prisoner and I were together—I know Mr. Hiles and Mr. Barrell, and I have driven for Mr. Barrell ten years or more—the prisoner is innocent—Hiles came up and said to us, after I wished him good night, that we were the two men that tried to knock Mr. Barrell down—I said, "What! I have just said good night to you"—Hiles said that man knocked his hat over his eyes and stole 4l. out of his pocket, which was untrue—he said he was outside his house at 12.30, and we were at the Royal Oak public-house at 12.30.
Cross-examined. I saw Hiles about 1.30 at night at the corner of the Colville public-house—I and the prisoner left the Royal Oak at 12.30 and were outside the Colville till 1.30; I had been to Watford with him in a cab—I had had something to drink, and we were going home—we did not run away, we went down Cornwall Road and Kensington Park Road—Hiles was by himself when I saw him, no constable was with him——Cox. I left you at the Royal Oak at 12.30 with my cab.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, March 10th, 1886.
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
MESSRS. POLAND and MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN
ANNA TELFER . I am married, and live at 26, Cowper Street, City Road—on Monday, 8th February, about 11 in the morning, as I was sitting in my room, the front room second floor, I heard three distinct screams—I don't know where they came from; it was at the back—I came out of my room and saw deceased and her husband, the prisoner, behind her—she said to me" Don't let him go, he has stabbed me"—I saw blood flowing from her left side—I think she was partly dressed—the prisoner ran past her down the stairs; I followed her, I was behind her—I did not notice anything on the stairs then, afterwards I saw there was blood on the stairs—when she got close to the front door she went on her knees with her back to the door—as the prisoner went out he said "It's all right, I have found her out, she has been unfaithful to me," and he took hold of her and pushed her on her side to get out—I followed him and gave him in charge—I saw two constables and said "Stop that man, he has stabbed his wife"—I then returned to the house and found the woman lying in the passage—she died about a quarter of an hour after—the prisoner and his wife were strangers to me.
Cross-examined. Mrs. Cross is the landlady of the house—she was at the police-court, but was not called; I don't think she is here—I saw the prisoner on the Saturday afternoon before this—I don't know whether he came to visit his wife; I suppose so; I saw him from the window—I could not recognise him—Saturday was the first time I had seen him—I don't think he slept there on the Saturday night; I am not quite sure nor on the Sunday—his wife slept there both of those nights, but he was away—the constable who took the prisoner was in uniform—the prisoner was running in the direction of the constable—I think he said "I am going to give myself up"—he did not try to avoid the constable; I think he passed him on the opposite side.
CAROLINE WARBURTON . I am the wife of John Warburton, of 26, Cowper Street—I saw the deceased come there on Saturday, the 6th—she occupied the back room, second floor; she had a baby in her arms—I did not see the prisoner on the Saturday and Sunday, he was not there with his wife—on Monday morning, the 8th, about 11, I was in my room on the ground floor—I heard loud screams proceeding from upstairs, more than two or three—my room door was open—I came out and ran up a flight of stairs and saw the prisoner and the deceased coming downstairs, and Mrs. Telfer behind them—the deceased was bleeding dreadfully from under the left breast, she was saturated—she came downstairs into the passage—she staggered and fell against the street door, to prevent the prisoner from going out—he said "Oh, get up and let me pass," and he took her by the shoulders and laid her on one side—he said "It's all right, I am going to give myself up, she has been unfaithful to me"—he then opened the door and passed out into the street—I remained with the woman till the doctor came—that morning was the first time I had seen the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I heard the landlady tell the deceased that she wanted to see the rent-book of her last place, that she could not allow her to take
possession without seeing it—the deceased said her husband had it and would bring it on the Monday morning.
SARAH MIDDLETON . I am the wife of Richard Middleton, of 26, Cowper Street—I saw the prisoner on the Saturday morning, 6th February, about 3—he knocked at the door, went into the house, and went upstairs—his wife was in the room; she had moved in—I saw nothing more of him on the Saturday or Sunday—on Monday morning, about 10, I saw him at the street-door; he knocked three times; I opened the door for him—he said "Is the person at home upstairs?"—I said I did not know—he said nothing more, he went upstairs—about an hour afterwards I heard a scream; that would be about 11; I then heard a noise coming down the stairs—I did not see the prisoner; I heard the door shut.
Cross-examined. The deceased occupied the second floor back—I was in the front parlour; I could scarcely hear loud voices from there—I opened the door and heard the screams—I did not see the prisoner and his wife together on Saturday night.
CHARLES HUNTLEY (Policeman N R 21). On Monday morning, 8th February, I was passing through Cowper Street off duty, in uniform—the prisoner was pointed out to me by Mrs. Telfer—he was in Tabernacle Street, about 50 yards from 26, Cowper Street—he was running—I ran after him and stopped him—I said "I am told you stabbed your wife"—he said "All right, I am on my way to give myself up; it is my wife, she has been unfaithful to me"—I then took him back to Cowper Street, outside; I asked him to step inside—he said "No, you have me; take me to the station"—I asked him again to step inside the passage—he said "No"—I did not go in; I took him to Old Street Station—Inspector Bonner was there—I saw blood on the prisoner's hands—the inspector ordered me to search him (I told him I had been informed that the prisoner had stabbed his wife)—the prisoner said "You have enough evidence that she has been stabbed"—the charge was read over to him—he said "She has been unfaithful to me."
Cross-examined. The police-station was quite close to where he was arrested; he was going in that direction.
FREDERICK BONNER (Police Inspector G). On Monday morning, the 8th, the prisoner was brought to Old Street Police-station at 11.35 by Huntley, who stated that he had stabbed his wife—noticing blood upon his hands I ordered the constable to search him—whilst being searched he remarked "You have enough evidence to prove that she is stabbed "—that was all that passed at that time—I left him in custody at the station, and at once went to 26, Cowper Street, and saw the deceased lying in the passage, quite dead—I then went upstairs to the second floor back room with the constable, Burrage, who handed me this knife—there was blood all the way up the stairs—in the room I saw blood on the counterpane, and I saw marks as if a knife had been wiped; the knife appeared to have been wiped, there was slight blood on it—the woman was partially dressed, she had no boots on—the baby had been taken out of bed by Mrs. Telfer—I then returned to the station—I told the prisoner, "Your wife is now dead, you will be charged with the murder; anything you say will be taken down in writing, and given in evidence against you"—he replied "All I have to say is that she was unfaithful to me."
Cross-examined. I believe he is a leather cutter; the knife is such as
leather cutters use—before they came to Cowper Street they lodged at 26, Paul Street.
Re-examined. I showed the knife to the surgeon—I produce a rent-book; Huntley gave it me—we searched the premises—it refers to 26, Finch Street, where they had lived.
WILLIAM BURRAGE (Policeman N 379). On Monday morning, 8th February I went to 26, Cowper Street, to the back room, second floor—I saw blood on the quilt of the bed and in different parts of the room—lying on the floor at the foot of the bed I saw this knife—it is an open knife, it does not shut—there had been blood on it.
THOMAS ARTHUR LATHBURY . I am a surgeon, of Tabernacle Street, City Road—on Monday morning, the 8th, I was called to 26, Cowper Street, about a quarter past 11—I saw the woman lying in the passage behind the door; she was nearly dead; she died in about three minutes—there was blood on her clothes—she was partly dressed—I made a post-mortem—there were three punctured wounds in the left breast, one above the other; the centre wound penetrated the ventricle of the heart—that was the cause of death, internal haemorrhage—they were wounds that might have been inflicted by this knife—she had no gown on; I did not see any stays, only light clothing—she was about 21 years of age.
Cross-examined. From the post-mortem I think she had not been in the habit of drinking; the organs were all healthy.
Re-examined. The upper and lower wounds were only superficial; the centre one penetrated to the heart, through the pericardium.
By the COURT. That was about an inch in depth—it would not require much force with this knife; it is very sharp-pointed.
ELIZA ANN FETTER . I am the wife of John Philip Fetter—the deceased was my daughter; she was 21 years of age—she was married to the prisoner in September, 1884—her name was Johannetta Elizabeth—I last saw her alive on Friday, 5th February—I law her after she was dead—the prisoner is a boot riveter—they only had one child.
Cross-examined. The prisoner has been out of work for some time—they had not agreed to separate in consequence of that—she was not to go and live with her grandmother.
MR. GEOGHEGAN requested that the prisoner might be allowed to make a statement, to the Jury previous to his (MR. GEOGHEGAN'S) address. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN considered that the prisoner had a rigid to do so, reminding him that such statement gave a reply to the Counsel for the Prosecution. The prisoner wished to read a statement that had been taken down from him by his solicitor. This was not conceded, but the prisoner was permitted to look over the statement and then to say what he wished.
Prisoner. All I have to say to the Jury is that on the morning in question I went to the house for the purpose of seeing her. I found her in bed at half-past 10. She said "It does not matter to you what time I get up." With that I sat down. About a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes afterwards she got up. I accused her of being unfaithful, and I said "We cannot be happy together; the best thing we can do is to separate, and I will allow you at much as I can." With that she said "Give me 5s. a week." I said "I will give you as much as I can." Then she came up to me and pushed me out of the room, and called me a b—bastard. We struggled, and I took the knife out of my pocket and struck her with it, and I am extremely sorry for it; I lost all control over my
feelings after she insulted me in that manner, I must have been mad at the time I did it. As soon as I had done it I threw the knife down, and I was horrified, and I rushed out into the street for the purpose of giving myself up.
JOSEPH NIPPLER . I live at 35, Finch Street, Whitechapel—I know the prisoner; he and his wife lodged at my house about nine months—I never saw him intoxicated in that time—I can't say the same of his wife: she was very fond of drink—he was very kind to her, as far as I could see—I never saw much of them—he always acted upright to her till September, then they first had a quarrel, when she had a black eye—she came home at late hours at night, I think between 11 and 12—she was not sober when she came home—she always had the baby with her.
ISAAC ALBERGE . I am foreman to Messrs. Magnus, wholesale shoe manufacturers—the prisoner's brother was in our employ; I do not know the prisoner—knives like this are common among shoemakers—it is a common thing for them to carry their tools about with them when they are out of work and seeking for work.
GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on the ground of having a drunken wife, and his youth.
Sentence DEATH, afterwards respited.
MR. RIBTON, for the prosecution, offered no evidence on the Inquisition, the Grand Jury having ignored the bill.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, March 10th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS and FULTON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM JACKSON KENDAL . I am a general mill furnisher, of 307, Rotherhithe Street—on August 3rd I went to 242, High Street, Poplar—the name John Russell was over the door; it was a wholesale and export ironmonger's—I saw Edwards there, who was tried two Sessions ago on this charge (See page 304)—I had seen the prisoner the day before, and knew that the shop was about to be opened—I asked him for orders, and sold him a quantity of packing and indiarubber goods, amounting to 11l. 18s. 11d.—this is the invoice—I called again in a day or two and received orders for 300 or 400 feet of belting; he said that it was for a firm in Bristol—it came to 30l. 7s. 4d.—I applied for payment, but never got the money—I went there on 10th September and found the place shut up—the last time I saw Edwards was 4th September, when he told me that Mr. Russell was in the country buying pipes and tubes, and he expected him daily—I afterwards saw half of the tubing pawned for 1l., and gave information—I afterwards saw a portion of the sheet rubber in Mr. Simms's possession.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You were introduced to me by a customer, a very respectable tradesmen—you were in my company twice; once in the office, and once when I met you in Poplar, and we went to the
Blue Posts—you gave me no order—I never saw you in the shop at all—you told me Mr. Edwards was authorised to order goods in your name.
Re-examined. Though I received no orders from the prisoner his name was up at the place, and he is the person to whom I gave credit.
FRANCIS JOHN HENRY . I am clerk to the last witness—on August 5th I delivered 65 lb. of packing, value 3l. 5s., at 242, High Street, Poplar, and saw Edwards, who was convicted here in January; he gave me this receipt—I went again on August 18th with 41 lbs. of rubber, and delivered it to Edwards at the same address, and he gave me this receipt—on 27th August I dispatched a further quantity of belting and rubber by the carrier, who has the receipt—on September 1st I sent 114 lbs. of chalk packing, by parcels delivery, and received the carman's receipt—I went several times to the shop, and on the 11th I found it closed, and the people cleared out—I was at the Blue Posts, and heard the conversation between my master and the prisoner, and Edwards gave this man authority to transact business for him.
Cross-examined. I never saw you at the shop; you never signed any receipts—Edwards gave the orders—I only saw you once.
CHARLES HARRIS . I am manager to Mr. Graves, a pawnbroker, of 189, Mile End Road—on September 2nd the prisoner pawned some belting with me for 1l. in the name of John Russell, 242, High Street, Poplar—the prosecutor has identified it.
Cross-examined. You told me it was merely a temporary loan; I would have lent you considerably more—I may have seen you on several other occasions, but I have no knowledge of you.
ARTHUR SIMMS . I am a house agent at 40, Mile End Road—on 5th August I lent the prisoner 2l. 5s. on the security of an order to get a piece of rubber from Dixon and Head, engineers, which I got, and Mr. Kendal identified it.
WILLIAM JACKSON KENDAL (Re-examined). I identified a portion of the rubber in September in Mr. Simms's custody—it was delivered at 242, High Street, Poplar, on August 18th; I have no doubt it is the same.
JOHN CHADWICK . I am traveller to Bowley and Son, Wellington Road, Battersea, oil and color merchants—I received a written communication and called at 262, High Street, Poplar, on 24th August and saw Edwards, who was convicted in January—I asked for Mr. Russell; he said that Mr. Russell was in the country, and he was doing his business in his absence—he asked my business, and I subsequently received this order (This was on a printed bill head of John Russell, Wholesale Ironmongery 242, High Street, Poplar. Dear Sir,—Herewith sample order as promised.—Faithfully yours, for Russell, W. Edwards. 2 1/2 monthly.")—I supplied on this order four casks of white lead, value 1l. 13s. 11d., at 2 1/2 discount per month—before the month expired the place was closed, and I got no money and never saw the goods again.
Cross-examined. I never saw you till to-day.
Cross-examined. I never saw you.
by the prisoner—on 10th September I found the shop shut; I never got the rent of the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I know that you were suffering from a very severe accident, and was not in the shop very often—you said you intended to come and live there, and you brought your wife to my house once or twice, but you never brought any furniture—I saw you there at first hal a dozen times, but at the latter part you were very seldom there.
JAMES BAKER . I am one of a firm of ironmongers and tin plate workers of Bilston, Staffordshire—on 28th July Edwards called at our office and said that he represented John Russell—we supplied him with goods value 35l. 15s. 6d., believing the business carried on at High Street, Poplar, was a genuine business—we have never been paid—I called there in September and found the place closed.
Cross-examined. I never saw you or received any communication from you.
THOMAS FERRIDGE . I am a carman in the employ of the Great Western Railway—on 2nd September I delivered 12 bags of nails from Crawley at 242, High Street, Poplar—they were signed for "J. Russell"—I do not recognise the prisoner.
SAMUEL EDWARD CRITTAFF . I am a Great Western Railway carman—on 26th October I delivered two orates at 242, High Street, Poplar, which were signed for "W. Edwards"—I saw him here two months ago and recognised him—the goods came from Bilston; they were not taken out of the van, he tore the tally off and sent them on to Bristol—I did not see the prisoner.
HARRY HOLLAND . I am manager to Hazlegrove and Nephew, of Manchester, manufacturers of engine waste—on 31st July I received this order (On a similar bill head)—I supplied those goods, and received this order, dated 5th August, on the same billhead—I supplied them, and then received this order of August 18th—I supplied those goods; they amounted altogether during August to 37l. 4s. 1d.—I received no payment—the prisoner called at our place in Manchester, and said that he wanted to pay his bill by a cheque, and would like to have the change—we refused—he did not produce it; he said that his cheque-book was at the Waterloo Hotel, and he would write another cheque and bring it in an hour—he did not come back, and I went to the Waterloo, and found he was not staying there.
Cross-examined. When you first called you saw our clerk—he did not tell me that you wore exceedingly surprised to find the amount of the account, and did not give a cheque in consequence—the first lot of goods amounted to 5l. only.
WILLIAM WALKER . I am London agent of William Wright, of Birmingham, gas-chandelier manufacturer—on 24th August I received this order for gas chandeliers value 18l. 18s. 1d., from Russell, of 242, High Street, Poplar—the goods were sent—we have never received the money.
Cross-examined. I called at the shop twice, but never saw you.
ROBERT LUCAS ESPEY . I am a general broker, of the Pantechnicon, Cotton, near Bristol—I knew Edwards by the name of Wingfield, and have sold goods for him on several occasions at my auction mart and rendered him the accounts—here are documents showing sales for him on September 4th, October 19th, September 4th, 1885, and 14th November, amounting to 57l. 17s. 11d.—they were all sold by his orders.
Cross-examined. I never wrote to you, heard of you, or knew you in connection with the goods.
FREDERICK ABBERLINE (Police Inspector). I was with Enright and took the prisoner at a lodging-house in Smithfield on November 6th—Enwright told him who I was—he said "All right, Mr. Abberline, I will give you no trouble; you can see into this matter, otherwise I should be in better circumstances"—he said at the police-court, "If I plead guilty will you tell the Court you believe I have been made a dupe in the matter"—I said that he must use his own discretion—we had been trying to find him, but could not see or hear of him from the time the shop closed in September.
Cross-examined. After your arrest I understood that you had been in a situation in Fenchurch Street for a very short time—I cannot say whether you had ever been away from London—I found you in very destitute circumstances.
PATRICK ENRIGHT (Policeman H). In September last I had to make inquiries at 242, High Street, Poplar, in reference to the prisoner, and saw Edwards—I asked him if Mr. Russell was in—he said "No; but I am Mr. Edwards, and do business in his absence"—shortly afterwards the shop closed, and I did not see Edwards till 19th November, when I arrested him—I found at Edwards's residence, seven or eight directories of different towns, but no business books or account books.
Cross-examined. I found some bill heads in your name—I found you at a common lodging-house in very destitute circumstances.
The prisoner in his defence stated that he was a schoolfellow of Edwards, but had not seen him for 20 years till 18 month ago, when being in the London Hospital suffering from an accident, Edwards came to see him, and when he came out he took a shop as an engineer's factor, and engaged Edwards at a small salary, as he understood the retail ironmongery business, and what Edwards had done was without his knowledge and in his absence, except as to the belting and the cotton-waste, by which he got nothing, and that he had never seen any of the goods or received a single farthing.
NOT GUILTY .
The prisoner stating that he was guilty of unlawfully wounding, the Jury found that verdict.— To enter into his own recognisances to appear next Session for judgment.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, March 10th, 1886.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS, BODKIN, and WEBSTER Prosecuted;
MR. HOPKINS defended Macrow.
Mr. Lewis?"—he said "Yes"—I said, "I am a police officer, and I have a warrant for your arrest"—I read it to him, and went with him into his office, and then took him to Dalston Police-station, where he was charged—he made no reply—I took possession of some cheque-books and papers in the office—about a quarter to 3 I arrested Macrow at 30, Appleby Road, Kingsland—I said, "I have a warrant for your arrest for defrauding Mr. Palmer and others in connection with James Lewis"—he said, "Lewis put me up to it"—I took him to Dalston Station, and he was charged with Lewis.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. He did not explain what it meant—he did not say Lewis had given him a form of receipt to get a deposit—I have examined the books I took from Lewis's office, but find nothing to connect Macrow with these things.
GEORGE WALLACE . I live at 32, Commercial Road, Pimlico—on 7th October I inserted this advertisement in the Daily Chronicle. (Inquiring for the management of a small branch grocer's or cheesemonger's.) I received in answer this letter headed "175, Rushmore Road, Clapton." (Requesting that he would call early, as he was in immediate want of a manager for a grocery and cheesemongery business, address Mr. Marshall.) Next day I went to 175, Rushmore Road, where I asked for Marshall, and saw Lewis—I showed him the letter—he said he was in want of a manager for a grocery and cheesemonger's business, and that he was going to open a place just close by at Stratford, which would be ready in a day or two, as soon as he could get out—he asked me what I could deposit; I told him 5l. or 10l. security, as I thought it was necessary for a responsible position; he said 10l.—I next saw him on 17th October, and went with him to 13, Dalston Road, where he engaged a room at 8s. a week—he asked me if I would mind being in the office till he could get the business ready; I agreed—my wages were mentioned at Rushmore Road as 30s. a week—I paid him on 21st October 10l., and this is the receipt he gave me. (For 10l. from George Wallace as security against any defalcations, and to be returned at the end of a month's notice provided there had been no defalcations.) I remained at 13, Dalston Road and Tower Chambers with Mr. Lewis as a clerk till 9th January—he carried on a money-lending business and that of buying and selling businesses and arranging partnerships—not much actual business was done—when I left him 1l. 12s. 6d. was due to me for wages—on 9th January I asked for a return of my deposit; I got none of it back—I have seen Macrow very often at 13, Dalston Lane, he took no part in the business, but was just arranging business between Mr. Lewis and himself—I heard them one day talking about Mr. Palmer's affairs; Macrow wanted to sign the paper, to give Mr. Palmer back his 30l.—I heard Lewis say to him "Don't be a fool, what I tell you and it will be all right"—no grocery business was opened at Stratford—when I parted with my 10l., I believed it was as a genuine deposit on my entering the grocer's or cheesemonger's business—Lewis represented himself as a man of money and a lieutenant-colonel in the Army.
Cross-examined by Lewis. You sent me down once to Stratford about the business, but the shop had been let some weeks—I did not go about a shop at Leyton—you sent me to a place at Victoria Park that had previously been a shop; you did not take that because the man wanted you to come to some agreement for three years, and pay the rent for so
long, and you said afterwards you would not be humbugged about like that—he wanted money in advance, and you could not pay him because you could not pay me my wages, and I know you had not any money; sometimes I had to wait two or three weeks and got a half-crown or two shillings or sixpence at a time—you asked people to lend you money; the manager at Milk's you asked about this time—you did not afterwards decide to take that place by offering a quarter's rent in advance; you said I would not suit you—I don't know if you offered a quarter in advance—you asked me if I would sooner stay in the office, and I said I would sooner go into the grocery and cheesemongery, I had been used to that; afterwards I saw you were not in a position to take a shop—if I would rather have stayed in the office I should not have given you notice in December—I did not get all my 50s. a week at once—I should have got the same amount at the grocer's and cheesemonger's, but I should have got a place to live in, gas and coals, and house rent—you gave me no lodging—when money was left by persons seeking situations, you sometimes advertised to the full amount; you charged 2s. also in" nearly every case—I have lent you money; you once paid me 4l. 10s., that was overdue—I gave you this receipt for arrears of wages—I can't remember if you paid me 3l. as well—I swear the real cause of my leaving was because I could not get my wages from you—it was not on account of my misconduct with a young lady at the office, because when I gave notice you said "I am very worry you are leaving, I am very well suited with you"—I called at the office at Dalston Lane the following week, and fetched away some astrakan I had left there—I did not say to Burchall I was sorry I had to leave, I was very pleased, as I was no better off than a beggar all the time I was with you—you gave me no reason for not returning my deposit till I think 13th February, and then you accused me of having 10s. of a woman in Islington, and I found it was a mere excuse for not paying me, as you had the money yourself, and having told the woman you wanted her apartments for a gentleman, and that you charged half-crown as commission, she gave you a half-sovereign, you had no change and kept the half-sovereign—you did not charge me with having the half-sovereign—you did not say to Macrow that it would be foolish not to work on—I have often heard you use words to the effect you did about him being a fool and not to sign the paper.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. Macrow took no part in the business at Lewis's office; although I have seen him there, he merely came there as other people came—I saw him come with Mr. Palmer sometimes, and so far as I know the object of the conversation was Palmer's affairs—I knew there had been a proposition for Palmer to enter into partnership with Macrow, and I gathered that they were there to get the partnership dissolved—Lewis had Palmer's 30l., and Macrow wanted him to sign the paper to give it to him back again, and Lewis said "Don't be a fool; do what I tell you, and you will be all right; don't sign it."
WILLIAM WALKER . I am a conductor, and live at 3, St. Mark's Road, Dalston—on 29th October I saw an advertisement posted up on a side door of 13, Dalston Lane, Lewis's place—I called there and saw a clerk—next day the clerk came for me, and I went to Dalston Lane, and saw there Lewis and Macrow—Lewis introduced me to Macrow, who said he wanted a collector and traveller to solicit orders in his business as printer
and paper-bag maker—he mentioned 25s. a week wages and 6d. commission on fresh business introduced—he said he wanted 10l. security, as various sums would be entrusted to me as collector—I said 10l. was more than I could afford, but I would give 5l.—he agreed to accept that and I called again on 2nd November, and gave the money to Macrow, who gave me this receipt. (This was for 5l. as security till Macrow or Walker gave seven days' notice, when the sum should be returned in full providing there were no defalcations; it also stated that Macrow engaged Walker at a salary of 25s. a week and a commission of 6d.) Macrow wrote and signed it, and Lewis witnessed it—I afterwards went with Macrow to Haggerston Road, his place of business—I remained in his employment four weeks; my wages were paid for two weeks—I solicited orders for his business, and got 6d. commission on one order—I was sent to collect money but got none—I left after four weeks because I was two weeks without being paid, and I could not work without wages—on 21st November he gave me this notice, "I hereby give Mr. Walker seven days' notice according to agreement, HERBERT MACROW"—after that I asked for the return of my deposit—I did not get it, nor my wages—he said that he had a great deal of money owing to him for business he had carried out, which was not paid him, and when he got those sums in he would settle with me fully as regarded security and arrears of wages—I called often to get it back—on 4th January he gave me this document, "I, Macrow, agree to pay William Walker the sum of 7l. 10s., 5l. as deposit, and 2l. 10s. for two weeks' wages as per agreement, the above sum to be paid on Saturday, January 9th, HERBERT MACROW"—that was not met—I saw and complained to him about not getting back my deposit—when I paid it I thought this was a bona fide situation, or I should not have paid the money.
Cross-examined by Lewis. I did not see you the first time I called—Wallace told me he would advertise—I paid for an advertisement next day and you advertised for me—next day you sent for me—I don't know if Macrow had called in answer to the advertisement—you did not actually recommend me in any way to Mr. Macrow; you simply told me he had come in answer to the advertisement—we arranged our own terms, and asked you to draw up a receipt as I was going to pay him 5l.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. Lewis gave me to understand in the advertisement that in any case I should pay a security—I did not get any wages the first week, nor till the following Wednesday—I got six or seven orders, amounting to 36s., in the four weeks—I got two weeks' salary, and then Macrow gave me in writing a week's notice, giving as the reason that he could not afford to keep me on—I never collected any money for him—I went to Warren in the Old Kent Road; they treated me with contempt; 15l. was the amount—there was a stock of paper and printing machines; I don't think they belong to Macrow—I believe Packworth used to work for them—I know the paper bags' were made—Macrow said he did a large business, and had so many orders that it was difficult to execute them—he said he brought in orders when he went out himself; I say nothing to the contrary—I afterwards took my money back by instalments; I was glad to get it back anyhow—there was no agreement as to that—I took a promissory note only a few days before I brought the charge—I took no steps to prosecute—I have paid
no expenses—I was visited by the police and my depositions taken—I could not afford to sue for the money in the County Court—I did not know I could get a judgment summons for payment by instalments.
FREDERICK PALMER . I live at 2, Southampton Street, Pentonville—on 28th November I advertised in the Daily Chronicle:—"A young man wants to join another in business; coffee shop or greengrocer's preferred; about 30l. to start"—Macrow called on me, he said he was a printer and manufacturer—I told him I knew nothing about the business; he said that did not matter, he wanted some one to come to his place and give out the work and receive it as it was brought in—he told me he did business of from 10l. to 14l. per week—I went to 13, Dalston Lane the same evening, I where I saw the two prisoners—Lewis said, "Are you Mr. Palmer"—I said "Yes"—he said, "Mr. Macrow is in want of a partner; this is Mr. Macrow"—Macrow said the same as he said in the morning, that he was in want of a partner to give out the work and receive it—I told him I knew nothing about the business, but I would not mind giving it a trial and that I would like a week's trial—Lewis said, "Well, w want a deposit, what will you put down now?"—I said, "Well, 10l., only I have not got the money with me"—this agreement was drawn up by Wallace (Stating that Palmer agreed to become a partner with H. Macrow, and to pay 30l., and that he would deposit 10l. with the understanding that he should pay the balance as agreed and that the 10l. should be repaid, and on the other side it stated, "I, Palmer, agree to give Lewis power to hold the deposit of 10l. until the sum of 30l. is handed over to Macrow")—I went to Macrow's premises in Haggeston Road, they consisted of two cellars with two treadle printing machines, and paper bags, not a very large quantity, waiting to be printed on—shortly after he moved to Kingsland Road—I remained with him about five weeks; he did not find sufficient employment for me; no books were kept, I received no accounts—some work was brought in; I did boy's work, stringing up bags—on the following week I made a further deposit of 20l. to make up the 30l.; this is half of the receipt I received; I got this on 5th December, the name "J. Lewis" was on the other half—on my paying that 20l. a promise was made that I was to be paid 2l. a week, and an agreement was entered into by Lewis and Macrow as to the 20l., which I signed; it was that Lewis could hand it over to Macrow with my authority—on the 15th, when the agreement was drawn up, Lewis asked Macrow if any money was wanted to make the business good—Macrow said "Yes"—Lewis said, "Will you advance Mr. Macrow 5l."—I said "No;" I advanced 3l., part of the 30l.—I received one sum of 2l. as wages—on 4th January I saw the two prisoners again at Lewis's office—Lewis and Macrow had a conversation about other business, and it was brought up about me—Lewis asked Macrow whether he was willing to cancel the agreement—Macrow said "Yes"—Lewis said to me, "You have no more to do with us, then; all you want now is your money"—I said "Yes"—he said, "want three days' notice from you to get it from the bank"—on the following day I made out a note and gave it to Lewis, and I went to him on the third day for the money—he said, "I will see you at 7 o'clock; I am going to the bank now"—we met then, he said he was very sorry, the bank was closed when he went, that he would see me to-morrow—I went to his office in Dalston Lane and he was not there—I went to his City office, 47, Tower Chambers, Moorgate Street; I saw him there—he said
he was very sorry, he had had advice on my matter, and he wanted a letter from Macrow to say he was willing to cancel the agreement; that was after I had said I would have nothing more to do with Macrow—he said, "Go and find Mr. Macrow"—at that time Mr. Macrow was in his front office, as I saw his leg when the door was open, I could tell him by his boots—eventually Lewis offered me a bill for 30l. on two or three occasions; I would not take it—he said he had borrowed some out of the 30l.—on 14th December, when I refused to take the bill, he said, "All right, if you won't take it I cannot give you the money"—I said I could take it to Court—he said, "All right, do as you like, you can see me in a felon's dock if you like"—this second agreement was made after the receipt of the 20l. (By this Macrow agreed that if Palmer lodged with Lewis 30l. for three months, on the understanding that during that time he would receive 2l. a week, at the expiration of three months the 30l. should be placed to Macrow's credit; Palmer to be able to withdraw that sum after three months.)
Cross-examined by Lewis. On 5th December, when I signed the last agreement, you asked Macrow if he wanted any money—he said, "I want 5l."—after I left he did not say he wanted 6l.—you told me to get a letter from Macrow authorising you to pay the 30l., and I gave it to you at 47, Tower Chambers on the Tuesday—I did not give you permission to use 10l. about two days before Christmas—you offered me on the Saturday to pay 10l. on the Monday and the balance on the following Monday—I did not properly refuse to take it; I said, "I will not give you any proper answer to-day"—I don't remember saying I would have all or none—the Saturday I have mentioned was the 15th of January, I think.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. I do not profess to understand anything about the paper-bag manufactory or printing—I was very energetic about it the first week, but not afterwards when I got no money—I was on a salary at first—I came late, and smoked about the place, Macrow did not complain about it to me—Lewis had my deposit, I left it in his charge—the second agreement was made on 5th December—Lewis paid me one week's money—I went and saw Macrow by himself about the partnership being put an end to—I found him perfectly willing to put an end to it—I said, "I want you to sign a letter for me to Mr. Lewis for cancelling the agreement"—he signed it, he was not in the least unwilling to do so—I said, "That will give Mr. Lewis authority to give me my money back again"—I knew I was to get it back from Lewis—I had to call on Lewis with the letter on 12th January, the same day—I called on 4th January and on nearly every day—I told Lewis I and Macrow had come to an arrangement that the agreement should be cancelled, and then Lewis said he wanted three days notice, and I called repeatedly and could not get it—I said nothing about Macrow being there when I saw his legs: I should have done so—I went off without my money—on the next occasion I saw Lewis I said I had seen Macrow in the office, and he said he did not know it—I was to be paid nothing the first week, and nothing out of the profits—the second agreement mentioned that I was to receive 25s. out of the profits.
Buildings, where I saw Macrow—he said he wanted a printer to do printing in the day, and to travel in the afternoon, that he was doing about 15l. or 20l. a week, and that he was thinking of extending it; that he would require about 5l. as security, as he had been swindled a short time previously, and that my wages would be 25s. a week—I agreed to enter his employment on those terms—my father paid 5l. to him on the 24th—this (produced) is the receipt. (This stated that Atkinson agreed to lodge 5l. with Macrow against any defalcations on his part, on the understanding that he should receive a weekly salary of 25s.,and that the 5l. should be repayable on demand.) Part of it is my father's writing, and the rest is Lewis's, I should judge—I stopped with Macrow four days—I only printed; nothing was done except a little for Lewis—the only persons who called were those wanting money, and they did not get it—on the Saturday he was not there to pay me my wages at 2 o'clock, but at night I saw him close by Lewis's in the street—there were several waiting there for their money—on the Monday I told him I should want the security as well; he said it was at the bank—he gave me this bill for 6l. 5s., my deposit and wages; it was not met—the prisoner was not there on the first Monday and Tuesday, I suppose he was spending my 5l.—I was hunting for him all the time—I saw Lewis at Macrow's place; he came in while we were making up the promissory note on 4th January, I think, and Lewis professed to know nothing about my 5l.—I said to him that he was the biggest rascal of the two—he said he would have it proved, or something of that sort.
Cross-examined by Lewis. Wallace, your clerk, sent me to Macrow's—you professed to know nothing of the 5l. till I saw you at Macrow's place—you left the place with Mr. Barber for a few minutes, and afterwards came back and asked Mr. Macrow if he had received 5l. from me.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. Mr. Macrow said he knew nothing about printing, and therefore I should have to do the printing—I had got my wages; I was willing to do it; I was to be paid weekly—I began on the Wednesday, but I was there on the Monday and Tuesday—I stayed there four days—he owes me now 6l. 5s.—I have not sued him for the money.
CHARLES WRIGHT . I live at 4, Linstead Street, Palmerston Road, Kilburn—I saw this advertisement in the Daily Chronicle on 31st October. (This stated that a young man was required for a respectable situation, and that a cash security would be required; apply at 13, Dalston Lane.) I went to 13, Dalston Lane, where I saw Lewis—he asked me how much security I could give; I said about 80l.—he asked me if I should like to go into partnership; I said yes, in a profitable business—he agreed to get me a partner, and I was going out of the office when Macrow came in—Lewis introduced me to him, and said he was a gentleman who he had known for some time; that he was in a printing business, and was in want of a partner, and very likely we could arrange matters together—he left me with Macrow in his office to arrange matters ourselves—Macrow said he had been apprenticed to the business, and was starting for himself, and had laid out some money, and wanted some one to help him with it, but they would have to have about 50l.—we went round to Haggerston Road, where I saw his premises—he said he was going to keep on with them a little, and then would take larger premises—there was some machinery there and type, and a good many paper bags—we went back
to Lewis's office, and an agreement was drawn up by a clerk there—I paid 2s. 6d. for an advertisement, and 1l. on account of 2l. for drawing up the partnership agreement—after we had had some dinner I went to the carpenter's house and paid 12s. 6d. for putting up benches and gas fittings at Macrow's—Wallace drew up an agreement of partnership; I never signed it—I lent Macrow 3l., and then gave him 10l. on account of 50l. which I had to put in the business—I paid two or threes little sums—I was going to pay the 50l. by cheque, but I found his business was not altogether what he represented—I heard something about Macrow, and in consequence went to Lewis's office—I asked Lewis why he had recommended Macrow to me, as his machine and type and nothing was paid for, after he had represented they were, and that his business was no good—Lewis said he had not known him very long, but he could say of him that he thought he was a genuine man—I parted with my money on those representations that Macrow was in a good way of business, and that his machines were paid for, and that he was in a good way of business and a respectable person.
Cross-examined by Lewis. I first saw you on 31st October—I saw your clerk, Wallace, on the Saturday—you asked me how much security I had; I think it was on the Saturday—I cannot recollect exactly if I saw you on the Saturday—your clerk introduced me to Macrow first—I could not exactly say now which it was—I think I made a mistake, it was Wallace I saw in the office; I was recommended to Macrow by him—Wallace drew up the agreement on the following Monday, and I paid 1l. on that day; I can't say who to—I went to you on the Thursday or Friday in the next week and said I had decided then not to go into partnerhsip with Macrow, and that I was working with Sager, and if I liked his business I would go into partnership with him—your clerk had come down before and asked me to go into partnership with him—a few days afterwards I called on you with Sager, a confectioner at 6, Haggerston Road—I don't think you had ever seen him before—I said I was going to become his partner to the amount of 25l.—he was Macrow's landlord—I paid 2s. 6d. for the advertisement and 1l. for the agreement with Macrow before I came to you with Sager—I paid another 1l. for one with Sager.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. I paid the 10l. about 10 days after I paid the 12s. 6d. to the carpenter—I attended every day during that time at the Haggerston place; some work was going on, but very little; nevertheless I paid my 10l., because he told me the business was only just started, and from what I could see it was not properly started; he was only just setting it up, and it wanted capital and a little time.
HENRY BOYER . I live at 104, Fetter Lane, and am manager to Messrs. Esson, engineers—at the end of October, 1884, we sold and delivered to Macrow two printing machines and materials, value 180l.—we have never been paid—they went to 6, Haggerston Road—we have paid 3l. 14s. 6d. for rent, to save distraint.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. We have had the machines back—I know Macrow has not been successful in business.
MARTHA COTTERILL . I am manageress to Mrs. Jane, proprietor of 13a, Dalston Lane—Lewis took an office there from 16th October, at 8s. a week—six weeks' rent is owing—on 2nd Dec. Macrow took premises at Commercial Road, at 9s. a week—he paid one week, and we never
received any more rent from him—Mr. Esson paid my employer—I often saw Lewis and Macrow together.
Cross-examined by Lewis. I am quite sure it was six weeks' rent.
Cross-examined by MR. HOPKINS. The shop was taken in the name of Palmer—I have seen Macrow with Palmer—we did not distrain till the rent had run on for six weeks.
Lewis in his defence stated that he meant to get his living by an honest agency business; that he acted as agent between Macrow and the people who came to him with regard to Macrow; that he had used Palmer's money, but would have repaid him if he had not been arrested, and that he had not been in a business of this sort before, and all he did was purely as an agent.
GUILTY. The Jury considered that there was a difference between the prisoners' guilt. LEWIS— Eighteen Months' Hard labour. MACROW— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
363. JOHN DAVIS (54) PLEADED GUILTY * to forging and uttering receipts for 5s. and 10s., with intent to defraud, and also to obtaining various sums of money from various people by false pretences, with intent to defraud.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
364. ARTHUR LLOYD (19) and WILLIAM MCDONALD (19) to burglary in the dwelling-house of William Armstrong, and stealing three silver spoons and other articles, his property, and other property of other persons; also to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Michael O'Connor, and stealing three overcoats and other articles, Lloyd haying been convicted of felony in Sept., 1884, in the name of John Lynch. LLOYD**— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. MCDONALD— Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
365. JULES BRIAND (31) to obtaining by false pretences from Anna Simmendinger 2s. 6d., and from other persons other sums, with intent to defraud.*— Twenty Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
OLD COURT.—Thursday, March 11th, 1886.
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
MESSRS. POLAND and MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN appeared for Daniels, and "MR. BLACK" for Tatton.
NOT GUILTY .
There were five other indictments charging each prisoner as principal and the others for aiding and assisting in the said offence. No evidence was offered on these indictments.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Thursday, March 11th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. FILLAN and WILKINSON Prosecuted; MR. TICKELL Defended.
Enfield—I have seventeen houses at Page Green, Tottenham, and since August, 1881, I have employed the defendant to collect the rents and manage the property—he used to furnish accounts about two months after the time, and send in the vouchers—about 21st February, 1884, I received this statement of accounts marked A, and this voucher B for 4l. 10s.—in February, 1885, I received this statement of account in Mr. Bull's writings the prisoner's clerk—these words on voucher B, "Received on account," and the figures 4l. 4s., are in Mr. Bull's writing.
Cross-examined. The alleded forged vouchers are for 1883, the genuine voucher D is dated February, 1885, for 8l. 9s. 10d.—that has reference to other houses besides mine, and I called his attention to it, and also to my having been already charged 4l. 4s. for glazing in Victoria Road, but he did not give me a cheque for 10l. including the 4l. 4s. till I pressed him; he gave it to me some months afterwards—he said it was all that fool of a Bull's fault—he has not furnished any accounts for the last 15 months, and I threatened him with criminal proceedings unless he did; I did not do so earlier because I believed his statement that it was Bull's fault—I have never suggested that if he furnished me with accounts I would drop these proceedings.
Re-examined. He has collected rents for about 17 months and not accounted; after that I made inquiries and found this out—he has not paid me any of the rents; the payments are in arrear as well as the accounts—he ought to have furnished accounts quarterly.
BENJAMIN SILVERMAN . I am a glass-cutter, of Enfield Highway—in 1883 I did work for the prisoner at Eastbourne Terrace and at Victoria Road and at Wigmore Square, and sent in a bill for 8l. 9s. 10d.—I cannot write; my clerk does all my writing and keeps the books—on November 24th, 1883, Mr. Bull, the defendant's clerk, came to me and said, "We have lost one or two of your bills, and we have got to go into the County Court and prove them"—I said, "I cannot write"—he said, "Will you give me the book?"—I said, "It is under my clerk's care, but I will give you a couple of bill-heads and you can make them out yourself"—on another occasion he came to me and wanted a bill made out—I said, "Give me a copy of what you want made out, and I will send my boy with it to my clerk"—it was only a small amount—the bill for "hacking out and glazing 65 squares of glass on November 24th, 1883, 4l. 10s., B. Silverman," is not receipted by me or by my authority; this is not my mark, I never made a cross like this in my life—I have only worked in Victoria Road twice, once in 1883 and once in 1884—all the work I have done is entered in my books, which my clerk has here—I cannot read writing—after I gave evidence the defendant came to me and said, "What is the bother about?"—I said, "Something about a 4l. bill"—he said, "If it is a little matter, 4l., 10l., or 20l., I will settle it," and he went over to Mr. Paulin's clerk to settle it—he said he would sooner give 20l. and be out of the trouble.
Cross-examined. I used to be paid small sums at a time, and I would then give him a receipt for the whole amount—these crosses to this bill for 8l. 9s. 10d. and this other bill are both my marks—Reuben Gordon is in my employment; he receives money for me—he cannot read or write, he makes crosses—if I have to endorse cheques I go to my neighbours to sign my name for me—I did all this work for the defendant, and he was
to include it in one bill—I used to give him the names for different bills, separating the different properties.
JOHN LEATHERBELL . I am clerk to Mr. Silverman, and manage his books—I insert the work done, and the amounts paid—this account for 8l. 9s. 10d. is in my writing; it is a true account of work done for Mr. Dickerson; that was, I conclude, delivered on November 24th, 1883; I represents 4l. 4s. having been paid on account, and it was usual for Mr. Dickerson to pay the balance the following week—the account stands paid in the book, and I conclude it would be paid on December 1st—wrote this other account "B "on a date I cannot specify—a messenger came to me from Mr. Silverman wanting a bill for the work in Victoria Road—he gave me a pencil memorandum of the dates without any amount—I said that the amount was not in; he said that it was to be 4l. 10s., and I made it out and sent it by the messenger—it left me without signature or stamp—this bill marked "E" I believe is the defendant's writing, it is not mine—that work has not been done by Mr. Silverman; I have no entry in my book of it, it would have been there if the work had been done.
Cross-examined. I am employed by other people as well to keep books—everything that I am aware of that is done is entered in the books.
NOT GUILTY .
NOT GUILTY .
MR. RAVEN Prosecuted.
HENRY JOHN DAVIS . I am assistant to my father, Henry Albert Davis, an umbrella-maker, of 113, Regent Street—on 2nd February, about 6.20 p.m., the prisoner came, and I sold him this walking-stick (produced) for 35s.—he said, "Can you send it home to-morrow morning between 10 and 10.30?"—I said "Yes"—the address as "Curtain, 30, Langham Street"—I said, "Will you pay now or on delivery?"—he said, "On delivery"—next morning I sent it by Simms, who brought back a note in an envelope and said that there was a cheque inside, but there was not, nor any money—I got the stick from the police.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not say that you would call for it next day, you told me to send it home—I tore up the note which was in the envelope; it said, "I will call down and pay you when I come out."
RICHARD SIMMS . I am errand boy to Mr. Davis—on the morning of 3rd February I took this stick to 30, Langham Street, gave it to a servant with the invoice and a message—she told me to wait inside, and took the stick upstairs, and brought a note down and gave me a message—I went back and gave Mr. Davis the note, and then wont back to Langham Street and spoke to the servant—she said "Wait inside," and the prisoner came downstairs and said "Follow me"—he went outside and said, "Boy, call me a cab"—he walked to the top of the street and back to the house—I did not call a cab, but he called one himself and got in—I said, "Are you going to Mr. Davis?"—he said "Yes"—I said,
"I may as well go with you"—he said, "I am going to change a cheque"—the cabman would not drive him—he got into two or three cabs, but they would not drive him, and he said, "I expect I shall have to walk"—I said, "If you give me the money or stick I shall be satisfied"—he got into another cab and drove off, and I lost sight of him and got neither money nor stick.
Cross-examined. You told me to tell Mr. Davis that you would come and pay.
MARIA PINNEGAR . I am servant at 30, Langham Street—the prisoner has lodged there about a fortnight—on this Wednesday morning I took a stick in from Simms and took it up to the prisoner—he asked me for, pen and ink, and gave me a note, which he told me to give to the boy—I left the stick in the prisoner's room and went down and gave the boy the note—he went away and came back, and I told the prisoner the boy had come back, and would not go without the money or the stick—he went down and went out with the boy.
GEORGE LENNISTER (Detective C). On 7th February, about 10.45 p.m., I saw the prisoner in Piccadilly, and said I should take him for stealing a stick by means of a trick from 113, Regent Street—he said, "I would steal you if I had the chance"—I took the stick from his hand—he said, "I know the law and confine myself to it; you will be very tricky if you have me"—I took him to the station, and in reply to the charge he said "I did not mean to steal the stick, I intended to pay for it—he had no money on him—he wore a tall hat, which I took from him.
Cross-examined. You had complained some weeks before of being robbed of a 10l. note, but it was a very shaky story and no action was taken upon it—I refused, by the inspector's instructions, to undertake the inquiry, as it looked like a fabrication.
Prisoners Defence. I did not mean to get the things without paying for them, but I was short of money just then.
GUILTY (There were two other indictments against the prisoner).— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. CULPEPER Prosecuted.
MARY GAMBLE . I live at 26, Coleherne Road—in April, 1884, I let my house furnished to Captain Whalley—I returned in August and found only the servant there—I examined the place and missed plate and jewellery value 200l.—I communicated with the police, and afterwards saw Whalley and Herbert in custody—I was present here on 20th October, 1884, when they were convicted (See Vol. C., p. 788)—I have recovered most of my property—I had never seen the prisoner before this—when I let the house a room in it was locked up; when I came back the door had been forced open and the room was in disorder, and some of this property taken from it.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Captain Whalley went into the house on 25th April—the door was locked when I came back; it was only when the door was opened that you could see it had been forced open—I received letters from you from Coleherne Road, they were signed "H. Fraser, Secretary."
WALTER DAVIS . I live at 28, Catherine Street, Strand—this teapot (produced) was pledged by the prisoner on 28th June, 1884, for three guineas—he came by himself—on 11th July, 1884, he came again with Herbert and pledged this milk-jug, candlestick, nine dessert spoons, ten dessert forks, four salt spoons, and silver ladle for 16l.—I put the money down and the prisoner took it up; I asked him how he came to do that; he said that he would give it to Herbert, that it all belonged to Herbert and he was pledging it for him—he also said that Herbert's uncle was coming into a large fortune, and he was going to give him 6,000l. of it—I know Herbert, I have seen him once or twice; I was present here when he was convicted—on 15th July, 1884, the prisoner pledged this dressing case and snuff box, also several other things.
Cross-examined. I have not got the agreement for the 16l.; it is signed y Herbert, you took the money—I don't generally hand the money to another person who does not sign the agreement—I put the money down before you both and you took it up—you did not say that Herbert's cousin was coming into a large sum of money, and that you would get 6,000l. out of a certain sum that was being raised, you said Herbert's uncle was coming into a large fortune.
JOHN SMITH (Police Inspector). I received information of this robbery in October, 1884, and was present here when Whalley and Herbert were tried—on 17th February I saw the prisoner at Carter Street Police-station and said, "I am a police officer, I am about to arrest you on a charge of being concerned with two others, Whalley and Herbert, who have been convicted of stealing a quantity of plate and other articles, value 200l., from 26, Coleherne Road, South Kensington, between the months of June and August, 1884"—he said, "Yes, I have been expecting this; I pledged a quantity of the goods believing they belonged to Whalley; I acted as secretary for him"—at the station, when charged, he made no reply.
Cross-examined. I was not aware that you have been in this country since September, 1885—Scotland Yard did not telegraph up to Inverness that I know of—we knew you absconded—I had no warrant to arrest you; it was not necessary—I had the information about 20th September, not earlier than that.
Cross-examined. I do not remember this watch being pawned with me for 1l.; I have no knowledge of it; I only remember him pledging this ring.
MARY GAMBLE (Re-examined). All these articles belong to me; they are part of the property which I lost—I heard a witness at the police-court, who is not able to attend here to-day, say that she saw Whalley and Herbert in the room, but not Fraser.
JANE EVIS . I am a charwoman, of 51, Seaton Street, King's Road, Chelsea—I worked for Mrs. Whalley at 26, Coleherne Road, in April, 1884—the prisoner lived there as one of the family—he left about a fortnight before I did.
Cross-examined. I received my wages from Mr. Herbert—I was there one night when a laundress made a disturbance outside—I don't know whether you paid her or not—I was not in the house at the time—it was after my time of leaving—she told me you sent her away.
ALBERT WEATHERHEAD (Police Sergeant P). On 17th February, about 11 a.m., I saw the prisoner in Hernon, Road, Camberwell—I told him I was a police officer and should take him in custody for being concerned with two other men named Whalley and Herbert, already convicted of stealing jewellery to the amount of 200l. belonging to a woman named Gamble—he said "Where is Whalley now?"—I said "I do not know"—he said "I knew it would come to this sooner or later; I was only a servant to him; I pawned some of the goods; I did not suspect they were stolen."
The prisoner in his defence stated that he acted as Captain Whalley's secretary at 4l. a week; that he pawned the things believing they belonged to Captain Whalley, and that he had to account to him for every penny that came into his hands; also that lie had been in London since September last, and that the prosecution had kept this case back, and allowed Captain Whalley and Herbert to go to Australia, who he could have called as witnesses, and that the first he heard of this case was in New York in the reading-rooms when he saw Whalley's conviction in the papers, and that he came over here wittingly to meet this charge.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CULPEPER Prosecuted; MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS Defended. The prisoner received an excellent character.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, March 11th, 1886.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. GRAIN and WOODFALL Prosecuted; MESSRS. MEAD and PARTRIDGE Defended.
CHARLES LEGGATT BARBER . I am a shorthand writer in the Bank-ruptcy Court—I was present at two public examinations of the defendant on 3rd November and 8th December—I took a shorthand note of his evidence: the transcript is on the file.
HENRY ALFRED STACEY . I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of William Brew—his own petition was presented on 31st July, 1885—a receiving order was made the same day—Mr. Forman, of Gracechurch Street, accountant, was appointed trustee on 11th September—a statement of affairs was filed by Brew on 15th August, showing unsecured creditors, 3,211l.; fully-secured creditors, 1,013l.; total estimated assets, 1,004l.; total liabilities, 1,585l.—I find in the unsecured creditors' list Bryant, Powis, and Co., put down by the bankrupt as creditors for 631l.; Charles Hoare and Co. as creditors for 408l.; Messer and Co. for 331l.; Palfreman, Foster, and Co. for 236l.; Rose, Smith, and Co. for 237l.; Raffety, Thornton, and Co. for 198l.—in the list of fully-secured creditors I find Lacy, Hartland and Co., 380l., with his memorandum, "Hold dock warrants for timber lying at the Surrey
Commercial Docks, Rotherhithe, estimated to produce 470l."—the prisoner puts down Jacobs, Monetary Advance and Discount Company, as a creditor for 598l., "for money advanced and holds dock warrants for timber lying at the Surrey Commercial Docks valued at 750l."—in January, 1886, an order was made to prosecute the defendant by one of the Registrars of the Bankruptcy Court.
JOHN JACOBS . I trade as the Monetary Advance and Discount Company at 16, Finsbury Pavement—I made the acquaintance of the defendant somewhere about April, 1885, for the purpose of negotiating an advance on timber warrants—I made him a number of advances; the first was 170l.—my terms are 15 per cent, per annum, with extra charges for dock charges and assurances, and a bonus in addition—I charged him 13l. for the 170l.—in advancing 100l. I generally give the man about 90l., 10 per cent, off—in the case of these warrants I did not take a bill; then my interest is 15 per cent per annum—in this case the prisoner only wanted the money for a month—10 per cent, is deducted for commission, and there is interest charged at the rate of 15 per cent; 10 per cent, includes the valuation—on 24th April, 1885, I advanced him 100l. by cheque, and I completed that loan on 1st May by giving him a cheque for 57l., making the advance 157l. actually—my clerk drew up this document (produced), and I signed it. (This stated that warrants for timber in the Surrey Commercial Docks had been deposited with John Jacobs as security for the payment of 170l. advanced by him, and authorised Jacobs to dispose of the timber should the 170l. not have, been repaid by 1st June, and pay himself out of the proceeds 170l. and 15 per cent, interest, and any further sums he might be indebted in.) On that transaction I first deducted 13l.—on 24th June I advanced 100l., and on 9th July 40l., in reference to the same loan—on that day this document (produced) was drawn up and signed by him. (This document was in the same terms as the last, except that the amount of the warrants was different, and the loan was for 151l.) I deducted 11l. for that, and charged him the same interest, 15 per cent—on 22nd July I made him a further advance of 100l., and on 29th July a further advance of 178l., and he signed this document on 29th July. (This document was in the same terms, varying the warrants the loan being for 300l.) I deducted 22l. in that case, and charged the same rate of interest, repayable within or at the end of the month—in respect of those three advances I received from him as security these dock orders (produced)—I got the warrants for these afterwards—the prisoner redeemed none of these things, and they were in my possession at the time of the appointment of the trustee on 11th September—subsequently to that the trustee paid me the amount I had advanced, and I handed him the warrants—I have been informed by Mr. Foreman that the amount realised over my advance, is very small—I had the warrants valued when the prisoner brought them to me, and I left a margin of about 15 per cent, over what I advanced; that is my usual habit—there was not that margin when they came to be sold; it was only 11l., I believe.
Cross-examined. I do business with many merchants in the City of London—I advance money on warrants for them—I am in the habit of advancing money to solvent and reputable merchants in this way—I have done business with timber merchants in this way, and they have afterwards taken the warrants up and removed the goods.
Re-examined. I think this has been the only case where they have not taken them up—I don't thick it would be right for me to mention the name of any firm to whom I have advanced money in that way—I don't say they are large firms—I don't know that I can recollect their names without my books.
HENRY ALFRED STACEY (Cross-examined by MR. MEAD). In the balance-sheet of the statement of affairs I see creditors fully secured as per list 1,013l., and estimated value of securities 1,260l., which leaves a surplus in favour of the estate of 247l.; and then on the other side I see "surplus in hands of creditors," and there is nothing there, so that the 247l. is not taken into account, it is lost sight of—the 247l. Would put a better complexion on the state of affairs.
HENRY GODWIN FOSTER . I am a member of the firm of Palfreman, Foster, and Co., timber-merchants in the City—we are creditors of the prisoner's for 236l.—on 21st April we received from him this letter. (Giving the specification of some timber, and asking what he had to offer.) On receipt of that I called; he was out; I called again in a day or two—he was in—he said in reply to me "I am an ironmonger by trade, and when calling on my customers selling ironmongery I have opportunities for selling them timber—I understood his customers were builders—he said "I have orders on hand for timber, and require timber now in order to execute those orders and any further orders I may obtain"—we asked him to call on us, and meantime we made inquiries as to his financial state with the ordinary Trade Protection Society, only through them at that time, and we received a satisfactory report and handed him these dock orders on 24th April—it is the custom in some cases to give dock orders, in others the merchants deliver them themselves—these are dated April 24th—all three are here—I find they are pledged to Mr. Jacobs, but there is no name on the back—we have not been paid for that timber—the amount is 236l.
Cross-examined. I was induced to trust the prisoner on account of the answers to the inquiries in connection with his statement—he mentioned Messer and Co.'s name—I knew them—they are timber merchants in a large way of business, and very respectable people—I inquired of them before I trusted him, before I tried the Trade Protection Society—Messer and Co.'s answer was entirely satisfactory.
Re-examined. If the answers had not been satisfactory I should not have supplied the timber—I knew Bamberger had travelled fox Messer, but I did not know he had travelled for the prisoner.
By the JURY. I took no steps to ascertain of the bankrupt whether he had any customers to buy the timber.
EDWARD ROMNEY SMITH . At the last trial I was laid up in bed with bronchitis—I am a partner in the firm of Rose, Smith, and Co., timber merchants, at Deptford—on 21st April I received this letter from the prisoner. (This specified certain timber, and asked what prices they could offer.) In answer to that I called personally, as I usually do on a first application for goods, on 23rd April I think—Brew was not in, but an appointment was made for the next Saturday, the 25th, at 9 o'clock, at his shop—I called there and saw him—I told him I had received a letter asking for prices of timber, I looked round his shop and remarked "It is an ironmonger's shop, what do you want timber for?"—it was a
somewhat unusual thing—he replied "I have some building land upon which builders are building, and I should like to supply them with timber as well as ironmongery"—we then went generally into the class of timber required, and I told him we would reply to his letter by a letter—that we did on the same day, giving prices—on 1st May the prisoner called at our office and asked for dock orders for timber—I sent them on to him on the same date, to the amount of 237l. I think—the prisoner has never paid for those—I have the goods in my possession—the dock orders were given, and never lodged, so that the goods never went out of our possession, and I have got them—there was a receiving order, and on getting that I went to the docks and found the goods still in my name, and I retained possession of them and sold them to other customers—I do not know of my own knowledge what the prisoner did with the dock orders, I never saw them after they went to him—Brew's name was on the dock orders—warrants are founded on the dock orders, and when the orders are lodged at the dock a warrant will be given, not before—I presume that any person having the dock orders could obtain money on them in the timber trade, even if he had not exchanged them for warrants—I never knew it done.
FREDERICK HOARE . I assist my father in his business as timber merchant in the City—on 14th July I received this letter from the prisoner. (This letter, from J. Terry and Co., stated that they were doing a large business with builders and packing-case makers, and asked for specifications of certain timber.) The prisoner traded as J. Terry and Co.—after receiving that letter I saw the prisoner—I said "What do you require this timber for?"—he said "I am supplying builders and others with timber"—I think he said and packing-case makers, I would not be certain; he said he was supplying packing-case makers with ironmongery, but whether with timber I won t be sure—after that I saw my father—on 17th July I received this letter. (Stating that J. Terry and Co. would take certain parcels of timber and giving the specification.) I supplied the prisoner with goods to the amount of 480l. about on 20th July—these (produced) are the five dock orders dated 20th July I sent to him—on 29th July I received this letter from the prisoner. (This was to the same effect as the last, requesting them to send dock orders for specified timber.) The value of all the dock orders was 480l.—the prisoner gave us bills which were not accepted—we have not been paid for the goods.
Cross-examined. The prisoner said Sharp and Co. recommended him—we made inquiry of them, and the answer was satisfactory—he also mentioned Messer and Co., who are respectable solvent gentlemen—the result of that inquiry was the same.
Re-examined. I have since heard that Sharp and Co. have failed for a large amount—we were induced to part with some goods by the prisoner's representations and the references we received.
CHARLES HOARE . I am the head of the firm of Hoare and Son, we carry on business in Leadenhall Street—I first saw the prisoner about 20th July I think; he told me he was supplying builders with timber and said "I have orders now for timber, and I want you to give me dock orders, that I may supply those parties with the timber"—having made inquiries of Messer and Sharp, we gave him the dock orders—he said he was an ironmonger by trade, and supplied the builders with ironmongery as well as timber—we supplied timber to the amount of 480l., we have
been paid no portion of that—in answer to the letter of the 29th we supplied about 13l. worth, that was not paid for—one thing that induced us to part with our goods was that he said he had large orders.
Cross-examined. I cannot say if the 13l. or 14l. orders were delivered to a builder, Mr. Iles, at Walthamstow—we delivered them to the prisoner.
WILLIAM BURNARD PARTRIDGE . I am manager to Bryant, Powis, and Co., timber brokers and importers—they are creditors of the prisoner to the amount of 700l. odd—this bill of exchange for 62l. 5s. 9d. was drawn by Pace and Co. on our account on Brew, "Pay to us on his account"—it is endorsed "Pace and Son"—it was presented and dishonoured on June 7th—it has never been paid—we issued a writ, and got payment subsequently—this and the other bills were all for timber—this bill for 89l. 15s. 8d. was drawn by Pace on June 8th, and came co us from Brew against our timber account with him, and was dishonoured when it fell due—we sued on both those together, got judgment, and ultimately put in the Sheriff, and after that, on about 22nd July, we were paid 62l. 5s. 9d. with costs, and 50l. on account of the other bill—in January, 1885, this bill for 453l. 8s. 7d. was drawn by the Company on Brew and accepted by him against timber—it fell due on 18th July, and was dishonoured—we never received anything in respect of that—this other bill for 37l. 13s. 8d., due on 29th October, 1885, was dishonoured; he was bankrupt before that.
Cross-examined. We have received nothing except the 62l. 5s. 9d. and he 50l.—the 62l. 5s. 9d. was cash in respect of the bill due on June 7th—we received both those amounts after we put the Sheriff in.
SAMUEL HEYWARD . I am a Sheriff's officer—I went in on the fore part of 22nd July for 92l. 7s. 1d. and costs—I received the writ from the solicitors to the plaintiff, Bishop, Bumpus, and Co.—I called about 3, the prisoner was not in—I called about 4, and the prisoner gave me 50l. on account—I then took the key and took my man outside to oblige the prisoner.
HARRY BUFFONSEETH . I am a clerk in Lacy, Hartland, and Co.'s bank—I produce these dock orders from Lacy, Hartland, and Co.—they were produced to me by the prisoner—they are held by them as security for advances to the prisoner.
ERNEST FORMAN . I am an accountant, and secretary to the London Timber Trade Association—I was appointed trustee in this matter on 7th September, and certified on 9th or 11th—there was no timber in stock, and no timber warrants or dock orders in stock or left behind at the bankruptcy—the prisoner has never handed me over any documents of title to any land, or anything of the sort—the only trace of such a matter occurred a day or two ago, when a tax-paper same in charging something like 1l. 17s. under Schedule B, which applies, I believe, to farm lands or a farm, and on which I shall have to question the prisoner—the prisoner has never disclosed to me any title to land or buildings—in the assets, the stock-in trade, estimated to produce 800l., is ironmongery stock entirely—it has realised about 500l. by auction—the book debts substantially are all disputed—the amount realised is 5l. 18s. 1d.,
and I don't see any chance of getting more—the cash at the bankers is absorbed by Lacy, Hartland, and Co.—this item of 50l. was paid by the prisoner to the Sheriff, and in the opinion of the Official Receiver it could be recovered by the estate; it ought to be put down as cash in hand—the total I have got in to the estate at present is 555l. shown by the cash-book, and since that another 100l. has been recovered, but that is not disclosed on the statement—that is all that has been realised at present—the 100l. I speak of has been recovered, from Mr. King 60l., and Deane and Co. 40l.—nothing is to he said against the bankrupt as regards those—I expect very little more practically—the books were practically not kept at all—I have been through the books, papers, and documents to ascertain the actual sales of timber during April, May, June, and July, 1885—in April they were 49l. 8s. 7d.—I have been through every scrap of paper, and can find no more sales—in May he sold 128l. 2s. 7d., and that includes what he sold in June—the June amount alone is 42l.—up to his failure in July he sold 58l. 0s. 11d.—the total sales in the four months is 235l. 12s. 1d.—in January there were no sales; in February, 213l. 8s.; in March, 333l. 5s. 6d.—in the first six months of 1885 he purchased timber on credit to the amount of 2,432l.—the sales for the same period add up to 782l. 5s. 7d.; substantially all the rest has been pawned—there was no order-book, and I cannot find that he hid any orders on hand in April, May, June, or July—I could find from no document nor inquiry any necessity to purchase—the books were very imperfectly kept—I have taken the purchases from books, inquiries, and invoices—Bryant, Palfreman, and Rose and Smith are entered in the books, but Hoare, King, Deane, and several others are not entered—I caused, on the instruction of the committee of inspection, application to be made to the Bankruptcy Court for a private sitting of the bankrupt, and he was examined on 3rd November and 8th December—I was not present on 8th December—he did not hand over to me 100l., nor has he ever done so—the Official Receiver takes the money in the first instance and hands me the books—there is no entry of his having received 100l. from the bankrupt—the 100l. was the proceeds, I believe, of the last pawning to Jacobs.
MR. GRAIN stated that he did not propose to read the notes of the bankrupts examination, but that the prisoner there admitted that out of the 178l. which he got from Jacobs on 29th July he paid 50l. to get Heyward out, and that the 100l. he kept for his family.
Cross-examined. The books were hardly kept at all, only spasmodically—my account of the sales of timber during that period is derived entirely from the books—the sales according to the books are equivalent to 782l., and the purchases to 2,432l.—the goods sold, added to the goods sold to Jacobs, do not come to the amount represented—I can find no trace in the books of what has become of the other goods—ironmongery and timber is all mixed up in the books, but one is called goods and the other timber—the ironmongery appears to be fairly kept in the books—I redeemed some of the timber on "spec," but it has not turned out very much worth while, only a margin of about 4l. odd—I don't know if some of the 100l. was spent in wages—I presume the business was carried on till the Receiver took it, and the employes would require to be paid—I came across letters about the prisoner purchasing two house-carcases at Walthamstow, of Brown, of Holborn Viaduct, in April or May—if that
had been carried out, and the building had been continued, timber would have been required; it would depend, too, on the condition the carcases were in—on the eve of his bankruptcy the prisoner had obtained goods from Druce and King, and had returned them and the documents of title when he found the condition of his affairs—he lodged the orders he obtained from merchants and drew his own orders, otherwise the lien would not have passed—that makes a distinction in favour of the estate—my contention was that those creditors should be in the same condition as the other creditors, and in that way I have obtained payment of these accounts—I have heard his wife was a great invalid shortly before, the bankruptcy, and that she was living at Folkestone on that account—the prisoner puts his household furniture at 45l.; it produced 40l.—he, lived at Penge in a very nice house, I believe, I have not seen it—since the last hearing he has given me up a dividend warrant of about 1l. 15s., on the estate of one of the creditors—I could not swear to the amount; I have received something—he has never refused me information—it would be utterly impossible, from the state of his books, to say in what condition he was, whether he was solvent or not—I took a copy of this paper, which was given to me by the officer who took him into custody; it is a list of suggested orders, but does not bear on the estate, and so I did not go into it.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY of obtaining credit from Henry Foster and other.—Recommended to mercy by the Jury. — Three Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Friday, March 12th. 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. GRAIN Prosecuted; MR. GRANT Defended.
HENRY ALFRED STACEY . I am Superintendent of the Record Department of the London Bankruptcy Court—I produce the proceedings in the bank-ruptcy of Ernest Pleasance—he filed his own petition on 7th November, 1885, and was adjudged bankrupt on 3rd December—Mr. H. W. Nelson, of 5, Short's Gardens, was appointed trustee on 12th December—the net liabilities are 1,351l. odd, and the assets and stock in trade 160l.; the book debts, 9l. 10s. 9d.; household furniture, 20l.; other property, as per list G, 130l.—this is list G, it contains an item, "Fixtures estimated to produce 30l," also "Numerous pawn-tickets for property, which if redeemed would realise at least about 300l.; the cost of redeeming would be about 200l., leaving surplus 100l."—that leaves assets, 319l. 10s. 9d.—in the deficiency account I find "Debts before commencing business to various persons, 30l.; Mr. Hill, Praed Street, Paddington, 75l.; and a liability on a promissory note, 16l."—then follows "Debts since commencing business"—I also find "Loss on goods pledged, 150l."—there is an order to prosecute on the file.
Cross-examined. There is an item "Doctor's expenses 8l.," and "Books, stationery, &c.; 2l. 18s."
Office in Bankruptcy—I produce a short examination of the bankrupt (Read)—after that he handed in these thirty-five pawnbrokers' tickets (produced).
CHARLES STRIBLING . I am a wholesale jeweller, of 9, Bury Street, Bloomsbury—I commenced business with the prisoner in December, 1884—I had left six scarf pins, value 12l., with him on 24th August on approbation—on October 5th I called on him and asked him for them; he said that the customer had not quite decided, and would I allow him to retain two—I agreed, and he gave me back four—one of the two has since been shown to me—I have not been paid for it—I was wearing a ring at that time and he asked if I had any scarf pins like it, as if so he had a cash customer—I told him I had not, but as he agreed to pay cash I would get him one for about 5l.—on October 10th I sent him post card, and on the 12th he called and said he was in a very great hurry and could not come in—I gave him two pins price 6l. and 4l. 15s.—he would not wait for an invoice—I said "Make an entry in your book," and I did the same—I said "Now you distinctly understand this is to be a net cash transaction, and these goods are not mine, so I must have an answer quick; when can you give it to me?"—he said "On Wednesday," and took them away—I have since seen them in pledge at Mr. Laman's—I have not been paid for them—they came to 11s. 10s.—I received this letter from the defendant—I know his writing. (This was dated October 14th, stating that his customer would keep the small pin, and send him the money that evening, and he would send it on next morning.) These are the pins (produced)—at the meeting of creditors on 6th November I asked him what he had done with my two diamond pins—he admitted having sold one—I said "What have you done with the other?"—he said "Pawned"—I said "What have you done with the other two pins you had on approbation?"—I think he said he had sold them.
Cross-examined. Mr. Hill, his father-in-law, introduced him; he is a jeweller, and has been a customer of mine eighteen years—he said that he was setting up his son-in-law in business, and was guaranteeing his rent and finding him jewellery out of his own shop should he require it—the ordinary time of credit is a fortnight, but we do not object to three weeks or a month if a tradesman is reasonably likely to pay—I have received about 37l. from the prisoner, and was perfectly satisfied with his payments—the jewellery trade was very bad last year, and my object in calling on him was to induce him to take the goods—I wrote to him and he wrote back saying that he had sold the large pin, and I sent him an invoice for the two—his shop was at Exeter Terrace, West Hampstead—he had an assistant there who, being a workman, ought to earn his wages.
Re-examined. He wrote saying "My customer says he will have it, and I am only waiting till he pays me the money, and I will call on you," and I still believed he had got a customer—although I have received 30l., I have proved for 150l.
WILLIAM JAMES BENNETT . I am assistant to George Attenborough, of 193, Fleet Street—I produce the scarf pin mentioned on this ticket, pawned on 27th August, and afterwards redeemed, and pawned again on 9th October, 1885, in conjunction with two diamond rings—I do not know the prisoner—this duplicate is the counterpart of the one I have.
Cross-examined. It is in the name of Mrs. Pleasance, 10, Exeter
Terrace, West Hampstead—I have had many other pawnings in that name.
JOHN SAUNDERS . I am assistant to Thomas Layman, of 25, Blackman Street, Borough—I produce two diamond rings, pawned for 5l. 5s., in the name of Mrs. Brown, on 13th October, 1885—this is the counterpart of the ticket I gave.
ARTHUR EDWARD PULLEY . I am traveller to 8. Mordan and Co., pencil makers, City Road—on 15th October I received this letter. (Dated 5th October, from the defendant, asking for a small assortment by bearer of pencil cases, and stating that he had had the management of a small business at Ryde.) I called at 10, Exeter Terrace, saw the prisoner's assistant, and left with him six gold pencil cases and this approbation note, dated 6th October, 1885—these (produced) are four of the pencil cases I left, and these other two complete the six.
Cross-examined. I had out known the prisoner before—a man starting in business would have considerable expenses in his first year.
HARRY LAMBERT SYMONS . I am a partner in S. Mordan and Co.'s house—we have not been paid for these six pencils—I asked the defendant at the meeting of creditors on 6th November what he had done with them; he said he had sold one and pawned five—I attended again at the meeting of 2nd December, saw the pawn-tickets, and had the pencil cases in my hand—I asked the prisoner how he reconciled the fact of six being pawned, with his previous statement—he said that the sixth one pawned was a second-hand one—these six are all new—we have not been paid.
Cross-examined. He was pretty sharply cross-examined by the various creditors, and his answers were just as sharp as the questions—I decidedly suggest that he told some straightforward lies—other pencil cases were pawned besides ours—I only examined him as to ours—business was very bad last year.
Re-examined. We did not force the goods on him; they are worth 16l.
W. J. BENNETT (Re-examined). I produce four gold pencil cases pawned on 7th October for 4l., in the name of Mrs. Pleasance, Exeter Terrace—this is the ticket I gave.
DOMINI. I am assistant to Mr. Attenborough, of Newington Causeway—I produce two gold pencil cases pledged on 7th October, 1885, for 3l. 15s., in the name of Mrs. E. Pleasance, 10, Exeter Terrace, West Hampstead—this is the ticket I gave.
CHARLES KESSELL . I am one of the firm of Tarver and Kessell, wholesale opticians, 50, Hatton Garden—on 29th September I supplied the prisoner with three field glasses, value 8l. 9s., and gave him an "appro." note, of which this is a copy—we have not been paid—I attended the meeting of creditors on 6th November and heard the defendant asked what he had done with our three glasses—he said he had sold one and the others were to be returned—we received this letter from him: "October 25th, 1885. I very much regret having kept your glasses so long, but will see that the two pair not kept shall be returned without delay"—these (produced) are two of the glasses.
Cross-examined. The defendant first of all refused to file his petition, but the creditors insisted, and arranged that he was not to go to the premises till they had put a man in possession—I did not hear them tell
him that if he would help them as much as he could they would not prosecute him.
CHEVERTON PARKINSON . I am assistant to Mr. Walter, a pawnbroker—I produce a glass pawned on October 1, 1885, for 12s. in the name of Jane Boss, 8, Brockman Street—this (produced) is the ticket given.
ALFRED WATKINS . I am in the employ of Troup and Sons, wholesale jewellers, Hatton Garden—on 14th September I was present when four rings were handed to Mrs. Pleasance with this "appro." note—she had been in the habit of coming occasionally for goods for her husband—on 8th October I called at Exeter Terrace, and asked the prisoner for the return of the rings—he said that he could not give them to me then as they were at Windsor, but he would go down that day and bring them back next morning and bring cash to pay off the account.
ALEXANDER JAMES TROUP . I am a wholesale jeweller, of 36, Hatton Garden—these four earrings were obtained from my firm by Watkins—they have our mark inside them; they come to 33l. 0s. 6d.—we have never been paid for them—Watkins went to see him with our instructions—I was present at the meeting of creditors on December 22nd—he was asked about the rings—he said that he had offered to send them back to us, and they were refused, and pawned—he did tender them to our solicitors on conditions such as we could not accept—we wished to have them back without any conditions, as they were ours—he did not give them back, but pawned them—he owes us 178l. balance—he has only paid us 20l.
Cross-examined. Mr. Hill, his father-in-law, whom we had known for many years, introduced him to us—he helped to set him up in business, and guaranteed his rent for him—I heard that Mr. Hill had his lease as security—the prisoner did not say at the meeting of creditors that one reason he had to go into bankruptcy was that his father-in-law had withdrawn his assistance—the terms were arranged by our traveller—the defendant was to have 10 per cent, discount for cash or 12 months' credit—if we can't get payment after the 12 months we charge interest—I only know the terms from our traveller—we have asked other customers 10 per cent, interest after the 12 months had expired—I was in the chair at the private meeting of creditors—the creditors did not tell the bankrupt that if he would give up the whole of his property and put in a caretaker they would not press him—this is not an "appro." note because it says "bought of;" it is simply a list of goods with prices which are not carried out.
WILLIAM JAMES BENNETT (Re-examined). One ring was pawned with me on 14th September, the day on which it was obtained—this is the ticket; it is for 4l. in the name of Mrs. Pleasance, 10, Exeter Terrace, and on 31st October three other rings were pawned for 8l. in the same name.
HORATIO WALTER NELSON . I am a jeweller's valuer, of 5, Hatton Garden—I have been appointed trustee in this bankruptcy—I received 35 pawn-tickets from the Official Receiver; they are here, and also the books—I find no entry of the pawnings in reference to the 35 tickets, and no entry of the cash as far as I understand the entries—I was at
the meeting on 22nd December when the tickets were given over—he said in answer to questions, that some brilliant rings were pledged, some by Mrs. Pleasance and some by Mrs. Brown—he refused to say who Mrs. Brown was.
Cross-examined. He never concealed that he had pawned goods—he handed over the tickets to the Official Receiver—I have had to investigate his affairs—his father-in-law helped him to set up, and gave him about 170l.—I do not know that one of the reasons why he filed his petition was that his father-in-law had withdrawn his help from him—I found nothing to indicate that—I have not heard that his father-in-law told some of the creditors that he thought his son-in-law was shaky—I saw nothing to indicate that his father-in-law, holding the lease, could have turned him out and transferred it to somebody else—I was not present at the first meeting—business was very bad all last year, and a young man trying to get a start as a jeweller would have a very uphill fight—wholesale houses are very ready and anxious to do business, and their travellers go round cutting against one another.
Re-examined. The father-in-law merely held the lease as a deposit, for security.
JAMES BRETT (City Detective Sergeant). I took the prisoner on February 2nd on a warrant from the Mansion House—I told him the charge—he said "What I have done has been in the ordinary way of my trade"—the warrant was read to him at the station, and he said "I have never done business with a person named Symons."
Cross-examined. The warrant he was arrested on was the obtaining of four pencil-cases from Mordan-and Co., but it said with Symons.
GUILTY .— Two Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.
EDWIN CHERWIN . I live at Ripley, Derbyshire, and work in a coal pit—on November 29th I advertised a gun in the Exchange and Mart newspaper and received this letter. (This was on a memorandum of G. R. Short, Hulton Road, Sunderland, dated December 4th, requesting that the gun might be sent at once, when a post-office order would be sent for the amount.) I wrote an answer and then received this letter. (On a similar billhead signed G. R. Short, again requesting him to send the gun.) I sent it and also a powder flask, and then got this letter: "Sir, I have received the gun all right; I have sent it to a man to see what he thinks of it, and will send you cash in due course. December 14th"—I afterwards received this letter: "December 21st. I will send you post-office order in the course of a day or so; I am expecting some money for some geese, and will send you the money as soon as they arrive; send me word if I promised cash. G. R. Short"—I never got my money, and I never saw the gun again.
Cross-examined. I asked 35s. for it—I noticed the bad spelling in the letters.
EDWARD THOMAS JOHNSON . I am an oil and colourman, of 93, Tufnell Park Road—on December 4th I advertised a Geneva watch in the Exchange and Mart, for my wife, and on 9th December received this letter. (This was on the same billhead from George Short, requesting him to send the watch, when he would forward a post-office order.) I sent the watch in a
registered letter and then received this letter of 11th December. (From George Short, acknowledging the receipt of the watch, and promising to send the money.) On 20th December I received this letter. (This stated "I will send you the cash for the watch; I have a lot of money out and cannot comply with your wish at once. George R. Short.") I never got the watch back or the money.
Cross-examined. I should have been willing to wait for the money, had I not seen a notice in the Bazaar that he was up to his old game again.
HENRY MARRICK . I am an accountant, of Richmond—I advertised a boy's suit of clothes, price 27s. 6d., in the Exchange, and received this letter. (Dated December 8th from George R. Short, asking him to send the cloths at once, and he would send a post-office order.) I sent the clothes to him, and received this letter of 14th December: "I have received the suit all safe, and will send you cash in due course. George R. Short"—I wrote to him again and received this letter: "lam very sorry I have not sent you the post-office order, I have sent 9l. to Storhead for geese, and will send you when I receive it. G. R. Short"—I never received the money or got the suit back.
Cross-examined. He always wrote from the same address.
JOHN MCKENZIE . I live at Grove Court, Sittingbourne—on 13th October I advertised in the Exchange and Mart an aluminium watch for 15s., and received this letter: "Dear Sir,—Send me off at once the aluminium watch at your price, as soon as watch is delivered safe I will remit the 15s."—Milton Road in that letter has been altered to Milton Street, Sunderland—I sent the watch at once, but never got it back or the money—I received this letter: "Dear Sir,—I have received the watch all safe, and will send you the P.O.O. when I get settled down next week. January 23rd. GEORGE SHORT."
JAMES BREBNER (Detective Sergeant, Sunderland). I have known the prisoner eight or nine years; he is not a contractor or general dealer—he does no work; he lives in a back kitchen at 3s. 6d. a week—I know another man named Sumbey.
Cross-examined. He has dealt in this fashion, and we have many complaints about him—some geese came to the station about Christmas, and he had great trouble to get them away, in fact another man got them away—I have seen some of his witnesses, and he gave the name of one, but he has not worked under him for eight years.
Re-examined. I did not inquire of those people; I inquired at Sunderland, and found he had done work there eight years ago.
He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court in February, 1884, of obtaining goods by false pretences.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
375. GEORGE SUMBEY (35) , Unlawfully obtaining two diamond rings by false pretences with intent to defraud. Second Count, attempting to obtain a watch with intent to defraud. Other Counts, for obtaining other articles with a like intent.
MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted.
JOHN DAVIS . I live at 56, Eagle Street, Holborn—in December last I advertised in the Exchange and Mart, a duplex silver watch, price 25s., and received this letter. (Dated December 2nd, 1885, from John Devan, requesting him to send the watch, and a P. O.O. would be sent on on delivery.)
I sent the watch to that address about a week afterwards, and received it back, as the prisoner had gone away, and the police had got it.
EDWARD THOMAS JOHNSON . I am an oil and colourman, of 93, Tufnell Park Road—on December 18th I advertised a diamond ring in the Exchange and Mart, and on 19th December received this answer. (From John Davidson, fancy dealer, 79, Norfolk Street, North Shields, requiting him to send the diamond ring.) I sent it and also another; the two were worth 3l.—I did so believing that John Davidson was carrying on a genuine business at that address.
JOHN NICHOLINE BALIS , M.R.C.S. I practise at North Shields—I have been in attendance on Mrs. Annie Phillips, who is in the last stage of pulmonary consumption and unable to leave her home. (The deposition of Annie Phillips was here read as follows: "I live at 79, Norfolk Street, North Shields—I am a widow, and let apartments there—the prisoner Sumbey took a room from me in the name of John Davidson on the 16th December—he received letters at that address in the name of John Davidson—I took the letters in for a week and handed them to him—on the Thursday before Christmas I handed him two registered letters—he never stayed in the house—he said he would come the next day, but he never came. ANNIE PHILLIPS."
CASSANDRA COSTON WOODS . I live at Loundes Road—in March last I advertised a set of gold studs, and received this letter from J. Devan: "Dear Miss,—If you have not sold the 15-carat studs please send them to my address, P.O.O. on delivery"—I sent them by registered post, and received no answer—I wrote again, and got no answer or money.
LANSDOWNE (Police Inspector). I apprehended short—I have seen the prisoner write—these three letters are in his writing.
Cross-examined. He asked for Miss Mackie and others to be brought as witnesses; I do not remember their names—I did not say that I did not think it worth while getting the witnesses here—I have some of the prisoner's admitted writing here, plenty of it—I saw him write once—he was tried with another man.
JAMES BREBNER (Detective Sergeant, Sunderland). I have made inquiries—the prisoner lodges at 3, Cumberland Street, Monkwearmouth, in a small scullery at 2s. 6d. a week—he is a bricklayer—he has worked lately in Sunderland—he does not deal in fancy birds.
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, denied obtaining any goods under the name of Devan, and complained that his witnesses had no been brought up, he being too poor to pay them.
He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court of a like offence in February, 1884.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Friday, March 12th, Saturday, 13th, and Monday, 15th, 1886.
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR CHAS. RUSSELL), with MR. POLAND, Prosecuted;
Richard Belt, MR. KEMP, Q.C., with MR. CHARLES MATHEWS, for Walter Belt.
THOMAS WILLIAM KINO . I am manager to George Smith, pawnbroker and jeweller, of 163, Brompton Road—on 8th Oct., 1883, I sold some jewellery to Walter Belt—I knew him before that as Walter Belt—the jewellery was a diamond tiara for 450l., a diamond necklace for 575l., a z pair of diamond earrings for 80l., another pair of diamond earrings for 350l., and a half hoop ring for 80l.—these (produced) I believe are the articles—he paid for them in notes—they were delivered to him at the time and he took them away—they are all secondhand jewellery, some of them are unredeemed pledges—I do not think Walter Belt stated what he wanted them for—I knew him as a dealer, more in jewellery than in anything else—I did not know him as a photographer at that time, I did not know his address then—this was not the first time he had bought anything of me, he had not bought anything to so great an amount—I cannot give the exact dates when he had bought anything, it might have been a few months before, perhaps to the value of 20l. or 30l., perhaps 50l.—on 10th October he bought of me a cat's-eye diamond bracelet for 240l.—this is it; also this horseshoe pendant for 125l., and this brilliant cross for 75l.—he did not tell me what he wanted them for—he paid me in bank notes in the same way—on 27th November, 1883, he bought of me a pair of diamond and pearl earrings for 130l.; I believe these are the same—also this pair of horseshoe earrings for 65l.; they were all paid for in cash—on 12th January, 1884, he bought of me this large diamond spray for 550l.—I don't think he said what he wanted it for—he paid for it in cash.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. Walter Belt dealt in miscellaneous property, which might be included under the term "works of art"—I did not tell him that all the jewels belonged to one lady—I probably said that some of them belonged to a lady, and he could have them cheap, and that was true—I did sell them to him cheap—I should not have sold them to the public at those prices; I should have charged more if I considered them separately—there is no fixed price for jewellery of this description—jewels intrinsically worth 500l. are frequently sold for 1,500l. or more; there is nothing uncommon in that—there are diamonds and stones upon which it is very difficult to fix a value, fine stones, for which there is a limited sale—on certain things you might get an enormous profit, the great difficulty is to find a purchaser—all these stones would not be correctly described as old; I should say the stones in the tiara sold at 450l. were old stones—that was an article that had come into our possession by making an advance on it—I think the necklace at 375l. is not an old jewel; it was not made up by us, we purchased it in the trade—I could not tell the date of the spray; I think it is foreign—I don't think the stones are very old; the mounting is foreign—I should hardly like to express an opinion upon it—I know that Walter Belt has traded as Coote and Co. lately.
Re-examined. That was as a photographer in Ovington Square—he told me so himself; I cannot say when exactly, a year ago I dare say—he was a dealer in objects of art—he bought different small things of us; I cannot say exactly what, painted fans and things of that sort—he has taken pictures on approval; I do not think he ever bought any pictures; he would sell them if ho got a buyer, if not he would return them—some
of these jewels were unredeemed pledges under special contracts belonging to different ladies, pledged at different times—some we bought at auction sales—the necklace and spray we bought; for the necklace we gave something like 500l.—that was shortly before the resale to Walter Belt, we had not had it longer—it might have been from Welby and Son that we bought it—the spray, I think, cost us about 515l.; I believe that was bought from Jones, of Long Acre—I should have asked you more for it, I do not think I should have cared to sell it in that way; I sold it to Walter Belt because he bought other things, and I considered him a dealer—I think we had the spray from Jones on approbation, I do not know that it was to show to Walter Belt, I am not sure about that, we frequently have things on approval—we sold it at a profit, I believe—the necklace from Welby was in the same way—we had not invested any money in the purchase of those two things—I do not think the same thing applied to several of the other things I sold to Walter Belt, I do not remember them—I never mentioned to, Walter Belt or any one else that these jewels were the property of a Mrs. Morphy, an ex-mistress of the Sultan, no name was mentioned, I never heard of such a person—I did not state to him that they were very old jewels of a person who under necessity was obliged to sell them; there was no statement made to him.
By the JURY. When we purchase an article we make an entry of it in a book—I have not got that book here—we mark our things with a private mark—the mark on the bracelet would probably be taken off—we do not scratch them, some do—we sometimes make a slight mark, not always.
JAMES TAGUS SHOUT . I am a goldsmith and jeweller at Albert Gate, Knightsbridge—on 10th October, 1883, Walter Belt bought of me a diamond collet necklace for 450l.—I believe this (produced) is the one; that would be about the price—I believe these to be old stones; they are not backed, it is not usual to back—I knew Walter Belt slightly before that transaction; I had known him to look in at my place and look at different things from time to time—I do not recollect that he had made any purchase—I knew him by name; I did not know his address, I knew his brother's address—I understood him to be a dealer in jewellery—it was paid for in notes—he said he had a customer who would buy it of him—it was a sale out and out—I made no statement to him as to where I had got it from—it was not mine, it was the property of a lady who had left it with me to sell for her; that was not Mrs. Morphy or an ex-mistress of the Sultan—on 14th November, 1883, Walter Belt bought a diamond bracelet for 235l.; he paid me for it—I got it for him, knowing that he was looking out for some jewellery at that time—I believe it came from Messrs. Welby, manufacturing jewellers, of Garrick Street—he did not tell me any particular person for whom he was looking for jewellery—on 5th December that year he bought of me the diamond spray produced for 150l., which I got from Jones, manufacturing jeweller, of Long Acre—to the best of my belief the smaller of these two collect necklaces was the one I sold him, not the one I first saw—now I come to look at the two I do not believe either of these is the necklace I sold—it is nearly three years ago since I have seen them—450l. represents about the value—I should call these modern stones on the smaller of the two—neither of these came from Welby—the one I sold to Walter Belt did not come from Welby, it was the property of a lady.
HENRY JONES . I am a manufacturing jeweller, of 19, Long Acre—on 10th January, 1884, Walter Belt bought of me two rings, two diamond bracelets, an emerald set, a cross, and some diamond earrings, in one lot, for 706l.—I did not know him before—I do not recollect whether he gave me his name at the time—it was a ready money transaction; he paid me in bank-notes and gold—he did not tell me what he wanted them for, or what his trade was—some of the articles were new and some secondhand—I made no statement to him as to where I had got them from—I have a large stock of jewellery—the stones to the earrings are new, Cape stones; the diamond bracelets are Cape; the emerald pendant is old, the cross is old—the diamond earrings are not here—on 10th April, 1884, he bought of me a diamond pendant for 57l. 10s.—I do not remember whether that was old or new; I have not seen it; it was an article in stock.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. When I speak of new stones I mean Cape and the other stones, Brazilians—we are manufacturing jewellers; we sell to the trade; we sell retail slightly, but practically our business is selling to the trade—we are known throughout London to persons who deal in jewellery; if they want jewellery to sell retail they would come to us as being likely to get what they want.
Re-examined. I sold to Walter Belt as I should to any one, without inquiry as to his purpose or anything else.
WILLIAM MEYER . I am manager to Welby and Sons, manufacturing jewellers, of Garrick Street, Covent Garden—on 14th October, 1884, I sold to Walter Belt this Cape diamond for 470l.—he paid 20l. on account, and left it with us to mount as it is now, old-fashioned, as an old stone—we did it for him—he called on 6th November, paid for the mounting, and took it away—that was not my first transaction with him; we had a transaction on 4th October, 1884—no name occurred on the first transaction, but on the second, on the 14th, he gave the name of Coote—he did not give any address or any description of himself—the transaction n the 4th was a diamond collect necklace for 362l. 10s.—to the best of my belief this (produced) is the one—this was an article we had in stock; these are Cape stones—I made no statement to him as to how I became possessed of these two articles—they were paid for in cash—these (produced) are single-stone brooches; I do not identify them with any certainty; they are Cape stones—I think they have been in my stock, the two I am referring to, the third I do not recognise—if these are the two I believe they are, the price would be 188l. 15s.—I am referring to our sale book; it may or may not be my entry—on 11th November there is a sale of two stones of about this size; that is in the writing of one of our clerks—I see the entries from time to time; I see all the entries of sales, and know of the transactions—I do not think those two were sold to Walter Belt, not sold direct to him; they were sold to a diamond broker, who again sold them on commission for us—this third stone is a Cape diamond; the value of that is about 150l.; that is the largest of the three—this diamond bracelet is not one we sold—the centre stone is Cape certainly; the value of it is about 200l.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. I should think the weight of this stone is nearly 20 carats—I value a stone at per carat; the worth of two-carat stones being worth double than one, that does not apply to stones of this quality, on'y to rare and valuable stones—I value this stone at so much per carat,
it would not increase in value pro rata according to the weight—in ordinary stones of this character a stone of 20 carats would only be worth 20 times one carat, that is the way it is valued in the trade—I can't recognise this jewel as having passed through our hands; I don't know where it comes from—large stones of this kind are not of a very speculative character; the market varies from week to week—in the retail business we do not frequently get a large sum for a diamond of this kind—we are wholesale dealers, we have retail customers—in selling we make a slight difference in favour of dealers—this is the jewel which was set as an old stone—the diamonds round the centre one of this bracelet may possibly be Brazilian stones, it has an old style of setting—this centre stone is an unusually large one—Walter Belt said he wished it set in the old style—I should say we did not suggest that, we should have no reason for suggesting it—I have no recollection of his asking me what would be the best setting, and my suggesting as an old stone, and his saying very well—I could not undertake to say that did not occur, I don't remember it—it would not be at all unusual for a customer to discuss with me the way in which a stone should be set, he would seek my advice upon it—I cannot undertake to say that Walter Belt did not do that—I did not know him as a dealer—I have a distinct recollection of seeing him three or four times, if not more—on some occasions he was seen by other persons in our firm—I can't say that we had had this stone in our possession long—I describe it as a Cape diamond, no other description; a fair brilliant cut Cape diamond—there are such things as black diamonds, but they are very scarce; a black diamond looks almost like a piece of coal—no one would suppose this was a black diamond, it would not answer that description at all, it is a decided yellow.
Re-examined. I have not referred to the price I gave for it, it was much more than 290l., 390l. would be nearer the mark; I sold it for 400l.—it is not a black diamond—when I had it it was loose, not in any setting at all—it was a new stone; we charged 3l. 10s. for setting it—this bracelet I value at about 200l.; I should make a difference of from 5 to 10 per cent, on such an article between a retail and wholesale dealer, not more; not as much as between 200l. and 1,000l., not possible.
By the COURT. There are other things besides the weight of a diamond that affect its value; its color, shape, and brilliancy—a flaw would be detrimental to its value—there are times when flaws can only be seen by the aid of a glass—several circumstances affect the value; freedom from flaws would affect the price of a Cape diamond—we price our diamonds after they are cut—the cost price varies very much from 4l. to 10l. a carat—I think the price was higher in October and November, 1888—I should think the difference between the present value and the value in 1883 was 20 per cent, more—I think 40l. ought to be added to represent the value of this.
GEORGE HENRY LEWIS . I am a solicitor—I am acting for Sir William Abdy in this prosecution—this matter was first put into my hands some few days before I wrote the first letter of 14th July, 1885—originally Lady Abdy was in England, and brought me the jewels—this is the letter of the 14th. (Read: "To R. Belt, Esq. Sir,—We have been instructed by Sir William Abdy to commence an action against you for fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of various jewels to him, whereby you have defrauded him of a very large sum of money; and further, to rescind an alleged
contract for the purchase of jewels, and also to recover 2,000l., money advanced to you. Sir William Abdy is now alive to the fact that under the pretence of friendship you have abused your opportunities, to deceive and defraud him; and, being satisfied of this, it is the intention of Sir William to carry these proceedings to trial. We have to request, during to-morrow, the name of your solicitor, to whom we may forward writ for undertaking, to avoid the unpleasantness of personal service upon yourself—Yours obediently, LEWIS and LEWIS.") In answer to that I received this letter, dated 15th July. (Read: "Gentlemen,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, charging me with fraudulently misrepresenting to Sir William Abdy the value of certain jewels I procured for him at his express request. I most positively deny the charge of fraud, having named to him such prices only as were given me by the person from whom they were obtained. I am quite ready to take back the jewels and to hand Sir William the money he has paid me for them, but I make this offer without prejudice to any question which may arise in case my offer be refused.—Faithfully yours, RICHARD BELT.") I replied to that by this letter of 17th July. (Read: "Sir,—We are in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant. Sir William Abdy in no way withdraws the charge he has made against you, but inasmuch as you express yourself willing to take back the jewels, and return Sir William the money he has paid for them, we are prepared to accept that proposal. The amount you have received from Sir William Abdy for the jewels and interest, in connection with the two agreements, amounts to 8,410l.; that amount we shall require to be paid in bank notes against delivery of the jewels at 12 on Wednesday next. We shall also require repayment of 2,000l. advanced by Sir William Abdy to you.—Yours obediently, LEWIS and LEWIS.") I then received this letter of the 22nd. (Read; "Gentlemen,—In reference to your favour to me of the 17th July instant, I beg leave to say that as Sir William Abdy declines to withdraw the scandalous accusations he now makes against me, I withdraw the offer I made through you to take back the jewels. I have abundant written proofs in my possession to prove how unjust and false these accusations are. With regard to the alleged advance to me of 2,000l., that was given me by Sir William Abdy for various services I had rendered him, by his written instructions, in investigating a matter of a very delicate nature which the letters having reference to this business very fully explain, but which I should be very sorry should be made public. So much engaged was I in this business, and so much of my time wasted, that this 2,000l. does not cover my loss combined with the money paid out of pocket for investigations, &c.; and in respect of which I still have a claim against Sir William; I have also commissions for work from Sir William and Lady Abdy now in progress, and remain, faithfully yours, RICHARD BELT.") I wrote an answer to that on the same day. (This stated that as he had not kept his promise, and as his claim for 2,000l. was false, they were instructed to take proceedings, requesting the name of his solicitor, and sending writ by bearer.) That was the end of the correspondence—I produce the writ in the action—it is dated 14th July, 1886—it was brought for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation whereby the plaintiff was induced to purchase from the defendant certain jewellery, and to rescind a certain agreement for the purchase of certain jewellery, and for certain money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant
—Messrs. Lumley and Lumley, solicitors, appeared for Richard Belt on that writ—on 4th August, 1885, I delivered a statement of claim—I produce the defence in answer to that, signed "Henry Winch," as Counsel, and purporting to be delivered on 22nd November, 1885, by Messrs. Lumley and Lumley. (By the statement of claim Sir William Abdy claimed 2,000l., money lent, and 12,000l. damages, and the rescinding of the two agreements of 10th January, 1884, and 14th June, 1885. The defence admitted the representations alleged, but alleged that they were made in good faith; it also admitted that plaintiff was entitled to judgment, with all costs of action.) Subsequently an application was made to the Divisional Court to sign judgment against the defendant on that defence—Counsel appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crisp for the defendant—it was made in open Court on 25th November, 1885, and it came on to be heard on 25th November, 1885, and judgment was ordered to be entered for the plaintiff—here is the original order of the Divisional Court: "Upon consent of Counsel, on the statement of defence and statement of claim, the judgment is for 2,000l., money lent by Sir William Abdy, 12,000l. damages in respect of the fraudulent misrepresentation, and to rescind the two agreements under which Sir William Abdy would have had to pay upwards of 6,000l. further to Richard Belt if the agreements had been carried out"—ultimately Messrs. Lumley and Lumley sent me a cheque for 100l.—no payment has been made except that, either for claim or costs—Richard Belt was afterwards adjudged bankrupt—the receiving order was on 24th December, 1885; the adjudication was on 4th February, 1886—up to the time of the bankruptcy proceedings no due whatever, as far as I know, had been obtained as to the history of these diamonds, or where they had been obtained from—I applied for a summons against the two defendants, which was granted by Mr. Yaughan, of Bow Street—I don't remember the date.
Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. Before Lady Abdy's visit to me I had never been concerned for Sir William or Lady Abdy—I really forget whether Lady Abdy brought me a letter of introduction or not, I think Mr. Harrison, of the firm of Harrison, Ingram, and Co., of Lincoln's Inn Fields, sent me a letter of introduction; I have had so much pass through my mind since that, I should not like to say positively, but that is my impression—I had seen Sir W. Abdy before the letter of 14th July; I had seen Lady Abdy, I should say a few days previously, probably three days—Sir William was in Paris, and Lady Abdy had come from Paris to London, and Sir William followed two or three days after—I saw him for the first time, just before I wrote the letter of the 14th July—I was not aware that Lady Abdy had been making inquiries in London about the jewellery; I did not hear from her that she had been to Mr. Beyfus—she did not bring me any photographs, she brought me certain portions of jewellery; she brought me a great quantity; I took no note of it—I sent it on to the Union Bank; after I had shown it to a jeweller—I did not make a list of it before I sent it to the bank; I have not a list of it even now—I might tell you what the articles were if you suggested them to me—I think I might possibly remember some of the large ones—I cannot tell whether she showed me the large diamond in the old setting; I should not like to swear it, for I could not tell what she did bring; she brought a great quantity—Sir William Abdy brought the rest subsequently, he went over to Paris and fetched it—I did not hear that it had been pawned in Paris
—I had been concerned against Richard Belt in an action, not for a long time, I defended one action, that was all—I am not prepared with the dates, which has it to do with this case?
By the COURT. It was the action of Belt v. Lawes, it was a long trial, and the case was longer after that; it went to many other Courts—I was solicitor for the defence; I acted for Sir John Lawes—it was the last case in which a verdict was had in Westminster Hall.
By MR. CLARKE. In the bankruptcy proceedings I appeared as solicitor for Sir W. Abdy, and also instructed by the Official Receiver, Mr. William Harding—I can't say that I cross-examined Richard Belt there on 7th and 12th January—I examined him indirectly—it was that examination that told me where the jewels had come from—in answer to those questions he gave me certain little clues, which led to my making further inquiries and ascertaining ultimately whereabouts the jewellery came from—he said he could not remember for certain; he said he remembered the name of Shout, and Jones and Son—I turned to the Directory to look for a wholesale dealer—that examination of 7th and 12th January was the first clue I had as to where the diamonds came from—I also examined Walter Belt—on the 13th January I applied for criminal process against them; I should have applied much earlier—I should never have brought an action if I could have ascertained what the facts were.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. Walter Belt was not a defendant in the action, and no party to those proceedings.
ALFRED BEYFUS . I am a solicitor of the firm of Beyfus and Beyfus—my brother is the other partner—there are no other solicitors of that name, and I believe there is no other firm of any kind of that name—I never made any advance on any jewels belonging to a Mrs. Morphy, or anybody else—my father is living, but he is not in any business; he has not been in business for the last 12 or 14 years—I have an uncle of the same name, he is not in business; if he was ever in business it must have been some very long time ago, 15 or 16 years—I know nothing about the jewellery that has been produced, or any part of it.
Cross-examined by MR. E. CLARKE. It has never been part of my professional practice to lend money on jewellery; if one of my relatives has done so it must have been many years ago, because I know what my relatives did—if he had lent money on jewellery I should not know it, but I know he has not been in business for 14 or 15 years—I have a recollection of Lady Abdy calling at my office, but I have never seen her; I do not know that she ever did call at my office; she certainly was not referred to a relative of mine to make inquiries of him—I do not know that she did make some inquiries—I heard from Mr. Lewis that he had made some inquiries of an uncle of mine—he is not a solicitor—he has not lent money from time to time, not at all to my knowledge—he is living.
SIR WILLIAM NEVILLE ABDY, BART . I live in Paris—in 1883 I made the acquaintance of Richard Belt; I think it was a little earlier than June, it was in the beginning of 1883 to the best of my knowledge—he was an acquaintance of my wife's, that was the way in which I came to make his acquaintance—in October, 1883, I lent him a sum of 2,000l.; I got no security, and charged him no interest; that money is still unpaid—in September, 1883, he came with me from Paris to London, and put up at the Grosvenor Hotel—it was in October that anything was
first mentioned about jewellery, the same month in which I lent him the 2,000l.—he said that he knew a lady who was very badly off and who had owned some of the most beautiful jewellery, and to raise money she had left it with a Mr. Beyfus, who had lent her money upon it at a comparatively small price and at enormous interest—he mentioned the name of the lady, a Mrs. Morphy, that the Sultan had given them to her because she had been his mistress, that they were said to be Indian and Brazilian stones—he told me that—on that day they were not produced; it was the next day, or the day after, that I first saw any of them—he said they were worth having because they were very fine stones, and I should not pay the enormous prices that jewellers usually charged, that it was an occasion not to be let pass by—next day, or the day after, a man came to the hotel with a hand-bag containing jewel cases—Richard Belt had said that a man would bring them—he was there when the man came; he was with me when the man was there—I am not sure whether he came with the man; I had made no appointment—on that day I bought the tiara and the wide necklace; this is the tiara—I do not know who the man was that brought them, it was not Walter Belt—I do not recollect what price was put on the tiara—I bought several other things besides this in October in one lot at different times—I bought the tiara and necklace on the first day, and something else, I am not sure what; the cross belonged to that lot to the best of my belief—I bought the first lot within three or four days from the first production of the jewellery—among them were two sets of earrings, single stones, a cross, a ring, a cat's-eye and diamond bracelet, and a horseshoe pendant—there was no other bracelet to the best of my belief—these before me are the things I bought in October—I gave for this lot, if my memory serves me right, 3,000l. and something; I believe so; it was really more, I paid some more money which I cannot swear to, it was considerably' over 3,000l.—first of all I gave a cheque for 1,980l. and a bill for 870l., which no doubt I afterwards met; I did not meet it at maturity, but it was ultimately paid—this is the cheque, dated 8th October, payable to self or bearer—the bill is dated 10th October; it is endorsed "Richard Belt," and stamped "A. Artis, poulterer, 18, Motcombe Street"—the cheque was payable to "order;" that is struck out, and "bearer" put—I did that for this reason, Mr. Belt told me it would not do to put the name of Belt on it—I did not cross it, it was given over from hand to hand—I was not asked to cross it—I always cross cheques when for a large sum—I was told that Mr. Praed used to draw the money that was due from the trial, and therefore the money would be stopped by Mr. Praed if it passed through his hands—in addition to those two sums, which together make 2,855l., there were two payments of 1,000l. and 700l. paid to Richard Belt by ray solicitor—those two sums had no relation whatever to this jewellery—all I paid in relation to the lots I bought in October were the cheques for 1,985l., the bill for 870l., and something more that I cannot trace—to the best of my belief I gave a cheque on Coutts' payable to self; but as there was more than one that I drew at that time I could not swear which it was—I afterwards saw a riviere, but that transaction did not take place in October—it was some time in the winter following, the winter of 1883-4—I cannot swear to the date—in buying this jewellery I relied on the representations and statements made by Richard Belt as true—I had no idea or knowledge that the jewellery had been obtained about
that same time from Mr. Smith, the pawnbroker—the riviere was produced to me in October, but the transaction was carried out later, December it might be, or January, or February—I did not see Walter Belt in reference to the first set of transactions—Richard Belt said the riviere belonged to some lady, part of the same jewels that had been previously mentioned—I recollect one day being with Richard Belt at my hotel, the Grosvenor, when Walter Belt appeared (Walter Belt: "It is false")—he brought the riviere in a case in his hand, or in his pocket—he brought it up to my bedroom—it was in the evening about 5—I had no sitting-room—I was only in London for a few days—they did not come in together—Richard was with me and Walter brought in the riviere—I had not made any appointment that Walter should bring it—that was the first time I had seen him in relation to those jewels—I had seen him before and spoken to him—I looked at the riviere and examined it—I have no knowledge whatever of the value of jewels and no experience in the matter—I had bought jewellery before then at jewellers' and paid for it, and had done with it, I don't care for it—Richard Belt told me this was a very fine thing—he did not tell me directly to buy it, but he held it out as a very beautiful thing—Walter said it was a very beautiful thing too, and old Brazilian stones—I am not quite sure that Walter said that, Richard did—I think he said it in Walter's presence when we three were together, but I would not swear to it—at the end of the interview Richard Belt said to Walter, "Mind you don't lose the receipt you have for it," or, "Get the receipt back, mind you don't lose it, take it back," or something to that effect—I understood from him that he had given a receipt for it—I remember distinctly the words he was not to lose the jewels—he was to get the receipt back that he gave for it I understood—afterwards I understood from what was said that he was to get the receipt, he had given for the jewels—he said something about a receipt, and then he said ho was not to lose the jewels—I understood he had given a receipt for the jewels—he was to take care of the jewels and not lose them, and get back the receipt—I understood so—I can't say the exact words—Walter said "All right, I will see to that"—I think something was said that day about the price, 1,000l.—that was the price I was to give—I afterwards agreed to buy it and paid 1,000l. for it—I had no suspicion or idea at that time that this had been purchased from Messrs. Welby for 450l. (Mr. Meyer. I am not sure whether this came from me or Mr. Shout; one collet necklace is so much like another I should not like to express any opinion.) The 1,000l. was paid for it—in the beginning of January, 1884, or the end of December, Richard Belt spoke to me again about the purchase of jewellery—he said he had another very fine lot of jewels of the same sort belonging to the same Mrs. Morphy; very valuable old stones—I said I could not afford any extravagance at the present moment—he said it was a pity I could not—that was all he said; he seemed to be reflecting—I said "Could not anybody lend money upon them; if they were very fine things we might acquire them in that way;" and did he know anybody who would do it—he said he would see and look for some one—he came back on the morrow, or after the morrow, and said a friend of his, a medical man, had consented to do so—he concealed the name of the medical man, he did not seem anxious to give his name, he would not tell me who he was—he said he lived at Kensington, that he would find the money, that he had not it ready; he had to realise by
sale, I did not exactly understand what, some house property securities—I asked what interest had to be paid for it; that I thought five per cent was very good interest at present—he said that would not suffice, because the selling out of the securities cost him money, and he might have to wait a long time, when I refunded the money, for another investment, and on account of that his friend wanted six per cent—I agreed to that—he said it was wonderfully fine jewellery—then the dates were settled when the interest was to be paid—we drew up a mutual agreement—these (produced) are the agreements; this is my writing, I wrote it out in Richard Belt's presence, it was the composition of both of us—they are dated 10th January—Richard Belt signed this one, and I signed the other, and he made out this duplicate list of the jewellery. (By these agreements Richard Belt agreed to pay the witness 4,500l., at a charge of six per cent interest per annum; the list of the jewels was annexed, amounting to 5,200l.; some articles were struck out.) The list was first of all complete, and afterwards some articles were struck out when the jewellery was delivered—I bought them in October, 1885, I think; in January, 1884, I had seen all the articles, Richard Belt showed them to me; he took them away with him—when this agreement was entered into I believed the statements he made to me about the jewellery, and about the medical man—the jewellery was not in my possession when I signed the agreement—I never received a penny of the 4,600l.—I was to pay six per cent interest on the amount, and he was to keep the jewels—I thought I was secured by the loan he got from the medical man—I understood the medical man had lent Richard Belt 4,500l., and that he had paid it to Mrs. Morphy—I was to get the jewels as I pleased, as I chose to buy them, as I paid up the 4,500l.—the value was put against each separate article, and I could buy them article by article, I paying interest in the meantime—this is my cheque for 135l. on Coutts and Co., dated 7th April, 1884, in favour of Richard Belt—this is his endorsement—I drew this in Paris, and sent it to him, it was for the half-year's interest—I sent it a few days before it was payable—I believe I paid 100l. in money in May for a pair of diamond earrings—they were delivered to me—this cheque, dated 26th May, is my cheque on Praed's, one of my bankers; it is payable to Richard Belt, and is endorsed by him—I gave it to him to pay for the earrings—he gave me the earrings shortly before on the understanding that I was to give him a cheque afterwards; those earrings are struck out of the list—afterwards two diamond bracelets of 400l. each were delivered to me, but they are not struck out—Walter Belt delivered them to me I believe in June, 1885; the pearl and diamond earrings were delivered at the same time, I did not pay for them—I paid 170l. to Richard Belt for the horseshoe earrings, in October or beginning of November, 1884; they are struck out of the list—I also paid 250l. for the Maltese cross at the same time—the emerald and pendant earrings were delivered to me last summer, the same time as the others, and not paid for—the two half-hoop rings were delivered to me in Paris by Walter Belt, and were not paid for—the two diamond rings for 195l. were also delivered to me last summer by Walter Belt, and not paid for—this cheque of 7th November, 1884, for 830l., was drawn for the purpose of paying for some of those things—this spray for 1,400l. was delivered to me by Walter Belt in May or June, 1885, and not paid for—this cheque of 1st October, 1884, for 235l., is made payable to Richard
Belt, and is endorsed by him; 135l. of that is for interest on the loan, and the 100l. he told me was wanted for the lady towards meeting her engagements with Mr. Beyfus, as he wanted 100l. more to keep the jewellery for her or it would be lost—about August, 1884, I had a conversation with Richard Belt about some rivieres, he said he had a medium sized one and he could get a smaller one and a larger one, so as to wear the three together, and that they were very valuable old stones—he said they were either Indian or Brazilian—he said they were well worth what I should give, or more, because they were not to be found, and that they came from the same source as the other ones—he also mentioned a bracelet with a black diamond on it, and a single black diamond as a brooch, and a tiara which he said also came from Mr. Beyfus and would be a very good investment, and I agreed to buy the bracelet—I told him I could not afford to buy jewellery then, and he said the same thing could be done then as had been done before—I had not come to any definite arrangements with him at this time—subsequently in October I saw him, when he showed me the bracelet and the large yellow single diamond and the small riviere which he said his brother had secured for me so as to make it safe—as to the money, he said he would do it in the same way—he said. "You can redeem these, and the balance my friend will supply," and we could put them at the bank as security for the money advanced on them, that I was to pay 6 per cent interest, and as I chose to buy them they were to be delivered to me—at that time no agreement had been entered into—at the end of October, while in Paris, I received this letter from Mr. Belt, with this agreement of 14th June, 1885, and also this list of jewellery, in Richard Belt's writing. (Read: "My dear Sir William,—I feel by your letter that things are more peaceful. I hope it may be so. It does seem hard that at this moment, when I believe money is of so much use to you, that you are obliged to adopt the plan you suggest for the purpose of removing this absurd idea, but you know if it is worth it, and feel certain will do what you think best for all concerned. Enclosed is a notification that I am answerable to you for the diamonds, and I have worded it in a similar manner to the one you first wrote; but referring to the other jewels, I wish Morgan could have run over to you, for I really think a calm head may have done some good. I feel terribly the position I am in, and you know I will do anything in my power to assist in bringing back happiness to you both. Do try and get your wife away from Paris; it must be her health is bad, or she would never persist in these delusions. Tell her from me that it would be fearful if such matters became known. You know what I feel for you, and with heartfelt good wishes, ever yours, RICHARD BELT.") ("The following jewels were deposited with me during November, 1884, by Sir William Abdy, Bart., as (security for the sum of 5,200l. money lent, and for which sum he, Sir William, undertakes to pay 6 per cent per annum, payable half-yearly at the end of the third and ninth month. As the articles are redeemed interest discontinues. One large diamond 1,600l., one ditto bracelet 1,000l., three diamond studs 1,000l., one large riviere 1,000l., one small riviere 400l., total 5,200l. Signed RICHARD BELT.") All those jewels referred to in that list were delivered to me at Paris by Walter Belt in the summer of 1885—he told me, after being asked several times, that the large diamond was a black diamond, and he also said that they had not been changed—he said his brother had borrowed 6.000l. and refunded the medical man
who had found the money and got them all out from the bank, and who was much annoyed because he was afraid of being found out in infringing the Pawnbroker's Act, and he would have nothing more to say to the jewels at any price—Mr. Morgan paid 1,600l. for me out of that last lot—I afterwards handed all these jewels to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, andl they have been produced here to-day—altogether, personally and by my solicitor, I have paid about 8,000l. for these jewels—in July, 1885, I consulted my private solicitors, Messrs. Harrison, Ingram, and Co.—I knew before that, from Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, that these were not good jewels, but I did not know where they had come from—I afterwards left the matter in the hands of Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to do as they might think fit; they have had charge of the jewellery ever since.
Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. In October, 1883, I lent Richard Belt 2,000l. without interest—I have no direct receipt from him with regard to that—I have a document signed by Mr. William Morgan acknowledging the receipt of the 2,000l. which I paid him to pay over to Mr. Belt, but I have no document signed by Richard Belt with regard to it that I am aware of—I did not give him that money, I lent it him—at the end of September, 1883, I thought he had rendered services to me, but it is not true that I am under any obligations to him at all—I believed certain things to be true which I found out afterwards were not true—I believe I that he had acted well towards me, but I did not believe there were any serious obligations at all, nothing that was to be paid for with money—I did not believe he had done me considerable service—he had done me services which might or might not have occupied a good deal of his time and attention; but I did not believe he had put himself in danger in any way—when I wrote to him from Paris on 29th September, saying that everything should be done for his security and peace of mind, he had told me that he was being watched in the street, and I said I would do all I could to prevent his being watched, or his house being watched, which caused him, as he said, great anxiety and great worry—I don't know why he was being watched, I had no idea; he said it was because he was with me in working out something regarding a Mrs. Crow—I thought his security and peace of mind might be threatened in consequence of services he had rendered me, and I promised that when I came over to London I would do all I could to protect his security and peace of mind—what I meant by giving him security was to see how I could act to prevent his being watched—I did not believe that I was in danger when I came to London—I believed there was some plot that Mr. Belt told me about, got up against me; but I did not know there was any want of security—I knew nothing at all about these matters, except what Mr. Belt told me—he told me things that were true, one tiling that was perfectly true—other persons had not told me things, but there was a thing that proved itself, a thing that was beyond doubt—he told me the contents of one of my letters to Mr. Harrison, that was true—I was not under great obligation to him at the end of September—I believed he had acted well to me, but I did not believe I was under great obligation to him. (Part of a letter from the witness to Mr. Belt, dated 28th September, 1883, was read, in which was stated: "I shall arrive at Victoria and put up at the same hotel, under the same name, as I did last time.") I forget now what that name was, it might have been Allen or Ames, I can't remember—I did not want protection, I did not want anybody to
know I was in town—the letter says: "If you do not mind sharing my bed-room with me, we can protect one another"—that was a silly word to have written, nothing else—I wanted protection, that people should not know I was in London, nothing else; that was all I meant—he said that his house was being watched, and that he did not feel safe; he said that many times—I sent to my house at Queen's Gate for a revolver, which I gave him—I did not want it for myself, I gave it to him, because he said he wanted one—I kept nothing for myself, he kept it on his person, he carried it away with him—the letter says: "When I come to London I mean to set the matter at rest for ever and to see that you suffer no worry for the friendly act you have done me"—I meant that when I wrote it, I believed he had behaved well to me, certainly, I do not go beyond that—it was at the beginning of October that I handed him the 2,000l.—I had a receipt—I took no receipt from him, nor any I O U—I am not aware that in any subsequent correspondence I ever referred to the fact of lending him that money—I may have expressed my thanks to him for service he had rendered me, perhaps I did—the 2,000l. was lent to him; I have no note of my own that I had lent him that money—it was in October that I saw this jewellery, I forget whether it was in October that he went to Paris with me—I stayed at the Grosvenor Hotel with him under an assumed name for several days—my object was not at that time to get some jewellery for my wife—I don't remember whether she had had any jewellery stolen, I don't say none had been, but I don't remember it; I know nothing about any theft, I have not heard of it—I understand what you mean, it had been taken by somebody it had been entrusted to—I thought you meant housebreaking, it was breach of trust—I wanted to give some more jewellery to Lady Abdy—we never spoke of getting it from somebody also, to the best of my belief, I don't think so; I might have suggested getting some through Mr. Harrison, I won't swear it—I don't say I did not, but I won't swear that I did—it was not understood between myself and Lady Abdy that instead of asking Mr. Harrison, Mr. Belt should look for some; I mean that—he spoke to us about jewellery, but we never came together as wishing to buy it from him—I don't remember before I came to London that it was mentioned between Lady Abdy and myself that Mr. Belt should be asked to look out for some jewellery for me; I cannot remember it—I promised to get her some jewellery, that is another thing—I had not fixed a time, it was merely in general terms, it might be this year, or next—I did not when I came to London suggest to Mr. Belt to look out for some for me, because I could not go and buy it myself, I say that positively—he told me that he had had something to do with jewellery before; I don't know when—I never knew him as dealing in jewellery—he told me he had found a lady some jewellery, a great bargain—I forget the lady's name, or when or where he told me so—he mentioned that to me, before I bought anything of him, before October, 1883—I knew nothing whatever about jewellery; I had bought some diamonds when I was a bachelor, not since—I used to buy them, pay for them, and have done with them—I knew nothing at all about any jewels whatever—I never represented myself to Mr. Belt or anybody else as having experience and knowledge of diamonds, because it is not true that I had—I did not see the jewellery till a day or two after he had mentioned it to me—Mrs. Morphy's name was mentioned—I never heard or knew anything of a Mrs. Morphy except in this regard—it was not suggested to
me—beyond that of a person having a name there was no interest to me in the name—I have never mentioned the name of Mrs. Morphy in any letter written by me to him—I did not attach much importance to the lady being a mistress of the Sultan, I thought it was no business of mine, or what her character had been—when the jewels were brought to the hotel I saw them—I liked the shape of them; I knew nothing at all about the colour of the stones—I thought they were good diamonds, I believed the word of Mr. Richard Belt, but I knew nothing at all about diamonds—they pleased me as they would please a man who knew nothing at all about them, I liked the shape and design—I was asked to buy them, Belt asked me to buy them—he asked me in this way, he paraded them before me and spoke in their praise; he did not actually ask me to buy them, he said it would be a very wise thing if I did, it would be the best thing I could possibly do, and; I looked at them and came to the same conclusion, and bought them—the bill for 870l. was given then—on the back of the bill is the stamp of Artis, poulterer, Motcombe Street—I knew nothing at all about Mr. Artis with regard to the bill or the cheque for 1,985l.—I went on some day to Artis's shop about the cheque for 830l. dated 7th November, 1884—to the best of my memory I gave Mr. Belt a cheque on Coutts's at the same time, but I cannot trace it because it was made payable to self, and I cannot swear to it—I only banked with Coutts's then; when I came to London in October I had just opened an account at Praed's—Mr. Belt introduced me to Praed's—they advanced me some money, and I drew—I did not mention at the police-court about the cheque I could not trace, because I could not swear to it, and I have dropped it—Mr. Belt told me that these were Indian or Brazilian stones, and at that time showed me the tiara and the wide necklace—I have not, that I am aware of, represented to several people that I was a good judge of diamonds; I am not aware that I have said so to Mrs. Alston, my cousin's wife; I did not tell her so, I say so positively—if I told her that I had seen some diamonds in Vienna which I particularly admired, I did not tell the truth, because I have not been to Vienna since I knew what a diamond means, not since I was quite a boy, so it is quite impossible—I might have said so, if I did it was a silly thing; I could almost swear I did not, because it is almost impossible that I could hate said it—I can say positively that I do not remember it; I do not remember ever saying such a thing in my life—I did not tell Mrs. Alston that I had seen in Vienna a horseshoe brooch in diamonds which was very beautiful—it is very possible that I may have mentioned Dresden as a place where I had seen some beautiful diamonds; I do not remember doing it; it is very possible, because I had seen some very fine diamonds there—my attention had been attracted by some old-fashioned shoe-buckles there, and some fine old diamonds; I remember saying that—I do not remember telling her that I was going to buy the old-fashioned buckles when I could afford it—I do not know that I told Mrs. Alston what diamonds meant; I might have done so, I do not know; it was so unimportant, it has escaped my memory—I have not represented to Mrs. Alston and others that I was a connoisseur in diamonds and a judge of them—I told her about the diamonds, and showed her those which I had obtained in London, but not all—I think Mr. Belt went over to Paris in October—Mrs. Alston and her daughter came to dine with me at my house in Paris—I remember
taking these diamonds out after dinner on 9th October and showing them to her in Richard Belt's presence—I do not know whether he said that he knew nothing about diamonds, he was a sculptor and was no judge of them; the conversation has quite escaped me—I do not remember telling her that any of the rings were inferior stones, but that I bought them because they matched—she may have asked me why I did not get the stones valued, I do not remember Haying that I knew quite as much about stones as any dealer or valuer, and they were dirt cheap—I do not remember any details of the conversation, my mind is a perfect blank—I am telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth—I took the diamonds out of their cases and held them up to the light—I do not remember saying that I had travelled all over the world and nobody could deceive me in diamonds—it seems an utter impossibility for me to say so, because I know nothing about them—I cannot tell whether I mentioned Mrs. Morphy to Mrs. Alston—I said to somebody that some of these jewels had belonged to the Duke of Leeds, but what I said is a blank in my memory—one of these jewels had a coronet on it, and Mr. Richard Belt said something about it—I may have said that it beloged to the Duke of Leeds, but whether I said it to her I cannot say—I did not say that some had belonged to the Shah of Persia—I do not remember asking Mrs. Alston to keep up the story of their having belonged to those people, as otherwise Lady Abdy would not wear them; my mind is so perfectly blank—some conversation passed but I am unable to say what it was—it seems perfectly new to me—I am not in the habit of laying myself down as a connoisseur in lace—I understand some things better than others, but I am not a great judge of lace—I produced some lace on the same evening as I talked to Mrs. Alston about the diamonds—I spoke of lace as constituting a collection, but not diamonds—I know Miss Luke, the daughter of a clergyman in London—I have not told her that it was impossible for anybody to take me in with diamonds, I knew so much about them—I may have said so about lace but not diamonds—I remember seeing Miss Luke at Mr. Belt's house two or three times—he was then living with his wife in London, and I dined there, but my wife did not—I may have told Miss Luke that my wife had some of the best diamonds in Paris, because I believe she had, but I do not remember saying that nobody could take me in—I did not purchase the riviere in October, it was later on—I am not certain whether I instructed Mr. Belt to buy one for me when he was in Paris—Lady Abdy very often will not eat any meat, and I told her in Paris, when Mr. Belt dined with us, that I would give her a riviere of diamonds if she would eat her meat, I do not remember whether she did so, but Mr. Belt may have come back to London commissioned to get a riviere of diamonds—I am mistaken, it was after I left London I purchased it—it is perfectly true that Richard Belt said that it belonged to the same lady, and Walter Belt brought it to the bedroom, and Richard Belt was with me at the time he brought it—I saw the riviere in London before I purchased it in Paris, but I may be wrong about the month—Walter Belt brought it to the bedroom when I was with his brother—it was showing to me in London before I brought it from Paris—that is the truth and nothing but the truth—when I describe Richard Belt as being with me in the bedroom I refer to the time when the riviere was shown to me and taken away again—there can be no doubt about my memory
there, because it was the first time I saw Walter Belt in connection with jewellery at all—Richard Belt said "Get a receipt," and there is no doubt about the transaction—I came to London with Lady Abdy in December, and went to the theatre with her on Christmas Eve—there was a conversation about more jewellery, and Richard Belt said there was a tine lot of the same sort and from the same Mrs. Morphy, and they were very valuable—I said that I had not money to buy them—the second lot was brought to the hotel, and, beginning with the large spray, they were shown to me—Lady Abdy saw them for a few minutes—she just cast a glance at them—she had nothing to do with the transaction—she knew nothing at all about them, and did not know how they were come by—she did not wear some of them when I went to Toole's Theatre with her, she wore some but not that lot—I mean only the first set, those I had bought in October, and with which I was quite satisfied—I had not got the money, and I asked Belt if he could find somebody to provide it, and I wrote out these two long documents of agreement with my own hand—the diamonds were priced to me by word of mouth, so that I could have bought some and left the others if I desired—I had all those brought to the Grosvenor Hotel—it did not matter to me whether the money was found by a medical man at Kensington, what I wanted was to have command of the diamonds—I drew up this agreement—I understood that Belt was to keep the jewels as I could not afford to pay for them—I understood that they were to be given into the hands of a lender at mortgage—Mr. Richard Belt said that his friend did not wish to break the Pawnbrokers' Act—it did not matter to me whether the clergyman lived at Kensington or whether Mrs. Morphy was Mrs. Smith, if I had command of the jewels, that was all I wanted; they amounted to 4,500l.—I have had them all; this (produced) is supposed to be the bracelet with the black diamond—I know now that it is not a black diamond, but I did not know it—I was first told of this bracelet at Spa, Richard Belt told me of it; that was, I think, in August or September, 1884—I commissioned him to get it if he could—he told me that it came from Mr. Beyfus and it had the same label—there is no doubt that this is the bracelet with regard to which I made that statement—it is the large stone with the little stones round it—I do not know to whom it belonged, it belongs to me now—I do not know the lady to whom it belonged; Mr. Belt never told me that it was the property of Mrs. Bonsor—I know a Mrs. Bonsor, and I believe she lives in Charles Street, Mayfair, but I did not know that it belonged to her; he told me that it belonged to the same person, Mrs. Morphy, and Beyfus was the holder of it—I have never said that it belonged to Mrs. Bonsor; I have never heard Mrs. Bonsor mentioned with regard to any of the jewellery till you mentioned it now—I remember meeting Mr. and Mrs. Bonsor at Covent Garden Circus, I think it was in January, 1885—Mr. Belt was with me, and we four supped together—I never mentioned to Mrs. Bonsor that I was making a collection of diamonds, but I did of lace—I made some observation which would be pleasant to her about the lace on her dress—I do not remember speaking to her about the bracelet I had bought of Mr. Belt, or telling her that the surrounding stones were very good but that the centre one was an inferior one—I could not say that about a bracelet I purchased from her, because I think I purchased the bracelet from Mr. Beyfus belonging to Mrs. Morphy; that is where I
thought it came from—I did not say that it came from her, I might have spoken about jewels, but I did not say it came from her—I do not remember speaking to her about the bracelet which I bought from Mr. Belt; I do not hesitate, I do not remember; I do not say "No," and I do not say "Yes," I will go so far as this, that I did not speak of that bracelet as having been bought from her, I say so positively—I will not undertake to swear that I did not speak about that bracelet at all to her; I say that I do not remember—I did not tell her of a collection of diamonds which I had bought from Walter Belt through Richard Belt; I could not have said so, because I bought no diamonds from Walter Belt—I saw Mrs. Bonsor about three-quarters of an hour, and I have really forgotten what I said—I did not toll her that Walter Belt was a dealer in diamonds, because I did not know it, therefore it is impossible—I do not remember saying that my wile did not know that the bracelet came from her—I very possibly said that I did not know what I should have done if it had not been for Richard Belt—the meeting at Covent Garden Circus was in 1885; Lady Abdy was not in London at that time—I had some of the jewels out some time in 1884, and redeemed them.
Saturday, March 13th, and Monday 15th, 1886.
SIR WILLIAM NEVILLE ABDY (further cross-examined by MR. CLARKE). In the early part of 1885 I went to Mr. Alston's house, I forget whether I went into the smoking-room, or what room I was in—I saw both Mr. and Mrs. Alston once, I am sure—I did not tell Mrs. Alston, among other things, that I had met a lady to whom some of the jewellery I had bought belonged—I don't remember having said so—I will not say I did not, to the best of my belief I did not. Q. Did you say to Mrs. Alston, either in London or Paris, that you had met a lady in London a charming person, from whom some jewels had been obtained for you, that you hoped soon to have the jewels in Paris to add to the rest, and ask her not to say anything to Lady Abdy about it, and tell her that you never mentioned anything of the kind to Lady Abdy? A. I don't remember having said anything like it—I am telling you the truth—I can't remember anything more—it seems very extraordinary that I should have said so, I don't believe I did—I had not then determined to buy the 5,200l. worth of jewellry. Q. Let me remind you—did you play a game of cards for jewellery with your wife at Spa? A. That was all nonsense—we did not play at cards; there was a bagatelle board, and it was a question how many of those holes on the board should be hit by the ball, and we went on joking together till it went up to several thousand pounds, a great deal more than 5,000—the whole thing was a joke and nothing else—I did not play the game for 5,000l., I played it by way of a joke and nothing else—I might say 500,000 or five millions—5,000 was mentioned, and a much larger sum—Lady Abdy said she would like to make it 20,000l.—she was not to get jewellery to that amount—I was not to pay anything, it was no agreement whatever—I don't know whether I lost, it did not matter—Lady Abdy might perhaps remind me that I had lost, perhaps she did, it was so in different to me that I took no notice of it—that had no connection at all with the third lot of jewellery—Richard Belt was at Spa with us, the game was played in his presence—the third lot of jewellery was in my wife's possession from the end of 1883—I took out portions of it twice, I think, and Lady Abdy
wore them—they wore not sent to a jeweller in Paris to be cleaned, a jeweller came to clean them; he said they were very good stones—I might have told Mrs. Alston that—I don't remember what I said to her about the jewels—I said to her that I thought they were very fine, but anything else I don't remember—very possibly I told her that the jeweller said so, but I don't remember—some money was borrowed on them in Paris—down to 6th June, 1885, I had not said anything to "Richard Belt or anybody in the way of complaint of the jewels being dear, or not good, because I thought they were good—I was not aware of Walter Belt setting up as a photographer, I was aware of the two brothers doing so together—it was Walter who set up the place, the brothers were to have shares in the profit of the business; Richard Belt told me so—I remember his buying furniture in Paris for Walter's studio—I was aware that Walter was carrying on the business, as a partner with his brother—some photographs were sent over to me at Paris as specimens, all of them, with one exception, were photos of Miss St. John—Lady Abdy saw them, and imagined that the lady was wearing some of her jewellery—there was a good deal of trouble and excitement in consequence, which was afterwards cleared up—it was entirely a delusion—I had only seen Miss St. John once to speak to, in the presence of several hundred persons—I knew nothing of Lady Abdy having telegraphed to Mr. Belt—I telegraphed to Mr. Belt: "Act at once, position very critical, have written to Morgan"—in answer to that I received a letter from Mr. Belt of 6th June—I know nothing of this telegram from Lady Abdy—I don't remember having it, I never heard of it—it was sent without my knowledge—this is the letter of 7th June. (Read: "14, Rue Pierre, Charron, June 7, 1885. My dear Belt,—I cannot tell you how grieved I feel at what has happened—first, that the harm should have come from my wife; and, secondly, that it should have been done to the best and truest friend we have in the world. I am sure that you believe me when I say that the telegram was dispatched behind my back, and that had I had the slightest suspicion of it I should have seen that the telegram never left the house. This house, I am sorry and broken-hearted to have to say, is now a hell upon earth, I being worried out of my life, and I have by this post written to Mr. Morgan in order to allay the storm, and to wipe out the doubts of fancy and the untruthful imaginations that may possibly become the ruin of both of us. Just fancy such a thing. I am believed to be keeping Mrs. Marius, to have taken all the diamonds out of the bank and given them to her, and to have spent twelve (sometimes she says twenty) thousand pounds upon her. It is too monstrous a thing for any one to believe it; but true it is. All my statements are lies in her eyes. My wife says she has been informed of it by a letter received from a 'good friend' in London, and she refuses to say who he is. I should like to know who the scoundrel is. Mr. Morgan will see you about the diamonds, and I trust that, if you care a little for my peace and happiness, you will be able to give him such papers as will prove beyond the shadow of doubt to any sane and sensible mind that I have redeemed no diamonds out of the bank since those I took when I was in London in January. My wife says Mrs. Marius was in Paris with her husband when you were staying with us, and that we both of us went to the theatre after dinner, where Marius was, in order to meet Mrs. Marius, who was also there. I must apologise for boring you with such absurdities, but they are very painful ones, and will have to be put down once
for all. In one of your letters you write as follows, 'All is going on smoothly. See much of B. P., but not one unkind word is said.' Will you tell us whom you mean by the initials B. P. The photographs Mrs. Marius which you sent me have been the cause of much mischief. It is very painful for me to have to tell you that my wife positively affirms that the rivieres round Mrs. Marius's neck in the photo are those which I have bought for her, and that I had redeemed them out of the bank and given them to Mrs. Marius. The tiara on her head in the photo I am told that I have given her, and that it is the same one that you mentioned to her as having been in the same place whence the other jewels came. Mr. Morgan must come, and when he comes through London I hope you will be able to give him the papers about the diamonds, to bring them over with him. You may show him this, and my other letters on the subject, but to no one else in the world. It is with great pain that I see myself obliged to write to you as I am now doing, and with that pain is united a feeling of shame on my part that you received that telegram, and also a sincere hope that it may not work the mischief which you seem to anticipate. But when I shall have fully said all that I feel on this matter there will still remain one thing which I can find no words to express—my heartfelt sympathy.—I am, my dear Belt, your true friend, WM. ABDY.") I have no letter in answer to that, all the letters I had I gave to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, all that I have not destroyed—I believe I received from Mr. Belt an answer to that letter. (MR. CLARKE read a copy of this letter, dated 11th June: "Dear Sir William,—I am sorry to hear from you that my lady disbelieves Mr. Morgan, but it is not my business to defend his honour; he can take care of himself. Nor will I now enter into matters connected with Mrs. Marius, and the foul charges preferred against her, and the contempt you tell me with which she treats Mr. Morgan's advice. But I feel very deeply that not only yourself and Mr. Morgan she stamps as liars, but the same is attributed to me, and to come from one (who, to say no more, I have risked my life) not only astounds, but is insufferable, and I will ask you to tell my lady that I will not move my finger to afford further proof to vindicate you, or the cruel and serious charges, or to show her I am no party to it. Once for all, I am responsible to you alone for the jewels, and every stone on demand can be handed over to you, according to agreement. I feel from my heart for you after what you have passed through for your wife's sake, that you should have to suffer this, and if I can avoid it I will not add one word to give you further pain; but your wife is fully aware that the charges she makes against you are false, and to me, I regret to say, is clearly a subterfuge. This is the soil upon which this matter should be fought, and if my lady has any self-respect after the proof she says she possesses, it is her solemn duty for all concerned to come here at once.—Believe me, ever yours, RICHARD BELT. P.S.—When did your brother leave you?") Until 14th June there was no agreement in writing between me and Richard Belt with regard to the 5,200l. worth of jewellery—in my letter of 13th June I say "My wife says that if she went to London and saw the jewels at the bank you would have been informed of it beforehand by me, and that you would then have borrowed them from the lady who is believed now to have them, and would have taken them to the bank merely for her inspection. This statement is too
absurd for me to go into at all; I see now what it will have to come to, I shall have to find the money and take out of the bank and give her all the jewels of the kind that were on Mrs. Marius's photograph." This letter of 17th June is my writing: "It is important that I should have these diamonds as soon as possible"—I wrote again on the 18th, stating that my wife's doubts were very strong, and requesting that the jewels might be seen at the bank—on 20th June I telegraphed to Belt "By what train will your brother leave? Shall fetch him at station"—Walter Belt came over to Paris, bringing all the jewellery, although a great number of them had not been paid for—those jewels were delivered to me—I do not remember on what day Lady Abdy left Paris to come to London—she came over because she had doubts about the jewels—I did not know she had them in her possession—I did not execute an assignment that I am aware of; I don't remember; to the best of my belief I did not assign anything to her; if I have done so I should much like to see it; I did not—they were her property, I gave them to her—that was not put in writing I think, I am sure—I never gave her any document—I should be very much astonished if you can show me one—I did not do it—I say that positively.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. The first interview I had with Walter Belt relating to the jewels was on 1st October—I had met him before and said "How do you do" to him, nothing beyond that—he came to the Grosvenor that once to see his brother, downstairs in the hall, but I only saw him once with regard to the jewels—it is not possible to confuse one occasion with the other—at that time I was passing under a name not my own—very possibly I had told Richard Belt at that time not to let anybody know that I was in London—my object was not to let anybody know that I was in London—the interview took place in my bedroom—Walter Belt came in as the bearer of the riviere, and he showed it, but he said nothing—during that interview Richard Belt did not leave the room, that I am aware of, and then return and produce the riviere—I don't remember that; I would not swear that he did not—I positively swear that Walter Belt did come into the room with the riviere—I pledge my oath unhesitatingly that Walter Belt was in my room on that occasion—I did not see Mr. Morris, I don't know him; I did not see a messenger—I do not remember Richard Belt being called out by a messenger—I did not, that I remember, say to Richard Belt, when Walter came, "Why did you allow your brother to know I was in London?"—I thought if he merely told his brother it would not matter much—I should say Walter was there about a quarter of an hour in the bedroom—I saw nobody else—I don't remember anybody coming into the room—from that time till June, 1885, I never saw Walter Belt in relation to the jewels—that was when he came to Paris and delivered the jewels over to me, that was all he did—afterwards there was some question as to whether the stones had been changed, and Walter came a second time; he then told me that they had not been changed—he said nothing voluntarily about the diamond being a black one, he volunteered no remark about it—I thought a black diamond was a yellow diamond—that diamond had not been cleaned by the Paris jeweller—I asked the question very often if it was a black diamond, and at last he said it was; he hesitated some time about answering—I don't remember his saying "I think it is," he may possibly have said so—I am not sure of the exact words—that was not one of the
diamonds I showed to Mrs. Alston; it has never been referred to as a black diamond in any of the writings between myself and Richard Belt—there was no one present when Walter Belt said what he did in respect of the black diamond; I had not then bought it, I agreed to bay it in November, 1884—I said I should do my best to pay up what I had bought, and he said I need be in no hurry about it—that was all that was said about the purchase money—I agreed to purchase it in 1885; I agreed to buy them all as soon as I could—I wrote no agreement—the second agreement was in November, 1884, or January, 1885, it was a verbal agreement—this document (produced) is my writing—the large stone there referred to is the black diamond—I don't remember when I wrote that, most probably it was before Walter Belt came to Paris.
(This enumerated several articles, amounting to 5,200l.)
By MR. CLARKE. In my letter of 15th June, 1884, to Mr. Belt, I state "Besides that, my wife wants some more of these diamonds."
Re-examined. The 2,000l. that I lent in October, 1883, passed through Mr. Morgan's hands—this (produced) is my cheque on Praed's to Morgan for the purpose of paying that money; it is endorsed "William Morgan"—two of the cheques for the interest were to Morgan—there are three cheques for interest—one for 135l., of 7th April, 1884; one for 235l., of 1st October, 1884, payable to order; one for 236l., of 8th April, 1885, payable to self; and 100l. which I was asked fur to prevent the jewels being lost—the cheque for 235l. included that alleged to have been paid to Beyfus—until this cross-examination I never had it suggested to me that Richard Belt had rendered me any services for which the 2,000l. was given—the suggestion was that there was a conspiracy afloat against me, that Mr. Harrison, my legal adviser, had shown one of my letters, and Richard Belt told me the contents—no suggestion of any conspiracy against me was ever made except by Richard Belt—I have no reason to believe that there was any conspiracy against me—Richard Belt told me that there was a Mrs. Crow, who lived in George Street, Hanover Square, who had been talking a lot of nonsense about me before I was married—she came and talked a lot of nonsense about me, and I told her to hold her tongue—Richard Belt knew her through me; he went to her—I don't know what she was going to conspire to do, she was talking tittle tattle and running me down—this was after I was married—it was some scandal-talking about a woman that Lady Abdy employed.
By MR. CLARKE. This letter of 3rd September 1883, from myself to Belt, is my letter. (The witness was requested to read it through to himself.) I heard nothing of any conspiracy against me till Richard Belt came and told me, that was in November, 1883—nobody ever told me anything by word of mouth—I received letters, some anonymous, some of them signed—Mrs. Crow was one of the persons of whom I hoard, not from whom—I heard that she was going to bring an action against Richard Belt—Bertain was another name, that was a signed letter, more than one—on receiving those letters I communicated with Mr. Belt, sent him copies of them, and asked him to make inquiries on my behalf—I am not aware that he employed a detective—I never knew of his having done so—I sent him this telegram on September 22nd, 1883: "Have the Crows watched, I want to know how often they go to my solicitor's and how long they stay there"—I asked Mr. Belt to employ a detective on my behalf—I paid him some money I
think—I do not remember if I paid him any money except the 2,000l.—I won't undertake to say that I did—I can't remember (Another letter was handed to the witness to read through)—I first heard of the plot against me from Richard Belt—he came and told me—I was told nothing of any plot from anybody else—I had communications from other persons—I asked him to investigate the matter and he did so—he said he had incurred expense in doing so.
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. The suggestions made in the letters I received were entirely false—they did not relate to any supposed conduct of my wife before her marriage to me—they were hints, nothing more—at that time Messrs. Harrison and Ingram were my family solicitors—Richard Belt said ho knew a very good man, a Mr. Morgan, and he telegraphed to Mr. Morgan from Paris, and so took it out of the hands of my family solicitors—I yielded to his advice—up to this moment Richard Belt has never furnished me with, or made any statement to me of any supposed expense that he has incurred in that inquiry—after I had been in Mr. Morgan's hands for some time I returned to my family solicitors, who are now acting for me—I did not attach any importance to Richard Belt's correspondence, I tore it up—I handed to Mr. Lewis sack letters as I had preserved—I never heard any suggestion that my life was in danger, or that I needed protection by having a revolver—I got a revolver and gave it to Richard Belt—he said it was a safe thing to carry a revolver, that he was not safe of his life—he took it away with him—I can't say whether it was loaded or not—in the photograph of Miss St. John (Mrs. Marius), she had some jewels round her neck—at that time I supposed the jewels to be in the bank, because Richard Belt told me they were at the bank of his friend, the medical man—I asked what bank—I forget the name of the bank—it was the bank on the right in the Cromwell Road as you leave Queen's Gate, a joint stock bank—in driving past one day I asked him where the bank was, and he said "This is the bank"—I never saw any of the jewels there—I never gave the jewels to Mrs. Marius—as far as I can judge it is not true that the was wearing them—I had not got the control of the jewels at that time; what Richard Belt might have done with them I could not have any idea—I never got any invoice for any of them from any tradesman, jeweller, or pawnbroker—I never got any receipts for any of the money I paid to Mr. Belt—I paid it in cheques—I intended the jewels for my wife—I bought them in order that she should wear them—on the occasion of the riviere being produced at the hotel in October, 1883, I saw Richard Belt first—he was with me in my room—I had no sitting-room at that time—we had been together quite half an hour before Walter Belt appeared—I do not reccollect how he was announced—when he came in the case was opened and the riviere was shown—Walter Belt held it—he produced it—I remember that—I saw no person of the name of Morris, and heard no mention of the name—I know nothing at all about him—that was the occasion when Richard Belt told Walter to be careful about getting back the receipt, I am sure of that—neither Richard nor Walter Belt ever gave me any more definite description of this supposed medical man—up to the time of the handing over of the quantity of jewels at Paris I had implicitly trusted Richard Belt and believed him to be a friend upon whom I could rely.
By the JURY. I never took the opinion of anybody but Mr. Belt as to
the value of the jewellery—when I came to London an expert was sent for by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis. By the COURT: "Why did you consult Messrs. Lewis and Lewis?" Lady Abdy doubted the genuineness of the diamonds and went to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis to consult them about it—she saw the jewels which Walter Belt delivered to me in Paris, and she said they were yellow—I had shown her the jewels that I received in 1883-84, and after Walter Belt brought the other jewels to Paris I showed them to her and she had doubts of their value, and then I went to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis—I had told Lady Abdy the price I had engaged to pay for them—she first took them to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis and I went afterwards.
WILLIAM MORGAN . I am a solicitor practising at Stafford—I have known Richard Belt, I think, about eight years, and also his brother Walter—in the year 1883 Richard Belt introduced me to Sir William Abdy—I believe I had a telegram from Paris to meet somebody, I did not then know who it was—I came from Stafford to London, and there met Sir William Abdy for the first time—after that, by Sir William's directions, I made various payments to Richard Belt—I received instructions from Sir William about 13th October, 1883, to pay this cheque for 1,000/. to Richard Belt; I in fact paid it in May, 1884—the interest was added on it, and that makes it 1,030l. 1s.—it is drawn on Praed and Co., Fleet Street, dated 28th May, 1884, payable to myself, and there is a stamp at the bottom, "Sir William Abdy, Bart.;" that is also crossed, stamped "London and County Bank, Knightsbridge," and at the back there is the stamp of "Artis, poulterer, &c.; 16, Motcombe Street"—when Sir William gave me the instructions to pay that, I happened to say to Mr. Belt that it was not convenient, there were no funds available at that time of Sir William's to draw upon, and I had arranged to advance him such moneys as he required from time to time—this (produced) is Mr. Richard Belt's receipt for the 1,000l., dated 16th October, 1883—I told Mr. Belt that it was a little inconvenient for me to find so large a sum as 1,000l. at a moment's notice—he said, "I can arrange that 1,000l. for you for a short time if you will pay interest on it," and when Sir William's affairs were in funds he paid me that cheque to repay myself, and I repaid Richard Belt the 1,000l. and interest, it was a transaction between myself and Mr. Belt at that time, and I did this in order to keep the transaction between myself and Sir William Abdy perfectly clear—I did not say that Mr. Belt had lent the 1,000l., he said he had arranged it—Sir William did not give me any cheque on 13th October; he had no funds then—I was to advance him such moneys as he might require—I did not advance him anything at that time, nor did I advance Mr. Belt anything—I got that receipt from Mr. Belt; I was accountable to him for the 1,000l.—I have an account with Sir William Abdy; it has been audited by Kane and Co., of Chancery Lane; it is a half-yearly account, settled at Christmas and Midsummer—I believe the Christmas account shows the paying of this 1,000l. by me to Mr. Belt; I am not sure that it does, but I believe so—I did not produce that receipt to the auditor as my voucher; I took it in the first instance because I was going to pay the money—this cheque of 14th November was paid at that date; it is on my own private account—this is the receipt I got, dated 21st May, 1884, for 878l.—that was to take up the bill given in October—it is on Praed and Co., payable to Belt or order,
and endorsed by him—this cheque for 2,400l., dated 20th June, 1885, is mine—I received hurried instructions from Sir William Abdy to find 2,400l. at once, anyhow, but he must have it, and I was to pay it to Mr. Belt—it is on my own private account—I made the advance—that was the first intimation I had of any jewel transactions; I was kept in ignorance of any jewel transactions up to that moment—I knew what the first 1,000l. was for, no, it was the second for 700l.; Sir William told me it was for a bracelet, I am not sure, I know it was for something in jewellery, but what it was I did not know—I did not know anything about the agreement or about any jewels, or any transaction in reference to them in which there was some agreement between the parties—I did not see the two agreements; I did not know that they existed until June, 1885—I knew the 700l. in October, 1883, was for some bracelet, but what it was I do not know—I got this 2,000l. on 6th October, 1883, from Sir William Abdy to pay to myself; it is payable to me—that was passed through the account and honoured at the time—I was instructed to pay it to Mr. Belt—I did pay it to him, not at that date; he asked me to retain it for him a short time, and he would have the money as he wanted it—I paid him 500l. by cheque on 8th January, 1884, and I paid him the balance with interest by this cheque of 21st May, 1884, 1,562l. 3s. 10d.—I did not take credit in the Christmas account as if I had paid the 2,000l., I did not show that transaction at all—I believe it did not come into Sir William Abdy's account at all; I merely paid it in to my account at Mr. Belt's request, and he would draw the money as he wanted it, as he had got no immediate use for it—I paid him interest for it—I do not think I wanted money at that moment; I did not want to borrow it from Mr. Belt; it was a convenience to me.
By the COURT. I don't recollect whether I took a receipt from Mr. Belt for 2,000l., this was scarcely a business transaction; I don't know whether he didn't give Sir William a receipt for it at the time, I thought he did, he never told me so—I think Mr. Belt, myself, and Sir William Abdy were together at the time if my memory serves me; it could not have been cashed the same day, because I was in London then.
By the JURY. When Mr. Belt introduced me to Sir William it was not arranged that I was to allow him so much commission for bringing in the client.
By MR. CLARKE. I had not known Lady Abdy for any long time—I met her once or twice in 1883 before my introduction to Sir William; I met her two or three times, I think, I can't exactly say which—I believe the introduction was Mr. Belt's originally.
MR. CLARKE called attention to the indictment, and submitted that the allegation of fake pretence was not supported. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN considered that the case must go to the Jury.
The following Witnesses were called for the Defence.
EMILY ALSTON . I am the wife of Sir William Abdy's cousin—in October, 1883, I was visiting Sir William and his wife in Paris—I remember dining with them with Mr. Richard Belt—Sir William spoke to me about diamonds, and after dinner he produced some cases of diamonds—he said he had brought over some diamonds for Lady Abdy, and he asked me what I thought of them—I said I was no judge of diamonds, and I turned to Mr. Belt and asked him what he thought of them—he said, "I am no judge of diamonds, that is my brother's business, not mine"—that was said in the presence of Sir William Abdy and his wife and
my daughter—Sir William talked about diamonds and the value of them, but not so much then as when we were staying at the Rue Piere Charron; that was in January, 1885—he told me that he knew quite as much about diamonds as any dealer: that was when I asked him why he didn't have them valued, and his answer was that he knew as much about diamonds as any dealer—at that time the diamonds were kept in a strong safe in the large dining room—he told me that a jeweller who had cleaned his diamonds when they were in the Champs Elysees said that they were beautiful stones and quite fit to be put in a museum—he showed me a pair of horseshoe earrings that he had bought to match the horseshoe pendant; he said they were inferior stones but he had bought them to match—I said I could not see any difference, and he held the stones up to the light and gave me explanations about them, about Brazilian and Indian diamonds; he said the Brazilian diamonds put in a particular light would produce a particular effect—he said it was very seldom that in any ornament you could get all the stones perfect, sometimes they might be discoloured, and that might take away from the value—he said he had told Lady Abdy that some of them had come from the Shah and some had come, he believed, from the Duke of Leeds' family, because there was a coronet on one of the cases, which he had erased because he did not wish Lady Abdy to be inquiring into it—he said he had to tell Lady Abdy that they had come from extraordinary people and I was to keep it up—he showed me a new piece of lace that he had bought since I had seen them last—my daughter was present at the time when the lace was shown—I was in Paris at the beginning of 1885 after Sir William's return from London—he was sitting in my room with my daughter, smoking, and he said among other things that he had got some diamonds which had been obtained for him from a very charming lady whom he had met, and he said, "Don't mention this to my wife, you know how she goes on"—he also said he hoped to have them soon in Paris—in July, 1885, I had a message from Lady Abdy, in consequence of which I met her at the Charing Cross station; I don't exactly remember whether it was June or July, and I went about with her for two or three days while she was making some inquiries—among other places we went to the Empire Theatre and the Princess's Theatre, also to several photographers, that was to get photographs of Miss St. John—Lady Abdy called with me once on Mr. Beyfus; I don't know whether she went also by herself—it was a house in Russell Square—she was then staying at the Charing Cross Hotel—I remember Sir William coming over and bringing the diamonds with him—I was aware before that that Lady Abdy had been more than once to Mr. George Lewis.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. In October, 1883, when the discussion took place about the diamonds, Lady Abdy was present the whole of the time—Sir William spoke of them as being very fine and valuable, he seemed very pleased with his diamonds—I can't remember that he said it was a lucky thing that by chance it came in his way to buy such valuable old diamonds—he was very satisfied with them—Mr. Belt said he was no judge of diamonds, but that was his brother's business, I concluded that it must have been his brother who had sold the diamonds to Sir William—he did not tell me at Charron who had told him that the diamonds had come from the Shah, I didn't ask him, it was no business of mine—I had it not in my mind that Walter Belt was the person who had sold them—
Sir William I know got diamonds from other persons as well as Walter Belt—I know he got a diamond ring in Paris—I thought that these valuable old diamonds had been obtained through Walter Belt—they were not the same diamonds as in 1885—he showed me three different lots at different times, and the one of which he was speaking in 1883 was a different lot to the one he was speaking of in 1885—ho mentioned that he intended getting some diamond buckles which he knew of in Dresden, where there was a beautiful collection.
DAISY BONSOR . I am the wife of Mr. William Bonsor, and live at 27, Charles Street, Mayfair—in August or September, 1884, the defendant, Walter Belt, came to me and asked me to sell a bracelet—I think this is the one, it is like it—I agreed to sell it if he gave me 500l. for it—he paid me that sum in bank notes, and I parted with it to him—some time after that he came to me in relation to the purchase of two diamond studs—I can't remember dates, it was somewhat later on in the year—he bought the studs, and paid me 200l. in notes, and a picture by Sidney Cooper, R.A., valued at 200l.—one evening in January, 1886, I remember going to the Circus at Covent Garden with my husband, and I there saw Mr. Richard Belt and Sir William Abdy together—I had seen Sir William Abdy before, but had not been introduced to him—Mr. Richard Belt introduced him to me that night, and after the Circus we went to the Continental Hotel to supper—while at sapper, Sir William Abdy spoke about my diamonds and my lace dress—he said he had got a bracelet from Mr. Walter Belt which had belonged to me, and if I saw it I was not to recognise it on Lady Abdy—he said the large stone in the bracelet was a Cape, and the outside ones were fine Indian stones—he spoke about diamonds and lace that he had got, he said he had a great many diamonds—he told me all about mine that I was then wearing, and all about the stones of different countries, he affected to hare a knowledge of them—I have very little knowledge of diamonds, I have a little—we discussed them together—he admired my lace, and said it was very lovely; he seemed to have a knowledge of lace—he said he had made collections of lace, and vases, bronzes, and different diamonds which he had in Paris—he spoke about Mr. Richard Belt in terms of gratitude—we were there together, I should think, an hour and a half the four of us, this conversation extended over that time—after that I think he called twice at our house, but he did not find me at home on either occasion.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I have known Mr. Belt about a year and a half or two years, I don't think more, not intimately—I thought you were speaking of Walter Belt—I have known Richard Belt not much more than two years, not intimately—I know his wife as a friend, not intimately—Mr. Wontner, I think, came to me about giving my evidence, or a clerk, I don't know, when I came back from Monte Carlo, not a month ago—I had not been in correspondence with Richard Belt before that, or with his wife—I saw the solicitor's clerk before I saw Richard Belt, I am sure of that—Walter Belt, I suppose, did not know I was going to sell my bracelet till he asked me—he came in to see me, and asked me if I would sell that particular bracelet—he was not in the habit of making social calls upon me—he had done business with me, and he called to see if I would sell the, bracelet—I had often seen diamonds—if I wanted to buy diamonds I used to look at some he
had—I had never bought any from him, I could not afford it—he had not often called upon me before August or September, 1884—I had seen him casually—I don't remember whether he had ever called before, I don't think he had—he said what he called for, he asked me to sell this bracelet, mentioning it by name, a particular one—I was not wearing it at the time—I had worn it many times, he had seen me wearing it—I suppose he wanted it and knew I would sell it if he came to ask me—I had not bought anything of him before, or sold him anything—he had talked about my diamonds—I had a lot of diamonds, I don't know that he had ever seen it—he asked me for the bracelet with a particular stone in it—whether it had been made a present to me or not has nothing to do with it—I don't know whether it was or not; some were presents, some I had bought—I don't remember whether the bracelet was a present—I don't see why I should say where I got it—I think it was a present, I don't know how long ago, I can't recollect—it was not ten years ago or five, perhaps three or four—I don't know how Walter Belt came to ask me to sell it, but he did—I don't think I had mentioned to Richard Belt that I was willing to sell it; I will swear I never did, or suggest that I would be willing if I got a price for it; nor to anybody; I think Walter Belt must have seen it; he said he had a customer who would buy it—I did not ask him who the customer was—that was in the summer before I went to Brighton, it might have been in August, I can't say nearer than that—he paid for it and took it away with him that day—he did not take it on approval—he did not ask me to give him a receipt—I asked 500l. and he gave it me, there was no bargaining about the price—I did not know anything about the value of it, that was what I wanted for it, if any one liked to give me that for it they could hare it—I am always in need of money—I told my husband that I had sold it, I did not tell him the price, I told him I had sold it to Walter Belt—he had seen him, I think he knew him—I told him that same night when he came home—I was in Court yesterday, I did not hear the evidence given about the value of the bracelet, I did not hear that it was about 200l.—the diamond studs were sold some time after, I don't remember when—Walter Belt asked me if I would sell them—I had more—I said I would sell two of them—this was some two or three months after the bracelet, I could not swear to any time; it was in the same year—I don't know how Walter Belt came to know that I was wanting to sell the studs, he came and asked me in the same way, and I agreed to sell them—I did not get the opinion of any one about the picture before I took it; it purported to be signed by Sidney Cooper; I have got it now—I have not had it valued by anybody—I did not sell a third stud, all I sold was the bracelet and the two studs—I had never spoken to Sir William Abdy before January, 1885—my husband was present during the supper, he is not here—he did not hear all the conversation that took place, he was talking to Mr. Belt; we were at a round table, and Sir William and I were talking to ourselves, I know he did not hear—Sir William talked to me about my dress, about lace and diamonds, bronzes, and Mr. Belt, and he said he had got a bracelet from Walter Belt that had belonged to me—he did not say that his wife was wearing it—he said if I saw her wearing it I was not to say.
Re-examined. Prior to January, 1885, I had seen Sir William Abdy in society—I had seen him dining at the Bristol with Mr. Belt—I had been
in the habit of wearing this bracelet out from time to time—this gentleman (Mr. French) came to me with regard to this matter.
WILLIAM MORLEY FRENCH . I am an articled clerk to Messrs. Wontner—I have had the practical conduct of this matter—in consequence of instructions I went to see Mrs. Bonsor and took her proof as a witness—that was after the committal in this case.
ETHEL LUKE . I am a daughter of the Vicar of St. Matthew's, Earl's Court—in the early part of 1886 I was dining at Mr. Richard Belt's house with himself, his wife, and Sir William Abdy—on that occasion Sir William spoke to me about diamonds—he said that he understood diamonds and jewels; he said his wife had come very fine diamonds—I said people could be taken in nowadays with respect to diamonds—he said he did not think he could be taken in, he understood them thoroughly.
Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. This was in conversation after dinner in the drawing-room—I think it was in February, I can't recollect the exact date—I was told last night that I must come here, I was subpoenaed last night—I wrote to Mr. Belt when I first saw the case in the paper at the police-court, and said I was sorry he had got into trouble—last night wan not the first time I had had conversation on the case, it was when the case first came on at Bow Street.
By the JURY. I am still living under my father's roof.
HERBERT MORRIS . In 1883 I knew Mr. Walter Belt, he was a friend of mine—I must have seen him several times in October, 1883—between 1st and 13th October he handed me a case containing a riviere of diamonds to take to the Grosvenor Hotel—I took it for him—when I got there I sent in for Mr. Richard Belt, and he came out to me, and I gave him the riviere—he left me, turned through a corridor, and went into a room—he returned in about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—I remained in the hall—he then brought the riviere back to me and I took it back to Walter at Drayton Villas—I saw no one at the hotel but Richard Belt—Walter was not with me.
Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. Drayton Villas is about 20 minutes' walk from the Grosvenor Hotel; it is a private house—Walter Belt lived there; I was a friend of his, I painted miniatures for him and things of that kind—I have known him 12 or 14 years, and Richard Belt a year or two longer—I was not sent for to Drayton Villas, I was accidentally there—I called on Walter and he then asked me if I would take the case of jewels to his brother at the Grosvenor—he told me to be sure and take care of them, and to deliver them to no one but Richard—he put them in brown paper while I was there; he just opened them, and I just saw the riviere—he asked me to wait for them and bring them back—I did not ask him what they were to be taken there for—he told me his brother was staying there, not residing there, because his residence was at Drayton Villas—I can't say why Walter did not take them himself—I was to ask for Mr. Richard Belt at the hotel—it was about 7 in the evening—one of the waiters went and fetched Richard Belt—I stayed in the hall and amused myself by looking at the periodicals and papers there—when I gave him the parcel he did not go upstairs in a corridor to the right; he went downstairs in a corridor to the right, and turned into one of the rooms there—I saw him go into a room; he stayed there about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, I should say—I could see that the parcel had been opened when it was brought back to me; the paper was
different, it was wrapped up; it had been opened and packed up again—Richard only stayed an instant with me, and asked me to return it to Walter—I don't say he used those words, something similar to that—I did not understand either from Walter or Richard what the riviere was sent to the hotel for, I knew nothing of that, and never asked—I took it back direct to Walter Belt—I was a witness for Richard Belt in his action against Mr. Lawes, I have been very intimate with him—I was at Bow Street at the examination there, and I then heard it said that Walter had taken these jewels, and I then spoke to Mr. Collier, Walter Belt's clerk, and told him of my visit there—I have something to fix the date as between the 1st and 13th October; the 1st October happened to he my mother's wedding day, and the 13th was St. Edward's Day, and I spoke to Walter on this occasion of my intention to visit the shrine of St. Edward, which I remember was on Saturday, the 13th, and it was a week prior to St. Edward's Day, and about a week after the wedding day; it was midway between those two dates, but I could not fix the actual day—I went to Bow Street to hear the case, not as a witness.
SIR WILLIAM ABDY (Re-examined by MR. POLAND). I had not at any time in October, 1883, a ground floor room at the Grosvenor Hotel—Richard Belt showed me some jewellery in a ground floor room in the hotel, but that was the first lot—we went into the drawing room or a room adjoining the drawing room on the ground floor; that was in September or October, 1883—it was not the riviere that I saw there—the room would be on the right looking into the street, a smallish sitting room—I am quite sure that was not the riviere that has been spoken to—I first saw this bracelet of Mrs. Bonsor's at the end of October or the very first days of November, 1884; it was then in Richard Belt's possession—it was first in my possession, I believe, in June, 1885, when Walter Belt brought it to Paris.
By MR. KEMP. I went to the Grosvenor, in the name of Allen, on the 6th September, and left it on the 7th—I forget the number of the room I occupied—it was a bedroom—I had no sitting-room at that time—on that occasion no riviere was brought to me—I was there again at the beginning of October—I don't remember the date—I don't remember the number of the room I occupied there—in order to get to my room you had to go to the end of the corridor to reach the staircase, if I remember the construction of the hotel you have to go to the end of the hall and the staircase branches off on each side; there is a corridor on the right, on the ground floor, independent of the staircase—there is a sitting-room along the corridor, which I have used more than once, but I never saw the riviere there—I used that sitting-room for a minute or two when Richard Belt was with me.
WILLIAM MORGAN (Re-examined by the COURT). I now produce my account—this 1,000l. was a loan to me for which I paid interest—I charged Sir William Abdy with interest, because I had to pay it—I had to borrow it to meet the transaction—I received 2,000l. from Sir William Abdy to pay to Mr. Belt—there was no arrangement that I was to retain that in my hands for six months, paying Mr. Belt 5 per cent interest on it—I expected that he might want the money at any moment—he asked me to pay it into my account and then he might want it at any moment, as I understood, for certain purposes for which the loan was required—he did not require it so soon as I expected, and I thought it right to pay
him interest as I had the money—it happened to be a convenience to me and therefore I thought he was entitled to it—I thought it right to charge Sir William Abdy with it, because I paid interest—it was no benefit to me—I got no benefit out of it—I have explained to your Lordship that I did not expect to hold the money for 48 hours—I didn't explain to Sir William Abdy that I was going to hold it, or that it was lying there at interest—I don't think I saw Sir William to give him any explanation—I wrote to him at times—I don't think I told him about this—I didn't get a halfpenny by it—of course it was intended to be paid to Mr. Belt at once, but he didn't ask me for it, and at the end of the time I thought he should have the interest—it was paid to Mr. Belt in October—I didn't make out this account—it was made out by my cashier—I do not look into the accounts which my cashier makes out—he kept the books entirely—I did not look over the books to see that it was correct, I swear that—I did not see whether the entry involving 2,000l. was correctly entered or not, because I got Messrs. Kane and Co. to audit the accounts—I did not see this account or how it was drawn up—it was sent to Sir William Abdy from my office—he was a new client—I sent it without looking at it.
By the JURY. I was arranging a loan for Sir William—I did not tell him I could not lend him the money unless I had security for it—I knew what his position was—I had the rentals for Sir William—I have a written authority to act for him—I have not got it with me.
By MR. CLARKE. The date I am speaking of is October, 1883—I received the 2,000l. from Sir William to pay to Mr. Belt at that time—I didn't raise the 1,000l. besides, because Mr. Belt said he had arranged it for me and I had to pay him interest for it—the 31l. was interest on the 1,000l. which I was instructed to raise for Sir William—I had been instructed to raise 1,000l. for Sir William, for the purpose of paying Mr. Belt—that was in addition to the 2,000l.—instead of borrowing the money and paying interest on it to Sir William I didn't pay it to Belt at once but paid him the interest and charged Sir William with that interest, that was the transaction exactly—Sir William told me to raise the money or find him any moneys that he might require, and I found him several other sums, and he had told me to raise the 1,000l. to give to Mr. Belt, that was when I saw him in London in the beginning of October—he told me he should require several sums, and I was to find them for him until the arrangements which he had instructed me to make were carried out—I found it in that way—there was no 1,000l. found—Belt gave me a receipt for it as I have explained—if I had got the money from my own bankers I should have had to pay it in the same way, and I didn't see there was anything wrong—I gave a receipt for it—I didn't mean it as a false receipt—when I gave the receipt I meant immediately to have paid the money—I ought to have torn the receipt up after the arrangement was come to.
RICHARD BELT— GUILTY of obtaining money by false pretences. — Twelve Month's Hard Labour.
WALTER BELT— NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Friday, March 12th, 1886.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. GRAIN and H. AVORY Prosecuted; MR. BESLEY defended Finkelstein, and MR. MARSHALL defended Trusovitch.
LUCIEN VAN DE VIN (Interpreted). I am sub-director of the Caisse General de Reports et de Depots, at Brussels; they are a limited Company engaged in advancing money, and selling bonds—in June, 1885, I received this letter (produced) in French, headed, 66, Holborn Viaduct, London, 26th June, 1885. (This was from Coulon Noel and Co., offering their services in London, and asking terms for doing bank business, and loans and sales of securities, and conditions for opening an account, and giving as references the Bank Parisien in France and the City Bank in London.) We made some inquiries in consequence of that letter, but no business was done, and the letter remained as it was until the end of November—we then received this letter. (This referred to a letter from the Caisse de Reports on 27th June, giving conditions for opening an account, and enclosed 25 City of Brussels bonds of the 1872 loan to be sold for Coulon and Co.'s credit, a cheque for 100l. to be remitted to them; the numbers of the bonds were also given.) Those 25 bonds were sold, and we remitted the proceeds, I believe 100l., to Coulon and Co.—up to the present time we have not received these bonds back—on 2nd December I received this letter. (Acknowledging the receipt of a letter, and stating that they had credited the Came de Reports with 2,719 francs 15 centimes, the proceeds of the sale of the Ville de Brussels bonds, and that they remitted 25 Ville de Paris bonds, 1871.) That enclosed 25 Ville de Paris bonds as per the numbers given in the letter—I sold those, and remitted a cheque for 375l. to Coulon Noel and Co.—on 17th December I received a further letter from Coulon Noel and Co. (Stating that they credited them with 40 francs as subscription to their Bourse, and enclosing Belgian bank notes for 600 francs, four Ville de Brussels bonds, 1879, and 25 Ville de Paris bonds, 1871, the proceeds to be credited to them at the best rate of exchange.) That letter enclosed 25 Ville de Paris bonds, 1871, and the others, and gave the numbers of the different bonds enclosed in it—I remitted a cheque for 400l. to Coulon Noel and Co., and afterwards a further cheque for 50l. in payment for those bonds—I afterwards received this letter dated 30th December, addressed from 66, Holborn Viaduct, to the Caisse de Reports. (This stated that one of their clients wished to sell, now that they were at 400, 100 Ville de Paris bonds, 1871, but that he did not wish to sell them till after 10th January, in consequence of the drawing on that date, but that in the mean-time he would like the value of the equivalent, reserving to himself the benefit of the drawing, and the Caisse de Reports were requested therefore to send a cheque for 1,500l. in order to sell the bonds after the drawing on 10th January, at the best price, with an undertaking on their part to reimburse those particular bonds if any should by chance draw the lot.) I replied to that letter and received this one, 4th January. (In this Coulon Noel and Co. enclosed 100 Ville de Paris bonds, 1871, with coupons after 1st January, for the Caisse de Reports to negotiate at the best price after knowing the numbers of the drawing on the 10th, requested that they should be credited in case of their bonds being drawn, and stated that they awaited the dispatch of the 1,500l cheque.) The 100 Ville de Paris bonds of 1871 were sent in another letter—these are the numbers in this one—I replied to that, sending a cheque for 1,400l. on 5th January—I received an acknowledgment of the receipt of that cheque.
(A letter of 7th January from Coulon Noel and Co, was read, stating that they had received the letter of the 5th, from the Caisse de Reports, containing the 1,500l. and that they returned enclosed the duplicate agreement.) This (produced) is the contract I sent over, the agreement for retaining the bonds till after the 10th January—after we had sent that cheque for 1,500l. I received back on 6th January as a forgery one of the second lot of the 25 Ville de Paris bonds, which had been seat by Coulon Noel and Co.—it was sent from Paris, and it was stated they were false—I immediately came to London, and communicated with the police—the first and second lot and the 100 Ville de Paris bonds were sent back with the mention that they were forged—I gave the 100 bonds up at Guildhall—I have also given up some of the two lots of 25, but some were retained in Brussels, and some in Paris—the 100 are all there.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. The first lot of the 25 Ville de Paris were sold in Brussels to an agent who sold them in Paris, where they were seized as forgeries; I know that from the agent to whom I sold them—on the afternoon of the 6th I knew the first lot of 25 were forged—I put no mark on the first lot of 25 Ville de Paris by which I could identify them—the second lot of the Ville de Paris I sold in Brussels to another agent; we put no marks on them, the numbers are sufficient—the 100 Ville de Paris were not sold at all, we retained them—we do a great deal in Ville de Paris bonds—after we received the 100 they were kept in a safe where only the cashier and the directors could get at them—all securities are kept in that safe, but there is a separate endorsement on each for each client, they are not mixed up together—a band of paper is put round each parcel with marks on it—sometimes I am there to open the letters and sometimes one of the other directors; I do not know positively whether I opened the letter containing the 100 bonds—it is the duty of one particular clerk to make the endorsement on these bands before they are put in the safe—it would depend on the business in the bank how long it would be between their being received and the band being put round them—the numbers of the bonds are put in a special book—after I came to London I handed the 100 bonds to the Belgian Consul on 7th January.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. The English post arrives at Brussels sometimes at 9 and sometimes 11—we receive our letters at the bank at about those hours—when we received the letter of June, 1885, we wrote to the Imperial Bank, our London correspondents, who said the firm of Coulon Noel had only existed about a year, and so they should act with prudence—we were only satisfied so far that we wrote and told them we would do no business unless the bonds were placed in our hands, so that we might be safe—we did no business with them till after 27th November, but we did not trouble any more about it as they did not write again.
Re-examined. We did not send the money till we had received the bonds—on the morning we received the 100 bonds from Coulon Noel and Co. we did not receive any other parcel of 100 Ville de Paris from any other person, and no other packet of 100 bonds—on the 5th we received the 100 and we knew on the 6th they were forged—on receiving back the one forged bond, the first thing we did was to look at the 100 which we then had, and I than saw the difference between them and a genuine one and that the 100 were forgeries—that was before the 100 had ever left our possession—on the 7th I brought to London the same 100 I
had received; I can pick them out now—they never left our possession till I delivered them to the Belgian Consul here on 7th or 8th January.
By MR. BESLEY. When I say never left our possession, I mean subject to the parcel being opened, the numbers examined, and being tied up with a band round them and put in the safe; I was not present when that was done in the office—I can swear to their identity because they are the same numbers.
By MR. AVORY. I cannot remember whether I ever saw them before they were put into the safe at all; it is the duty of the treasurer to examine them—I cannot say who received the letter or who opened it.
EUGENE HAUTIER . I am chief of the Issue Department of Bonds in the Prefecture of the Seine—I have to examine and change all bonds, and am chief of the department which has the control of the securities of the City of Paris—I know the Ville de Paris bonds issued in 1871—I examined these bonds a few days ago, they are not genuine—I saw about 100 at the police-court—there is a transparency in the forged bond which there is not in the good one, the water mark is transparent—the forged bonds are generally smaller than the genuine ones, and they are not the same colour, and the consecutive numbers are smaller, and there is a difference in the position of the beginning of the word "Paris;" in the genuine one the "P" is under the "C," and in the other it is under the "E."
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. In Paris we know of 300 of these forgeries, but there are also some in the Provinces which I do not know of—we first knew of the forged bonds on 12th December—the false one has been lithographed and the genuine one is typographed, we think—we know of no person in Paris who has printed these, they all come from London—I do not think these false ones are printed in Paris, I only know they are sent from London—I said before the Magistrate I was not competent to give an opinion as to where these false bonds were printed, and I say the same now.
LUCIEN VAN DE VIN (Re-examined by the JURY). When the forged bond came back on 6th January I immediately compared it with the other 100 bonds which I had in my possession—I had a genuine Ville de Paris bond in a parcel belonging to another client, and I compared it with the 100 and saw then the difference between them.
FRANCIS WILLATS . I am an auctioneer and estate agent of the firm of "Willats and Charlton, of 66, Holborn Viaduct—in February last year I let an office on the first floor at 66, Holborn Viaduct, to some persons calling themselves Coulon Noel and Co.—the first person I saw with reference to letting the office was Trusovitch—I afterwards saw a person whom I understood was Noel—I received this document (produced) with reference to some persons in Paris, I saw it written by Noel and Trusovitch—this agreement was afterwards made at the office and signed, in the same writing as Noel's, Coulon Noel and Co. (This agreement was dated 12th February)—Noel's address is given in the agreement as 27, Great Coram Street—after we had lot the office I saw Trusovitch and Noel there—I saw Trusovitch there once or twice a week; I cannot say how often he came—Noel spoke English very poorly indeed, only a few words, and Trusovitch used to conduct the conversation with me—I saw Trusovitch at the office about a week, I think, before I heard he was taken—
on the 6th January I passed him in the street—I had received no notice that they were going to leave the office.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Our office is on the ground floor, level with the street, and that occupied by the prisoners was on the first floor—they were there from February for many months—I only saw Trusovitch as he went upstairs, casually—I knew nothing of Finkelstein till he was in custody—I never spoke to him and never saw him.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I knew Trusovitch as the clerk—I do not think I was present when the agreement was signed; my father was a witness to it—I understood Noel had just come from France; he spoke English very badly—we made some inquiries as to this reference given to us—I did not know Noel advertised in the papers for a clerk—I did not know a Mr. Alphonso or a Mr. Dubois there—I think I have only seen Noel and Trusovitch there—I did not see everybody who came there—I am positive Trusovitch is not Noel, he was the clerk.
Re-examined. There is a slight alteration in Trusovitch's appearance since I knew him; he is stouter in the face, and he had a very slight beard.
RHODA SUMMERS . I am a widow, and the housekeeper at 66, Holborn Viaduct—I remember some persons calling themselves Coulon Noel and Co. coming to the office on the first floor in February last year—I saw only two persons in connection with that firm—Trusovitch is one; I knew him as the clerk, by the name of Oldson, and by no other name—sometimes I saw him there every day, sometimes only once a week; he was at the office every day—the only other person I saw was Andre Noel—I used to take the letters out of the letter-box in the morning, and put them on the desks in the different offices—nearly all the letters that came for this firm were foreign letters, some of them were registered—on 5th January, a little after 5 o'clock, I took a registered letter from the post-man; I believe it was a foreign letter in a yellow envelope—nobody was in Coulon Noel and Co.'s office—the postman had been several times to deliver that same letter, and could not find anybody in, and as it was registered he wanted a receipt for it—I took it from the postman and signed for it—the next morning, the 6th, I gave it to Trusovitch, and he gave me this receipt signed "Oldson" for it—he took the letter from me in my sitting-room, and signed "Received a registered letter"—when I looked at the receipt I saw he had signed no name, and I ran down to the office, and he put on the name "Oldson," and that was the last I saw of him—I never saw Noel after that—I had not seen Noel for some time before Christmas—after Christmas I was taking letters out of the letter-box one day; two gentlemen asked me Noel's private address; I did not know it—I told that to Trusovitch, and he said "Nor I"—he came up to my room about 2 o'clock and said if anybody wanted Mr. Noel they would find him on the Stock Exchange after 11 o'clock; he was at the office from 10 to 11, and after that at the Stock Exchange—I did not see Noel after the day I had that conversation—after that a number of letters came for Noel and Co.; the police came to fetch them, and took them off the desk.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I never saw Finkelstein to my knowledge till I was at the police-court on 14th January.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I never saw anybody besides Trusovitch and Noel in the office; I have seen somebody trying to get into the office
—Noel used to come first—the police have taken a great number of letters that have arrived since 6th January addressed "Coulon Noel and Co."—they are all in the custody of the police now—Trusovitch was not there on 5th January that I know of, he may have been there—on the 6th he knocked at my door—I was dressing, and my daughter went to the door and said, "Here is the Frenchman's clerk"—I said, "There is a registered letter for him, make him sign for it"—he said to my daughter, "I want to see your mother"—I said, "Take him in the sitting-room, and I will see him in a minute"—he had a telegram in his hand, and he said, "Have you seen Mr. Noel?"—I said, "No, I have not"—he said, "If you see Mr. Noel, and he asks you if I am in the office all day, will you tell him I am?"—there was a further conversation—I do not know if Noel posted his own letters—I do not know what the two persons were who called, they represented to me that they were gentlemen making inquiries—my daughter pointed out Trusovitch to Sergeant Brown; I pointed him out this much, that I made a sign when he came in—there is no doubt Trusovitch is the man that signed this receipt for the registered letter "Oldson."
Re-examined. When Oldson said, "Will you tell Mr. Noel I am in the office all day?" he seemed very excited—I said, "I will tell Mr. Noel I think you are, because how am I to know if you are in the office all day?"—he said, "Mr. Noel has gone to France or Paris," I am not sure which he said, "and I have nothing to do in the office, and I know three or four languages; I correspond in three or four languages, and I can get 30s. a week for two hours' work every day"—I said, "If you can earn 30s. a week, and have no work to do in the office, I don't blame you," but at that time the detective had been, and I did not believe his statement—this conversation was on the 6th, when I delivered the registered letter to him—I never saw him in the office again.
LUCIEN VAN DE VIN (Re-examined). This is the cheque for 1,500l. which I sent to Coulon Noel and Co., on the Imperial Bank, Lothbury Branch—I have picked out the 100 bonds, these are them—this is one of the second lot of twenty-five.
JAMES ROBERT DAGLAS . I am a ledger-keeper at the Imperial Bank, Lothbury Branch—we are agents for the Caisse General de Reports et de Depots at Brussels—this cheque for 1,500l., drawn by the Caisse General de Reports et de Depots, and dated 5th January, was presented to us, through the Clearing House, on 6th January by the City Bank—it bore at that time the endorsement as it now appears, Coulon Noel and Co.
DAVID KIDD . I was assistant manager at the City Bank, Holborn Branch; I am not now—on 16th May, 1885, a drawing account was opened at our bank by Coulon Noel and Co.—I saw a person whom I understood was Mr. Noel—before the account was opened we were referred to Messrs. Willats and Charlton, the auctioneers of Holborn Viaduct—the account was just a drawing account, a certified copy has been handed to Messrs. Wontner—somebody signed in the book (which I have not here), before the account was opened, the name of Coulon Noel and Co., Coulon Noel being the sole partner who had the right to draw and the person I saw—on 6th January this cheque on the Imperial Bank was paid in to that account—it bears my crossing—I presented it through the Clearing House in the usual way—I should say this endorsement on the back is in the writing of the person who opened the account
—it is not exactly like it—I was present when the book was signed—the person signing was not Trusovitch—on the 7th January, two cheques for 816. and 679l., were presented at the bank by Coulon Noel and Co.—I could not say by whom—these are the two cheques, they are out of the book we issued to Coulon Noel and Co.—as far as I can judge they are signed by the same person that opened the account—the cashier is here who cashed them—I am manager at the Queen Victoria Street Branch now—it was Trusovitch who presented these cheques on the morning of the 7th—I had not seen him before—to my knowledge he had more hair about his face and a pointed moustache, and was better got up than he is now.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. Noel was a darkish man—I do not think Trusovitch has shaved since he was last before the Magistrate—he is not Noel and has not the least resemblance to him—I only saw Trusovitch once and don't know if he was a clerk—cheques are very frequently cashed by clerks.
JOHN COUTTS ROSSELL . I am cashier at the City Bank, Holborn Viaduct—I cashed these two cheques for 816l. and 679l., drawn by Coulon Noel and Co.—Trusovitch presented them—they amount together to 1,495l., that left a small balance of 4l. or 5l. to their account—I cashed them in one 500l. note, dated 14th March, 1885, No. 29335; one 200l. note, 14th April, 1885, No. 12855; six 50l. notes, 13th March, 1885, Nos. 57901-6; four 50l. notes, 13th March, 1885, Nos. 60206-9; and 295l. in gold—I had seen Trusovitch several times at the Bank, before paying in money and withdrawing.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I never saw Finkelstein till he was at Guildhall.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I had seen Trusovitch doing clerk's Work, cashing cheques—when the two cheques making up 1,400l. were cashed, there was no asking for small notes—we had it in gold and he could have had it in gold if he wished—he gave me a piece of paper with the notes on it that he required—I did not pay him exactly as he required it.
WILLIAM HENRY KEMP . I am a clerk in the issue department of the Bank of England—on 7th January, 1886, a note for 500l. and another for 200l. were presented to me to be cashed—the 500l. note was No. 29335, 14th March, 1885, and the 200l. note was No. 12855, 14th March, 1885—I do not know who presented them—I think the 500l. note was already endorsed when it was presented to me—I gave in exchange two 100l. notes, Nos. 54496-7, 13th April, 1885, and twenty 10l. notes, Nos. 34803-22, and 300l. in gold—only sixteen of the 10l. notes are in, the first four are not in yet—I looked in the Directory to see if the address which the person presenting gave was correct, I found it was—I was present at the second hearing at Guildhall—I heard Trusovitch say something but I could not hear what he said.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. If Trusovitch or whoever brought the notes had wanted all gold, he might have had it for these notes.
Re-examined. He told me what he wanted, and I gave him just what he asked for.
Bank—it was signed by the person representing himself to be Noel—the signature on this cheque is similar, but it is not precisely the same—I should say the endorsement on this 500l. bank-note is not in the same writing, it is written with a different pen.
By MR. HALL. The gentleman who signed the book was a tall dark man—that was the signature on which I cashed cheques—a cheque signed in the same way as this 500l. note is endorsed we should probably have returned marked "Signature differs"—I could not say from memory if we supplied the man who opened the account with a cheque-book at that time—we should have a signature for it—the "Noel" on the endorsement to the 1,500l. cheque and that in the bank-book are identical.
By MR. AVORY. The signature on the 500l. note is different—I should not have known that, and I think I should have returned a cheque if it bore that signature.
JOHN COUTTS ROSSALL (Re-examined by MR. HALL). I am paying cashier—I do not think I should have paid a cheque bearing the signature to this 1,500l.—I should have referred it—I should have said so before the bank manager said it—I think this is not the same signature; there is a difference, I cannot say where, in the word Noel—I should have left it in the manager's hands and not have taken the responsibility—if a forgery came to me I should refer it.
By MR. AVORY. A forgery might not be evident.
REGIS GLEVZAL . I am a cashier in the firm of Frederick Burt and Co., money changers, of 72, Cornhill—on 7th January I changed two 100l. notes, Nos. 54496 and 7, and 15 10l. notes, Nos. 34808 to 22; they are marked 15 in the right-hand corner—I gave in exchange 8,600 francs in French bank-notes, and about 9l. cash in English money—Trusovitch changed those notes.
Crow-examined by MR. HALL. I don't know Finkelstein, I never saw him in my life.
THOMAS CARTMELL . I am cashier to Messrs. Rheimhardt and Co., money changers, of 14, Coventry Street—on 7th January I cashed a 50l. note, No. 57903, which was endorsed by Trusovitch, who brought it to me, in my presence, "Coulon Noel and Co."—I gave French notes in exchange—at the same time I cashed three other 50l. notes, Nos. 57905 and 6 and 60207.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. We told him to endorse it. I am a clerk; if I took these notes to a bank to cash them I should put the name of the firm on them.
By MR. AVORY. I should give the proceeds to the firm.
By the JURY. If I endorsed it I should put my initials under the name of the firm, that was not done in this case.
By MR. HALL. I have had five years' experience—I saw yesterday a Bank of England note endorsed per procuration.
JOHN THOMAS DEAN . I am a money changer of 9, Coventry Street—on 7th January I cashed these two 50l. notes, Nos. 60208 and 9—Trusovitch presented them—I said "What is your name and address?" he said "Coulon and Co., Holborn Viaduct," and I wrote it on the back—I gave him 2,500 francs in notes and 15 francs silver.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I asked him who he represented, from
whom he came, and he said Coulon and Co., and I wrote it on—I recollected having seen the name on Holborn Viaduct frequently.
HENRY ADAMS I am assistant to Messrs. Baum Brothers, money changers, of 207, Piccadilly—on 7th January I changed four 50l. notes, of which I only see two here, Nos. 57902 and 57904, I have not seen the others since, and one 10l. note which I have not seen since I changed them into French, American, and a little Russian money and notes, chiefly notes—Trusovitch was the person for whom we changed them—we asked his name and wrote an endorsement—he endorsed one of the notes, I believe, which I don't see here, "Noel and Co., Ludgate Circus."
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I did not know Coulon Noel and Co. by name at all, if he had endorsed any name we should have changed the notes.
VICTOR BAILLIF . I am chief clerk in the Foreign Bill department of the Credit Lyonnais, 40, Lombard Street—on 12th January Finkelstein came in about 3.35 and asked me if we could wire any money to Stockholm; I said it was too late, we could do it, but it was too late for that day—I think we agreed we could do it on the following day; something was said about doing it the following day, and I think he said he would come then—I noticed some paper in his hand which I took for bank notes.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. They were white side out, but they seemed to me to look like English bank notes—I might have been mistaken—I took them for Bank of England notes by the colour of the paper—there is nothing unusual in people asking us to telegraph money to Stockholm, it is part of our business—our bank closes at 4 o'clock, we should refuse it to anybody after half-past 3.
WILLIAM SCOTT . I am a clerk in the General Post Office—I produce an original telegram dated 12th January and addressed to William Reicher, Hotel W.C., Stockholm, from some person calling himself Litvinoff.
ELIZABETH HARRIET KILLIP . I am clerk at the branch post office in Cornhill—on 12th January I took in this telegram, it has my initials on it—Finkelstein is the man who presented it—I cannot translate it.
MORRIS MOSER . I am an inspector, of Scotland Yard—I understand this language on the telegram, it is a mixture of Russian and Polish, anybody who speaks Polish can read it—I translate it; "Too late, will send together to-morrow."
PETER JOHN LUPTON . I am a manufacturer at 179, Aldersgate Street—some time at the end of last year I let an office there to some one giving the name of Dubois, who occupied it for some time—I saw Trusovitch there with him, but I did not know his name at all—I cannot tell how often he attended the office or Dubois, as they had the first floor and I was higher up—I last saw him there at the beginning of this year or the end of last—I handed over to the police, either Mitchell or Lythal, this roll of blotting paper which was used by Dubois.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Until I saw Finkelstein in the police-court I had never seen him before.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. There was a dark Frenchman and Dubois and Trusovitch—I cannot say what Trusovitch's duties were—I am certain ho is neither Dubois nor the Frenchman—the last time I saw Trusovitch was when he paid the rent, and said they wished to occupy the office for
some portion of January, as their other office was nut ready, I looked on it that he represented Dubois.
WILLIAM MORLEY FRENCH . I am articled clerk to Messrs. Wontner and Sons—I have examined this blotting-paper which was handed over by Mitchell tome; I find on it the name "Coulon Noel and Co." several times, and also the name "Oscar Haldy "several times, "Caisse General de Bruxelles "once, and other foreign banks.
ELEANOR AGNES WEBB . I am a widow living at 27, Great Coram Street—about two years ago I let some rooms to a person who gave the name of George Trusovitch, and after he had been there some time two of his friends came to lodge there—Finkelstein was one; I knew him by that name, and also as Litvinoff—Trusovitch came in March, 1884, and remained till March, 1885—Finkelstein came on January 19th, 1885, and remained till he was taken into custody on January 12th this year—on 12th January a telegram came for him, which I sent up to him—after he was in custody, it might have been a week, a second telegram came for him, which I gave to Mr. French.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. There was no concealment about Finkelstein's names—he lectured at the Birkbeck Institute every Monday—officers came to him at my house to take lessons in Russian—I heard he was connected with an Anglo-Russian trade journal—he said after a while that he must leave me and go elsewhere, and I said he could have one room instead of two and pay less, and in consequence of that he remained on with me—during all the time he was with me he behaved very well—he was constantly writing at home—he told me he spoke several languages; lam told he could speak 10 languages.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. We called Trusovitch MR. GEORGE.
Re-examined. Finkelstein was his real name, and Litvinoff was his professional name.
HENRIETTA NORDAN . I am the wife of George Nordan—we live at 389, Strand, and let rooms there—in March, 1885, Trusovitch came to lodge with us, giving the name of Oscar Haldy; I do not know him by the name of Trusovitch—he continued to lodge with us till November 14th, 1885, when he said he was going to Paris—he occasionally had visitors—Finkelstein came to see him eight or ten times, I think—I knew him under the name of Albert—after Haldy left Finkelstein came twice to fetch Haldy's letters; I gave them to him.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. One of the occasions when Finkelstein came was 9th November, the Lord Mayor's Show day—I understood he was invited there by Haldy—other guests of Trusovitch's were visiting at the lodgings on that day, and in consequence of that I was asked to allow him to go into a different room, and he went up to the top of the house—as he came down I said, "Won't you go and see Haldy?" and he said he would not intrude himself on them as Mr. Haldy was engaged—before he called for letters I had been requested by letter from Trusovitch to hand over any letters to him—I handed over the envelopes to him—I do not know if two of them were circulars.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I do not know if Trusovitch had any Russian letters, I should not know if they were—not very many letters came to the house—we had some addressed in Russian—I am a Swede.
Re-examined. Finkelstein told me he was a Finn from Elsinore.
By MR. HALL. Haldy told me in November he was going to spend Christmas in Sweden.
SARAH PARROTT . I am the wife of Thomas Parrott, living at 48, Burton Crescent—on 20th November last year Alfred Watson, the man you call Trusovitch, came to lodge with me, and stayed till the afternoon of 7th January—I did not know he was going then—I never saw Finkelstein till I saw him at Guildhall—I did not see him fetch the luggage away.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I have not many lodgers in my house—they are known as first and second floor lodgers, and when people come they ask for them in that way.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. He left suddenly on the 7th—I did not see him on the 6th packing his boxes—my servant brought down his box on 7th January.
PENELOPE PARROTT . I am the daughter of the last witness, and live with her at 48, Burton Crescent—I remember Trusovitch lodging there in the name of Alfred Watson—I saw him leave the house on January 7th—I knew he was going the same day; he told my mother—he did not take his luggage with him—about an hour after he had gone Finkelstein came and took Watson's luggage away—I had seen Finkelstein about two or three times a week while Watson was lodging with us.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Watson occupied the front drawing-room—he was there from 20th November to 7th January—I remember distinct occasions when Finkelstein was there; I cannot tell you the dates of any of them—he has sometimes come there with Trusovitch, and gone up at the time—he has sometimes spoken to me—on the day he came to fetch the luggage he said, "I have come to fetch Mr. Watson's luggage"—he put it in a cab.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. Watson gave me some books—he was not packing up his things then, nor did he say he had brought me some books down as he was going away—he gave me no reason for giving them to me—I think it was on a Sunday he gave them to me—he gave me five or six—I am quite sure he did not say he was going away and should not want them—I did not see him packing his things the day before.
DANIEL BROWN (Detective Sergeant, Scotland Yard). In consequence of some communication from Paris, I was keeping observation on 66, Holborn Viaduct on 4th January—I had had Oldson pointed out to me by the housekeeper, he is Trusovitch—on 4th January I saw him go from Holborn Viaduct to the bank at the corner of Holborn Circus—I have followed him to 179, Aldersgate Street where the name of Dubois was up—on 4th January I saw him leave Holborn Viaduct and go to Holborn Circus, where he met a man; he went into the City Bank again—from there he went into an umbrella shop, and then to the British Museum, where in the reading room he met Finkelstein—I then followed them to a restaurant in Tottenham Court Road, where they were together about an hour and a half, writing letters—I did not see Trusovitoh go to the City Bank on the 6th—I followed Finklestein on the 12th from the British Museum to Cornhill, when he went to the money changer's.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. The 4th was the day I fallowed Trusovitch and the first day I had Finklestein under my observation, when I saw them meet at the British Museum—it was on the 4th that Trusovitch
went to Aldersgate Street; he went there alone—Finkelstein was not there—I did not see Finkelstein on the 5th or 6th, 7th or 9th—I think Mitchell followed him on the 9th.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. There is no doubt that Trusovitch is Oldson.
JOHN MITCHELL (City Detective Sergeant). On 13th January I arrested Finkelstein in Hunter Street, having followed him from 27, Great Coram Street—I said "Is your name Noel?"—he said "No"—I said "Is your name Dubois?"—he said" No"—I said "What is your name?"—he said "Finklestein"—I said "lama police officer, and I have had you followed for several days, and yesterday I watched you myself leave your lodgings at 27, Great Coram Street, and go to the Credit Lyonnais, Lombard Street, where you endeavoured to telegraph a sum of money to some place abroad, and I also followed you to a telegraph office on Cornhill, when you sent a telegram to some place abroad; from inquiries which I have made respecting you, I shall apprehend you, and charge you with being concerned with two men named Noel and Dubois with feloniously forging and uttering a large number of bonds of the Ville de Paris"—I cautioned him as to anything he might say to me—he said "On Thursday last a friend of mine named Trusovitch came to me at my lodgings and left with me to mind, 590l. in gold, to be forwarded on to him in parts; yesterday I went to the Credit Lyonnais in Lombard Street to send some money to him at Stockholm, but it was too late to send it; I also sent Trusovitch a telegram "—I said "Do you know where Trusovitch got the money from?"—he said "No—I said "Do you know what business he was?"—he said "Trusovitch told me that he was employed at a banker's on Holborn Viaduct, but I cannot remember the name; he said he was paid by salary and part profits"—I said "Was the name Coulon Noel and Co.?"—he said "Yes, that was the name"—I said "How often have you seen him?"—he said "Frequently, I was with him on Wednesday last"—I said "Have you sent him any money before?"—he said "No, only 100l. to Mr. Williams of America by Trusovitch's instructions"—I said "What have you done with the remainder of the money?"—he said "I have 350l. in this bag, which I was going to send to him, and the rest you will find at my lodgings; I don't know, the persons you have mentioned or the bonds"—I then took him to the police-station, where he was charged—I searched his bag and found 349l. in English sovereigns—I also found this letter, and this telegram, and some registered slips, and on him besides the 349l. was nearly 9l.—I found a receipt for a registered letter to a man named Williams—at the station he said he knew nothing about the bonds, and "I have never seen nor do I know the men named in the charge"—I searched his lodging at 27, Great Coram Street with Lythel, and saw Lythel find there 137l.—Finkelstein told us where we should find it—we found the keys on him—I had followed him on that day to the Credit Lyonnais and to the post-office, and prior to that, on the 11th January, I had been to the office, 66, Holborn Viaduct; I found nobody there—I broke open the safe, and in it found this agreement with Willatts and Charlton, containing the address 27, Great Coram Street—afterwards I went over to Stockholm, and on 24th February I received Trusovitch in custody from the Swedish police—before he was handed over to me I saw him in prison, and told him I was an officer sent over from England to arrest him in case he was handed over to the English authorities for being
concerned with others in forging and uttering a number of Ville de Paris bonds—he said "On one occasion Noel sent me to Messrs. Cowell and Co., of Cornhill, to buy six Ville de Paris bonds, for which I paid 400 francs each, which I gave to Noel, who sent them abroad"—he further said he had bought other bonds—on the way home in the steamer the prisoner said voluntarily to me "I was clerk to Messrs. Coulon and Noel, of Holborn Viaduct; the firm consisted of four or five persons, Mr. Coulon, Mr. Noel, Mr. Alphonso, Mr. Bonnett or Bennett, and Mr. Dubois—Dubois I only saw on one or two occasions; I do not think he had anything to do with the firm"—he also said "On the 7th January, when I went to the City Bank, Holborn Viaduct, to get the two cheques cashed, Alphonso was with me—he waited outside the bank until I came out; I then handed him a bag of gold, about 200l.; he told me to get the 500l. note cashed, to get French money for it, and to bring it to him in Argyle Street; I went to Argyle Street for that purpose, and waited some time, but could not see him; I afterwards left London for Stockholm"—I said "Finkelstein told me that he sent a Mr. Williams, or America, at your request, 100l."—he said "It is quite true; Williams is a friend of mine; he is a gentleman to whom I am indebted; the money I sent was my own"—I said "I have been told he in an engraver or a printer"—he said "No; nothing of the sort; don't think that he has anything to do with this fraud"—I received from the Swedish police the property taken from Trusovitch; altogether the total amount of money I received was about 850l. I am told, in French, Swedish, English, and other money—I also received a quantity of new clothes and several articles of jewellery.
Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I was not positively instructed, and knew nothing about the matter till the 8th January—Finkelstein was not watched till after we had opened the safe on the 11th January; we knew nothing of him before—Brown saw him join Trusovitch at the British Museum and go to the restaurant, but I don't think he knew who he was—you may dismiss everything from your mind as to Finkelstein till the 11th January—I was the only one that had anything to do with Finkelstein; I had constables to help me—I saw him first leave the house on the 12th about 11 o'clock, and I made inquiries—I was not watching him then; he may have been going to give lessons; he was late for the Credit Lyonnais, I knew—I took this conversation down in my book while I was in Finkelstein's company in the street where it took place; it may be imperfect—he said "I know nothing of the persons or bonds"—those persons were Noel and Dubois; he said that two or three times; he said it directly I mentioned Noel and Dubois—I asked him what the business was, but I did not ask him the name of the firm—I said "Was it Coulon Noel and Co.?"—I don't remember if before that I asked him the name of the firm where Trusovitch was employed, or if he said "I don't know"—I think I said "Was it Coulon Noel and Co.?" and he said "I think it is"—I asked him if he knew the position of Trusovitch there, and he said "As far as I know he was a clerk there; he never made me any particular statement, but that was the impression made on my mind by his occasional remarks "—I don't remember asking him if he had nothing for his trouble—Lythal, who was with me at time, may have done so—I have been told Finkelstein was a teacher of languages, and lecturer at the Birkbeck
Institute—he told me that if I went to the drawers in his room in a wooden box I should find the money—he said he had not counted the money—he made a mistake in it at first; he said it was 590l. or 595l., but that he had not counted it, or something of that sort—he said he had counted what he had sent away—he was the first person who told me anything about the 100l. sent to Williams—he gave me his keys to open his drawers—he said he was to send the money in parts to Trusovitch—in coming from Sweden, Trusovitch on several occasisns emphatically declared that Finkelstein did not know where the money came from, and that Finkelstein had nothing to do with the firm of Noel and Co.—he said that also to the chief of the detective force in Sweden—I have not since come into connection with people who knew him as giving lessons in foreign tongues.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. The first thing Trusovitch said tom was "I am not Dubois"—when I read the warrant to him he was in the custody of the Swedish police, having been arrested by them as Dubois—the terms of the warrant were in the Lame of Noel and Dubois, no other names were known at that time—I was under the impression when the warrant was issued that there was a man Dubois in the firm—I have since heard there was a real man Dubois, who was seen at Aldersgate Street, and there was also a real man Noel, all mixed up in this concern—the Swedish police extradited this man as Dubois, he was in the name of Reicher—there was no warrant out against Trusovitch—I am satisfied he is not Dubois, and he is not Noel—I am sure Alphonso and Noel were different persons; if Trusovitch meant to convey that impression to me he did not do it.
By MR. BESLEY. The 9l. found on Finkelstein was separate in his own purse, and he told me that was distinct from the other money which had been entrusted to him.
By MR. HALL. I have heard Trusovitch comes from Poland—I do not know that he is well connected and was an artillery officer.
Re-examined. At the offices at Holborn Viaduct I found a quantity of letters and correspondence—these produced are some of them—we have had them translated.
By MR. BESLEY. They do not implicate Finkelstein in the least degree.
PAUL METHEWS . I have translated the letter and telegram found on Finkelstein—the letter is dated Hull, Station Hotel, January 8th, 1886, and begins, "Dear Apollo," I cannot make out the signature—the telegram is from Stockholm to Litvinoff, 27, Great Coram Street: "Money not received, why has it not been sent? wire without loss of time"—it is dated 14th January—that would be the same day in Sweden as here.
JOHN MITCHELL (Re-examined by MR. BESLEY). There was found at Finkelstein's lodgings, in his drawers, a savings bank book, beginning with 1l. on December 4th, 1883—then there are two other deposits, then several pounds are drawn out, and then 17l. 19s. comes out for the purpose
by MR. HALL. I found some reader's tickets for the British. Museum, you cannot get in there without being vouched for by some householder.
MR. HALL moved to quash the indictment against Trusovitch, as he had been extradited upon a warrant granted against a person named Dubois
MR. AVORY stated that the warrant had been obtained upon information against the prisoner under the name of Dubois, and therefore it was quite immaterial in what name he was arrested if the Court had the jurisdiction to try the offence. The COMMON SERJEANT overruled the objection.
MR. BESLEY submitted that there was no evidence of any uttering of forged bonds in this country, and no evidence that Finkelstein had been an accessory to the uttering.
MR. HALL cited Queen v. Carr (Sessions Paper, vol. lxxxvii p. 47) upon the question as to jurisdiction.
MR. AVORY argued that there was sufficient evidence of posting the bonds in this country to support the Count for uttering (Queen v. Burdett, 4 Bramwell and Alderson, and Queen v. Giles, 1 Moody), and he also urged that there was evidence to go to the Jury as to both prisoners.
MR. BESLEY replied.
The Common SERJEANT. having consulted with MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN, decided to ask the Jury whether they considered there was sufficient evidence of the posting of the letter containing the bonds; that if they decided there was not such evidence, he should take a verdict of not guilty, but that if they thought there was, he should allow the case to proceed, reserving the point as to jurisdiction should the prisoners be found guilty. Each of the prisoners received a good character.
GUILTY . TRUSOVITCH— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
FINKELSTEIN— Six Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Saturday, March 13th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder,
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.
MR. POYNTER Prosecuted.
EMMA NORTON . I am the prisoner's wife—we live at 2, Shepherd Place, Wood Street, Westminster—on Sunday, the last day of January, I had some words with my husband—we have been married 18 years, and we have eight children—on February 1st I left home early to go to the police-court for protection, I was frightened of my husband—they did not grant me a summons, and I went back about dinner time and found my husband there—he said "You have been out since seven this morning drinking my money"—I was the worse for drink—I went out again and had more drink in the afternoon—I had my baby with me—about 5.30 I went to a public-house at the corner of Marsham Street, and afterward
to the Adam and Eve, and my husband was just coming out at the door—I began to go on at him, and he said I had been drinking his money all day—he put his hand up and I struck him—he was suffering from the effects of drink—he put his hand up, I thought, to strike me, but I found myself cut—a little girl took my baby from me, and I was taken to the hospital and had my nose stitched up.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I met you opposite the Adam and Eve I said that I had been looking for you all day, and you were very angry—I called you a low Irish blackguard, and spat in your face, and struck you with my clenched hand—you then asked me to go home and attend to the five babies I had left without anything to eat—I was well aware that you were in bed unwell, and I never came to attend on you—you were cutting some tobacco with your tobacco knife, and when I said "Go home, you Irish scoundrel," you hit me back-handed, and you were compelled to stoop your hand to escape the child's head; your knuckles missed my nose, and the blade of the knife cut you on the cheek—if you ever drink a drop it is on Saturdays, but it does not amount to much; you can't drink—you do not drink at your dinner or on your working days, you are a sober and respectable man, and keep your children well, and I am a bad example to them—I have drank for five weeks right off, and caused you daily torment.
Re-examined. He was drunk on the Sunday before this, and I was fighting him—I was equally bad—I struck him with a broom—he has been convicted five times.
FRANK DONOGHUE . I am a bottler, of 3, Young's Place, Westminster—on February 1st, about 5.30 p.m., I was outside the Adam and Eve public-house and saw Mrs. Norton and the prisoner close together, he had hold of her nose with his left hand, and said "You b—, I will cut your nose off," and took an open knife from his pocket and drew it across her face; she screamed and ran into a public-house—I followed the prisoner and fetched a constable—the prisoner was not cutting tobacco with a knife, nor did I see any tobacco in his hand.
Cross-examined. I was in Wood Street, and could see what took place—there are not seven convictions against me for theft, only one—I heard and saw what I have said.
JAMES WHITE (Policeman B 184). I took the prisoner at his house on February 1st—when I went in he said "I know what you have come for, I will tell you all about it. I had been ill in bed all day and my wife left me. I got up to look for her about 5 o'clock, and after looking for her in various public-houses I met her against the Adam and Eve. I asked her where she had been, and she said looking for me; I said 'I will give you something to look for, I will cut your b—nose off'"—I asked him if he struck her, he said "Only with this," drawing this knife out of his pocket—it was shut—I opened it—there is blood on the handle and on the blade—I took him to the station—he said that if he met her again he would stick a knife into the bottom of her belly and rip her b—guts out, and he would let her see what a b—Irishman could do, and that he would kill the Inspector the first opportunity he had.
Cross-examined. I think you were recovering from the effects of a good drinking but, but you had your senses.
brought there with a out across the bridge of her nose and down her right cheek, about four inches long—it had reached the bone, and she lost a good deal of blood—this knife would inflict the wound; there will be a scar there all her life—I had to put five stitches in it.
Cross-examined. It is just possible that it might be accidentally done by throwing your hand backwards in making a hit at her throat.
The Prisoner called
HARRIET MILLS . I live with my father and mother at Westminster—I know you and the prosecutrix—I saw you quarrelling on February I—there was no one in the street but you two—Donoghue was not in the street—you asked your wife to come indoors—I did not hear her call you names—she spat in your face, but you did not hit her back—you did not use one hand to hold her nose, you used it to save the baby—you did not call your wife a b—bitch—I took the child from her, and at that time Donoghue made his appearance—I am certain he was not in the street previously—he could not have seen what occurred.
Cross-examined by MR. POYNTER. I know Donoghue—I have often seen him, but he was not there when it happened—the prisoner did not take hold of his wife's nose with his hand—I did not see a knife or anything in his hand.
Prisoner's Defence. I throw myself on your mercy; I hope you will take into consideration the provocation I received from a drunken woman. She was drinking my money away daily, and I had a life of misery with her every day alike. I have the superintendent of my work here, who will testify to my character. I have six helpless children dependent on me for support. I hope you will have compassion on me, for I am not in fault.
The prisoner received an excellent character.
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the great provocation. — One Week's Imprisonment, and to enter into recognisance to keep the peace for one year.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted; MR. WILSON appeared for Mills, and MR. WARBURTON for Godwin.
LESLIE STANDRIG . I live at 152, Minories—on 22nd January I advertised a bicycle, price 15l., in the Exchange and Mart, and on the 23rd the prisoner Mills called on me and gave the name of Melville—I showed him the machine, he seemed to like it, and I arranged to take it to his house on Monday morning, 37, Guilford Street, Russell Square, but after he left I rode it up the same day, Saturday—I got there between 7.30 and 8 o'clock, and saw Mills, who said that he expected it on Monday morning, and he should not get his money till Monday morning from his friends—I said "I must take it back, and you must let me know when you get your money and I will send it again"—he said "It is bad weather for riding, and it is a pity you should have the trouble of taking it back; "and while we were talking Godwin looked over the balusters upstairs and asked what it was, and came down and looked at the machine, and we all adjourned to a public house and talked it over, and I agreed to accept this certificate of 51 shares in an advertising company as security foe the 15l.—Mills seemed loth to let me hare it, and Godwin
said "Oh, it is worth 50l."—he first offered me the name of his tailor as a reference—we went back to his house, and he gave me this receipt (produced) in Godwin's presence—Godwin suggested his giving me this as security—I left the machine there—Godwin rode it away, and Mills and I adjourned to the house, and Godwin came back in about 10 minutes—on the Monday morning, January 25th, Mills came to my house and said that he had not been able to decide about the machine, but would let me know as soon as he could—on 29th January my brother told me something and I went to Guilford Street the next day, but did not find Mills—I did not ask for Godwin—I then went to the office of the advertising company, and it was locked—I could not get in, and then went to the office of the Exchange and Mart—on February 1st I received this letter. (Signed A. Melville, promising to call on the witness on Thursday.) I wrote this answer. (Dated Feb., dating that having found that the document given as security was valueless, unless the cash was sent next day he should take such steps as his solicitors advised.) I got no answer, and afterwards found that the machine had been pawned.
Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I only went to the office once—I saw put up "The Select Advertising Company"—this document is dated in 1884, the company carried on business there only about 18 months—I do not know that Godwin has been for several years a clerk in a bicycle office in Barbican and since that in Long Acre, or that he has constantly dealt in bicycles, or that he lived at the same address five years.
Cross-examined by MR. WILSON. Godwin rode the machine away, and when Mills was away Godwin said that Mills knew very little about bicycles, and I understood it would depend on him whether the bicycle was bought or not.
Re-examined. This document states that the Company was incorporated under the Companies Act of 1862—I have since heard that the shares must be transferred by proper transfer in the books of the Company.
ALBERT WILSON . I am assistant to Messrs. Attenborough, of 11, Greek Street, Soho—on 29th January Godwin pawned a tricycle with me for 3l., the contract is signed "J. Gosling, for Mr. Allan"—he said that he pledged it for Mr. Allan, and he was thinking of buying it of him—Mr. Standrig afterwards identified it.
The RECORDER considered that there was not evidence to prove that what was done was a trick to get possession of the tricycle.
MESSRS. BODKIN and MEAD Prosecuted; MR. WILSON appeared for Mills, and MR. WARBURTON for Godwin.
ALFRED THOMPSON . I am a dentist of Market Street, Paddington—in January 1 advertised a safety bicycle in the Cyclist, and in a few days the prisoner Mills called on me in my absence—I afterwards received this letter. (Dated 25th January, from A. Melville, offering to buy the bicycle if the witness would briny it on Monday morning to 35, Guilford Street). I went to 35, Guilford Street on the 27th with the machine, and saw Mills and agreed to sell it for 12l. 10s.—he offered me 2l. on account—I refused that and he wrote this cheque, payable next day, the 28th—he said that he bad not sufficient in the bank, but he was going to pay some in—I left
the machine with him—the cheque passed through my account and came back marked "N. S."—I then went to Guilford Street with my father, who showed Mills the cheque—he said that he was very sorry, but the money had not been paid to him, but he had just come from the bank and deposited it—my father asked him to write an open cheque—he refused and said that he was not going to have his cheques thrown all about the place—the cheque was presented again, and again came back with "N. S." on it—I went to Guilford Street again, and they told me that the prisoner had pone into the country for a fortnight—my father received this letter. (This was dated 31st January, 1886, and stated," Your son accepted my post-dated cheque with the knowledge that I had not the money there; as you refused my giving part of the same, and with your insolence and his behaviour I shall pay at my leisure, and if 1 have any more of your blackguardism my solicitor shall take immediate steps to stop you; when you come to me in the course of a week I will pay you the amount,—A. MELVILLE.") I saw Mills draw this cheque, and I say that these two letters are in his writing—I parted with my bicycle believing the cheque was genuine, and that he had funds to meet it.
Cross-examined by MR. WILSON. Mills did not ask me to take a post-dated cheque, he wrote it out—he did not tell me that he had very little money in the bank, he said that he had not quite sufficient to meet it.
GEORGE KINWOOD TAYLOR . I am a clerk in the employ of the British Mutual Banking Company, Ludgate Circus—Mills has an account there in the name of Arthur Melville, it was opened on January 19th by a payment in of 10l.—this (produced) is his pass book; he has a balance of 2s. 6d.—this cheque passed through the bank and we returned it on 28th January—a cheque for 3l. 3s. was drawn and returned, and another for 2l. 6s. 8d. on 9th February and returned—no other money has been paid in.
RICHARD FRYER . I am a bicycle and tricycle agent, of Finsbury Avenue—Godwin called on me early in February; I had known him four or five years—he asked if I could dispose of some machines for a young fellow whose name he did not mention—a day or two afterwards a Kangaroo bicycle arrived, but I do not know who brought it, I was out—Godwin called a day or two afterwards and said that he wished a few alterations made in it as soon as possible, as he intended keeping it for himself if possible—while I was making them he called again and said, "I shall not be able to keep that machine, I must get you to sell it"—I gave him this form to fill up, which he took away and brought back signed, "Arthur Gilbert"—I sold the machine for 10l., which I paid to Godwin, retaining my expenses—he called again on February 3rd, and said he was going to send a tandem tricycle; it had to be cleaned and overhauled, and I was to get some offers for it as soon as I could and let him know—I eventually sold it for 17l., and paid part to Godwin and part to a messenger who he sent, retaining my expenses.
Cross-examined by MR. WILSON. I have known Godwin as a dealer in second-hand bicycles for some time.
Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I have known Godwin about five years; I first knew him as a clerk in Barbican, and afterwards to people dealing in the same goods in Chancery Lane—he has lived a great many years at the same address at Clerkenwell, and I never knew anything against him—I know that he. Would have a large number of
bicycles and tricycles to dispose of—he would deal with any bicycle given him to deal with—he lives at home—I am acquainted with his father and the daughters.
ROBERT WILLIS . I live at 67, Newman Street, Oxford Street—on January 30th I bought a bicycle from Mr. Fryer for 10l., and about a month or 10 days afterwards sold it to Mr. Bennett for 10l. 10s.—on February 11th I bought from Mr. Fryer a Humber tandem tricycle, No. 1761, for 17l., which is still in my possession—Mr. Ford called on me from Messrs. Humber and I showed in to him.
Cross-examined. The prisoner asked me to accept 2l. in cash; I objected, and he gave me this post-dated cheque.
CHARLES SEWARD . I am a dairyman, of 60, Flaxman Road, Camberwell—on 6th February Mrs. Mills, who dealt at my shop, came and handed me this cheque on the British Mutual Banking Company: "Pay Mr. Mills 3l. 6s. 8d. Arthur Melville"—I gave him cash for it, paid it to a neighbour, and received it back marked "N S"—I went the same evening, February 10th, to 68, Flaxman Road and saw Mrs. Mills, and on 17th February I went to 37, Compton Buildings and saw Mills, who I knew as Mills—he said "I endorsed that cheque, and I shall see Melville in the evening"—I did not know he was Melville—he said that it was given to him by Melville, and that he should have some money on Friday and would pay me—he tendered me 5s., which I refused to take—I believed the cheque to be genuine, and that there were sufficient funds to meet it.
GEORGE KINWOOD TAYLOR . I am in the service of Messrs. Humber, cycle manufacturers, of Holborn Viaduct—on 26th January Mills came there in the name of Melville, and wanted to purchase a Humber tandem tricycle—I showed him a new one—he said he had never ridden one of those before, and he should like to ride it before buying it—I said that I had a second-hand one downstairs which he could have for two days and see if it fitted him—I sent him the secondhand one for 25l., and the carman brought back the parcels-book receipted—on February 1st I received this letter. (Signed E. Melville, stating that he had been away from home and unable to try the tricycle, and requesting to be allowed to keep it a few days longer.) I sent word back "Very well," and next day dictated, signed, and sent a letter—I saw the machine a week ago in Mr. Willis's possession—I had not authorrised Mills to sell it; it was only a loan.
JOHN LEONARD . I am in Messrs. Humber's employ—I saw the prisoner about this machine on 22nd January when Ford was present, and again on 10th February, when he said he had tried it and liked it very well, and had ridden it to Southend, and it was still there; he would consult a friend, but he thought 25l. a great deal for a second-hand machine, and asked if we would put on new tyres if he paid 25l.—I said I would let him know—I communicated with Mr. Ford, and a letter was written—the number of the machine was 1761.
The evidence of LESLIE STANDRIG and ALBERT WILSON in the last case teas read to them by the RECORDED,to which they assented.
JOSEPH KENMAN (Detective E). On the 18th February I took Mills at 32, Compton Buildings—I read the warrant to him, and said "On that charge you will come with me to the station"—he said "I am not going to suffer for the whole; Charley Firth is more to blame than I am; he took the bicycle from me and sold it, and only gave me a small portion of the money he got for it; Firth assisted me in getting the cheque-book"—I have heard that Godwin has two or three other names—I said "You obtained two tricycles while you were residing at Guilford Street, and probably you will be charged with obtaining them by fraud "—he said "Firth was with me when I got one of the tricycles, and he gave me the certificate of shares with which I managed to get the tricycle; he afterwards took it away and pawned it; he is connected with the cycle works, and I think he took the Humber tandem and sold it"—I searched Mills's bedroom, and found this cheque-book under the pillow—I went to 49, Halton Road, Mrs. Sawyer's, and found a box which. I unlocked with a key found on him, and found a receipt signed A. Thorpe for 15l., and one from Thompson for 12l. 10s.—I took Godwin on February 20th in Tothill Street, Westminster, and told him what Mills had said—he said "Yes, I did get the machines from Gilbert, but if I tell you what I have done with them will you charge me?"—I said "I cannot hold out any promise to you; I shall be guided by circumstances"—he said "I took the bicycle and Humber tricycle to Fryer, of the City Cycle Works, and he sold them for me on commission"—he afterwards said that he purchased the certificate which he gave to Mills from young Salkeld—I found on Godwin a special contract for the tricycle pawned with Albert Wilson, and two cheques from the book found, one of which is filled up "for 20l. (This was dated 17th February, for 20l. to blank, and signed Arthur Melville.")
Mills, at the request of his Counsel, made his own defence as follows: "When I bought the goods I expected money to meet the cheques; if I had received it it would have been paid in, and the cheque would have been met. As regards the Standrig bicycle, I pledged it, but I intended to keep it; I did not buy the other."
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour each.
THIRD COURT.—Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, March 13th, 15th, and 16th, 1886.
Surrey case before Mr. Common Serjeant.
382. WILLIAM TURNOUR THOMAS (VISCOUNT) HINTON (36), GEORGE ALCOCK (49), and WILLIAM WRIGHT (70) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain by false pretences from Thomas Horsley two guns, and other goods from other people, with intent to cheat and defraud, and obtaining various goods from divers people with intent to defraud.
MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS and CAGNAY Prosecuted; MR. FILLAN defended
Lord Hinton, MR. JARVIS defended Wright, and MR. HODSON defended Alcock.
LISTER ROBINSON . I am a member of the firm of Robinson and Sons, Ilkley, Yorkshire—in May, 1878, I received an order for some couches—I burnt the letter, all except the crest and the address—I entered the order in my book—in consequence of the letter I sent the couches to Lord Hinton, 67, Palace Gardens Terrace, Kensington—I cannot swear I sent them myself—I sent them to the station with a boy—the price of the two was 14l. 14s.—the next month, June, I received another letter with a similar crest and monogram, and with the same address, but with the signature "William Wright"—I burnt that—that letter ordered two couches to be sent, similar to the two I had sent to Lord Hinton, and said that he (Wright) was staying with his Lordship, and that the couches were to be sent to somewhere in Holloway—I did not send those—I sent the two couches to Lord Hinton because of his name being on the letter, and I thought he was a trustworthy person.
Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I have no knowledge that the William Wright whose signature was on the letter is the prisoner.
Re-examined. Wright's address was 40, Kingsdown Road, Holloway—I entered it in my book at the time.
GEORGE JOHN REYNOLDS I am landlord of the Stanley Arms, Landseer Road, Holloway—about September, 1878, I knew the prisoner Wright, who was living then at 40, Kingsdown Road, Holloway—in August he asked me to cash a cheque for him for 6l. 6s., drawn on the Birkbeck Bank by Moore—I did so; I did not get the money for it, I have it in my pocket now—I made several applications at 40, Kingsdown Road, but did not get the money.
Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I did not see Moore about it—I suppose Wright was living at 40, Kingsdown Road for about 12 months—I did not know what business he was in; I did not know he was a Parliamentary agent—he lived in a house which was let furnished.
Re-examined. He was a customer at the Stanley Arms—I understood Moore was an underwriter, he lived at Turnham Green—I saw him about it, and he repudiated it altogether, and said he would not pay.
SAMUEL BLAKEMORE ALPORT . I am a gun maker at 50, Whitehall Street, Birmingham—Baldwin and Sons of Birmingham handed me this letter (Marked S. A.) and I afterwards saw Alcock in consequence of it, and had a conversation with him. (This requested Messrs. Baldwin to send a catalogue of their guns, as he (Alcock) had a client, a nobleman, who had instructed
him to get two.) I then received this letter of July 11th, from Baldwin and Sons. (This stated that Alcock had heard of Mr. Alport from Messrs. Baldwin, as eminent manufacturers of hammerless guns, and asked that a catalogue should be sent.) In consequence of that I called at Billiter Street, at the office of Halliday and Co., where I saw Alcock, who said he wanted such and such a gun made, and he was engaged on behalf of Lord Hinton, to procure one for him; he asked me if I could ensure him a good gun as he himself knew nothing about guns—I told him he might rely on me, and he said if my guns were as good as the pair which Baldwin supplied him with, he would be quite satisfied—I asked him what kind of a man Lord Hinton was, in view of making the gun the proper bend and crook—he said "Lord Hinton is a man something like yourself in build," but he could not shoot, or but very badly—he said, however, he had shot with his (the witness's) gun, and that he shot with that as well as any—I asked him to lend me his gun as a pattern—he said he made it a practice never to lend his gun, or his horse—I said I only wanted it for measurement purposes, he still declined—I told him to lay it on the table and measure it, and take the outline with a pencil, and he said that would do, and I left—on 20th July I received this letter with a pattern of the gun, it had this monogram on it. (The letter stated, a rough outline of a hammerless gun was enclosed, and that as his Lordship wished to become fully accustomed to the action and use of the hammerless gun before September, perhaps they could send him one which he could use, if only a second-hand one.) In reply to this letter of 25th July I forwarded on the 26th, by the Great Western Railway, a gun on trial value 21l., also the gun which had been ordered as per invoice, amounting to 27l. 3s. 6d., found at Alcock's house and which was made specially for him—I made out the invoice to Halliday and Co., George Alcock representing that he was a partner in the firm—it was returned with a request that it might be exchanged for the one made out—on the 27th I wrote this letter to Alcock. (Hoping he had received the gun.) I received this letter of the 28th from Alcock. (Stating Lord Hinton had received the gun, was pleased with it, and the witness was to tell the maker so.) On the 29th I sent this letter found at Alcock's house. (Enclosing account, and stating the witness was gratified that Lord Hinton was pleased with the gun.) I afterwards wrote for the account—I received this letter of 22nd September from Alcock. (Stating that Lord Hinton was abroad, but liked the gun sent on trial, and desired to retain it, asking for an inclusive account, and promising to obtain instructions to settle.) I sent this reply found at Alcock's house, with this invoice. (Enclosing invoice.) I never received payment—I applied for payment to Halliday and Co., Lord Hinton, and Lord Paulet—I received this letter of 5th September, signed "William Wright," of 118, Hanley Road, Hornsey Rise. (Asking for a similar gun to that supplied to Lord Hinton, at four months' credit, and for telegram if terms accepted, and promising to pay expenses of message, &c.) I forwarded a gun price 26l. to that address—I received this letter from Wright. (From 16, Union Court, Old Broad Street, acknowledging receipt of gun and telegram, stating that he was glad the witness had not invoked him in a leather case, that he had not tried the gun, but liked it as far as appearance went.) I received this bill at six months for 26l. 1s. 6d., payable at Messrs. Gurney, Alexander, and Co.'s—it was returned to me dishonoured—I went to Wright's address, I could not find him;—I never got paid—I was induced to supply the guns to Alcock, believing ho was Lord
Hinton's agent, and to Wright, supposing he was a friend of Lord Hinton, and both were respectable and able to pay.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I made no inquiry of Lord Hinton before supplying the guns to Alcock—I looked at a Peerage, and found the name—I did not inquire for Lord Hinton's address.
Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I did not know Wright was a Parliamentary agent—I knew he had been at 10, Walbrook.
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE BONHILL . I am a gun-maker, of Belmont Road, Birmingham—in July, 1883, in consequence of receiving certain letters, I sent a price list for a hammerless gun, to Alcock, of 2, Chaddesden Villas, Ashbourne Grove, East Dulwich—I supplied one gun value 10l. to be used by Lord Hinton, while another value 18 guineas was being made for him—I never saw Alcock—on 3rd September I received this letter in the same writing. (Pressing for the new gun.) I wrote this reply. (Stating the delay in delivery was in consequence of the desire to employ the best finisher, and promising the gun by the following Thursday.) I then sent the gun to Alcock, 14, Billiter Street, and this letter. (Stating that the gun had been highly finished, and promising to engrave the monogram on the thumbpiece when the gun could be spared, and enclosing invoice for 18l. 18s. or 17l. net cash.) I never got any money—I received this letter. (From Alcock, acknowledging receipt and promising to remit.) Also this letter of 5th November. (Stating that Alcock would see Lord Hinton in a few days about payment.) I supplied the guns upon receiving from Alcock a reference to a Mr. Holmes, an architect, of Birmingham, who said Alcock was agent to Lord Hinton, who had a large estate—we could not find Holmes afterwards.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. Holmes had offices at Burlington Chambers, Birmingham—I applied to Alcock for payment—I made no inquiries of Lord Hinton before I supplied the gun.
JOHN CHAVE LUXMORE HENRY . I am a gun-maker, of 12, South Street, Handel Street, Edinburgh, and Pall Mall—in September, 1884, a Mr. Storer brought me this letter from Viscount Hinton with a coronet on it, in consequence of which I supplied two guns, value 95l. 13s. 6d.—I took one to Liverpool Street to meet the Viscount; I waited some time and met no one—the following morning I got this letter. (From 2,Chaddesden Villas, signed "Hinton," stating he had been detained, and desiring the guns to be given to Storer.) The guns were given to Storer; I saw no more of them—I never was paid—I put the matter into the hands of Messrs. Stubbs, debt collectors in May, 1885—I received this letter dated "May, 1885," signed "Alcock," and stating, "Your letter demanding 9l. has been opened by me, I know nothing of the transaction," and promising to put the matter before Lord Hinton—I received this letter from Clerkenwell Prison. (Dated 2,Chaddesden Villas, Ashburn Grove, &c., 28th January, 1886, asking for statement of account with Lord Hinton, and signed "George Alcock.") I was induced to supply the guns in the ordinary way of business by the letter brought by Storer—I knew Storer was a good Scotch family, and believed Lord Hinton was a gentleman and his friend—I had supplied guns to Storer to the amount in two accounts of 149l. 19s. 6d.—he gave me a bill at three months; it was dishonoured.
City, and am agent to the Treasury in this matter—I attended at the police-court—Alexander Storer was bound over in his recognisances to prosecute—he was examined as a witness before the Magistrate—he has had notice—Mrs. Toomes was also bound over as a witness—she has had notice to attend.
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. On the first occasion before the Magistrate Wright and Alcock only were prisoners—the Viscount was examined as a witness—he said Alcock had acted for him for a time in a matter of business, that he did not authorize Alcock to write to Horseley's in respect to a gun. Q. Do you remember his saying he had authorised him to use his paper, but not for that purpose? A I think his statements varied; he said one thing in chief and another in cross-examination.
By the COURT. Lord Hinton said Alcock had acted for him up to 18 months before; he had revoked his authority, but not in writing.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. A Power of Attorney was produced, which was found at Alcock's, respecting a building speculation at Ongar—Lord Hinton said something about not remembering whether he had received a gun from Horseley's; his memory was very uncertain when pressed.
Re-examined. It was in consequence of what transpired in Horsley's case that Lord Hinton was subsequently taken into custody on other matters.
ROBERT GRAY . I am a salesman to Messrs. Cogswell and Harrison, gun makers, of the Strand—on 29th August, 1885, Wright called with another man and said he wished to take particulars of some guns to a friend, which he did—I showed him some guns—he took the measurement—on. 1st September he called with this letter. (From Hinton, Grove House, Lewisham, Yorkshire, 31st August, 1885, to Wright, asking for a gun to be lent.) He asked me to send the gun to Mr. George Alcock—I did not send it as we had our suspicions.
THOMAS HORSLEY . I am a gun maker at York—I received this letter of 22nd September, 1885 (From Alcock, of Chaddesden Villas, stating that Lord Hinton desired a gun about 27lb)—I also received this letter of 25th September. (From Alcock, stating that Lord Hinton wished the loan of a gun while the other was made.) Also this letter of 22nd October, 1886. (From Alcock, directing Lord Hinton's initials to be engraved on stock of new pin.) We lent a gun, value 20l.—we forwarded the new gun, value, with fittings, 39l. 12s., to Mr. Alcock, at Dulwich, for Lord Hinton—we received this letter of 12th October, 1885, from Alcock. (Acknowledging receipt of the gun and stating that it suited Lord Hinton admirably.) I sent this invoice, total 59l/. 12s.—I was never paid—I have seen one gun in the hands of the pawnbroker and the other in the hands of the police—I believed they were for sporting purposes—I was induced to part with the guns by the letter from Alcock, stating they were for Lord Hinton—we looked in the Peerage and found who Lord Hinton's father was—on 11th October I received this letter from Wright. (Dated 5th October, 1885,55, Grove Road, Hollow ay, asking for a similar gun and referring to Lord Hinton.) I then put the matter in the hands of the police.
dealer of Holborn, for 10l.—I showed it to Mr. Horsley, who identified it.
JOHN SALMON . I am a furniture dealer of 115, High Holborn—I have seen the prisoners together—Alcock brought me a gun in October—I advanced 17l. 10s. on it—I received from him this paper with it. (Agreeing to realise if not redeemed within ten days.) I pawned the gun with Best and Boyce.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I gave Alcock the money in sovereigns, half-sovereigns, and silver during the day—I made no entry in my books about it—I may have given him a cheque for about 4l. 10s.—I understood that Alcock was Lord Hinton's business agent—I have known them three or four years, and Wright fifteen—I saw no monogram on the gun—I looked for that especially—I saw Horsley's name, no initials—the gun was not redeemed—it was stopped when I went for it two days afterwards—I have supplied furniture to the amount of about 50l. to Lord Hinton through Alcock—I do not expect to be paid till Lord Hinton comes into possession of his estates—I supplied him on those conditions—I looked at Burke's and another Peerage and found his history.
Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. Wright was agent for a Bill for a Railway from Malton to Halsey Bay, in Suffolk, in 1882, and other Bills—he was in the habit of taking shootings.
Re-examined. I did not know Lord Hinton had been a clown in a circus—I sent the furniture to Lewisham.
ALERED CARVEY . I am manager to Mr. Whistler, gunsmith, of the Strand—on 28th October Captain Boynton brought me a gun by Horseley, of York—in consequence of what I heard I detained the gun and sent for the police—Mr. Horsley has identified it.
EDWARD ALINELL WATTS COURTNEY RHYS . I live at 55, Russell Square—I bought a gun of Alcock—he said he wished to dispose of it as it did not suit Lord Hinton—he asked 20.—I said it was not worth 20l.—I would give him 9l. and he could have it back if he wanted it—I afterwards banded it to Captain Boynton to pawn—it was over three months ago—he took it to Whistler's—I waited at Faulkner's in Villiers Street, Charing Cross, and at the Ship, when Boynton came back with Police Inspector Roots, who stopped the gun.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. Boynton had a bill with it—I saw Lord Hinton's name on the top of it—I took Alcock to be Lord Hinton's agent—I have known Alcock over eight years, and Lord Hinton six years—I have constanly seen them together.
CHARLES MORGAN . I am a partner of Morgan and Sons, tailors, 133 Regent Street—I received this letter of 26th October, 1885. (Enclosing a post obit bond of Lord Hinton for 1,000l as security and ordering two suits of clothes for mourning, to be paid for in six months.) I returned the bond and declined the order—it was a copy—it was similar to the one produced.
WILLIAM MORETON . I am a jeweller, of 3, Ingoldsby Road, Holloway—in December last I advertised in the name of H. Montague, a gun for sale in the Daily Telegraph—I received this reply. (Dated 10th December, 1885, 2, Chaddesden villas, asking for a gun to be sent on approval, and promising its return or a cheque, and signed by Alcock.) I sent the gun—a receipt came back—I replied, stating my removal and asking for a remittance
—I received this letter of 21st December. (From Alcock, Grove House, Lewisham, Yorkshire, stating Lord Hinton would return on Wednesday and witness might rely on a remittance). I received this letter of 30th December. (From Alice Alcock, stating her husband had seen Lord Hinton and would write to witness to-morrow.) The gun never came back—I have not been paid
RICHARD HIELD. I represent Messrs. Baylis, Jones, and Baylis, iron and fencing founders of Wolverhampton—on 13th March, 1885, I received this letter. (From Alcock; 2,Chaddesden Villas, ordering 100 hurdles and fencing for Lord Hinton as his agent.) I put the goods in hand and forwarded them on 26th March—I sent this invoice, amounting to 6l. 16s. 8d.—I have never been paid—I supplied the goods, as the letter looked straight-forward and gave a reference to solicitors, and I thought he was in a position to pay.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. The goods were consigned to Lord Hinton, Grove House, Lewisham, care of G. E. Alcock, Ashburn Grove—I did not inquire of Messrs. Brown and Mander, the solicitors.
WILLIAM SQUIRES GORTON . I am a partner of Messrs. Hill, Smith, and Co., of Brierley Hill Ironworks, Stafford—I received this letter of March 12th, 1885. (From Alcock, ordering fencing, garden chairs, &c., amounting to 20l. 15s. 9d. and referring to Brown and Mander, solicitors.) I supplied part of the goods—I received this letter of 20th March. (From Alcock, stating Lord Hinton had left London for a fortnight or three weeks, and that he would forward cheque in the ensuing month, and asking for netting and wire to be sent at once, and enclosing invoice for correction.) I believed the statements made—I sent the goods; I never got any money for them.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I sent the goods to Lewisham, addressed to Viscount Hinton.
GEORGE JOSEPH HUNT . I live at 34, Crystal Palace Road—I am the London manager of Messrs. Hill and Smith—Lord Hinton's account was sent to me to collect—I went to Chaddesden Villas—I asked Alcock for a cheque—he said his Lordship had been away, he would get one during the week; his Lordship was building a mansion, and would want as much more as we had supplied, and the fencing had only gone halfway round the mansion—I called several times afterwards; I got no cheque.
THOMAS BAMFORTH . I am manager of a department of the Carron Company of Carron, Scotland—on 14th June, 1885, I received this letter. (In Alcock's writing, in Lord Hinton's name, ordering garden seats, &c.;) I sent the roods and the invoice on 26th June, total 15l. 18s. 6d.—I believed we should be paid, because the letter was sent in the name of a nobleman of England—we never question the standing or position of a gentleman or nobleman.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. We directed these goods to Lord Hinton.
By the JURY. In an ordinary way we take references.
WILLIAM STICKNEY ROWNTREE . I am an upholsterer, of Scarborough—in May last I received this letter directing me to furnish Grove House, Lewisham, and enclosing card of solicitors. (The letter was in Viscount Hinton's writing.) I supplied goods to the value of 180l.—the money was to be paid in two instalments, on 1st October and 1st January—about the middle of July, and before we sent the goods, these two bills (At
three and six months, drawn by Lord Hinton, payable at 42, South Ealon Place, for 90l. 11s. and 90l. 7s.) were dishonoured.
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. We furnished the goods on the hire system—on the bills being dishonoured we took back our goods.
ALFRED VENTHUM WRIGHT . I am a partner in the firm of Isaac Dixon and Co., Ironworks, Liverpool—I received this letter. (In Viscount Hinton's writing, from Grove House, Lewisham, of 22nd September, 1885, for 200 yards of iron rope, &c.; and 1st October, for 20 iron sheds; and 12th October, enclosing architect's design for iron bungalow, in Alcock's writing, but signed "Hinton "in another hand.) We dispatched goods to the value of 39l. 16s.; we were not paid—I believed the representations in the letters.
WILLIAM PAINTER BARTON BROWN . I am a solicitor, of 76, Chancery Lane—I know Hinton and Alcock—I never authorised them to refer to my firm—Hinton told me Alcock was his agent—Alcock told me Lord Hinton had a small allowance; I gathered from conversations it was from 200l. to 300l. a year, no specific sum was named—I prepared the draft of the declaration found at Alcock's, from the information of Hinton and Alcock. (This stated hat the estate he would become entitled to at his father's death was not encumbered to an amount exceeding 30,000l., Alcock declaring that he had been for the last seven years agent to Lord Hinton, and the above Jack facts were within his knowledge.) I wished to know the amount Lord Hinton owed—he gave me the information, and at my request made the declaration.
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. That was upon getting out a post obit bond—Lord Hinton is entitled to 5,000l. under the will of the Duchess of Cleveland on coming of age, in the meantime he has the income from i—it is paid to James Lowther, one of two trustees for the education of the infant—there was some communication between Sir Francis Knowles and Lady Augusta Paulet about Lord Hinton living with his father, who should enjoy the income—Lady Paulet is Lord Hinton's sister.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. Alcock has paid away money for Lord Hinton entrusted to him for that purpose—I was allowed by Alcock once to retain some money in settlement of my bill of costs—whatever Alcock told me should be done was always done fairly and in a business manner.
WILLIAM BREEHON . I am station master at Malton, on the Whitby line—Grove House, Lewisham, is within sight of the station—Mr. Sheldrake is the owner of the house; he lives at Beulah Villa, three miles away—John Mercer was his servant—I have not seen Lord Hinton there—my wife kept the key for Sheldrake—from time to time goods arrived at the station for Lord Hinton, of Grove House, from the Carron Iron Company, Baylis, Jones, and Co., Hill and Smith, Dixon and Sons, and were placed in Grove House and the grounds—it is not a large house, it is in a field—the house was not inhabited nor had it been for 12 months—the furniture was put in the house—I received these five letters from Alcock Referring to goods which he might expect at the station.)
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. There is about 40 acres round the grove—the fencing, &c.; was put in the field—I saw no servants there.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I have heard some of the goods were sold to Sheldrake—I saw him there at the sale about Christmas—I saw him yesterday in the City.
the house bought by Mr. Sheldrake has since been sold to Messrs. Liddell—I was Mr. Sheldrake's servant—I signed for some goods forwarded for Lord Hinton by request of the station master—on 23rd December, 1885, Mr. Sheldrake had a sale—I took some netting from the stables which some workmen had fitted up at Beulah Villa, and one gate and two posts.
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. Mr. Sheldrake has sold Beulah House.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I believe some of the goods remain at Grove House.
THOMAS ROOTS (Police Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department). I arrested Alcock on 18th January at No. 2, Chaddesden Villas, Ashburn Grove, East Dulwich, on a warrant—I showed him some letters—he made this statement, which I took down in writing at the police-station, East Dulwich, when charged: "Those letters are wine; I mean those dated September 22nd and 26th, and October 2nd and 12th. I want you to ask Mr. Wontner to allow me to see John Salmon and arrange for him to return the gun. He had one gun and Captain Rhys had the other. I borrowed a little money for temporary purposes from each upon them. I did not sell them to them. I repeatedly went to the First Avenue Hotel to repay Captain Rhys, but could not find him. They distinctly understood from me that I could neither pledge nor sell them. If you can give me till Wednesday I can arrange with John Salmon for the return of the gun he has. Of course I cannot return the one you have"—I arrested Wright on 28th January in Holborn—I said, "You will be charged upon a warrant for attempting to obtain a gun from Mr. Horsley, of York; you will be further charged with conspiring with Lord Hinton and George Alcock to obtain a gun from Messrs. Cogswell, in the Strand; and you will be further charged with obtaining, in 1883, a gun from Messrs. Alport, of Birmingham"—I read the warrant to him—he made this statement, which I took down, and he signed it: "Every word in the letter I wrote to Messrs. Horsley, dated October 11th, 1885, is true. With regard to the letter dated August 31st, 1895, addressed to 'Dear Mr. Wright,' and signed 'Hinton,' I did go to Messrs., Cogswell and Harrison's, Strand, and selected a gun, but I do not recollect taking the letter. I saw Alcock about my visit to select the gun, but I did nothing further in the matter. I believed Alcock to be Lord Hinton's agent, and I still believe him to be so. I remember purchasing a gun from Mr. Alport, of Birmingham, and I gave him my acceptance for it as agreed in writing, and as set out in the terms of my letter. My acceptance before maturity was, by mutual arrangement between Mr. Alport and myself, renewed. Mr. Alport called at my private house with reference to this matter and saw Mrs. Wright, this was when the first bill was running. He arranged to see me at his hotel, Wood's, Furnival's Inn, and I went on three following mornings to see him but on neither occasion was he in. I have never seen him." He made this second statement, 18.1.86, on seeing the documents taken from 2, Chaddesden Villas, Ashbourne Grove: "I recognise these books and documents as having been in my possession at 2, Chaddesden Villas. I am Lord Hinton's general agent for everything. You will find in my pocket book a joint declaration made by Lord Hinton and myself fixing the amount approximately he had received, I mean actually received upon his securities. He may have received only 1l., or even nothing, upon a 500l. bond, through
having been deceived by persons with whom he had entrusted them. I don't know where Lord Hinton is; I believe he is in Suffolk, but I don't know where. I was going to try to find him to-day; I might have to go to a dozen places. John Salmon might know where he is." I found at Alcock's house the documents produced, which I handed to Mr. Wontner—I received originally a communication from the police at York—I issued a notice to the pawnbrokers—on 28th October I received a communication from Mr. Whistler—I saw Mr. Boynton, who made a statement to me; then I saw Mr. Reece and received a statement from him—I went to Lewisham and saw some goods spoken to by Hill and Smith, on the railway company's premises—I stopped what goods I could get hold of.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. I searched Alcock in the usual way—I found the Power of Attorney produced, also a letter from Lord Hinton stating "Dear George, sign for me," in relation to a yacht—the statements were made voluntarily.
WILLIAM WOOD . I am a clerk to Messrs. Robinson and Preston, Solicitors and Agents for Messrs. Roper and Freeman, of Chichester—Earl Paulet's solicitors—I have the papers in the suit instituted by Viscount Hinton against Lord Paulet—there is a Bill of Complaint dated 27th January, 1872, praying for an injunction to restrain the Earl from cutting down timber—I have a copy, the bill is on the files of the Court—a deed is recited in the bill—the bill does not mention the settlement—the settlement is dated 7th November, 1853—the trustees are Lord Lidford and William Speake. (MR. FILLAN objected to anything but originals being produced.) Q. Are you able to say whether this man (Lord Hinton) takes any interest under Lord Paulet? (MR. FILLAN objected, as the original documents could be produced.)
MR. FILLAN, MR. HODSON, and MR. JARVIS submitted that there was no case of conspiracy to defraud. MR. WILLIAMS pointed out the evidence in support of conspiracy.
Monday, March 15th.
MR. WILLIAMS put in a Bill of Complaint in which discount Hinton was plaintiff and Earl Paulet defendant. After objection taken, the COMMON SERJEANT ruled that it was admissable.
WILLIAM HOOK . That suit was dropped and another suit brought by some parties, and I put in that Bill of Complaint also—this had for its object the bringing into Court of title deeds—the suit brought by Lord Hinton against his father in 1872 was dropped, and has never been decided—an answer was put in to the bill, exceptions were taken to it—an answer was put in, but nothing further.
Cross-examined by MR. FILLAN. I don't know what my bill of costs came to against the defendant up to that time—a suit of that kind would involve a considerable sum for costs.
Re-examined. I got no costs out of Lord Hinton, all the accounts were rendered to the Earl's solicitor—I think an answer was put in, and we proceeded no further with it.
FREDERICK GEORGE MUSKETT . I am clerk to Messrs. Wontner—I produce a bundle of documents handed to my Roots, found at Alcock's—there are two letters amongst them purporting to be signed by Lord Hinton to Alcock. (The first said that Lord Hinton was sorry not to have seen Alcock, as he wished to speak of him, and that he was greatly pleased with
the gun, which could not be better. The second, dated Lawrence's Hotel, 9th August, asked him if the new guns arrived in time to bring them with him on Monday evening, and that he (Hinton) would meet him (Alcock) at the station. The third, dated Mr. Shappy's, Manchester, was "Send me news and cash if you can. Yours, Hinton.") The letter paper and envelopes had a monogram on—a card of Lord Hinton's was found at Alcock's, and three of the Rock Life Assurance Office forms of declaration signed by Hinton in blank—there was also an extract from Burke, as to the income derived from the Paulet estates in 1884—then there is an authority for Alcock to sign for Hinton, "Re Yacht. Dear Alcock, sign for me," and a prospectus of the Provident Association of England, that is a very well-known association, of which Hinton was a director—and there is an old letter from Hinton to Alcock dated December, 1882.
THOMAS ROOTS (Re-examined). At the time this charge was preferred Hinton was living at 73, Graylands Road, Peckham—I did not go there personally—I took Alcock into custody at 2, Chaddesden Villas, East Dulwich, the house he occupied—there was no furniture there or carpets—I apprehended Wright, who occupied the room at 55, Grove Road, Holloway—I searched his room and found a number of duplicates, some relating to property pawned in 1883, and some at the time the guns were obtained; they are for two tablespoons, 1s. 6d., a knife, 2s. 6d., a handkerchief, 9d. (A list of the tickets was read.)
Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. There is no gun amongst these.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. Alcock had been living at this villa two or three years—I understood the rent was 26l. a year with taxes—his landlord had very recently distrained on him.
SERGEANT WHITE. I went to the place where Hinton was living at the time the charge was brought—from inquiries I made I knew he was not occupying the house—I saw the landlady, Mrs. Turk, and put certain questions to her.
MR. FILLAN submitted that there was no evidence to go to the Jury as against Lord Hinton. MR. HODSON. contended that Alcock had merely acted as Lord Hinton's agent. MR. JARVIS argued that there was no evidence of false pretences or conspiracy as against Wright. MR. WILLIAMS having replied, the COMMON SERJEANT directed a verdict of not guilty to be taken as to Lord Hinton on the Counts charging an obtaining by false pretences, but left to the Jury the false pretence Counts as against Wright and Alcock, and the conspiracy Counts as against all three of the prisoners.
HINTON— GUILTY. on the conspiracy Counts.
ALCOCK and WRIGHT— GUILTY of obtaining goods by false pretences and conspiracy.
The Jury added that they considered Lord Hinton was as guilty of the false pretences as the other prisoners.
ALCOCK— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. WRIGHT— Fifteen Months Hard Labour. HINTON— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday, March 15th, 1886.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. WILKINSON and WEBSTER Prosecuted; MR. KEITH FRITH Defended.
JACOB PRICE . I am a traveller, and live at 14, Ellen Street, White-chapel—on 15th February, between 7 and 8 p.m., the prisoner, who I had seen once before, called me into a public-house, treated me to a glass, and said, "Will you have some money?"—I said, "Of course I will, which way?"—he said, "Don't be in a hurry, you shall know; do you understand jewellery?"—I said "Yes"—he said, "Can you tell the difference between 15 carat and 18 carat?"—I said "Yes"—he said, "All right; you can go home to-night, meet me here again to-morrow afternoon"—I met him there on February 16th, he called me in, gave me a glass, and said, "Come with me"—we went through different streets to a place I did not know, and he said, "You shall wait here, I must go to Gerson; you must not come close to the house, that the people may not know you"—he went in at the second door from the corner, and stayed there half an hour—I have found out since that the name of the street is Bedford Square, Commercial Road—I asked the prisoner what he had been doing so long inside; he said, "I can't get it, for I am short 1l."—I said, "What can't you get?"—he said, "You shall know afterwards; go home and you shall meet me to-morrow morning at 10 at the same public-house in Commercial Road"—I did so, and he said, "Have you any money to treat me?"—I said, "I have not"—he said, "I shall try to get that 1l. to-day, and we will start the business; you shall meet me at 4 o'clock"—I met him at 4; he called me in and treated me, and said, "We must go," and we went to another public-house, the Crown, with his son—that was the first time I had seen his son—he said, "You must take off that overcoat"—I said, "What for?"—he said, "Do what I tell you, you shall know"—I took it off, he took it in his hand and said, "Have you got a handkerchief?"—I said "Yes"—he said, "Well, you must tie it over your face"—I did so and said, "What for is this?"—he said, "Do so, it will be all right; you shall go to Solomon, in Queen Street, No. 30, and if he asks you why you have tied up your face you shall say you have toothache"—I said, "I don't know where Mr. Solomon lives"—he said, "My son will go with you and show you the door"—he treated me to a glass of gin and said, "You shall go to Mr. Solomon and say you came from America to buy a few hundred pounds' worth of jewellery, and he will ask you, 'What for you come to me?' and you shall tell him you live in America, in Essex Street, and Mr. Jacobs lives in the same street"—Jacobs was supposed to be a friend of Solomon's—he said, "Tell him you said you came to England to buy jewellery, and he said, 'Go to Mr. Solomons, he is an honest man, he will treat you right'"—he changed 1s. 6d. into coppers in the public-house and gave them to me—I said, "What is this?"—he said, "You must send out for brandy and make him drunk"—we all three went out of the Crown, and the prisoner's son and I went to 13, Queen Street—he showed me the door—I knocked, and Mrs. Solomons, who was outside the door, said, "What do you want?"—I said, "I want Mr. Solomons"—I went in and saw him; he asked me, "Where you come?"—I told him "From America; your friend Mr. Jacobs, who lives in America, sent me to you for 120l. of jewellery"—he said, "What have you tied up your face for?"—I said, "I have toothache"—I sent out for 15d. worth of brandy, and we had a glass between us—he called me into another room and showed me jewellery and said, "Is that good for you?"—I said,
"Yes, it is all right"—he reckoned up the value 136l. 13s.—I told him I wanted more—he said, "You don't want to pay to-night, you shall come to-morrow and you shall have more"—I said, "I shall be here tomorrow at half-past 10," and went out—Kriger and his son were waiting outside for me and said, "Well, how are you going on with Mr. Solomons?" I said, "It is all right, he has only got enough for 136l. 13s. but to-morrow he shall have more"—he said, "You can go home to-night and you shall meet me to-morrow at 9 o'clock at that same public house"—I met him there at 9 next morning; we had a glass, and he changed 2s. into coppers, which he gave me—I said, "What for is this?"—he said, "When you go to Mr. Solomons you must have money to drink with him, take this money," and gave me 4s.—we then went with his son to boy a cashbox—he showed me one in a window in Whitechapel Road—his son stood at the door and I bought the cash box for 2s. 4d.; this is it (produced)—we then all three went to a public-house in Union Street) where he treated me again—I said, "I can't drink so much because you have given me money to make Mr. Solomons drunk," and I did not drink it—he said, "You must tie your face up again," and then he opened the box and took out a parcel from his overcoat, and placed it in the box—i was done up in brown paper—I said, "What is it?"—he said, "You shall know"—this is it (produced)—he locked the box and gave me the key—he took the box and we all three went out—he said, "Now we are going to Mr. Solomons' house, and I must tell you what it is; it is time for you to know everything; you know that parcel that I placed in the box, it is 52, 5l. notes, they are false notes, and you shall go to Mr. Solomons and you shall come into the house. Mr. Solomons will ask you, 'Do you come for the jewelleries?' You shall tell him 'Yes,' and you cannot pay him the money because you have got a partner, and he must give you a sample because your partner is not well, and you shall tell Mr. Solomons, 'I have here 52 5l. notes, that is 260l.;' let him count them, and you shall place them back in the box, and lock it, and take the key into your possession, and tell him' I am going over London Bridge with the sample; I am frightened to take it with me, will you be so kind as to hold that box till I come back with the sample?" Of course he will take it, and he will give you a sample watch or a diamond ring worth 10l. or 12l., and I shall wait just outside St. Mary's Station, and you shall come out with a chain and we shall go and pawn it for 5l. in gold, and we shall take a Hansom's cab to the Bank of England, and change the gold for a 5l. note, and go back to Mr. Solomon's house, and you shall say 'Mr. Solomons, will you be so kind as to give me one note out from the 52, because I have no money with me;' you shall give him the key to unlock the box and give you one, and you shall put that bad one in and say 'Mr. Solomons, will you be so kind as to send out for a bottle of brandy, because I want change,' and you shall give him the good note, and he will go out and the master of the public-house will give change for it, and he will see that they are good notes if the master of the public-house gives change for one; and then you must go out to show the sample to your partner, because Solomons will not know you have pawned it; and during: that time we shall go and have a good dinner, and then you shall go in to Mr. Solomons and tell him 'My partner told me could not judge from one article or one sample, he wants to see the lot;' of course there is 200,
and he has got the notes in his possession, he will let you have them; he will think they are good notes as he had one from the lot and got change, and you shall come out with the jewellery, and I will wait for you and we will run away with it, and he will wait for us; he can't open the box because you have got the key, and he cannot look at the notes, and in the afternoon when he sees you do not come back, he will try to open the box to see what it is, and when he finds the notes everybody will tell him they are false notes, and he will lose his goods, and of course nobody will believe him that you were there, and we shall go to Holland"—I went to Mr. Solomon's house and knocked at the door, he opened it; I said "Good morning." and took off the handkerchief; I said "Don't be frightened"—he took me into another room and I told him to send out for a detective—I took out the note?, and a man named Rutter came in; Mrs. Solomons then came in and took the notes from me and threw them in the fire—George Hill then came in, Solomons sent him for a detective, who came, and I told him everything—I went out to see if I could get some more notes by the instructions of the detective, and saw Kriger's son, and went with him, and the prisoner was in Union Street—he said "How is the case?"—I said "I picked out 275l. worth of jewellery and I am short 15l."—he called me into the same public-house in Union Street, and said "Have you got 6d.?" I said, "What for?" he said "I must send my son to Gerson, who will come and bring them 5l. notes, not only three, but six"—I gave the son 6d.t and he was to run to Gerson—Kriger called me out of the public-house and went away—I sent a boy for the detective to come, and while I was waiting Kriger came to me again and said, "Is my son back?" I said, "No. I am so long from Mr. Solomons' house that I must go and tell him that I shall bring some more money"—I went there, spoke to the detective, and went back to Union Street—Kriger said, "We are lost"—I said, "What for?" he said, "You shall see so many detectives in Union Street, and Gerson knew them and saw them in the street and went away;" I said, "I don't see any detectives, give me the three notes, I must go there and pay;" he said, "Come with me"—we went to a public-house at the corner of Commercial Road—a detective followed us in and Kriger said "There is another detective; "I said, "I don't know him, give me the 15l.; "he said, "I have not got it, you must go and take as much jewellery as you have the money for, 260l."—I went out and was going back to Mr. Solomons' house—Hill came after me into the house and told me that Kriger was locked up—I then went to the Leman Street Police-station and saw Kriger there—I examined some of the 52 notes, they were Bank of England, and if he had not told me they were false I might probably have taken them for good ones, they were such good imitations—the Inspector said to me, in the prisoner's presence, "Did you see the notes?" Kriger said, "How can he tell? he can't read or write, I shall prove that he cannot read"—he then took out a card from his pocket and handed it to the Inspector, he handed it to me and I read it.
Cross-examined. I am a Pole—those who speak my language call me Prusach—I had seen the prisoner, three months before, in a cook's shop two or three times, but did not know his name or address—I was in England eight years ago—I am a traveller—I have been travelling in Leeds for myself and for Mr. Buckley, the auctioneer—I cannot give you his address—I have been there twenty or thirty times, I can get it—I
also kept a school at Leeds at 28, Temple Street—I was there a year and a half the first time, and when I came over the Hebrews knew me—I have also done business with Mr. Fox, of 33, Lady Lane, Leeds, who goes to auctions—I said before the Magistrate "Up till yesterday morning I did not know that the prisoner wanted me to do wrong, I resolved then to tell the officers of justice"—I did not see the prisoner from that time till yesterday morning—I signed my deposition as correct—I said "i did not see him till yesterday morning, and I did not know till then that he was asking me to do wrong"—I remembered directly, that I thought there was something wrong, but I did not know about false money—my face was tied up on the 17th and he told me that day to say that I had the toothache—I knew that was a lie and that he wanted me to do something—I asked him what, and he said, "You shall know it"—I put the handkerchief round and he tied it—the address he gave me was Essex Street, New York—I may have forgotten in my depositions what he said about going over London Bridge and holding the box till I returned—I said at the police-court that I said "My partner could not judge from one sample, he wanted to see all the lot"—I do not know that that is not in my depositions—I said that he said "we shall run away"—the detective told me to say that I had picked out goods for 275l., that was a lie—I was to do that to get some more notes—I said before the Magistrate "I am so long from Solomons' I must go back and tell him why I have not got the money"—I also said, "He told me to go and get jewellery for 260l."—I also mentioned his saying that I could not read—I have not spoken to Hill and Solomons or any of the other witnesses about what they were to say—(Aaron Benjamin was here brought into Court)—I do not know that man, but he is a relation to Kriger—I have never seen him only at this time—I did not know him before this case begun, and I have never spoken to him yet—if he has seen bank of engraving notes in my possession you can do with me what you like—I do not know Mrs. Emma Benjamin. (Emma Benjamin here came into Court)—I never saw her before only on this case—I never saw her at her husband's shop in Plummer's Row—the prisoner and I are Jews—I know Meyer Jacobi—I did not ask him to change a note, but he was in a cook's shop and I had just come from Paris and had got 100 francs in paper and said, "Will you change that?" he said, "Loose 5s. and I shall pay you; "I said, "No, I shall not loose anything because I have to go back again"—I did not know him before that—I did not offer to take a far less sum for the note than it was worth—he did not say "I believe you know this note to be forged or you would not take so much less than it is worth"—it is a lie—it is not true that I produced a number of other notes tied up togther and said that I had a lot more of them—I only showed him that one—Kriger did not offer me any Hebrew writings for sale of the five books—Mrs. Solomons did not accuse me of swindling her when I went to Paris with her, because I never went—Mr. Solomons did not say, when I went into the shop, "We must wait until my son comes home, to see if these notes are good ones, as I do not understand notes"—nothing of the sort, I told him directly that they were false notes.
Re-examined. In consequence of the information I gave him they were put in the fire at once—he told me nothing about their being false on the 17th, it was on the 18th that the conversation occurred about the bad
notes—there is no truth in the suggestion that I have been passing forged notes before, never in my life.
CAROLINE GREEN . I am the wife of William Green, who keeps a public-house in Rupert Street, Whitechapel—on 17th February Price and the prisoner and a young man came in there—Price had nothing on his head when he came in—I went out of the bar for a few minutes, and when I came in he had a handkerchief on; I did not see who tied it on—I saw Price take off his coat, and saw it on the table—they went out together shortly after that—I remember it was the 17th, because I had some company on that day.
Cross-examined. My attention was first called to this matter by a police officer; I told him it was on a Wednesday—I said before the Magistrate "I believe the prisoner to be one of them"—I won't swear to him now, I don't know the man.
ALBERT MORRIS . I live at 3, Union Street, Leytonstone, and am assistant to Mr. Foster, ironmonger, of 256, Whitechapel Road—on Thursday, 18th February, about a quarter to 10 a.m., Price and the prisoner came and looked at some cash-boxes outside, and asked the price of them—I said 2s. 6d.—they got a reduction of 2d. and paid me 2s. 1d. for one, and then went away together.
Cross-examined. I said at the police-court that I could not say whether the man with Price was the prisoner or not; I was not certain about him—I have not seen him since—I have not been speaking to the detective.
Re-examined. I believe the prisoner to be the man, but I can't identify him; I am not sure about him.
ENGELBERT SCHLENGEMANN . I keep the Castle public-house, White-chapel—on 18th February, about 11 a.m., the prisoner, whom I have known, came in with Price—the prisoner called for some drink, and paid with a florin, and asked me to give him his change in coppers—I did so, and he left shortly after.
Cross-examined. I had never seen them there before—it might have been a day or two after the 18th.
GEORGE WILLOUGHBY SIGGERS . I keep the Union Flag public-house, Union Street, Whitechapel Road—on Thursday, 18th February, the prisoner and Price and a young dark man came in—they had a cash-box with them, about this size—I had no particular reason for noticing it—Price had no handkerchief round his head when he came in—I had occasion to go from the bar, and when I returned I noticed a white handkerchief round his head, like a bandage—they all left together.
Cross-examined. I was asked about this about a week afterwards—I was not well on that morning—I had no reason for taking particular notice of the men.
SOLOMON KUCHINSKY . I live at 13, Queen Street, Whitechapel, and am a dealer in jewellery—I have known the prisoner from about a week before Christmas—I do not know any Jacobs in Essex Street, New York—on Wednesday, 17th February, Price called on me—his face was wrapped round—he selected jewellery to the value of 136l. 15s., and made an appointment to call next morning—he called next morning; his face was tied up then—he showed me this cash-box; he then took the handkerchief from his face, and made a statement to me, in consequence of which my wife, who was there, threw the notes in the fire—Price took the notes from the cash-box; they were wrapped up in this
brown paper—I took them in my hand, but I did not have them very long—before my wife came in, a man named Otto came in—after the notes were destroyed a constable was sent for, and he took away the box and brown paper—Price and I drank together, but not on the 18th.
Cross-examined. I cannot read or write—I have a son, he can read and write; when I take bank-notes he reads what is on them—I did not say when Price produced the notes to pay for the jewellery, "We must wait till my son comes home to see if the notes are good"—I told Price to come with me to the bank to see if they were good—Price did not say they were false after I had asked him to come to the bank with me, nothing was said about going to the bank—Price told me that he might send two detectives after me, and I was very frightened and upset—he also told me I ran a great risk for having the notes in my possession—Otto then said that all of us might be unlucky for life—I bought some of the jewellery at an auction and some from Mr. Leyman—I sometimes buy from a stranger—I have no receipts for this, but I can get one any time I like.
Re-examined. When I found out these were false notes I was frightened, because if I was found in possession of them I should have to account for them—I said nothing about going to the bank—if anybody gives me a 5l. note he puts his name and address on it—I know a 5l. note well, I have seen many before.
FANNY KUCHINSKY (Interpreted). I am the wife of the last witness—on Wednesday evening, 17th February, I saw Price at our house talking to my husband—he had a white handkerchief round his head—my husband took him into the next room and showed him some jewellery—he gave me 1s. 3d., and I went and fetched some brandy—Price went away, and was gone about an hour and a half—I saw him again next day; he was there when I came back from getting some paraffin—he had no handkerchief on then—the cash-box and the paper were on the table—my husband made a statement to me, and I then took some notes from Price's hand and threw them on the fire, and then I fainted—they were doubled up—Otto was there when I came home, and about five minutes afterwards Mr. Hill came in—Price told me on the Wednesday that he had toothache.
Cross-examined. My son can read and write—he does not read what is upon the notes and cheques that we have, he is not at home, he is an apprentice—when I came in my husband was sitting down trembling—it was after I came in that Price said the notes were bad—my husband went out about 9 o'clock that morning, before Price came—I was only out about a quarter of an hour to get some meat while my husband was out—the interpreter did not understand what I said at the police-court when I said my husband had not gone out before Price came.
SAMUEL OTTO . I am a tailor, of 5, Hutchinson's Arms, Middlesex Street—I know Mr. Solomons—on 18th February, about 10.55 a.m., I went to his house and saw Mr. Price there, Mrs. Solomons was crying—Price showed me a cash box like the one produced, and a brown paper packet—inside this packet there were a lot of white fine papers, like cigarette papers—I cannot read—I have seen a Bank of England note, the papers looked like 5l. notes—I did not take them in my hand, Price showed them to me—Mrs. Solomons came in and Mr. Solomons spoke to her; she cried and threw the papers on the fire, and they were burnt—I
had never seen those papers before that morning—I saw Mr. Hill come in.
JOSEPH HILL . I am a hair dresser, of 250, Commercial Road—on 18th February I went to Mr. Solomons' house and saw him and Price and Mrs. Solomons, who was crying—they told me something, and I went to the police-station three times—I went alone the first time and Mr. Solomons went with me the second time—I saw constable Reed—on returning to the house I saw Kriger outside St. Mary's railway-station—the second time I saw the prisoner at the corner of Church Street, Reed was with me—the third time I saw Kriger in custody—since it was known I was going to give evidence two women visited me, who I believe to be the prisoner's daughters.
Cross-examined. I first saw Kriger opposite the railway-station—I do not know David Jacobs. (Jacobs here came into Court.) I know that man and his two sisters—I did not in his presence say to Kriger's daughters that I wanted 5l. for myself and 2l. for Solomons, and other money which I had spent in cheating the police—Mrs. Jacobs came to my place and offered me some money—I did not say "I will settle the charge against Kriger if you pay me some money"—I did not at her house offer to get it settled for money—I did not say that if I had 5l. or 7l. I would settle the case—I do not know Mrs. Brooks. (Mrs. Brooks here came into Court.) I mean to say in her presence that neither Jacobs nor Mrs. Jacobs were present when I offered to settle it for money; what I say is that they offered me money—no one made any attempt to get the notes out of the fire.
Re-examined. I was not in the room when the notes were burnt—I do not know who the people were who came to me about the money.
WILLIAM REED (Policeman E 389). On 18th February, about 12.30 p.m., I was on duty at Leman Street station—Hill and Kuchinsky came there and made a statement to me, in consequence of which I went to 13, Queen Street, Whitechapel, and saw this cash box—there was a fire in the room and the remains of burnt paper on it—Mr. Solomons handed me this bill—Price made a statement and went out—I concealed myself in a baker's shop and saw him join the prisoner outside the Union Flag public-house, they stood talking there for a few minutes and the prisoner left Price and went down Union Street into Whitechapel Road, where he joined two other men—I sent to the station for assistance, and Detectives Enright and Don came—before they came, the prisoner went back to Price outside the Union Flag; they conversed together and went up Union Street towards the Commercial Road, and went into the Castle public-house—this was about 3 p.m.—I followed them in after a few minutes and tried to listen to their conversation, but could not understand the language—Price left, and the prisoner followed and turned round to see if anyone was following, and walked into Commercial Road, he turned to the right and Price to the left—I took Price to the station, where I found Kriger in custody.
Cross-examined. I did not take Price to the station as a prisoner, I had made an arrangement with him—Mrs. Kuchinsky told me the notes had been burnt, and upon that statement alone I abstained from searching the house; it did not occur to me to see if that statement was true by searching the house.
Leman Street Station, and at about 3.30 p.m. I received a message from Reed, and went with Detective Enright to Whitechapel Road, where I saw the prisoner with two other men, one of whom was named Gerson—I passed them and saw Reed, and from what he said I went to Church Lane—I stood opposite the Nag's Head public-house—the prisoner's daughter, Mrs. Jacobs, was standing outside—I didn't observe where the prisoner came from, but he joined her there—I touched him on the shoulder by his own door and said "I want you to come with me to Leman Street, as you are accused of having handed over to Mr. Price 52 false Bank of England notes, for the purpose of fraud"—he said "I do not know Price, it is false;" and afterwards he said "I know nothing about it"—at the station, when the charge was read over to him he made a statement, which was taken down.
Cross-examined. Whitechapel Church is about 50 yards from his house—Price is the only name I know him by.
PATRICK ENRIGHT (Detective). On 18th February, at 3.30 p.m., I went with Don to Whitechapel Road—passing Whitechapel Church I saw the prisoner and Chernichowski, who I knew well by sight. (See Vol. 102, page 858.) I know the prisoner well.
RICHARD THRESHER (Police Inspector H). On 18th February, about 4 p.m., I was on duty at Leman Street Station, when the prisoner was brought in—Price came in shortly afterwards—he made a statement to me in the prisoner's presence—I asked Price if he had read the notes he said "Yes, they were Bank of England 5l. notes"—the prisoner said "How could he do that? he can't read," and passed a card to me and said "Try him and see if he can"—I passed it to Price and he read it correctly—I told the prisoner what he would be charged with, and he then made this statement, which I wrote down and repeated to him. (Read: "He (Price) has told what is not true. I did not go with him to buy the box, and have never seen it before now. I did not give him any notes, nor yet tell him to go to Solomons' to get jewellery. I don't know anything about what he has told you; I only know he wanted me to employ him as a traveller, and I would not.")
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' without Hard Labour.
There were two other indictments against the prisoner.
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
MESSRS. POLAND and GLYN Prosecuted; MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS Defended.
GEORGE HARRISON COX . I am a clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery—I produce, under an order made by the Judge in Chambers, certain documents relating to the recent election for the Southern or Romford division of Essex; among them is the marked register of the polling stations at Romford, Ilford, and Stratford; also the ballot-paper accounts in reference to those three polling stations, and the several
Returning Officers' reports, in respect of the whole division; also the writ and the return.
WILLIAM CUMMINS CLIFTON . I am a solicitor at Romford—I was the presiding officer at the election on 3rd December for the Southern or Romford division of Essex—I was at the Romford Polling Station, at No. 1 table—the poll clerk had the register—on a voter coining to vote, he has to give his name and address; Mr. Bloom field was the poll clerk; on finding that the voter's name and address is on the register, a ballot paper is handed to him—"Thomas Hearn H. 15" is on the register—in due course I gave a ballot paper to the person representing himself as that person; I did not know him—when he voted, Mr. Bloomfield would take the register—after the election I had to make up a return of the number of ballot papers issued, which I return to the returning officer in the first instance, and it is sent to the Crown office eventually—this (produced) is my return—650 ballot papers had to be accounted for—there were 442 in the ballot box, 205 not issued, and 3 spoilt.
Cross-examined. Mr. Haynes, my partner, was the Returning Officer—I do not know by whom this prosecution is instituted; it is not instituted by the Returning Officer—a man having a qualification for Romford would only have one notice paper issued to him, but I have nothing to do with that.
CHARLES BLOOMFIELD . On the day of the election I acted as poll clerk at Romford, table No. 1—I know the prisoner by sight—I don't recollect seeing him that day—it was my duty when a person applied for and had a ballot paper to mark the register—I did so when Thomas Heart had one—I should not hand the ballot paper to any other person.
ALBERT HENRY HARVEY . I am an accountant, of Romford—I know the defendant—I was the personation agent at the Romford Polling Station—I saw the defendant there that day—he passed my table, No. 2, and was passing out of the polling station.
HENRY SHEKELL HAYNES . I acted as Deputy Returning Officer at this election—after the election I assisted in counting the votes—the ballot papers in the box were counted in my presence—I found the account of the presiding officer was accurate.
Cross-examined. I have nothing to do with Instituting this prosecution.
WALTER TOWNEND FEATHER . I am a solicitor's clerk, at Romford—I was the presiding officer at No. 2 polling station, Ilford—I find the name of "Thomas Hearn "and "718 "in the Ilford register of voters for the Southern Division of Essex—on that day the defendant came into the polling station, and in the ordinary course applied for a ballot paper—at that time Henry Porter, one of the personation agents, was in the station—he told me in the defendant's presence that he had received information that the defendant had previously voted at Romford, and he asked me to put to the defendant the statutory questions—I did so, by reading out to him the questions from a printed card supplied to me as presiding officer—the two questions were: 1st, whether he was the same person as the Thomas Hearn described as F 718 for this division; and 2nd, whether he had previously voted elsewhere at that election, or some words to that effect—as to the first question, he said he was the same person; and as to the second, he said "It is not likely," or some words to that effect; I won't be positive to the exact words, I know he replied in the negative—I said "I should not suppose you would," or some such remark—I then
handed him the ballot paper and he voted—I cannot say that I especially saw him put the ballot paper into the box; I saw every voter—it was my business to see that every voter put his paper into the box, previously showing to me the official mark at the back—as he was going out he said "I am now going to Stratford"—he said that in a jocular tone, he made quite a laugh of it.
Cross-examined. I won't say that he said "I am now going to Stratford to vote"—I won't swear he did not—Mr. Sherman acted as one of my poll clerks—Mr. Porter had a conversation with Mr. Hearn; they had a squabble—I don't know whether I said to Porter in this instance "If you have any questions to put to voters kindly put them through me, as you are causing a lot of trouble"—I had occasion to make that remark to Porter three or four times during the day—I don't think that occurred while I was reading over the questions to the defendant, I think the jangle had finished then—I can't remember the exact words that passed between them; there were some remarks passed between them.
HENRY PORTER . I am an upholsterer, at Ilford—at this election, on 3rd December, I was the personation agent at Ilford; I was at No. 2 table—in consequence of some information that had been given me I spoke to the defendant at that polling station; I knew him well—I said "Have you been to Romford?"—he said "Mind your own business, what has that to do with you?"—he then went to the table to receive his paper—I passed him on to Mr. Feather, who read over to him the usual form, and to the best of my knowledge he said he had not voted—I saw the ballot paper given to him, and I saw him put it in the box, and as he was going out he said "Now I am going to Stratford."
Cross-examined. I am not positive whether he said he had been to Romford—I said before the Magistrate "I am not positive whether he said he had been to Romford before he was asked the statutory questions or after"—I am not positive—I am quite sure he said he had been to Romford.
FRANK MILMER . I was presiding officer at the Stratford polling booth at No. 2 table—Thomas Hearn, J 845, was a voter on the register—I cannot say that I handed a ballot paper to the person answering to that description, because I was absent from the polling booth at two short periods during the day—I can't say whether I took the register.
The Defendant's Statement before the Magistrate. "I have nothing to say but that I thought I was justified in what I did."
MR. M. WILLIAMS called
THOMAS HEARN (The Defendant). I have retired from business—I reside at Grove Farm, Chadwell Heath—I was a timber merchant—I have a qualification to vote at Ilford, Stratford, and Romford—I received three post cards from the Conservative Committee, one in respect of each place—on the day of the election I went to the polling booth at Romford and voted—I then went to Ilford and voted there, I thought I was justified in doing so—I saw Porter there—he asked me whether I had voted anywhere else, at Romford; he knew I had—I said "Mind your own business," that was all—when I left I said "Now I am off to Stratford," and I showed them the card, I held it up at the table—I did vote at Stratford because I thought I was justified in doing so—I thought I was entitled to a vote here.
Cross-examined. I have been a voter over 40 years, for a great many districts—I have voted three times at other elections before this, I did not say in this district—I have voted at each election—I don't think I have voted three times for one county, I don't know, I can't recollect—I can't say that I voted three times at the last election, I might have three qualifications, I can't say, I can't recollect; I had three or four I think, or five, not in one county—I think I have voted more than once in the same county in respect of several qualifications, I won't be positive—I can't say that I have, I think I have; I can't be certain—I have been a voter over 40 years, I could not say how many times I have voted, more than once at the same election—when I went to Ilford I did not know that my vote was challenged there—Mr. Feather did not put that question to me—the presiding officer did not ask "Are you the same person whose name appears as Thomas Hearn on the register of voters now in force for the Romford division of Essex?"—what is that, say it over again—he did ask me if I was the Thomas Hearn on the register—he did not ask me whether I had voted there or elsewhere at the same election—I have heard the presiding officer's evidence before—I say he never asked me that second question, and I can bring a witness to prove it, or two or three—I did not know that my vote was challenged by the first question—I was asked whether I had been to Romford, and I told Porter to mind his own business; I was not bound to confess to him, was I—I did not say "I have been to vote at Romford and I am now going to vote for my other qualification here"—I did not say to the presiding officer "It is not likely," or words to that effect—I know Henry Gaywood, he is a neighbour—he did not tell me that I could only use my vote in the Romford division—I told him I had four votes, one at Romford, one at Ilford, one at Stratford, and one in the Stepney division of the Tower Hamlets; and I told him that I meant to exercise all those four votes—I don't know what was said about those four votes—perhaps I might have given him an order for a leg of mutton—I drove past his place to go to Romford, I had the votes in my hand and showed them to him—it was at Chadwell Heath, on the high road, on the day of the election, about half past 9 or 10 in the morning—I was not in his shop, he came out—there were five or six outside, and I showed them the whole lot, my four cards.
Re-examined. I told them I was going to vote at Ilford, Stratford, and Romford.
HENRY GAYWOOD . I am a butcher at Chadwell Heath—I believe I am a Liberal—I know Mr. Hearn—I saw him on the morning of the election—he drove up in his trap and called at my shop; I was talking with Mr. George Parish at the time—Mr. Hearn showed me three voting cards that he had had sent him—he said he was going to vote at Romford, then at Ilford, and then at Stratford—I said I thought he had only one vote; he said "Yes I have, I have three"—he said that quite openly—I said "Have you got three votes?"—he said "Yes, I have property in each district; they have sent me three cards, so I suppose I have three votes."
Cross-examined. I told him that he had only one vote, but he seemed so positive that I did not contradict him—a Mr. Clark came up directly afterwards. I think; I don't think he was there when Mr. Hearn was talking, Mr. George Gray was there, this was about 10 in the morning
—I don't think he told me that he also had a vote for the Stepney division of the Tower Hamlets, I am not sure—I did not go or send to any of the polling stations—I had not more than one qualification.
MR. WILLIAMS submitted that the mere fact of the defendant having voted three times was not sufficient to justify a conviction, but that it must be shown that in doing so he knew that what he was doing was contrary to law. MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN was of a contrary opinion; ignorance of the law was no excuse for breaking it, and the case was one for the Jury.
GUILTY, but not with any guilty intent whatever. — To enter into his own recognisance to appear for judgment when called upon.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. FULTON Prosecuted.
JOHN WOOD . I am a labourer, and live at 10, Sun Row, Romford Road, Stratford—on Saturday night, 18th February, about 11.30, I went to Lawes' coffee-house in Rom ford Road for a lodging—the prisoner stood in the doorway in his shirt-sleeves—I knew him before, I had worked for him—I said to him, "Can I see Mr. Lawes? I have come here for a lodging to-night"—I had 6d. to pay for it; I did not show it—the prisoner said, "I will give you a lodging, you b—"—I said, "What do you mean? if that is the case I will go to Forest Gate and get a lodging there," and I went away—when I had got 20 or 30 yards I heard somebody running, and I received a severe blow, which knocked me down—it was the prisoner; he said, "You will lie there and repent"—I knew his voice, I did not see his face—I told the first person that came to my assistance who he was and where he lived—I was taken to Stocker's close by, and then to the hospital, where I remained three weeks—I have nearly lost the sight of one eye—I never had any quarrel with the prisoner—I had had a glass on this night, but I was not drunk—I worked with the prisoner in November, I never worked with a more comfortable man; I cannot think what possessed him to do this.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I was never inside the door—you did not say I was drunk and you could not let me in—I did not say to you. "You are only a b—lodger yourself"—you did not go in and bolt the door—I did not threaten you—you lodged in the house.
HENRY MITCHELL . I am a fishmonger at Romford—on this night I was passing by Lawes' Coffee-house, and heard the prosecutor groaning about five or six yards from the coffee-house—I went to pick him up—he was lying on the ground with his face downwards—two policemen passing picked him up and put him on the step of the Freemasons' public-house—he was bleeding from the head—he appeared to have had a drop; I do not think he was stupidly drunk.
ALLAN MCCARTHY (Policeman K 127). I was called by Mitchell, and found the prosecutor lying on the pavement with his face downwards and his head bleeding—he was taken to Dr. Stacker's surgery, and then to the London Hospital.
JOHN DENHAM (Policeman K 62). About 12.20 on the morning of 14th February I went to Lawes' Coffee-house and arrested the prisoner—I told him it was for seriously assaulting John Wood—he said, "I came down to open the door for George McGrath, and Wood came in behind him and
pushed his way in; I shoved him out, and that is all I know about it"—he was up and dressed.
Cross-examined. I went to the prosecutor's landlord and asked why he had left his lodging, and he said because he came there in a drunken state.
WALTER REGINALD TUCKETT . I was house surgeon at the London Hospital about 1 o'clock on the morning of 14th February, when Wood was brought there—he had a severe lacerated wound in the forehead of a triangular shape, about three inches in length each side the triangle—both eyes were completely closed by the contusions about his face—at the lower part of the wound on the forehead the bone was bare—he had a contusion over the nose, and the nasal bone was broken, and there was ulceration under the left eye—from the appearance of the triangular wound I should say it was caused by a kick with a boot—it could not have been caused by falling to the ground when intoxicated—the nasal wound might have been caused by a fall or a blow—he appeared to have been drinking—the wounds were serious, not dangerous to life—he is now an out-patient. (The prisoner took off his boots, and they were shown to the witness.) The toes, of these boots would produce a wound like that I saw.
The prisoner in his defence repeated his statement to the constable.
GUILTY under extenuating circumstances. — Four Months' Hard Labour.
MR. FOOKS Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.
JOSEPH NICHOLLS . I was a fireman on the steamship Severn lying in the Victoria Dock on 1st March—the prisoner was a fellow-fireman on board—I had a box in the forecastle containing my goods and 5l. in gold—I saw it safe at 8 o'clock that morning—the box was locked, and I had the key—the money was in a piece of paper in a little box inside—the prisoner had never seen me go to the box—about 10.15 I went to my box and found it open and the money gone—previous to that I saw the prisoner in the forecastle, he was pulling some clothes off the box, they were my clothes—I asked him what he wanted with the box; he said he was looking for something belonging to another man—I taxed him with taking the 5l., and I said, "Give me my 5l."—he said he had not taken it, "I have got some money in my pocket belonging to me, not to you"—I went to the station.
Cross-examined. There were 11 firemen on board and a crew of 24—I have been three voyages in the ship—it is a cargo ship, not a passenger—they were all coloured chaps, only two white men—I have had no quarrel with the prisoner—I have not threatened him—he said he had 6l. in his pocket of his own—there were plenty more boxes and clothes in the forecastle besides mine, and plenty of other men there.
Re-examined. On the way to the station he told the constable that he had no money at all.
FRANCIS PALMER (Dock Police Sergeant). The prosecutor came to me and I went with him on board the Severn and saw the prisoner—the prosecutor accused him of going to his chest and taking the money out of it—I asked the prisoner if he had any money about him? he said, "Yes, I have money; "I said, "You will hand it over to me, please"—he handed over this purse containing 6l. in gold, 6s. in silver. 1 1/2 d. in bronze, and a small piece of foreign coin—I asked him if he had any
more money about him—he said "No"—I searched him and found 8d. in his side pocket—I went to his chest but found nothing in it but clothes, no money—on the way to the station he said to the prosecutor, "I will give you the 5l. back to go no further."
Cross-examined. The prisoner gave me his key to open his box—it would also fit the prosecutor's box.
FREDERICK HILTON (Policeman K 70). I received the prisoner in custody and took him to Plaistow Police-station—I there searched him and found the key of his box and a knife—on further searching him I found, concealed in a rag on his finger, this small key—I asked him what key it was—he said it had nothing to do with anything, it was an old key—I examined it—it was a peculiar key and matched the prosecutor's key, only a little finer—he said the key round his neck was the key of his own box—on the way to the station he said to the prosecutor, "I will give you the 5l. and you can have the rest if you won't go any further."
Cross-examined. I believe I said the same before the Magistrate—I did not say that he said "I will give you 5l. if you won't go any further"—I tried the keys of other boxes but they would not fit the prosecutor's box—the key I found on the prisoner is a very old one and rusty by salt water.
FRANCIS PALMER (Re-examined). I did not try the key at all—I said this key would fit the prosecutor's box—if I said it would fit both boxes I misunderstood—I meant that the two keys would fit the one box—the words the prisoner used on the way to the station were, "I will give you the 5l. not to go any further with it"—5l. had been mentioned as the sum that was lost.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I can't say I am guilty, how can I when I am not? but I will give the man 6l. from the purse, as I want to go to my work and not be locked up."
NOT GUILTY .
388. MARY MARTIN (66) to stealing 56 yards of Poplin, the goods of Owen Williams and another, after a conviction* of felony in November, 1878, in the name of Mary Macey.— Two Months' Hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. HUGGINS Prosecuted.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. LLOYD Prosecuted.
The prisoner sent the coin by a child, telling him to get some tobacco, and change for a florin at Mr. Atterbury's shop: The boy got the tobacco there, but being unable to get the change, took the coin to Mr. Rogers. The COMMON SERJEANT considered that the prisoner ought to have been indicted for uttering the coin to Atterbury and not to Rogers, and having consulted the RECORDER, said that it was not a case in which to amend the Indictment, as the prisoner could be indicted again, and directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MR. FULTON Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL defended at the request of the Court.
The prisoner, before the case was opened.
PLEADED GUILTY, in the hearing of the Jury, to unlawfully wounding .— Judgment respited.
392. WILLIAM OSBORNE (17), RICHARD SINCLAIR (52), and ELIZABETH SINCLAIR (52) , Stealing a pair of machine scales and a pair of beam scales, the goods of William George Hornsey. Second Count, receiving the same.
OSBORNE PLEADED GUILTY — Eight Months' Hard Labour.
MR. METCALFE Prosecuted.
The Court considered that there would not be sufficient evidence to justify a conviction of the other prisoners.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted
GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
MR. CARTER Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN defended, at the request of the Court.
GUILTY .— Fourteen Years' Penal Servitude.
(See also Surrey Case on page 544.)
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. BESLEY Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.
JOHN WILKINS . I am master's clerk to Lambeth Workhouse—on 19th July, 1882, the Guardians elected a superintendent of the wood-chopping yard, and after the poll the prisoner was appointed, at a salary of 15s. a week and rations—he stayed in that position till he was taken in custody on 16th December, 1885—just before that the books referring to the delivery of wood on Monday the 14th were in my possession—on the 14th
December I asked the prisoner whether there were any more entries to go in the book—he said no, there was nothing else to go in of the previous week—I asked him if he had received any money for wood that had been taken out during the previous week—he said "No,"
Cross-examined. I have been there since 1878 altogether—I was not at the police-court, this is the first time I have given evidence.
FREDERICK FIELDER . I have been master of Lambeth Workhouse in Renfrew Road, Kennington Lane, since October, 1884—during all that time the prisoner has been acting as superintendent of the wood-chopping department—wood when chopped up was tied up in bundles—orders came from oil and other shops for Wood, and wood was then delivered by van or truck—before the wood was put in the truck or van it was the prisoner's duty to see that the customer's name, with the quantity and the amount, was entered in the delivery book, on the counterfoil, and on the receipt side as well—the folios and counterfoils bore the same numbers, which, were consecutive through each book; one book is used for the van, and one for the truck—paupers go out with the van or truck, to hand the wood to the person whose name is on the book; the outer piece is left with the customer, who signs on the counterfoil the actual receipt—if the paupers bring back money they give it to the prisoner, who accounts to me weekly—I copy from the delivery book into the cash receipt book the name of the person who is supposed to owe the money—that is also in the same way numbered alike on the outer side, the receipt and the counterfoil and with consecutive numbers—it is not usual for the pauper to collect, or for persons to pay on delivery—when the book is filled up by me from the delivery book I tear out and give the receipt to the prisoner, and he brings me back either the money or the receipt—I reported the prisoner to the Guardians for his improper behaviour in the House and subsequently in May the duty of going out to collect money was taken away from him—from the beginning of June he no longer collected money—I knew of complaints—I was left to see after him and see he did his duty properly—in December I had to make other complaints about him and he was instructed by the clerk to resign—I knew of that and conversed with him on the subject—after the time of his resignation was fixed I had a conversation with Milton, one of the paupers, on 12th December—I had had no communication from Milton until it was known the prisoner was going—then the last witness, by my direction, put the questions, which he has repeated, to the prisoner as to whether anything was omitted from the book, and whether everything was not handed over—I saw these two delivery books on 12th and 14th December, and then on the morning of the 16th—by the 16th my attention had been directed to the names of Stamford, Staff, Pace, and Keogh—these are the two books that were in use for delivery—the earliest date in them is June 27th, 1885, they go on to December—I find on December 15th entries of Mrs. Stamford, 100 bundles, 6s. 8d.; Mr. Cook, 100, 3s. 4d.; Mrs. Burchard, 100; Pace, 100 and one sack of dust; none of those are signed by the customers—I swear they were not in the book on the morning of 16th December—they are in the prisoner's writing—with the exception of that one counterfoil, with the name of Pace on it for wood and sawdust, there is no entry in any of the books for six months previous of Pace or Stamford—on these fourteen bits of paper the word "Paid" is in prisoner's handwriting—some have merely "Paid" and
some "Paid, R. East"—these forms are taken from no book in use at the dates when the pieces of paper purport to have been signed—there are no corresponding counterfoils to them—I have searched and no corresponding books were in use at the time—he has never paid in respect of them in any way—they are "Randall, November 21st, Paid R. East"—"December 15th, 3s. 4d."—"Staff, October 1st, 6s. 8d."—"Staff, 14th November, 6s. 8d."—"Stamford, February 20th, 3s. 4d.;" 17th March, 6s. 8d.; April 7th, 6s. 8d.; April 28th, 6s. 8d.; May 27th, 6s. 8d.; July 9th, 6s. 8d.; August 3rd, 6s. 8d.; September 9th, 6s. 8d.; October 2nd, 6s. 8d.; November 16th, 13s. 4d.; and December 9th, 6s. 8d.—the last receipt there is 9th December, and the last receipt he gave was 16th December, and these do not correspond with his own receipts.
Cross-examined. Pope handed these documents to me; they were obtained from the customers—most of those of Stamford have no name on, only "paid"—on 20th January, 1885, the prisoner got this certificate of good conduct from the Guardians—I am responsible to the Guardians—the prisoner pleaded hard—he had the opportunity of getting another situation, and notwithstanding my representations they gave it him—he had been three years in my employment altogether before this charge—I made no charge of dishonesty against him till December 16th—I have no knowledge of his sending in his resignation on Monday, 14th December—on the 16th he was arrested and charged with embezzlement—he was taken before Mr. Byron, remanded for a week, and discharged—he was taken over to the police-station and arrested again, and again taken taken before the Magistrate, but allowed to go again; and on the 30th December I applied for a warrant against him—on the 4th January he surrendered, and he has been out on one bail in 25l.—he had not very large accounts in the wood department; the books are not voluminous; he had not to make 20 entries perhaps in a week—the entries in this book are made in my office, not by the prisoner—these are the only two books he has—it would be contrary to his duty if he supplied these things without having any document—he ought not to do so.
Re-examined. There would be no trace of it if he did; he would pocket the money—the officer went back to Mr. Byron and acknowledged his mistake in charging him as he had done, and Mr. Byron gave a warrant—I never complained till Milton told me something on 10th December—I saw Mrs. Price on 14th December, 1885.
ELIZA JANE RIDGEWAY . I am step daughter of John Randall, and live with him at 88, Prince's Walk, Albert Embankment—I have taken in wood bought by Mr. Randall and delivered there by the paupers—I paid the money represented on this ticket of November 21st, 1885, to the prisoner, and he gave me this receipt—I did not actually see him write it in my office at the Embankment; he called for the money.
MARY JANE STAFF I am the wife of Abraham Staff—we keep a general shop at 59, Bond Street, Vauxhall—I have managed it since May, 1885—I take in wood from Lambeth Workhouse people—we have 200 bundles every five or six weeks—I order by postcards addressed to East—two paupers usually deliver—they did not produce the delivery order or book—I paid the money represented by this piece of paper, October 1st, 1885, to the prisoner; it is marked "Paid R. East—he called and brought this paper—that was the first time I saw it—on
14th November, 1885, I paid him 6s. 8d. in my shop, and he gave me this receipt—he called for the money, or sent one of them in.
MARY STAMFORD I am a widow, living at 223, Camberwell New Road, where I have managed a business from September, 1884—during 1885 I was supplied with firewood from Lambeth Workhouse, 200 at a time, about once in three weeks, I think—they were brought by paupers, who brought me no delivery-book to sign, only a receipt—I produce 10 receipts, beginning February 20th, 1885—I paid these moneys—"February 20th, 6s. 8d., paid R. East," is the first—I paid the pauper that brought the wood on that day, and he gave me this receipt—on the 17th March I paid 6s. 8d.—I never saw East: I always paid the man who brought the wood—April 7th, 6s. 8d.; April 28th, 6s.; 8d. May 27th, 6s. 8d.; July 9th, 6s."' 8d.; August 3rd, 6s. 8d.; September 9th, 6s. 8d.; October 2nd, 6s. 8d.; November 14th, 13s. 4d.; and December 9th, 6s. 8d.—I am sure I paid on the 9th December and not on the 15th; I have a special reason for recollecting—I paid Milton, the pauper, on the 9th, but that was the only time I paid him.
Cross-examined. I should know the pauper I paid if I saw him—I server saw East in these cases—I looked these receipts up and gave them to the police.
MATILDA MARY VOGEL . I am a widow, and am a general dealer at 63, Eliots Row, Southwark—I have had firewood from time to time from Lambeth Workhouse, 300 at a time in winter, and 200 in summer—the prisoner called frequently—I cannot remember if he did on 25th November, I don't keep accounts, but he looked underneath where I keep my wood, and asked if I wanted wood—I gave him an order for 300, and 10s.;—I was to receive the wood in a day or two—I got the last lot I ordered of the prisoner about three weeks before Christmas, paying him at the same time—he never gave a receipt—I said I should require it next week; It did not come, and on Monday morning, nearly a fortnight afterwards, I went to the yard, saw him, and said "How is it my wood has not come?"—he said "It is all right, it is coming"—he left me and went to where they were loading wood, and I came away—I heard no order given, but the wood was delivered that day—I did not sign a receipt in a book at any time for the receipt of wood with him—the prisoner came to me about Christmas after the charge had been before Mr. Byron, the day I went to the police-court, in the evening, and said "l am here to say it is all right"—I said "It is a fine thing to drag me out of my place, when I have paid you honourably, and I have no receipt for my money"—he said "It is all right, there is nothing booked against you, consequently they cannot come on you; you have got your wood."
Cross-examined. I cannot say the date, I gave it to the solicitors as nearly as I could.
ELLEN PACE . I am the wife of George Pace, who keeps the George and Dragon, High Street, Vauxhall; I help him—we have been supplied with firewood and saw dust from Lambeth Workhouse—we have sawdust every Saturday; I can't say how often we have wood; we give orders and the paupers deliver it when it is wanted—I never signed anything; in a book for it; they never left any delivery order—we have been having sawdust about 10 or 11 months—I paid the man who delivered the goods—I could not swear to having any wood or sawdust in on 12th December, it was the Saturday before I saw the master, I then received 100 bundles
of wood, and a sack of sawdust, 9d.—I paid on delivery; I got no receipt; I did not sign at all for them—Milton delivered them I believe.
Cross-examined. I have seen the prisoner, he has not given me any receipts himself.
ROSE KEOGH . I am a widow and a general dealer, at Tower Street, Vauxhall—I ordered 100 bundles of wood from the Lambeth Guardians on Wednesday, December 9th, sending my order to the workhouse—it was delivered on Thursday evening, the 10th, by Milton—he brought no book for me to sign, and left no paper with me—I paid him 3s. 4d.—that was my first transaction.
WILLIAM MILTON . I have been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse for two years or more—I am 70 years of age—since I have been there I have principally been employed in delivering wood in bundles to the customers of the Guardians, acting under the prisoner's directions—I remember taking wood to Randall's, off the Albert Embankment, by the prisoner's directions—I took no book to sign—the prisoner said when I took wood to people who paid money I did not require a book—sometimes I had a book when I delivered to Randall—I remember taking wood to Staff, of 59, Broad Street—I never took a book there, and never got their signature—I have never received any money from them nor from Randall—I took 200 bundles to Stamford on 9th December, and I took this receipt there for 6s. 8d.; the prisoner gave it to me—I got the money and gave it to the prisoner the same day that I received it, inside the buildings, while he was stacking wood—I received an order from Mrs. Keogh, of 115, Tower Street—I took 100 bundles there between the 12th and 14th December—I took no book for her to sign; the prisoner told me not to, because they did not require one when they paid the money—I received money from Mrs. Keogh, which I gave to the prisoner in the workhouse the same day—I knew at the time he was going to leave the service—I have been to Mrs. Pace, at the George and Dragon, High Street, several times, by the prisoner's order—I took no book to be signed there—I never went anywhere but by the prisoner's orders—I was paid for sawdust and things which I took there—I always handed the money I took over to the prisoner—on the Saturday before he was charged I took 100 bundles of wood and a sack of sawdust to Mr. Face's, and I gave the prisoner the 4s. 1d. on the Saturday evening, at 10, Regent Street, where he resided—I went every Saturday to Mr. Pace's with sawdust, not always with wood, and the money I took I always handed to the prisoner, I never paid it into the office—I have taken 300 bundles of wood to Mrs. Vogel upon two occasions—I never took a book to be signed there—I remember just before he was charged Mrs. Vogel calling to say the wood had not been sent—the prisoner ordered me to take it there directly, and I did so.
Cross-examined. The Guardians did not authorise me to collect money—I was not aware I did it against their authority, because I went entirely under the prisoner's direction, and I knew he used to take money.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his good character, the small salary he received, and the fact that the accounts were not overlooked. — Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POYNTER Prosecuted; MR. FORDHAM Defended.
WILLIAM PALMER . I am a solicitor and a commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Judicature—this affidavit was sworn before me, I cannot say by the prisoner, but I heard him admit it at the police-court.
Cross-examined. This was in 1881—I am not prepared to swear that the man who signed the affidavit is the same man who came before me—I cannot say whether any one came with him.
Re-examined. Affidavits are sometimes brought signed, and sometimes not—I asked him if it was his name and writing, and if the contents were true, and he said "Yes."
ROBERT CROSSLEY . I am a retired licensed victualler and live at Balham—I was plaintiff in an action of Crowley v. Pearce on a bill of exchange for 50l. and interest, this is the writ and the bill—I swore an affidavit that I had good cause of action—I advanced Pearce several sums of money, and he had had several before, which he had refunded, two in August and one in September for 20l. each; these were paid by my brother's cheques, which were made payable to Mann, of Northampton, at Pearce's request; they were crossed and payable to order, they amounted to 60l.—I called several times between September and December for the 60l., and the prisoner said he had no money to pay me, but on December 27th I got 10l. from him; he never repudiated the debt—I saw him on 27th December at his shop, 39, Elizabeth Street, Pimlico, my brother was with me—I got 10l. on a bill from him, this is his acceptance—the name of Pearce was not over the door—I had a mortgage on the property and stock, I had advanced about 100l. on the stock—he was not my manager—I did not pay him a salary—he did not render me accounts for commission—it is not true that I engaged him to carry on business on my behalf—I did not request him to accept a bill for my accommodation, I did not require such a thing, I had just opened an account at Putney at the London and South-Western Bank—he says "I positively swear I never had any consideration for the said bill"—the three sums were 20l. each—I kept the bill till it was due, and a day two before it was due called at his shop—he asked me not to present it at the bank because he had no account at that time; it was payable at a bank in Sloane Square—I called several times; he could not take it up, and wished me not to present it—I will swear that he owed me this 60l.—I did not proceed upon the bill because the man was in possession for it—I turned him out in October, the bill became due in March, 1882—I sued for the last year, and this affidavit was made—I appeared by solicitor and Counsel on two days; the defendant did not appear or adduce any evidence—I got judgment—my taxed costs were 37l., and I incurred considerable expense.
Cross-examined. I advanced these three sums on August 4th, August 30th, and September 15th, 1881, by cheques payable at Mann's, of
Northampton—I got no security at the time—I know that the prisoner had some difficulties in meeting his creditors, and that he had liquidated—I know that Messrs. Fowler and Edmunds were his trustees through being called to the meeting at their office—Messrs. Fowler and Edmunds came to no agreement whatever as to my taking the business in part liquidation of a debt which the prisoner owed me—he did owe me about 150l.; I lent him the money to start him in business, and the trustees agreed to accept composition—I did not arrange to pay the composition—I arranged to take over the stock—all this was years before, the bill was 12 months after that—my money was in the business, and the prisoner lived there and carried it on—these invoices (produced) are made out to Mr. R. Crossley, but they have no business to be; I never gave any instructions for that—I paid the rent of the premises, but not till after I tamed him out—I still adhere to the statement that he was not my manager—I did not present the bill at the bank because he had nothing there, but I asked him to take it up in March—my brother was with me on several occasions, he used to drive me over—he has money of mine, I had no banking account at that time; he drew cheques for me—I kept this bill four years before I sued the prisoner on it, I never had a chance before—I did not know where he lived, though I often saw him—he lived in the same street for a very short time, but in a very poor position, and it was no use my suing him for it—I turned him out in October, 1882—I did not feel very friendly to him then—I put his brother in to take care of the place.
Re-examined. The bill came due in March, 1882, and I sued on it at the beginning of April, 1885; that was three years, not four—Pearce paid the rent while he carried on the business—I had a mortgage on the stock—the brother was put in simply to carry on the business; I paid him no salary; he was to pay me the amount—the business is now shut up, and I have lost my money—I gave no receipt for the 10l., nor did he give any receipt for the two 20l.—I have never seen these yellow papers before.
THOMAS CROSSLEY . I keep the George public-house, Balham Hill—I was present when the prisoner accepted this bill—my brother was out of business—he has 2,000l., which ho lodges with brewers and distillers at 5 per cent, and if he wants any money he comes to me—the prisoner never was his manager—I drew these cheques at my brother's request—this cheque was payable on August 4th, and it would take about five days coming from Northampton, through the London bank—this, is for 20l., and here is another of August 30th for 20l., and another, of 15th September for 20l., making 60l.—I drove my brother over when the prisoner accepted the bill—he insisted on having some money; he said, "I must have something of that last 60l."—the prisoner said he had got no money, he was very short—my brother said, "I have just taken a large business, and I must have some money; what can you give me?"—he said, "I will give you 10l.," which he handed over in gold—not a word was said about the bill being drawn for my brother's accommodation.
Cross-examined. My horse and trap generally remained in Mr. Bramley's yard—I did not put my brother down first—I told the Magistrate that my brother said he must have a settlement for the last 60l.—I drew the cheques payable to Mann of Northampton.
Re-examined. The prisoner suggested the name of Mann—application had been made in November, or early in December, for the payment of this 60l., before this bill was drawn, and the prisoner said, "Trade is bad, I cannot meet it, it is not the season"—I saw him post the cheques to Northampton.
ROWLAND HORATIO WARD . I am the solicitor for the prosecution—I produce a deed dated March 19th, 1881, between William, Henry Edwards, the prosecutor's trustee, and Mr. Crossley, of the goodwill and stock in consideration of 266l. paid by Mr. Crossley, which he paid to Mr. Edwards in hard cask in my presence—it is not true that suggestion was made that Pearce was to carry on the business for Crossley—I said that I would not have a particular covenant in because Mr. Crossley was simply doing it to set him on his legs again.
Cross-examined. The prisoner filed his petition through. Messrs. Fowler and Co.; I do not know who the "Co." is or whether it was Edwards and Co.—Mr. Edwards is the manager of the society and he got himself appointed trustee—his name is now very much before the public.
Re-examined. Mr. Edwards is the official trustee—the proceedings in the case are filed.
GUILTY .— Four Months' Hard Labour.
MR. POLAND Prosecuted; MR. BESLEY Defended.
SUSAN VAN INGEN . I am single, and lived at 31, Thurlow Road, Lower Norwood, in December, 1884—I have a brother in Rangoon to whom I occasionally send things—I had known the prisoner for about a year and a half before December 1884—I had then a diamond ring and six scarf pins which I desired to send to my brother—the prisoner at that time was employed at Hardy, Nathan and Sons, Old Bread Street—I sent a sealed parcel to that address, addressed to my brother in Rangoon, containing the diamond ring and the scarf pins; the outer wrapper was addressed to the prisoner—he had forwarded things for me before—I had told him before that I was going to send them, and he agreed to forward them—I asked him to have them fully insured, and to send them by the P. and 0.—I received this letter from him of 17th December; I know his writing. (This was on a printed memorandum of the prisoner's employers acknowledging the receipt of the parcel, and asking the value of the ring, as the P. and O. charged 1s. for every 5l. in value.) I then gave him 4s., as insurance, 3s. for 15l. value, and 1s. for the parcel—he said he had sent it and posted the receipt to my brother—I received no acknowledgment from my brother, and wrote to the prisoner—on 28th April, 1885, I received this letter from him; "I beg to say I have no particulars of the date of dispatch of parcel. It was sent per registered post and receipt sent to you the same day, which I have no doubt you will find on looking through your papers.") It is not true that a receipt was sent to me—I wrote back to my brother, and made further inquiries and afterwards called at the prisoner's office but he was not there—I then received this letter from him of 18th May. (Stating that he had made inquiries at the Leadenhall Street Post Office, where the parcel was dispatched, and had also written to the General Post Office and received a reply from them that they would inquire into the matter.) I heard nothing more of my parcel and then wrote to the Postmaster-General—Messrs. Ranger and
Burton, of Idol Lane, are my solicitors—the letter of 3rd July to them is in the prisoner's writing. (Dated 3rd July, 1885, acknowledging their letter, complaining that the prosecutrix had refused him an interview, and stating that he received the parcel too late to post it that day, so kept it to send it the following week, and being pressed for money through his mother's illness, a friend pawned the ring for him on consideration of his lending him 2l. 10s., and he had not been able to raise the money to redeem it.) I also received this letter from him. (Dated July 3rd, 1885, to the prosecutrix, stating that he had written to her solicitor and made an open confession to him, and begging her forgiveness.) I afterwards received this other letter from him. (Dated July 23rd. to the solicitors, stating that he had not called on them as he did not like to do so without the ring, and enclosing a letter for the prosecutrix.) I then left the matter in my solicitor's hands, and on 26th November went to the police-court and swore an information before Mr. Bridge—a warrant was then issued and the prisoner was arrested on 22nd December—he had then left his employment—before the warrant was issued I went with an officer to Mr. Attenborough, of 80, Newington Causeway, and there saw my ring, which I had sent in the parcel—I have not got the letter which the prisoner enclosed—it was in the same strain—until I went to the pawnbroker's I had not seen the ring—the pins are worth about 3s. each and the ring 15l.
Cross-examined. This is the sort of pin (produced)—I had to pay 1s. 6d. to have them washed over with gold—the letter says "I certainly hope you will be able to arrange matters without going to extremes"—the proposal was to return the ring—I knew him two or three years through lodging at his aunt's house, and he visited her every Sunday—I sent over two or three guns to my brother and some silk stockings; not in large quantities, but for himself—I did not send parcels almost every Monday—I sent him some Christmas cards, which were re-sold in India; that is three years ago—I cannot call that trading; I got profits for my trouble—I asked the prisoner to buy an oil stove, which he did—I remember pressing him to come and see me at my rural lodging—this is my letter of 15th August, 1884, enclosing him a cheque for 2l., which I lent him, and he paid me back—I did not charge 10 per cent, interest on that loan—the sapphire ring mentioned in my letter of 9th September is one my brother sent over here, and I was going to dispose of it for him—the pins were not the same class of goods at 9d. apiece—on 23rd September I wrote to the prisoner, "My dear Douglas, &c.;—Did you advertise the ring?"—that is the sapphire ring—my brother's name is Wilfred—I also wrote, "What will be my share of the commission on the watch?"—what I had for my brother there was a trade discount on, and I was to get a portion of that—I mean to tell the Jury that all the articles sent to India were for my brother's private use, and not for sale again, that I know of—I wrote to the prisoner, "How is your long friend after the Crystal Palace business?"—that is Mr. Marvin—I wrote "My dear Douglas, October 26th, your account was forwarded to me here"—he was in the habit of sending me an account—he had returned the 2l., and asked me to lend him some more money, in consequence of the remittances from India being short—I wrote, "I told my brother I had paid you for the rifle, and 9l. for a gun"—I did not get anything out of that, the prisoner kept the money and never got the gun—I mentioned some three-ounce bottles of scents, they were for my brother to
give away in India without any money to come back—I do not know whether there was buying in England to sell in India, or what my brother wanted with 56 pieces of trousering or four dozen scarves—if the trade allowed any commission I was to have half of it—I do not know whether my brother was trading in scarves. (Other letters to the prisoner from the witness to the same effect were partly read.) Marvin behaved ill about money matters, and I prosecuted him last April and got him committed for trial, but did not go on at this Court—I paid, "I heard in June or July that the ring had been pledged, before I prosecuted him I should have been willing to pay the money to take it out of pledge"—I have always found him straight in his dealings with me before this—I don't think he had any intention of doing away with it entirely—I got the information from my lawyer that the ring was to be found at Attenborough's—he showed me a letter which said, "A friend of mine pawned the ring "—for a certain time he concealed the name of Marvin from me, but he told the solicitor that Marvin pledged it and where it was pledged—the pawnbroker is ready to give it up—I desired to withdraw from this prosecution on account of my health; the doctor said I should not go on—I waited from July to November before taking criminal proceedings, and I thought he was going to give me the ring—I have lost all support from my brother through this ring.
Re-examined. I acted under my lawyer's advice—the name of Marvin is not mentioned in the letter—I prosecuted him, and when we came to this Court, the lawyer having returned the property, we could not go on—my brother is the manager of a large firm in Rangoon, and writes to me to send him out things, whether for his personal use or for his friends I do not know—the prisoner was in the City every day, and used to buy these things for me—I had receipts from him for large sums paid to him, but when it was only a few shillings I never thought to ask him.
ERNEST DOWLING . I am assistant to George Attenborough and Son, pawnbrokers, of Newington Causeway—I produce a diamond ring, pledged for 5l. on Friday, 19th December, by a person who gave the name of Brealey, 14, Angel Road, Brixton—I can't remember who it was—about the 20th November last Miss Van Ingen and a detective called, and I showed her the ring, and she identified it—since the prosecution has commenced we have received the 5l. from the prisoner, but we kept the ring as we had had no order of Court to deliver it up.
Cross-examined. He did not say his friend Marvin had pawned it, or mention his name, but he said he had lost the ticket—he paid the 5l. some time in February; he was by himself.
THOMAS PICKLES (Police Sergeant M). On the 22nd December I arrested the prisoner, and read the warrant to him; it was dated 26th. November—I had had it from that date—I inquired at his employer's, but could not find him till 22nd December—on that day, about 10 o'clock, I saw him at 98, Kennington Road, where his mother lives—I read the warrant to him—he said "I pawned the ring for 5l.; when I went to send it away by the mail I found it had gone; when the next mail was due I intended to redeem it and send it on by that, but could not do so "—I took him to the station, where he was charged, and made no reply—I know he has been employed at Hardy, Nathan and Sons, Old Broad Street.
Cross-examined. I have got a note in writing of what he said—his employers did not mention the month of his leaving—I called twice before at his mother's—I got the name of Attenborough from the solicitor.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. I had no felonious intention at all; I call no witnesses."
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLAND Prosecuted; MR. BESLEY Defended.
SUSAN VAN INGEN . What I have said in the other case is correct—a few days after I sent the parcel to the prisoner in the City, and after I had received the letter of 17th December I saw him—he said the parcel had gone, and that it cost 4s., and that he had posted the receipt on to my brother—I had told him previously that the value of the ring was 10l.—he said he had insured it for a little more—I then gave him 4s. for that purpose—I believed then that he had sent the ring and pins to my brother.
Cross-examined. My complaint was with regard to the pawning of the ring, and also about the 4s.—Pickles went about the ring, and my information was about the ring—I told the Magistrate about the 4s., and I now accuse him of that—I first charged him with that at the police-court—I did not have receipts from him for small amounts—I can show my cheque-book as to the amounts he has had—the last cheque he had before this incident of November was about September on October for the gun—I wrote this, "Paid Mr. Morrison full insurance 1s. parcel"—he wrote on the 17th December, but I wrote several weeks afterwards—it was about the 30th or 31st that I went to his office, and he came out—I did not ask for any receipt—no one was present when I gave him the 4s.—I did not leave him to pay small sums when he pleased—there were no small sums for him to pay on my account—he paid this 3s. insurance, and I paid him afterwards.
Re-examined. I wrote this: "Paid Mr. Morrison 3s. and 1s. parcel" some weeks afterwards, when I was writing to my brother—the receipt for the letter was never sent to me—I paid him in the street, and got no receipt.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. WILLIAMS, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. GOODRICH Prosecuted.
ELLEN BIRD . I am the wife of William Bird, baker, 26, Sidney Road, Stockwell—on 2nd February Dale came and asked for a penny loaf; he tendered a shilling, and I gave him a sixpence and five pence in copper change—I put the shilling into the till, there was no other there; I had cleared the till a few minutes before—about half an hour afterwards detective Walters came in and made a communication to me, and I gave
him the shilling—I went to the station and charged Dale—I am positive he is the man.
CHARLES WATERS (Policeman W 59). On 2nd February, about half past four in the afternoon, I was in Rothschild Street; I saw the three prisoners going into Sidney Road—Dale left the other two and went into Mrs. Bird's shop; he came out with something in his hand, and joined the other two, who were waiting on the opposite side—I followed them into Stockwell Road; they stood opposite Netheroot's, the baker's; Lince went in there, the other two stood on the other side waiting for him; he came out of the shop with something in his hand, and joined his companions—I followed them again to the Clapham Road—Dale went into Mr. Templeman's, the baker's, but in that case the coin got mixed—I afterwards saw Dale go into 360, Clapham Road, Stanbridge's, his two companions stood on the other side; when he came out I crossed the road to him and said "I have been following you for some time you have been going into bakers' shops, I want to know what you have been doing"—before I could take him back to the shop some person said in his hearing "Have you got him?"—I said "Yes, what has He been, doing?"—he said "He has just passed a bad shilling in my neighbour's shop—I took him back to Stanbridge's shop, but they refused to charge him—I then took him, to the station—I produce the two shillings, one Mrs. Bird gave me, and one from Mrs. Stanbridge.
Cross-examined by Dale. It is not true that. I said to you "I have been following you for a long time for changing counterfeit money "and that you said you had not—I took you back to the shop and the person there did not say you had not been there.
Cross-examined by Smith. I followed you about two hours—it was about half past six when I took you.
Cross-examined by Lynch. I am sure you were with two other men.
ANNIE STANBRIDGE . I keep a taker's shop at 360, Clapham Road—on 2nd February, about half past six, I served Dale with a penny scone—he tendered a shilling in payment—I looked at it and took it to a neighbour's next door, who bent it—I left Dale in the shop and when I came back he was gone, he had not waited for his change—I afterwards gave the shilling to Waters—I am sure Dale is the man.
EMILY GILLING . I live at 63, Stockwell Road, and am servant to Mr. Nethercot, baker—on 2nd February, in the evening, Smith came, and asked for 1d. scone and tendered a shilling in payment—I gave him 11d. change and put the shilling in the till—there was a half-crown and some sixpences and coppers there, but no other shilling—later in the evening the police came and I handed the shilling to him.
JOHN KEY (Policeman P 49). On the morning of 6th February I arrested Smith at 16, Westall Road—I told him the charge; he said, "I did not pass any bad money, I was with Dale on that day but I left him at six o'clock—I took him to Brixton Station, where Waters identified him—he made no reply to the charge.
HENRY MORRIS (Policeman 365). On the evening of 5th February, I arrested Lince—in answer to the charge he said, "Yes, I was with Dale, but I left him at six o'clock at the corner of Warrior Road, Camberwell—I took him to the station—he was there identified by Waters and charged—three shillings in good money was found on him and some buns.
JOSEPH CASE . I am a tobacconist at Camberwell—on the evening of 13th December Lince came in and asked me for half an ounce of the best shag and tendered a shilling—I gave him 6d. and 4d. change—I was rather doubtful of the shilling when he went out of the shop and bent it—I crossed the road to where he was standing and said "I want you," he said "I did not know it was a bad one, Sir"—I took him back to my shop and he gave me back the change—I sent for a constable, and at the station I refused to charge him.
The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Dale says: "I passed one in the Clapham Road, I did not know it was bad." Smith says: "I did not pass any at all, I did not have any." Lince says: "I was not with these chaps at all on that Tuesday night, and I know nothing about it."
Smith's Defence. I and Dale were out together, I left him about 8 o'clock and went to the boys' club; I came out at 10 and went to bed at 1 o'clock, when the detective came and took me.
Lince's Defence. I had a bad shilling just before Christmas, I took it to Mr. Case's shop not knowing it was bad; he gave me in charge. I was taken to the station and the inspector discharged me; since then I have always tried my money, and have not had any bad since. I was not with these chaps at all, the detective only arrested me by a description.
GUILTY . DALE and SMITH— Two Months' Hard Labour each. LINCE— Three Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.
HARRY INGLEDEN . I keep the Sea Lion, Wootton Street, Lambeth—on 22nd January the prisoner came in for three-halfpennyworth of rum, and put down a bad shilling on the counter—I did not touch it, but asked if she had any more like it—she said "I have no more money"—I jumped over the bar, went to the door, and called for the potman to send for a constable—while he was gone she said "Don't pinch me"—I had not got hold of her; I was in front of the door and she was in one compartment of the bar by herself—she said "I am only a poor girl; a gentleman gave it me."
HENRY ROUSE (Policeman L 63). I was called to the Sea Lion, and Mr. Ingleden gave the prisoner into my custody with this shilling—she said "I did not know the money was bad, it was given to me last night by a gentleman; I am an unfortunate girl"—she was charged, and remanded till 27th January, when the Magistrate discharged her.
HENRY PANTER . I am a dairyman, of 113, Avenue Road, Camberwell—on 5th February the prisoner came to my shop for two fresh eggs and tendered this florin—I gave her 1s. 10d. change, and then tried the florin after she had left the shop—I found it was bad—I went after her; she was about 50 yards from the shop—I said "You have given me a bad two-shilling piece"—she said "I was not aware of it; I will give you the eggs back"—I said "What are you going to do with the two-shilling piece?"—she said "I will take it where I got it from"—a constable came up and I charged her—this is the florin.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not put the money in the till, I kept it in my hand.
WILLIAM CARTER (Policeman P 213). I took the prisoner into custody outside this shop, she said "I had it given to me by a gentleman"—I said, "Let me see the bad money that you have got"—she said, "I shall not"—I asked her to accompany me to the station; she refused to do so—I took her into custody on suspicion—the prosecutor came and charged her afterwards; she said nothing—only the bad florin was found on her; I was just outside the door of the cells when the female searcher searched her.
Cross-examined. You gave me the purse when I was a good way towards the station—there was a good half-crown in it and the bad florin, nothing else.
The prisoner in her defence stated that the was an unfortunate girl, and that a gentleman had given her two half-crowns, one of which she changed at a public-house, and on her way home went to buy the eggs; that the shopman had put the florin she gave him in his till and could not say it was the same; and that she was going to take the florin back where she got it, but was arrested.
WILLIAM CARTER (Re-examined). At the police-station the inspector asked her where she got it—she did not hear, and I repeated the question—she said, "I got it at a public-house," but she could not tell where—she first said she got it from a gentleman.
GUILTY*†.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.
MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted.
JAMES WEBB . I am a jeweller, of 446, Oxford Street—on Monday, 8th February, about 4.45, I was outside my shop—I had a warning from a neighbour, and went as quickly as I could to shut my shop up—I saw a mob coming from North Audley Street into Oxford Street; they were on me before I could do anything, I was pushed through my shop window, my spectacles were taken off, and my watch and chain taken from me—property was taken from my shop and damage done to the amount of 1,000l.—this is my chain, minus the bar, which was afterwards picked up with other property on the pavement.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I cannot identify you.
ARTHUR DAVIS . I am a pawnbroker of 66, Abbey Street, Bermondsey—on February 9th, the morning after the riot, about 11.30, the prisoner brought this Albert chain to my shop and asked what it was worth—it was just as it is now, with the bar gone—I took it in my hand and saw it was
worth a good bit—I asked where he got it—he said he bought it of a man named Hoare, up the corner of Mason Street, or in Mason Street, Old Kent Road—I said I cannot give you this, but you must come with me to the Inspector in Bermondsey—he stood a minute or two and edged to the door—another man stood outside—by the time I had lifted the flap to come out the prisoner was some yards away—he started running—I ran after him—I called to another man, who saw he went into the Star and Windmill public-house—when I got to the corner I saw a constable and we went into the public-house, where the prisoner was sitting down cross-legged as if nothing had happened—the chain was worth about 4l. 10s. for breaking up.
Cross-examined. I won't say whether you said the man you bought it of was outside—as I ran after you I passed the other man whom I had seen outside—I cannot say if he ran away.
WALTER EDMUNDS . I am a blind maker of 36, Bermondsey Square—I saw the pawnbroker come out of his shop—I saw the prisoner running away in Bermondsey Square and the pawnbroker after him, calling "Stop thief"—the prisoner went into the Star and Windmill—I informed the pawnbroker.
JOHN HARDING (Police Constable). The pawnbroker spoke to me and I went with him to the Star and Windmill—two or three seconds before I had seen the prisoner go in there—the pawnbroker had this chain in his hand—he said to the prisoner "Where did you get this chain from?" he said, "The same as what I told you just now, I bought it last night for 2l.;"—I said, "You will have to come to the station with me"—I took him and he was charged.
----BUNTING (Police Inspector M). The prisoner was brought to the station—after the charge was entered I went to his cell—I asked him where he got the chain—he said he bought it of a man named Hoare in Mason Street—I said, "Has anybody seen the man?"—he said "No"—I asked him if he had shown it to his wife—he said "No"—I asked him where he had got the 2l.—he said he received it from his employer at Hamboro' Wharf—inquiries were made there—after he was remanded I went to him in the cell and asked if he had any witnesses to prove where he was on Monday, as if so I would have them summoned to attend the Court on the remand—he made this statement. (This was that on the Monday he went out about a quarter past 6 to look for a job, that he got his boots mended, and got lame about 11, and that he went out again about 1. Saving been again cautioned by the inspector to be careful what he said, he added that he was in the Old Kent Road by Kennington Road, but only saw one man whom he knew by sight, and that he did not know what the time was.) I asked him if ho knew any person who saw him between 1 and 5—he said, "No, I saw no one who could state where I was."
JOHN WILSON . I am foreman to Horn and Crampton, Hamboro' Wharf—the prisoner used to work there—he received 25l. on 25th January, but no money on the week ending 6th February; he had left the service then.
Witness for the Defence.
MRS. PICKARD. I saw the prisoner in the Borough, near the Town Hall Savings Bank, on 8th February, a few minutes before 4 o'clock, and also a few minutes after.
The prisoner in his defence stated that he bought the chain of Hoare on the
evening of the 8th for 2l., Hoare representing that he had had it for tome while, and wanted to sell it to buy paraffin cash; that the morning after he met Hoare, who told him if he was not satisfied with its value to take it to Mr. Davis, and that Hoare waited outside while he went in and asked the question.
INSPECTOR BUNTING (Re-examined). We asked the prisoner for a description of the man, and offered to find him if he could give the slightest clue—he only said he was a short man with an apron who dealt in paraffin casks and lived in Mason Street—a constable has been hanging about Old Kent Road to see if he could find him.
GUILTY on the Second Count — Nine Months' Hard Labour.
408. JAMES PARROTT (27) to stealing a watch and chain the goods of Emily Turner, and a coat the goods of Alfred Bonner, after a conviction of felony at Preston in August, 1883.— Twelve Months' Hard labour. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
409. RICHARD BENN (21) and LEWIS SMITH (23) to being found by night with housebreaking implements in their possession, Smith having been convicted of felony in May, 1883. BENN*— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. SMITH— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
Before Mr. Justice Stephen.
The Grand Jury having ignored the bill. MR. H. AVORY offered no evidence on the Inquisition.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FULTON Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
NOT GUILTY .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, APRIL 5TH, 1886.