Old Bailey Proceedings, 5th April 1886.
Reference Number: t18860405
Reference Number: f18860405

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

Sessions Paper.

STAPLES, MAYOR.

SIXTH SESSION, HELD APRIL 5TH, 1886.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY

JAMES DROVER BARNETT

AND

ALEXANDER BUCKLER,

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.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the Queen's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

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

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Including cases committed to this Court under Order in Council pursuant to the Winter Assize Act of 1879,

Held on Monday, April 5th, 1886, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JOHN STAPLES, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir LEWIS WILLIAM CAVE , Knt.; and the Hon. Sir ALFRED WILLS , two of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., Sir JAMES CLARKE LAWRENCE , Bart., Sir THOMAS DAKIN , Knt., and Sir ROBERT NICHOLAS FOWLER , Bart., M.P., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt.fl, Q.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Knt., HERBERT JAMESON WATERLOW , Esq., JOSEPH SAVORY , Esq., EDWARD JAMES GRAY , Esq., and STUART KNOTT , 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.

DAVID EVANS , Esq., Alderman,

THOMAS CLARKE , Esq.,

Sheriffs.

GEORGE ROSE INNES , Junior, Esq.,

WYNNE EDWIN BAXTER, Esq.,

Under-Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

STAPLES, MAYOR. SIXTH 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, April 5th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-413

413. SAMUEL ALKER FREEMAN, CHARLES LEVER, MORGAN EDWARD WILLIAMS , and WILLIAM EDWIN BOYES , Unlawfully conspiring to force and apply a trade mark of Bailey and Co. and Atkinson, and obtaining by false pretences from Newbury and others Certain sums of money with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. BESLEY and GILL Prosecuted; MR. GRAIN defended Freeman,

MR. LYON defended Williams, and MR. CLUER defended Lever.

WILLIAM CROSS (City Detective Constable). On the morning of 2nd of February I and another detective, Eagle, were in Newgate Street, near Messrs. Newbury's establishment, about half-past 11 a.m.—I saw Lever, Freeman, another man and a boy after they had come out of Newbury's—Eagle spoke to me as to something he had seen—after they came out I saw Lever hand a black leather bag to Freeman; I should fancy it was empty—the man not here and the boy went towards Holborn, and Freeman and Lever went towards the Mansion House and Broad street—I and Eagle followed them some little distance, they went away by train from Broad Street station—I was at this time merely on ordinary duty and not making special inquiry into the matter—I went into Newbury's and made inquiries—as the result of it I and Eagle waited between one and two in Newgate Street, and about two o'clock saw Lever and Freeman coming from Cheapside—Lever was carrying a parcel, which I have part of here—there were nine dozen bottles of scent wrapped in three larger and six smaller parcels, which were wrapped together in this brown paper—Freeman had hold of Lever's arm—I went up and stopped them and said, "We are two police officers; I want to know what you have got in that parcel"—Freeman said, "Perfume"—I said, "How much"—he said. "Nine dozen"—I said, "Where did you get them

from?"—he said, "I got them from Dr. Williams, 91, Hoxton Street, Hoxton"—I said, "What did you give for them?"—he said, "11s. a dozen"—I said, "What were you going to do with them?"—he said, "They don't belong to me now, they belong to Lever, I have sold them to him"—I said, "What for?"—he said "For 12s. a dozen; I merely get 1s. profit"—I turned to Lever and said, "What were you going to do with them?"—he said, "I was going to take them into Newbury's"—I said, "What would you get for them there?"—he said, "18s. a dozen"—I said, "That seems rather strange to me, this man going to get them and only gets 1s. and you get 6s."—Lever said, "That is a lie, he gets 3s. and I give him 14s. and sell them for 18s."—I said, "I shall have to take you to the station"—I took them both to the station and left them there—I examined the parcels, each of the six small and three large parcels contained a dozen bottles—outside the parcels is a label with the picture of a civet cat and the name Bailey and Co., Cockspur Street. (On each bottle was also a label "Ess. Bouquet, made only by Bailey and Co., Cockspur Street.") There were six dozen small bottles and three dozen large once—I went to this address at Hoxton, where I saw Williams, who keeps a chemist's shop at 91, Hoxton Street—I said to him, "I am a police officer"—I pulled out this one of the smaller bottles and said, "Have you sold any like this to anybody to-day"—he said, "No"—I said, "You have had some like this?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Who did you buy them from?"—he said, "I bought 12 dozen from a man, I believe his name is Defrieze"—I said, "what did you give him for them?"—he said, "18s. a dozen"—I said, "Where is he to be found?"—he said, "I don't know now, he has gone abroad; he was hard up and asked me to take them"—I said, "When did you sell any last?"—he said, "I sold two dozen last night"—I said, "What did you sell them for?"—he said, "15s. a dozen"—I said, "To whom?"—he said, "I believe to a man named Philips"—I said, "Where does he live?"—he said, "I believe he lives somewhere in the neighbourhood of Kingsland"—I said, "What made you sell them for 15s. a dozen when you gave 18s. a dozen for them?"—he said, "Oh, when I found I could not get rid of them I was glad to sell them at a loss"—I said, "Who have you sold the others to?"—he said, "Oh, to different people in the trade that I know," he could not name anybody particularly—I said, "Have you got any more?"—he said, "No"—I pulled a larger bottle out of my pocket and said, "This is a larger size than the other"—he said, "Oh, I did not know there were two sizes, I never opened the parcels"—I then left and went back to the police-station—Freeman and Lever were detained and charged next day, the 3rd, before the Magistrate with unlawful possession of a quantity of scent found on them; because the owner could not then be found—they were remanded till Friday, the 5th—I went on the Thursday again to Williams's place, but he was not at home—I saw him on the Friday morning, the 5th—I said, "I shall want you to attend at the Guildhall this morning about that perfume; you told me you never sold any to those people that day"—he said, "Yes, all right, I will be there. I suppose you would be surprised to hear that that stuff is not Bailey's. That stuff never came out of Bailey's; I know the party that made it. It was made in a private house; I shan't divulge. I did not know it till yesterday, when I saw the party"—he told him that he made it—I said, "Well, that is a matter for you; if

you will attend at the Guildhall this morning before the Magistrate, that is all I want you to do"—in the meantime a warrant was placed in my hands to arrest Williams on a charge of conspiring with the other two men to utter counterfeit goods, and when he came to Guildhall I arrested him—I read the warrant to him—he said, "What does it all mean?"—I said, "I have read the warrant to you; do you understand?"—he said, "I don't understand it. What business I have done I have done legitimately"—I said, "I shall have to take you to Snow Hill Police-station"—he was taken there and charged—he made the same remark that what business he had done he had done legitimately—after he was locked up he said to me in the cell, "I can tell you who the party is"—I said, "Well, you will understand it might be used against you—he said, "I am only speaking the truth, His name is Defrieze Boyes, and he lives at, I think, 22, New North Road. He has got two rooms at the top of the house"—he said he believed his name was Boyes, but he went by the name of Defrieze as well—he said, "He told me it was a piracy, that he saw him the day before, that was yesterday, and he told him they could not do anything with the two men that were in custody, for the stun was a piracy, and that it had not come from Bailey's at all; that it was a piracy, and that he, Boyes, had made it, and "till then I did not know but what the stuff was all right. I have had various dealings with Boyes for a long time," and that that would dispose of the charge of unlawful possession—Williams was charged on the Saturday, and was remanded, and came up with the other two on the following Thursday I think; on the Sunday they were all three admitted to bail—I had not got Boyes at this time—on Sunday the 7th I went to Williams's shop between 1 and 2. I saw him and said to him, "Have you seen Boyes?"—he said, "Yes, we have been keeping him here an hour expecting you"—I said, "What account does he give of it?"—Williams said, "He said 'I shall be lagged for this'"—I said, "And is he going to make a clean breast of it?"—he said, "Yes"—I went to Boyes's house in the evening—I had been there before I went to Williams's, and had seen him outside in the street—about 6 o'clock on Sunday night I saw Boyes at his house, and said, "You know me?"—he said, "No"—I said, "My name is Gross; I am a police-officer"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "You have sold some of Bailey's and Atkinson's perfume to Dr. Williams, of Hoxton"—he said "This is Sunday night"—I said, "Yes, I know it is, but it does not make any difference to me"—he said, "I decline to say anything, I will see Dr. Williams"—I made an appointment for the next morning, and went up into his rooms—the place smelt of perfume—he again said, "I have nothing further to say"—I said, "Well, perhaps you will consider the matter over"—I made an appointment for the next day—he still declined to say anything at first: he said, "Who told you that I sold this stuff to Dr. Williams?—I said, "Dr. Williams told me himself, and where you lived"—he said, "Well, I have nothing to say. I have got an answer to the charge if I am wanted at any time. That stuff was not stolen, it is a piracy. I have been in Bailey's employ, also in Atkinson's. The fact of it is, Atkinson's people cannot make it; but I have got no more information to give you. If I am wanted at any time I shall, stand it like a man"—he said he had been employed at Atkinson's as a mixer—on 11th February I arrested Boyes on a warrant—in the cab on the way the station he wished to

make a statement to me—I cautioned him, and said he had better wait till we got to the station, as I could not take a note of it there—at the station he made this statement. (This was to the effect that his moulds for making A Atkinson's and Bailey's bottles would be found at Roberts's, 86, Nicholas Street, New North Road, and that Glindon, of 86, Westmoreland Place, City Road, made the stoppers for him; that Bailey's larger bottles he could get anywhere, and had no mould; that three years ago he went to Liverpool to look for employment, having with him about 300 recipes for the scents of the principal perfumers; that while going from there on a boat for an excursion he got into conversation with a man named Sampson, to whom he told all his business, and that he possessed an entire knowledge of the trade; that Sampson said he knew chemistry, and could speak four different languages, and had got plenty of money, and proposed establishing a business; that he (the prisoner) said that if he had money he could make a fortune in five years in a foreign country by pirating the finest perfumery houses in London; that Sampson asked why it could not be done in that country, as it was only an action at law; that next morning they met, and it was arranged between them that the prisoner should get the bottles, and that Sampson should get the labels and make the stuff for Ess. Bouquet and Atkinson's White Rose, and that Sampson always brought the perfume to him, with the labels, and the prisoner got the bottles, corks, and string, and bottled it himself, the other man taking them away, and paying him so much a week; that he believed Sampson lived in the neighbourhood of Clapham, but about 18 months ago they thought there was something moving, and bolted to Plymouth, and Sampson went abroad; that eventually he went back to Bristol, and having a stone with him, tried to rub the letters out with sand-paper, and left it in the cupboard; that after some time he met Sampson again in London; that they came to terms, he getting the bottles and Sampson the labels and the perfume; that he did not know where Sampson lived, but that he saw him at Brighton last Saturday, when he wanted him to go abroad, and that he (the prisoner) used to go round to marine-store dealers to buy up Atkinson's genuine empty bottles, making them from the moulds when he had not got enough.) After that I went to Bristol to the address he mentioned, 11, North Place, and found this stone—I found these documents, marked 1 to 5, on Williams when I took him at his house. (These were invoices of perfumery and chemicals from Freeman to William.) These documents were found on Freeman. (These, marked J., were invoices of White Rose and other scents bought of Freeman.) I found these papers at Freeman's house. (These included letters and telegrams from Lever and Williams to Freeman, asking for the delivery of scent and chemicals, and relating to scent.) These four letters were found on Lever. (These were invoices, and letters relating to scent between Freeman and Lever.) I have noticed Lever walking some distance from the Mansion House; he can walk by himself without difficulty—I met him in Pall Mall walking by himself—he went down the steps by the column, slowly—he did not touch anything to feel the way—when I saw him by the Mansion House, it seemed to me he could not see when ho got close to the Court.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Freeman has a house, and uses the basement for his business of a druggist—there is no open shop window

—I saw all the signs of a regular perfumer's and chemist's business being carried on—I saw Freeman on 2nd February in Newgate Street.

Cross-examined by MR. LYON. I first saw Williams in this matter on 2nd February, and next on the 5th—I had known nothing about him before that—I have found since he has been there some few years carrying on business as a chemist—I do not know that he has been there 13 years—the shop was that of a dispensing chemist, he had a stock—I looked over his house, I found no more of these perfumes; those I had seen on Freeman and Lever were the only ones I had found—Boyes had bottles and some things at his house—on the very first occasion I saw Williams he told me he had had 12 dozen of these perfumes, which he had bought from a man he believed was Defrieze—it was after he was locked up he said his name was Boyes—I did not tell him then I had any suspicions of unlawful possession of such goods—he appeared to shake when I told him I was a police officer on 2nd February—I asked him if he had sold any of that stuff that day—I did not tell him that any of the scent had been stolen or anything of the kind—our interview lasted three or four minutes perhaps—I did not mention Freeman's or Lever's names to him—I knew nothing for or against Williams then—I had the warrant for his arrest given me at about 12 o'clock on the 5th—I saw him between 10 and 11 o'clock; I had given information to the solicitors before that—the warrant was applied for that morning, I think—I did not know when I asked Williams to go to Guildhall that I should have a warrant for his arrest—I told him nothing about the charge against Freeman and Lever—after he was out on bail it was arranged that I should meet him on Sunday, the 7th, and meet the man who had sold him the perfumes—no doubt it was through Williams I was able to perfect my case against Boyes—I have made inquiries about Boyes—I heard he travelled with bottles and that kind of thing for years—I did not know he manufactured and sold scent with a label of his own; I knew he dealt in perfumes—an information was sworn in this case on 11th February, in which I and Dr. Humphreys and Miss Williams took part—Boyes was arrested on the 11th after the information.

Cross-examined by MR. CLUER. I should think Lever was very nearsighted—when I saw him on the first occasion Freeman had hold of his arm leading him.

Cross-examined by Boyes. Williams said you made use of the term lagged.

KNOLLYS HAYES WALKER . I am the representative of Messrs. Bailey and Co., 17, Cockspur Street, manufacturers and wholesale and retail perfumers—all the goods sent out come under my notice—I have been at Bailey's about 15 months, but was acquainted with the business previous to that—these parcels were shown to me—this label is a facsimile of ours—I should say it was not supplied by our firm—the label on the bottles is also a facsimile of ours—I have smelt one of these bottles; the scent is not ours, though it imitates it to a certain extent; you would not notice the difference at the first smelling it—this bottle is not like our large one; ours are plain at the bottom, and this is marked with "1 1/2 oz.," and it is rounded off at the neck and shoulders; ours is a larger bottle—this wrapper is exactly similar to ours—the Ess Bouquet produced did not come from our place, nor the bottles, labels, nor wrappers—we charge 48s. a dozen to the trade for the larger bottles

—we have never manufactured any at 16s.—the wholesale price for the small bottles was 24s., with a discount to certain houses which would bring it to about 20s. 6d.; that is the lowest price; we certainly never sell them at 11s.—I do not know Williams, Freeman, or Lever, and have never dealt with them—I have seen Boyes calling at Bailey's; he was not there in my time; I sold him no goods—a gentleman called from Shoolbred's, and showed me some of the Ess Bouquet; it was not ours—I have been shown some from Whiteley's, it is not ours—I have been shown some at Lynch's, Aldersgate Street; that was not ours.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. It is only Bailey who can make the real original Ess Bouquet—I should say that everybody else's is manifestly inferior—I cannot tell the difference between theirs and this separately—we make ours up in packets like this—if apart one might easily be deceived between the bottles—our firm tie them up like this in parcels with the civet cat outside—these parcels would deceive anybody—we are wholesale and retail, principally wholesale—in nine cases out of ten small purchasers would buy our scent from the persons to whom we sold wholesale, a druggist or a merchant who would be the middle man between the small shopkeeper and myself—we do not send out price-lists to every one.

Cross-examined by Boyes. This bottle does not contain our Ess Bouquet.

Re-examined. No dealer in perfumery can buy our stuff at 11s. a dozen or 11d. a bottle; I do not think anybody could do so.

BARRETT. I am manager to J. and D. Atkinson of 24, Old Bond Street, wholesale perfumers—I have been connected with that firm 17 or 18 years—I know Boyes; he was employed there, and left about 15 years ago—since then he had no connection with the firm, and no authority to use our name in any way—the other three defendants had no such connection—Newbury deals with us directly—I have been shown large and small bottles of white rose; the bottles are made to imitate ours, but contain different material; moulded on them is "Atkinson, London," with a label "Essence of White Rose, from J. D. Atkinson, 24, Old Bond Street," and at the back of the bottle a registered trade mark with a white rose and a lion—it takes seven impressions to print our label—I cannot distinguish between the real and the false label, but the false bottle differs in size and height from ours—our scent is distinguishable from this—this stone brought by Cross from Bristol has a portion of the trade-mark label on it—we deal with Whiteley's and Shoolbred's—our small white rose is 16s. per dozen, and our large 28s., and the net price with discount off would be about 13s. 9d. and 26s. 6d.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I would undertake to tell the difference between our scent and this other by smell if they were side by side; I would not like to swear to a bottle by itself—an ordinary person taking up the bottles separately at an interval would not notice any difference, and might easily be deceived.

Cross-examined by Lever. Our discounts are fixed, they do not vary according to the quantity we sell; I have mentioned the extreme for wholesale houses; there are other discounts for small retailers—we have a large business—we never have a bankrupt stock of our things on the market—we give credit—we sell to Newbury, charging him the prices I have named—I have always found them a most respectable firm.

Cross-examined by Boyes. This is not White Rose—I never heard of Boyes' "Naughty Kiss" perfume.

Re-examined. We do not advertise in this country, we do a little abroad—we have certainly never employed Lever to advertise for us.

KNOLLYS HAYES WALKER (Re-examined). If we advertised we should do it direct through a paper—we never employed Lever to advertise.

JAMES EAGLE (City Police Constable). On 2nd February I was in company with Cross when he stopped Freeman and Level—I heard his evidence at Guildhall—I have not done so here—I was there in the morning and saw Lever and the boy go into Newbury's—Freeman and another man, not in custody, remained outside—at the station Freeman said he bought the things of Br. Williams, but they belonged to Lever, he sold them to Lever at 12s. a dozen, and he bought them from Williams for 11s.—both of them said, "Who put you on to us?"—I asked why they asked that question, he said well he thought some one had—Freeman said, "Come, tell us who it was put you on to us?"—I said, "Do you suspect any one?"—he said, "No, not at present, but I am sure that some one has put you on to us"—Freeman said he wished he had been carrying his own stuff and then we should have found out our mistake—he said in the first place he bought them from Br. Williams—he did not say he had had any before but he said he had not been to Newbury's since Christmas.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Freeman told me at once he bought them from Williams and gave me Williams's address, which I found correct—I had not seen Freeman go into Newbury's—as far as I know everything he stated to me was correct.

EDWARD PICKERING . I am employed by Francis Newbury and Sons of Newgate Street, who deal in patent medicines and perfumes—I have known Lever about two years and had occasional transactions with him—we have bought Bailey's Ess Bouquet, Atkinson's White Rose, and Pieces and Lubin's Oppoponax front him—I produce receipts beginning 17th April, 1884—they represent all our transactions as far as I know—he left the receipts when he left the goods—I took these receipts from our receipt-book and gave them to the prosecutor—I also produce a cheque—the statement he first made when he called was that he was connected with an advertising business and the goods were given for advertisement—I believed that and it accounted for us buying at prices less than we could buy of Bailey and Atkinson, whose wholesale prices we knew, having dealt regularly with them—I believed the White Rose was Atkinson's preparation and that the Ess Bouquet was Bailey's, or we should not have bought them—I thought their trade mark was on every bottle—those scents have been long known to the trade, I have known them for 20 years or more—I have heard Mr. Barrett's evidence and it agrees with what I know about the prices—Lever sold to us at 12s. 6d., I think the receipts will show.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Our firm has been established since 1746—I don't contradict your statement that we are a highly respectable firm—I have been there 20 years.

Re-examined. When Lever came in on 2nd February he asked us if we could do with any more of Atkinson's white rose or Bailey's Ess bouquet—he had not the goods with him then; he came back at 1 o'clock—we bought the things in the morning, and he arranged to come back at 1,

I think; I did not see him with a bag—the white rose was not sold at 11.30—he sold us a gross of Atkinson's white rose on the day previous; I did not receive that—he then said, could we take Ess bouquet; we said we could do with a lot of it; I think six dozen was mentioned; no price was then mentioned; we had always paid 19s. 6d. I understood—it was arranged he should come back to us with the six dozen Ess bouquet—in the interval the police had been to see us.

Re-examined by MR. GRAIN. We have been dealing with Lever for some time, thoroughly believing the goods we bought to be Atkinson's and Bailey's—our place is a warehouse; the goods when unpacked would be put into stock—I am chief clerk—the goods would be twice examined by our salesman; we have had three or four transactions during two or three years—they were sold to our customers as genuine articles, we ourselves believing them to be genuine—we knew the price of Atkinson's and Bailey's; the price we were giving did not appear to us to be improper for goods bought secondhand.

Cross-examined by Lever. On the first occasion when you offered Atkinson's goods you did so at a price which I forget now, but which appeared to me to offer no inducement to us to buy, as I thought it was cost price, and I told Mr. Newbury there was no advantage, but I found out afterwards I was mistaken, and that I had considered the cost price less than it was—I should say a price was fixed between us when the transactions commenced—we paid 12s. 6d. for the white rose; only made two purchases of it at that price.

Cross-examined by MR. CLUER. We had occasionally bought other goods from Lever besides; I knew him as a commission agent—we have exchanged goods for him at his request, but very rarely.

Cross-examined by Boyes. We have had no complaints from our customers as to the quality or odour of the perfume we bought from Lever—we only had one bottle returned as not so good, and that was after the proceedings at the police-court.

Re-examined. The price we should have had to pay was 20s. 7d., and we paid 19s. 6d.—we were told it was taken for advertisements—I never heard of such a price as 17s. 6d.

WILLIAM SCOTT . I am a clerk in the Accountant-General's Department of the Post Office—I produce three original telegrams, two marked and one unmarked. (The third one was from Williams to Freeman, dated December 29th: "Goods on hand will away Williams.")

EDWARD ROBERTS . I am a glass-bottle maker, at 38, Nicholas Street, New North Road—I have known Boyes for 13 months—from time to time I have made bottles to his order, Atkinson's 1 and 2-oz. essences, and another bottle which we used to call Boyes's oils; we didn't know what they were for—they were moulded with "Atkinson" in the glass, the moulds were in my possession when I bought the business—I did not make more than a gross at a time, and that about once a month, as nearly as I can remember.

WILLIAM HENRY GREGGS . I am a lithographic printer—I have examined this stone, and find on it traces of six different dies, which look rather scratched, as if some attempt had been made to erase them with sandpaper or something—I can find traces of the different colours on the stone used to produce Atkinson's trade-mark, black, gold, buff,

light and dark red, and blue—to produce the trade-mark it would take that number of impressions.

Cross-examined by Boyes. I print for Grant and Co. the trade-marks for Atkinson's—I never made or sold a stone to any one drawn like that.

CHARLES HARRISON . I am a bottle-mould maker—I made some moulds of Atkinson's one and two-ounce bottles—the name of "Atkinson, London" was on them—Mr. Boyes ordered those moulds.

Cross-examined. I would have made any number of Atkinson's bottles for you, providing there was no address on them.

EDWARD CLARK . I am a bottle-mould maker, of 73, Brunswick Close, St. John's Street Road, Clerkenwell—I have known Boyes for some time, and have made moulds for him—we have made bottles like this for him; we should call it a six-dram essence; it holds nearly two ounces—I did not make any of the Atkinson bottles for Boyes—I made moulds for him, and delivered them to Roberts, 38, Nichol Street.

HENRY NASH . I am a buyer at Whiteley's—Lever offered me some of Atkinson's White Rose, we did not buy it—we bought some Bailey's Ess Bouquet from Lynch and Go., of Aldersgate Street, which I afterwards showed to Mr. Walker.

HENRY FRICKER . I am an agent—I have bought some Bailey's Ess Bouquet and Atkinson's White Rose from Boyes—some goods I had in exchange for Eau de Cologne went white from the light, and Boyes recoloured them—I bought some of each size from Boyes at half the retail selling price.

Cross-examined by Boyes. The scent you re-coloured was Atkinson's own.

Witnesses for the Defence.

ROBERT HUMPHRIES , M.R.C.S. I practise in Hoxton Street—I know Williams—on Sunday, 7th February, I was at Mr. Barnes's, 71, Hoxton Street—Boyes came in after me there—in the presence of Barnes and Williams and Orgar, Boyes made a statement—next day they went to swear an information, on which Boyes was arrested—the statement Boyes made was that he had made this spurious scent and sold it to Williams as a genuine article, for which he got a legitimate price—he also stated he heard Williams was in trouble over the matter, and he would not allow him to suffer for his misdeeds, and he was going to speak up and not let him suffer like the culprit.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I think Boyes said he had flooded the market, that he had had 20,000 labels printed and the bottles moulded—he said only one thing deterred him from speaking, and that was the position of his wife and child, and if we would promise that his wife and child would not starve, he would speak out and get all these other men out of the mess he had got them into, and we said "Well, I don't suppose your wife and child will starve, we will look after them"—I made no promise.

Cross-examined by Boyes. I did not hear Barnes promise to pay you 500l.—I did not know your child died while you were in prison—I said nothing to your wife, she did not come to me; I did not know the child was ill—you said Williams had given you a legitimate price for these goods, I swear that on my oath—Williams did not say "I gave you 1l. a dozen for them"—you did not say "You are a liar, you gave me 7s."—you could not, he gave you 18s.

BARNES. I was present at the same interview as that spoken to by the last witness, whose evidence is correct.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I heard Boyes say he had got 18s. from Williams for the scent; no other price was mentioned—I was behind the bar at my public-house; we were listening to the conversation for the benefit of Williams, if we could hear anything—I don't know what scent it was nor what sized bottles.

Cross-examined by Boyes. I didn't promise to be your bail—perhaps you and Williams occasionally came into my house to drink.

----ORGAN. I was present at Barnes's on 7th of February, the statement he made just now is correct.

Cross-examined by Boyes. I have seen you drinking with Williams—I never promised to give your wife a guinea a week.

MISS WILLIAMS. I knew Boyes as doing business with my father in selling perfumes occasionally to him in his own name—I knew him as a dealer in perfumes.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I have seen him there occasionally, not often, in the last six months—I have seen him sell parcels, I did not know what they contained—I have seen the civet cat outside.

Cross-examined by Boyes. I know your child died while you were in prison—I did not ask your wife if I could help her.

Williams and Freeman received good characters.

Boyes in his defence stated, so far from conspiring with Freeman, he had never spoken to him in his life; that Williams bought the goods and ought to be convicted if any one was, he was a chemist and knew the prices; that he (Boyes) put the labels on, but did not print them, as they were printed in seven colours, and that the only man who was guilty of doing anything was himself.

Lever received a good character.

BOYES— GUILTY Recommended to mercy by the jury.— .— Four Months' without Hard Labour.

LEVER, FREEMAN, and WILLIAMS— NOT GUILTY

NEW COURT.—Monday, April 5th, 1886.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18860405-414

414. WILLIAM LONGER PLEADED GUILTY * to unlawfully having counterfeit coin in his possession with intent to utter it.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18860405-415

415. JAMES WHITE WARNER (30) to stealing, while employed in the Post Office, a letter containing money and chattels the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-416

416. MARY ANN SWAINE (29) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.

HENRY BURBAGE . I am a wine merchant of High Road, Kilburn—on March 10, about 7 p.m., the prisoner came in and asked if I could oblige her with a sovereign for 10s. in silver and a half-sovereign—I said "Yes," and put a sovereign on the counter—she put down 9s. 6d. and threw a 6d. on the pile, making 10s.—I said "Where is the half-sovereign?"—she said "I placed it on the counter with the other"—after

moving several papers she said "Oh, what shall I do?"—I said "What do you want the sovereign for?"—she said "To put by"—after hesitating she looked in her purse, pulled out two or three sixpences, and among them I saw a half-sovereign—I said "Why you have the half-sovereign there"—she then placed it on the counter and I found it was a rank bad one—I went round the counter and detained her and a friend kept the door while I fetched a policeman, to whom I gave the coin—Mrs. Smith's shop is opposite mine, two shops lower down.

Cross-examined. I do not know that she has lost the sight of one eye, and that the other is very defective.

Re-examined. She said at the station that she had been to Mr. Smith's to buy some cake, and had the half-sovereign given her with some silver.

GEORGINA SMITH . I am a confectioner, of 94, High Road, Kilburn, nearly opposite Mr. Burbage—on 10th March, about 7.30, the prisoner came in for a piece of cake, which I sold her for 5d.—she gave me a good sovereign, and I gave her the change all in silver—she then said "Would you mind giving me a half-sovereign for the silver?"—I gave her a good half-sovereign, which I had taken from a lady half an hour before, and which I had tried—this is not the coin; it was not so yellow as this—when I had given it to her, she said, "Will you take it all back again, as I find I have change without changing my half-sovereign?"—I said, "You ought to have thought about that before; I make it a rule never to do such a thing," and refused to give her back the sovereign—I saw her fingering the money, but could not see what she did—I left her standing there, because a gentleman was in the shop—she went away in about three minutes with the change and the cake.

Cross-examined. That was the only half-sovereign I had there; the rest was in a bag—I put it on a side marble counter—I took it from a lady who had been a customer 18 years; she paid me a week's bill, 7s. 1d. and I gave her 2s.11d.—I pledge my oath that I tried it in the tester on the till, and the sovereign also.

HENRY HAWK (Policeman S 94). On 10th March I was called to Mr. Burbage's and found the prisoner detained—I told her the charge—she said, "I must have got it at the confectioner's shop"—she had this bag, with a piece of cake in it in a paper with "Smith and Son, 94, High Road, Kilburn" on it, and a purse containing two half-crowns, two florins, two shillings, and two sixpences, and in her bag 1s. 0 1/2 d. in bronze.

Cross-examined. I believe it was all good—she said that she has bad sight.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am examiner of coin to Her Majesty's Mint—this coin is bad and very soft—when a gold coin is pale there is more silver in the alloy, and when it is dark more copper.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-417

417. MARY WILLIAMS (48) , Unlawfully having in her possession, on 2nd March, 1885, a mould for coining.

MESSRS. CRAUFURD and LLOYD Prosecuted.

WILLIAM GOLDER (Policeman V 337). On 2nd March last year I went with Tarroll to 103, Greyhound Road, Hnmmersmith, to communicate with the prisoner in reference to her husband, who was in custody—it is a fried fish shop; the door was open—I spoke to Smith, the landlord, and the prisoner appeared at a door at the bottom of the stairs, and said,

"Are you come to see me respecting my husband?"—we were in plain clothes—she went by the name of Saunders while she was there—I said, "Yes, I wish to speak to you privately for a few minutes"—she said, "I want to get a haddock for my tea before I go upstairs," and turned into the shop and disappeared—I waited a few minutes and then went upstairs with the landlord to the second floor front room, which the prisoner occupied with her husband; but I had had him in custody for a week, and he was on remand for another week—the fire was burning very brightly, and in front of it I found this mould drying, with a new sixpence in it, good—these acids and quicksilver were on the table, and some black powder, and in a box near a corner of the room we found these spoons, and a quantity of silver sand—I took them all to the station, leaving Fowler in charge of the house—another officer handed a battery to me—the prisoner's husband was not let out on bail—he was kept in custody 10 days, and had been in custody a week then—he was committed for trial, but not on this charge.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I do not know that your husband has been dead 17 years; you were living with the man I had in custody as man and wife, as the landlord can prove—you asked me whether I came to see you respecting your husband; his name is Standrigg, but he has several aliases.

Re-examined. When I went in I asked Mr. Smith if there was any one living there by the name of Saunders, upon which the prisoner came forward and said "Are you come to speak to me about my husband?"

STEPHEN GUNNER (Detective Sergeant). On 13th March last year I received the implements produced from Golder—I have kept them ever since—I have made inquiries after the prisoner, and on 10th March this year saw her with two other women at the Hop Pole, Hammersmith, about 1 o'clock—I followed them for three hours, and stopped the prisoner near the Glenthorne public-house, and said "Good morning, Mrs. Smith"—she said "That is not my name, you do not know me"—I said "Well, I am a police sergeant, and I am going to take you in custody for having in your possession about 12 months since, at 103, Greyhound Road, Fulham, implements for the manufacture of counterfeit coin"—she said "I don't know anything about it"—I took her to the station, where Golder identified her—there were no other women in the room; I tried to get some, but at that time of night I could not—I had never seen her before; I took her on a description—shortly after these implements were found the landlord of 103, Greyhound Road went away, and I have tried in vain to trace him.

Cross-examined. I did not take Golder in and say "Say that is her;" I did not go in with Golder at all—you were not put in a cell, you were in the billiard room and library, and the men were playing at billiards—we cannot force women to come in out of the street—Saunders was charged with uttering; I took him in custody at Wandsworth.

WILLIAM GOLDER (Re-examined). Gunner did not say to me "Say that is her;" I did not see him till after I had identified her—I was telegraphed for from Barnes, and went into the room without any instructions from anybody.

WILLIAM SALT . On 2nd March last year I went with Golder to this house in Greyhound Road—the prisoner was at the bottom of the stairs in a passage leading to the shop—she heard Golder ask the landlord

respecting Mr. Saunders, and said "Do you come to see me about my husband?"—he said that he wanted a little conversation with her—she said something about getting some fish for her tea, and passed me towards the shop, and and out into the street—I went after her and looked in all directions for 10 minutes, but failed to find her—Smith showed me up to a second-floor front room which was locked, and opened it with a key—no one was in the room—there was a clear fire burning, apparently made up recently, and an iron plate in front of it with this mould drying, and on the table two bottles containing acids, and portions of a mould, and in a box in a corner of the room this bag containing quicksilver mixed with liquid, these small bottles, and two spoons—Golder left me in charge of the room, and during his absence I found on the landing outside the door a portion of a half-bushel battery these two files, 10 bad sixpences wrapped separately in paper, this lead, and this wire which belongs to a battery to place coins on—there was a silvery liquid on one of the files, and some white stuff on the other which had pared off the mould—when I was at Hammersmith Police-court I passed the cell window, and saw the prisoner among other prisoners, two or three women and men and boys, and identified her.

LENA JOHNSON . My husband is a fishmonger of 17, New Terrace, Fulham-in August, 1884, we let the top room first floor to the prisoner—she was there five or six weeks, and I then sold the business to Mr. Smith, leaving her there; she once gave me a bad sixpence in her rent, which I returned to her—I saw no man there; she came as a widow, and gave the name of Smith.

ANN OLKHAM . I am a laundress, of 82, Greyhound Road, Fulham; that is opposite No. 103, where the prisoner lived in May, 1884—she continued there till March, 1885—I knew her as Mrs. Smith; I knew her to speak to—I cleaned out the room for her before she moved, and never went in afterwards—in March, 1885, I heard of the coining implements being found—I saw the prisoner at her window on the Saturday before.

WILLIAM RANDALL (Police Sergeant V 37). I am gaoler at Wands-worth Police-court—on 24th February, 1885, I had a man named Saunders in custody, and the prisoner came to me and said "Have you a man named Saunders?"—I said "Yes, are you any connection of his?—she said "I am his wife; can I see him?"—I said "Where do you live?"—she said "103, Greyhound Road, Fulham"—I let her see him—he was in custody ten days; he was remanded that day, and sent to the House of Detention, and came back—he was discharged from our Court about ten days after 24th February, and taken to Hammersmith—he was discharged about 6th March.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This is a mould for sixpences, which has never been used; it is made from a good coin, and this is the pattern piece—this is part of a battery, the wire plate, the ladder, and other articles used in the manufacture of counterfeit coin—being all together I should say that they could not be used for any other purpose; counterfeit coin can be made with them—these ten sixpences are all bad, and from one mould, but the coin found in the mould is of a different date.

Prisoner's Defence. There is no proof that I occupied the room; they

ought to have had the landlord or landlady here. It was let to me two years ago, but I am not the woman who occupied it lately.

GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.

The COMMON SERJEANT commended Gunner's conduct, and recommended him to the notice of the Treasury.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, April 6th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-418

418. JOHN SMITH (21) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a bureau and other articles, the goods of William Clifford and another, his masters; also to unlawfully obtaining by false pretences 7s. from James Charles Howe, and 10s. from Isaac Isaacs, with intent to defraud.— Six Month's Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-419

419. MORRIS PHILLIPS (30), MOSS WOOLF (16), and JACOB LEVY (30) , Stealing 14 lb. of meat of Hyman Sampson, the master of Phillips and Woolf.

MR. CLURE Prosecuted; MR. MOYSER appeared for Phillips, MR. BLACK for Woolf and MR. GEOGHEGAN for Levy.

SAMUEL BACON (City Policeman 941). I received information from my inspector, and on 10th March, at 6.15 a.m., I was watching the prosecutor's shop—Phillips came up to the door and knocked, got answer, and went away—about two minutes afterwards Levy came out at his shop door, which is next door, a post divides them—he knocked at Mr. Sampson's door and went back in at his own door, came out again in a minute or two unscrewed the bolt of his shutter bar, and then looked round and knocked at Mr. Sampson's door again; there being no answer he went down the street 10 or 12 yards to the corner of Stony Lane—Phillips joined him; they conversed and went back to Mr. Sampson's door—Phillips knocked, and Levy went in at his own door—the door was opened; Phillips went in and turned up the gas—Levy came out of his shop and went into Mr. Sampson's shop, where he had a conversation with Phillips—he came back in about a minute and went into his own shop, where I saw Woolf, who brought a piece of meat from the back of the shop to the door, and hung it on a hook just inside the door, and then came out on the footway, looked round, took the meat off the hook, and took it quickly in at Lewis's door, and gave it to Lewis; he then returned to Sampson's shop—I ran into Levy's shop, caught hold of him with the meat in his hand, and asked what he was going to do with it—he said "We are only having a lark, I am going to weigh it"—I said I did not believe it, I should take him to Mr. Sampson, which I did, and then took him to the station, where he repeated that it was only a lark—I found 32l. 10s. 9d. in his pocket—the meat was 14 lb. of beef—I had been watching since 5.15; it was perfectly light outside at 6.15, but not inside Levy's shop, there being no gas.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACK. I was in some buildings opposite, lying among some bricks and rubbish, but not within hearing distance—I could not see who opened the door, as the shutters were not down, but Phillips turned the gas up afterwards—we were both in plain clothes—Woolf sleeps on the premises.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I cannot say whether these men are rival butchers; they are both Jews—when he said that he did it for a lark Mr. sampson said "You will be locked up for it"—he valued the meat at 6d. per lb.—this is Petticoat Lane, and there are other butchers in the street—it was about the time a man would go to market.

JAMES JONES (City Policeman 935). I was with Bacon; I have heard his evidence and corroborate it—I went into Sampson's shop, and saw Phillips und Woolf; I told them I was a police officer, and should take them in custody for stealing a piece of beef—Phillips said "I know nothing about it I came from the back of the shop—Woolf said "I know nothing about it"—I took them to the station.

Cross-examined, by MR. BLACK. Woolf did not say "I know nothing about it," I correct myself, he made no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I did not go into Levy's shop, nor did I see in, as the shutters were up—there may have been a quantity of meat in the background.

HYMAN SAMPSON . I am a butcher of 35, Middlesex Street—Phillips and Woolf were my servants; Phillips about three months, and Woolf about two or two and a half years—I had spoken to the police, and on 10th March about 5 o'clock I went to market—I was sent for, and came back and found the three prisoners in custody—the policeman asked Levy what he intended to do with it, he said that the boy brought it in for a lark, and then said "Mr. Sampson, you are not going to do anything with me"—the meat was worth 7s.

Cross-examined by MR. MOYSER. Phillips slept at the shop on Wednesdays and Thursdays, this was Wednesday morning—he would sleep away from the shop on Tuesday nights.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACK. I discharged Woolf once and took him back again—I had a place in Goldstone street for nineteen years—I know Binwell, a butcher, I took Woolf from his employment—I never asked for a character, he was only a little boy—I have never found fault with him before.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Levy was there before I came—he has not taken customers from me—I have no animosity against him—I have met him out of business hours—this was not the best meat at 6d. a pound, I have some at 11d.—Levy has never chaffed me and said that his meat was better than mine, he buys from the same killer as I do—I sell more expensive meat than he does, but there has been no joking about it, nor did we ever bet about it—the Jewish authorities will not give a man a licence unless he has an excellent character—I have accused my wife of robbing me—I did not find out that she had a separate banking account—I did not accuse her before Phillips came into my service—I may have said at the police court that I accused her 12 months ago—I have not said that if Levy would leave his shop I would not carry on the prosecution against him—I would not let him off for 10,000l.

Re-examined. At 6.15. a.m. my five employees were on the premises.

Levy received a good character.

PHILLIPS— NOT GUILTY .

WOOLF— GUILTY Recommended to mercy by the Jury.— .— Four Months' Hard Labour.

LEVY— GUILTY of receiving.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-420

420. GEORGE MASON (61) and JOSEPH LOWE SMITH (56) , Obtaining money by false pretences.

MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN defended Smith.

JAMES EDWARDS . I am manager to Richard Hughes, clothier and outfitter, of 460, Holloway Road, Islington—on 25th February Mason came to my shop and ordered a suit of clothes, made to measure, to the value of 4l. 8s.—he gave the name of George Mason, 23, St. James's Road Holloway—I asked him for a deposit, and he said he would pay for the goods, and offered me this cheque for 6l. (Signed "Thomas G. Mason," upon London and South-Western Bank, Peckham Branch.) It is on a piece of plain paper—I gave him 1l. 12s. change, and paid the cheque into my bank, which was returned marked as it is now, "No account"—the Monday following was agreed for his coming again, but I never sow him again—I sent to the address he gave, but could not find him—on and March I gave information to the police—I believed when I gave the change to the prisoner that this was a genuine cheque.

PARSONS FROST . I am a licensed victualler at 123, Snow Fields, Bermondsey—on 13th March, about 12 in the day, Mason came to my house—I had known him before—he asked me if I could cash this cheque for him for 4l.—I told him it was a funny thing he did not give it on a proper form—he said his friend had not his cheque-book with him—I then gave him the 4l.—the cheque was afterwards returned to me marked as it is now, "No account"—I believed when I gave him the change for it that it was a genuine cheque.

FREDERICK WESTON . I am cashier at the Peckham Branch of the London and South-Western Bank—this cheque for 6l., signed Thomas: G. Mason," was presented there—no person of that name has an account there, or any one of the name of Thomas Williams, and no one has an account at the Croydon Branch in that name.

Cross-examined by Mason. If we had proved the cheque to have been forged we should have marked it "Forged."

JOSEPH HARRISON . I live at 9), Galley Wall, Bermondsey—on 17th February Mason took lodgings at my house—he said he was a commercial traveller—he lived there till 6th March, sleeping there every night—on account of his not paying his bill we told him he had better leave—on 13th March, about 5.30, Smith brought me a note and a list of Mason's goods—he said he had come from Mason's and that he had come after Mason's goods—I asked him to write the receipt for the goods and saw him do so, and I gave the goods to him.

JOHN TUNBRIDGE (Police Inspector). On 16th March, about half-past 9, I followed Smith to 205, St. James's Road, and shortly afterwards saw him leave there with Mason—I followed them to one or two public-houses, and eventually arrested them in New Kent Road—I told Mason I was a police officer and should arrest him for being concerned with Smith in forging cheques—he said "Where?"—I said "On this side of the water and other places"—he said "In what names?"—I said "F. G. Mason and other names"—he said "F. G. Mason is my own name, I know nothing of the others"—on the way to the station Smith said "What have you taken me for? I don't understand being arrested in the street like this"—I said "You will be charged with Mason in forging and uttering cheques"—he said "I have never uttered one"—I said "Perhaps not, but you must have written them"—he said "I do a lot of writing for people"—at the station I found on Mason these two cheques written on blank paper, between the leaves of a book in his pocket—one

is for 2l. 10s. and the other 4l. 15s., and are both signed "Thomas Williams" and are on the London and South-Western Bank, one on Forest Hill Branch and one Croydon Branch—they were freshly written—I also found on him this piece of paper, apparently the portion of another cheque—on Smith was found a pen and ink-bottle and piece of blotting-paper, upon which I find the word "Co."—I have compared that with the crossings on these cheques and it exactly corresponds—I also found on him these two pieces of paper, which had originally formed one part—at his house I found this letter: "From 305, St. James's Road Dear Smith,—Come to me here to-morrow morning; I will wait for you; I have been laid up all day with a very bad cold.—Yours, G. Mason. P.S.—I mean Tuesday."

Cross-examined by Mason. I arrested you first of all on another charge.

ROBERT ODY . I live at 264, Camberwell New Road, and am clerk my father, a solicitor—Smith was in my father's employment for some years as a clerk—I am well acquainted with the prisoner's writing, and have seen him write on many occasions—this letter and receipt for Morgan's goods are in his writing—these four cheques are also in his Writing—the writing on this paper is not his, it is not so bold a writing—Smith was with us about 10 years; he went away once and came back again—I don't know that he left through slackness of work—he has been doing copying since then.

ISAAC TODD (Policeman N 199). On 16th March I was in charge of the prisoners at Grange Road Police-station, and saw Smith take this purse from his pocket, in which I found this piece of paper. (The pencil draft of the cheques.) He asked fur the purse back and I refused.

GEORGE SMITH INGLIS . I am the Government expert in handwriting—I have examined the cheques and the prisoner's admitted writing, they are the same.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. There is no disguise about it.

GUILTY . MASON**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. SMITH— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, April 6th, 1886.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18860405-421

421. HENRY TAYLOR , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

JAMES EDDINGTON . I live at 8, Grown Street, Soho—I am getting on for 12, and go to school—about 7 p.m. on 23rd March I saw the prisoner in Charlotte Street, near Great Russell Street—he said "Will you run and get me two shilling's worth of stamps if I give you a penny?"—he gave me half-a-crown and told me to go to the post-office in Russell Street—I went there and gave the young lady the two-shilling piece, and she gave me a piece of paper and went over to the gentleman, and he took off his apron and followed me—I went back to the place where the prisoner had been in Charlotte Street—he asked me for the change; I said "This is what the lady gave me"—he said something else, and then the gentleman ran over and caught hold of him—the prisoner struggled.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I went back to the post-office with you

and Glennister—I saw no one with you—I was in front of you when the gentleman caught hold of you—I saw nothing in your hands—I did not hear what you said after you asked for the change, I thought you asked for the stamps—I did not speak to you in the post-office—you were taken out of the post-office by two policemen, who had their hands on your shoulders—I saw you drop some stamps, which a boy picked up and gave to the policeman—when they were shown you at the police-station you said you got them at Portland Town.

VICTORIA EATON . I am a clerk in the post office at 29, Great Russell Street—on 23rd March, about 7 p.m., this little boy Eddington came in for two shillings' worth of stamps, and tendered half a crown—I gave him a piece of paper and no change, as I detected at once the coin was bad; I spoke to Mr. Glennister, who is my assistant in the office, and he went out and brought the prisoner back—this is the half-crown.

WILLIAM GLENNISTER . I am assistant in the post office at 29, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury—on 23rd March, Miss Eaton made a communication to me, in consequence of which I followed Eddington into Charlotte Street, where I saw the prisoner waiting about; according to my instructions, the boy gave him a bit of paper, and I saw him receive it—I took him back to the post office, where he was charged with sending the boy to change this counterfeit half-crown—he said nothing in answer to the charge.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You offered to stop at the bank of the shop, and said that you would not run away—I saw nothing in your hands at the post office; no one had hold of your shoulders or hands in the post office to my recollection.

ROBERT FRENCH (Policeman E 505). About 7 p.m. on 25th March I was sent for, to go to the post office in Great Russell Street—the prisoner was there; Miss Eaton charged the prisoner, he said nothing—I searched him, and found a penny on him—I produce this bad coin which Miss Eaton gave me—I heard the prisoner say nothing about himself.

Cross-examined. I asked you no questions; three constables took you to the station, you were not violent—one policeman inquired of another if you had been searched, I said yes—I did not twist your hands; I do not know if you referred to Hewitt, a wholesale fishmonger, I did not hear you.

ALFRED SILVER (Policeman E 437). On 23rd March I saw the prisoner with the last witness going to the station, and followed them—I saw the prisoner drop something, which the boy picked up and gave to me—it contained 36 penny stamps loose, no paper was round them—I saw them in the act of dropping from the prisoner.

Cross-examined. The boy was unknown to me—the stamps dropped from your shirt sleeve, or hand I should say—you had no coat on—a constable on each side had hold of you by the waistcoat collar—they could not see the stamps.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This coin is quite bad.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing about the coin being base that I caused to be tendered at the post office."

GUILTY .

He then PLEADED GUILTY* to a conviction of feloniously uttering at this Court, in September, 1883, in the name of Frederick Prince.— Five Years' Penal Sevitude.

Reference Number: t18860405-422

422. JAMES BUTLER (67), JOHN BROWN (20), and ALICE RANGER (20) , Unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted; MR. WILSON defended

Butler.

GEORGE DOGERELL (Detective L 55). On 4th March I was in plain clothes in company with Burton, at the Elephant and Castle, about 11.30—I saw Butler standing there; he got into a Westminster tramcar, I and Burton got on the top; at Westminster he got into a bus; Burton and I ran to Charing Cross by the side of it—he then went up St. Martin's Lane, and into a public-house in Compton Street; I followed him—after three quarters of an hour he came out with Brown and another man not in custody, and they went together to Rathbone Place, Oxford Street—Butler walked backwards and forwards several times, leaving Brown and the other man standing at the corner, then Butler went back again to another public-house at the end of Compton Street; I and Burton followed—Butler and Ranger came out of the public-house together, and went back to Oxford street, where they rejoined Brown, and they talked together—then Butler walked on the right-hand side of Oxford Street, and Brown and Ranger on the opposite side, going towards Oxford Circus—Brown crossed over and spoke to Butler three times, and the second time when he came back to Ranger he appeared to hand something; I could not say positively whether their hands met—then I lost sight Ranger for four or five minutes, they went farther up Oxford Street, and there was a dense throng of people and traffic—at Oxford Circus I went up to Brown and Ranger (who were still on the one side, and Butler on the other) and said "I am a police officer, and shall arrest you on suspicion of having counterfeit coin in your possession"—Brown said "All right, you have made a mistake this time, old man"—Ranger said nothing—I called assistance of a uniform man, who took Ranger—on the way to the station Brown was violent, and tried to get away—I searched him at the station, and found in his left hand waistcoat pocket these four counterfeit shillings, seperately wrapped in a piece of tissue paper, six good sixpences, a shilling good, and 5 1/4 d. bronze—when I took the money out he said "You have done it now, that is all I have got"—Ranger was searched, nothing was found on her—Butler was arrested meantime by Burton, who watched him on the other side—the three prisoners were charged together.

Cross-examined by MR. WILKINSON. I have seen nothing since of the other man who came out of the public-house with Brown—I should have arrested him but we have no idea who he is—I should know him if I saw him again—I have never seen Butler with the other two prisoners before—I know him by sight.

Cross-examined by Brown. I only saw you all speaking together when, you first met, not afterwards—I am positive when Butler and Ranger came back you were all three in conversation together—I found the counterfeit coin in your small left hand waistcoat pocket.

GEORGE BURTON (Detective L 131). I have heard the last witness's evidence—I was with him as he has described—when Burton and Ranger came back from Compton Street they joined Brown in Oxford Street, and stood in conversation a short time, and then Butler crossed the road, and all three proceeded towards Oxford Circus, during which time Brown crossed over three times to Butler, spoke to him, and returned to the

female—I arrested Burton at Oxford Circus, and said to him "Jimmy, I want to know what you have got in your pocket"—he said "I have got nothing"—I said "You are in the company of those that have, then, and I shall take you to the station"—when at the station he said to Brown "Do I know you?"—Brown said "No, I never saw you before"—they were all three charged, neither of them made any reply—I found on Burton 7s. 6d. in silver and 5 3/4 d. bronze, all good money—nothing was found on Hanger.

Cross-examined by MR. WILSON. All the money found on Butler was good—he said when I took him "What are you going to take me for?"—I afterwards searched his house—I found nothing of a suspicious nature there—when asked his address he said "I have no fixed home."

Cross-examined by Brown. I took Butler and charged him on the right hand side of the street.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . These are all bad, and from the same mould—this paper has been used to wrap them in after they have been rubbed with lampblack to give them a tone.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Butler stated that he did not know Brown at all. Brown said that he met Butler in a public-house, and that a friend recommended him as a man who would get him a lodging; that he left; him to post a letter, and afterwards met Butler and Banger in Oxford Street; that he asked her to have a drink, and then crossed the road to tell Butler he would meet him at Vauxhall, And that he had found the parcel of counterfeit coins in a public-house which he had gone to. Ranger said that she was looking for a situation, and met Brown, who asked her to have a drink, and that she knew nothing of the coins.

Ranger received a good character.

RANGER— NOT GUILTY .

BUTLER* and BROWN*— GUILTY .

There was another indictment charging Butler with feloniously possessing the counterfeit coin. BUTLER— Two Years' Hard Labour. BROWN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-423

423. WILLIAM JONES (56) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. LLOYD Prosecuted.

ANNIE SHORTLAND . I am the wife of Joseph Shortland, the manager of the Walmer Castle coffee tavern in Seymour Place—early in February I served the prisoner with a pint of coffee and a scone; he gave me a two-shilling piece in payment—I put it in the till and gave him 1s. 9 1/2 d. change—I afterwards examined the till, there was no other coin in it; I found this was bad and put it on the parlour table and showed it to my husband when he came in, and after putting it between his teeth he broke it with his hands—the prisoner came again to our house about the 25th or 26th of March; I recognised him—our servant Ellen Sadler brought me a bad shilling; I passed it to my husband, who went round to the prisoner.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I never saw you before two months ago, and I did not see you again till 26th March—I knew nothing about the first coin being bad while you was there.

JOSEPH SHORTLAND . I am the manager of the Walmer Castle coffee tavern—on 26th March, about 9 p.m., the prisoner came in and called

for a cup of tea and a slice of bread and butter; the price would be 1 1/2 d.—he passed a coin to Ellen Sadler, she put it in the till; one sixpence was the only silver in the till at that time—I went to take the coin out of the till, the girl handed it to my wife, and she to me—I found it was bad—the prisoner was then standing between two urns in front of the counter—I went directly round to him and asked him if he had any more upon him like that—he looked quite surprised and said "Is it bad?"—I said "You knew perfectly well it was bad before you came in the house, as you visited this house on or about 4th February this year with a bad two-shilling piece"—he said he had not been in the house before—I sent for a constable and charged him—this is the coin which I broke—my wife had previously made a communication to me about another coin, which I also broke with my hand and threw the pieces away; it had a greasy feel.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I said at the police-court I thought I took the shilling out of the till, but my wife told Ellen to bring the coin, and she did so—I asked the policeman to search you in the bar—you told him you were a respectable man, and worked for a firm in the Haymarket, and you pulled out a pocket book with a blank time-sheet, but when I asked you the name of the gentlemen you had been working for you could not tell me what name was on the time-sheet.

ELLEN SADLER . I am in Mr. Shortland's service as a nurse girl—on 26th March I served the prisoner—he gave me the coin and I gave him change—I put the shilling he gave me in the till; the only money there was a sixpence, which I gave to the prisoner as part of the change—I afterwards took the shilling out of the till, because my mistress asked me what the prisoner gave me—Mr. Shortlands was there, I saw him go round to the prisoner; I don't know what he said—a constable was sent for.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I took the shilling from the till and took it into the parlour—I said first I saw Mr. Shortlands take it out of the till.

EDWIN RENYARD (Policeman D 265). About 9 o'clock on 26th March I was called to this coffee tavern, and the prisoner was given into my custody—I asked him how he came by the counterfeit shilling—he said he took a 'bus from Camden Town to the Hampstead Road and received this shilling as part of his change for a half-crown—I searched him at the police-station and found on him 2s. 6d., a florin, a sixpence, and a threepenny-piece in silver, and 1s. 2 1/2 d. in bronze, all good—I produce this bad shilling, which I have received from the prosecutor.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . There are here three fragments of a counterfeit shilling—I have heard the evidence as to the florin being broken by the witness; I should think that was conclusive that that was bad—a greasy feeling is peculiar to these coins.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he changed a half-sovereign at a public-house, and that he paid his 'bus fare with a half-crown which he received in change, that in change for that he received a florin, and that he had no idea it was bad.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-424

424. ARTHUR ROBERTS (18) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

ELIZABETH FROGLEY . I live at 50, Florida Street Bethnal Green,

where my father keeps a chandler's shop—on 30th December the prisoner came in for a penny jam tart, and gave a bad shilling—I gave him the tart and the change, and he left the shop—I gave the shilling to my mother—I afterwards on the same day showed it to Elizabeth Harley, and I saw prisoner in Harley's shop—I said "You are the man what gave me the bad shilling"—he said "Oh, I will show you where I got it from"—he was not given in charge then—I afterwards saw my mother give the coin to the constable—I marked it.

ELIZABETH HARLEY . I keep a baker's shop at 32, Pollard's Row, Bethnal Green—on 30th December the last witness showed me a bad shilling—while she was in the shop the prisoner came in—she said "You are the man that gave me the bad shilling"—he said "No, I will tell you where I got the change from"—he did not name any place.

DANIEL PARKER (Policeman K 660). On 30th December, about half-past 2 in the afternoon, Mrs. Frogley gave me this coin at her shop.

HENRY NEWCOME . I keep the Queen's Head tavern, York Street, Stepney—on 6th February, about 7.30 p.m., the prisoner came in for a half-ounce of tobacco, price 2d., and gave me this counterfeit half-crown in payment—I asked if he had any more about him like it; he said no, he had not—I said "Where did you get it from?"—he said "A man gave it to me for pulling a barrow to Dr. Barnardo's Home"—that is about half a mile from my house—I gave him in charge with the coin to a constable—at the police-court he was remanded and then discharged.

CHARLES EMERY (Policeman E 400). On 6th February the prisoner was given into my custody by Mr. Newcome with this half-crown—I asked the prisoner if he had any more about him, and told him to turn out his pockets—we found he had no other coin on him—he made the same statement about pulling a barrow along to Dr. Barnardo's Home for some one who gave him half-a-crown—I told him I should have to take him into custody—he made no reply.

ANN ELIZABETH MOORE . I am manageress at my brother's house during his illness, at White Lion Street, Norton Folgate—on 27th Feb. the prisoner came in for some tobacco, and gave me a florin—I gave him 1s. 10d. change and put the florin on the pewter outside the till—I afterwards examined it and found it was bad, and gave it to the potman—that was after the prisoner had gone—I sent the potman after him.

WILLIAM GREEN . I am potman at the Pewter Platter—the last witness gave me this florin—I went into the street and followed the prisoner—when he got round the corner he had two men with him—he went up a passage into Bishopsgate Station and then came down again, as if he had been passing something to these two men—he was in the middle of them—I spoke to a constable and then said to the prisoner "Have you been to the Pewter Platter and changed a florin?"—he said "No, I have not been in any public-house all day"—I said "I saw you there a little while ago"—he said "Oh, yes, I was in a public-house, I went to look for some one there; I did not change any money, for I had not any"—the constable took him to the station—I gave the florin to Constable Moss.

THOMAS MOSS (Policeman H 213). On 27th February the last witness pointed the prisoner out to me—another man was with him—I was in uniform—when I appeared 30 or 40 yards off the other man ran away—

I took the prisoner in custody—I received this florin from Green—I found nothing on the prisoner.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This half-crown, florin, and shilling, are all counterfeit.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he did not know the half-crown was bad.

GUILTY.**†— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-425

425. THOMAS JONES (20) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

EMMA HOFFMAN . My father is a baker of 6, Whittington Terrace, Highgate—on 9th March the prisoner came in about dusk, for a penny sponge cake, and gave me a shilling—I gave him the change and he left—I thought the coin was not good and took it to my mother, who tried it with her teeth and threw it in the fire; it was hardly in before it melted—on March 13th, about the same time, the prisoner came again for another sponge cake and gave me another shilling—I knew him again, and took it to my mother, who went into the shop and spoke to him—he said "Is it a bad one?"—she said "Wait a minute, I will call my husband"—this is the coin—nothing was said about making the first coin good.

GEORGE RIDLEY (Policeman Y 637). On 13th March I took the prisoner at Mr. Hoffman's shop, searched him, and found two florins, two shillings, and a penny—I said "How did you come by this shilling?"—he said "I got it in change from a 'bus conductor"—Mr. Hoffman said that he was there on the Tuesday before; he said that he was not—I asked where he lived; he said "Are you going to lock me up?"—I said "I don't know, I shall take you to the station"—he said "Then I refuse my name and address"—at the station he gave his name Thomas Jones, but gave no address—going to Clerkenwell Police-court he made a rush from me and I chased him a quarter of a mile before I took him.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This shilling is bad—a coin which melts immediately it is thrown into a fire is bad.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was ill in bed on the day she says I passed the first shilling. The reason I tried to escape was I had hardly anything to eat all the Sunday, and I thought if I had a chance to escape I would take it."

Prisoner's Defence. I was given in charge because I would not make good the one given on Tuesday.

JOSEPHINE HOFFMAN . The prisoner offered to give me a good shilling but I said "No, I shall then be the loser of the other shilling"—he said he would make the second shilling good—that was not the reason he was given in charge—I had sent for a policeman at that time.

GUILTY Recommended to mercy by the Jury.— .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, April 6th, 1886.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

Reference Number: t18860405-426

426. REBECCA HUBBARD (69) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully attempting to kill herself.— Judgement Respited

Reference Number: t18860405-427

427. THORNTON FENWICK (62) and GEORGE PARKER (31) , Stealing 55 yards of cloth, the goods of the London and North-Western Railway Company.

MR. GRAIN Prosecuted.

JOHN BRYAN (City Detective). On 26th March I saw the prisoners together in Friday Street at the corner of Cannon Street—they crossed to the corner of Bread Street and separated—they stood apart from one another for about five minutes—Fenwick disappeared behind a NorthWestern Railway van, which was unloading at a warehouse in Cannon Street—I lost sight of him about a couple of minutes—he came from behind a van with a parcel—Parker went towards him—Davis, another officer who was with me, stopped Fenwick—Parker walked hurriedly away towards Cannon street; I ran and stopped him—I told him he would be charged with the other man with stealing a parcel from the van—I took him to the station; when charged he made no reply—I know them by sight, I have seen them together before; an officer had pointed them out to me about the same time in the afternoon and near vans.

Cross-examined by Fenwick. I suspected you; I had not seen you do sufficient for me to arrest you before this—I saw Davis a minute or two before you were taken.

Cross-examined by Parker. You were watching about, you stood under a lamp and lit your pipe—that was about 30 yards from where the parcel was stolen.

FREDERICK DAVIS (City Detective). I was with Bryan—I saw the prisoners in Friday Street and followed them into Cannon street—they parted at the corner of Bread Street—Fenwick went beside a North-Western van; I lost sight of him a minute or two—I next saw him going from the van with the parcel produced, on his shoulder; he was wearing this apron—I had seen the prisoners together on the 19th in Friday Street, and watched them for an hour and a quarter—the parcel contains 55 yards of cloth—the van boy, Devine, spoke to me—I took Fenwick into custody—he was charged at Upper Thames Street—he made no answer to the charge.

SAMUEL DEVINE . I am a van boy to the London and North-Western Railway Company; I work with Samuel Bishop, the van driver—on 26th March I was with the van in Cannon Street; I went from behind the van to stand at the horse's head; the parcel was on the side of the van then—when I came back the detective spoke to me.

SAMUEL BISHOP . I was the driver of this van on 26th March—we were unloading in Cannon Street—I left Devine in charge of the van a few minutes—this parcel was on the van, addressed as it is now—when I came back I found it was gone.

ADAM HOUGHTON . I caused this parcel of cloth to be packed and sent by the London and North-Western Railway—the value is about 4l.

GUILTY.**

FENWICK PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in February, 1879.— Five Years' Penal Servitude each.

Reference Number: t18860405-428

428. GEORGE WHY (46) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Henry Fulcher, with intent to steal.

MR. DYSON WILLIAMS Prosecuted.

ELIZABETH MARTIN . I am a domestic in the service of Mr. Fulcher, Florentine Villa, South Ealing Road—I went to bed about 10 p.m. on

18th March—my window was not fastened; it goes over the portico and is about four feet from the top—I was awoke between 11 and 12, my window was open and I saw a man standing between a chest of drawers and two chain—I looked at the man first in bed, and then jumped out of bed and said "Good God, man, who are you?"—the man stood still and did not move—I ran out of the room into Mr. Fulcher's room, and sprang a rattle; when I returned the man was gone—Gertrude Williams came in from the Limes, and we looked over the house—my window was open, the other windows were fastened up when I left them—I looked at the man enough to be certain the prisoner is the man—he had the shade over his eye he has now—the chairs in my room were a little displaced and my things were knocked off the chest of drawers which stood between two chairs near the window—the police came and I gave a description of the man—I went to the station and picked the prisoner out from a lot of others—directly he saw me he turned round—I recognized him by his long coat, the shade on his eye, by his hair, and his hat was at the back of his head.

GEORGE ELLIS (Inspector X). In consequence of information I received I went to the prosecutor's house on 19th March—I saw some scratches on the water pipe alongside the portico and on the top of the portico, and a small guard railing broken down by some one getting over—it was easy to get into the room from the portico—there were footmarks at the back of the house—from the description given me by Martin I searched and found the prisoner at the Rose and Grown public-house—I charged him—he said "Oh, did I? prove it"—I took him to the station, and in company with Cluney, another officer; I took his boots back to the garden and made an impression with one of them, which corresponded with the footmarks—half the sole was torn off, and the mark of the inner sole showed very plainly, and corresponded.

SAMUEL CLUNEY (Detective X). I went with Ellis and searched several public-houses—at the Rose and Crown we saw the prisoner—I called him out and told him he was charged with breaking into Florentine Villa—he said "Oh, did I? prove it"—I took him to the station—the maid saw him in the yard—as soon as the prisoner saw her he turned two steps round—she went up to him and said "You are the man who was in my room last night—he was not in liquor.

Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing of this. I have two witnesses to prove when I left the public-house and who bid me good night alter 11, and I was in bed before half-past with my children.

SAMUEL CLUNEY (Recalled). You are known in Ealing, you never do any work; your wife supports your family.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-429

429. HENRY CANTLON (19) and GEORGE DAVIS (18) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Henry Moore, and stealing five match-boxes, seven knives, and other goods.

CANTLON PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. DYSON WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL defended Davis.

HENRY MOORE . I am a cutler, of 199, Oxford Street—I live over the shop—on 19th March I saw the premises perfectly safe at about 11.45, when I went to bed—about 3.15 a.m. I was aroused by my sister, who slept in the front room—I went to the window—a policeman told me to

come down—I went down, and found the window smashed—I missed these goods produced—they are mine.

WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Policeman C 339). On 20th March, about 3 a.m., I saw the prisoners loitering about near 199, Oxford Street—I watched them for some time—when I went towards them they ran—I followed—I stopped Cantlon and took him to the station—on the way he took the articles produced from his pocket and threw them down—I then went back and picked up the articles and went to the shop, and found the windows broken—I identified Davis from others the following Saturday.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I saw the window safe at a quarter to 3—I saw them first about six yards off—I was in uniform—Davis gave a wrong address—I believe he lives in the same house as Cantlon—Davis was placed with men about his size, some fair and some dark—I did not see him part with the men.

RICHARD OWEN (Detective Officer). I arrested Davis from a description given by Tomlinson—I was in the police-court during the hearing of the case against Cantlon on March 20th—from the behaviour of two female at the back of the court I followed them into West Street, where Davis was standing—the two females went to him and entered into conversation; on my approach he hurriedly walked away—I followed him into Marshall Street—I told him I should take him to the station—he said "What for?"—I said "For burglary"—one of the women said "Oh, my God, you are done this time"—I took him to the station—he was placed with eight other men, and identified by Tomlinson.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Cantlon gave an address at a lodging-house in Long Acre—the prisoners were living with two prostitutes, the women I followed—I believe the taller woman spoke—I am sure she did not say "You have got the wrong one."

CHARLES RICHARDS (Detective). I saw Davis identified—he was placed with seven or eight others—I asked him if he objected to any of them—he said "No"—I told him he could put himself where he liked—after placing himself I said "Are you satisfied?"—he said "Perfectly"—then the constable was called in and picked him out immediately.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Owen was also present at the identification—the men were picked from the street.

GUILTY .

CANTLON also PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony at this Court in March, 1885.— Two Years', Hard Labour. DAVIS— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, April 7th, 1886.

Before Mr. Justice Wills.

Reference Number: t18860405-430

430. JOHN BELLENGER, Feloniously killing and slaying George Allen.

MR. RIBTON, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-431

431. JOHN BELLENGER was again indicted for unlawfully assaulting George Allen.

No evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-432

432. FEROZ was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the wilful murder of Hadgee Mahomed.

MESSRS. POLAND and MONTAGU WILLIAMS Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN

Defended.

EDWIN STOTT . I was second officer of the Bayard on her last voyage—the deceased man shipped at Calcutta, and the prisoner was engaged at the same time—the ship arrived in London at the beginning of February, and I left at once.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. The men had not suffered on the voyage on account of the cold weather, nor were two or three of them ill.

ITEM (Interpreted). I am a sailor on board the Bayard; I was working my passage from Demerara—we arrived in London in February—Hadgee Mahomed was the serang, and the prisoner was one of the seamen—on 10th March the ship was in dry dock—the prisoner was in his bunk asleep, the serang came and spoke to him and woke him up, and the prisoner said he had got a pain in his back—he afterwards came out to his work, bringing wood in his hands from the ship to the outside—the serang was below in the dry dock, and the prisoner called from the bulwark of the ship and threw the wood down—he then came down and took up a piece of wood and stood behind the serang, struck him on the head with it, and he fell; two or three men picked him up—the prisoner went and stood about 12 feet away—this (produced) in the piece of wood.

Cross-examined. I was a passenger on board—I did not carry a sheath knife, all the seamen had knives.

BARBOR (Interpreted). I was on board the Bayard, standing by the serang's side at the bottom of the dry dock, and saw the prisoner strike him—I saw nothing of the pulling of the hair, that was down below.

Cross-examined. Some of the native sailors suffered from the cold during the voyage; two or three of them deserted, and three or four of them were sent to prison for smuggling, so that the ship was short of hands, and it was the Serang's duty to see that the other men did their work—several men ran away in London.

MOONA (Interpreted). I was on board the Bayard, and was ill in the forecastle; the prisoner was ill there also—the serang told him that all the men were gone to work, and why didn't he go—he said that he was ill and could not work—the serang then took him by his hair and pulled him out—I did not see the blow struck.

VALENTINE TYPE (Policeman K 549). On 10th March, about 9.15 a.m., I took the prisoner on board the ship Bayard, in Carter's dry dock—the serang was lying in the dock and appeared insensible—I made the prisoner understand me, "I told him I should have to take him to the police station and charge him with violently assaulting the serang or boatswain"—he said "I did not hit him with that stick," pointing to this stick (produced) "I hit him with the long handle of a paint brush"—he said that in English—the serang was taken to Poplar Hospital.

ARCHIBALD ANDREWS . I am house surgeon at Poplar Hospital—the deceased was admitted there on 10th March, suffering from a scalp wound; he was insensible and lived ten hours—that wound was the cause of death—I made a post-mortem examination and found a fractured skull.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I don't know what I can say; the witnesses who have given evidence were not present when the serang pulled my hair; some of the men still on the ship were present at the time.

GUILTY of manslaughter under provocation.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-433

433. BENJAMIN JUDGE, Feloniously sending a letter demanding money with menaces.

MESSRS. BESLEY and GOODRICH Prosecuted.

This was an attempt to extort money for the possession of indecent book and photographs supplied by the prisoner, who had been sentenced to four years' imprisonment for selling the same.

GUILTY .— Penal Servitude for Life.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, April 7th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-434

434. ROBERT STEVENS, Stealing two tame pigeons, the goods of John Maugham. Second count laying the possession in the Great Northern Railway Company.

MESSRS. GRAIN and BODKIN Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.

JOHN MAUGHAN . I live at Knotty Ash, near Liverpool, and am a wholesale grocer, and also a pigeon breeder of many years' experience, particularly of Jacobins—on 8th July I sent a box to the Liverpool station by the boy Owen, addressed to the secretary of the Hatfield Show, and containing two pigeons, to go by the 12 o'clock train—a few days afterwards I received a communication from the secretary, in consequence of which I made a demand on the Great Northern Railway Company, and further circulated handbills offering 10l. reward—these (produced) are the two birds I sent from Liverpool, I know them by their general appearance—the hen bird I bought a year ago, on the 1st of January, from Mr. Hunt of Eastbourne, it is named Ruby Xing, and is six years old—the black bird I bred myself three years ago—on 1st January this year I received a telegram, in consequence of which I went to the Kilmarnock show, where I saw the red bird exhibited in the name of James B. Stevens—I spoke to Mr. Gibson and Mr. Brown, judges of the show, and went with them to Henrietta Street, where we saw James B. Stevens, and then the prisoner, his brother, came into the room—I told him I had come to see about the red cock Jacobin that was shown at the show and had won the first prize—he said "What do you want to know?"—I said "I want to know where you got it?"—he said "I bred it four years ago"—I asked him if he had ever shown the bird, as if he had shown it I must have seen it, because I had attended all the principal shows—he said he never had shown it, he did not keep them for exhibition, but for pleasure—I told him he could not have bred the bird, because it was mine, and Mr. Frame of Belfast bred it—the prisoner had a consultation with his brother, which I could not hear, and then I asked him if he had not made a mistake, had not he bought it—he said he might perhaps have done so, as he had bought several birds of that description—I pressed him to tell me where he had bought it, and after a good deal of talking he said that he had bought, two at Glasgow market, and that he had given 1s. 6d. for one and 12s. 6d. for the other—Brown said very likely the red cock in question would be the one that he gave the 12s. 6d. for, and that if I gave him 12s. 6d., would he give me an order on the secrerary of the show to deliver up the bird to me—the prisoner did agree to that, and I got the bird—the prisoner gave me his address as Tottenham Court Road, London; he would not give the number—I told the prisoner that at the time I bought the red cock I also bought a black hen, and asked him if he had any black hens

at home—he said he had two or three at his lodgings in Tottenham Court Road—I said if he could find the black hen I would give him 3l.—he said he would send me on all the black hens he had got at home for my inspection, I promising to pay all expenses—on 11th January I received this letter, which I believe to be in the prisoner's writing. (This letter headed "The Swan with Two Nicks, Finchley" stated that the prosecutor's letter had been forwarded to the prisoner who had no black Jacobins answering the description, "but that he sent off one, which he had witnesses to prove he bought for a fair price in a market, and that he had no wish to keep stolen birds.) With that letter I received a young strawberry Jacobin hen, which I should say was the 'bird that this pair would probably breed, a black and red together nearly always throw a strawberry—I sent that bird back to him—I then received this letter from him. (This acknowledged a letter of the 11th instant, and stated "You can come and see my pigeons at any time I reserve my defence.") On receipt of that letter I communicated with the Cheshire Lines, and was put into communication with the Great Northern Company—on 9th February I went with Inspectors Parish and Dod to the Swan with Two Nicks, at Finchley, where I saw the prisoner—Parish introduced himself and Dod, and said "You will probably know Mr. Maughan"—we al four went into the bar parlour, and some conversation took place, and then the prisoner showed us some pigeons then in a little garret at the top of the house—I saw the strawberry hen which had been at Liverpool, and is referred to in the two letters, a black barb—there were no other Jacobin hens in the garret—I should say the strawberry hen was hatched about the middle of 1885—the prisoner said it had been bred from the red cock and black Jacobin—in consequence of that I afterwards communicated with Mr. Waters of Belfast, and received from him this black Jacobin hen, which had been exhibited at Kilmarnock as well as the red cock—I told the prisoner in the garret I thought the strawberry hen was my property as it had been bred from my birds, and asked him to give it up to me—he said he would give it up to me if I would give him 5l., and if I would not give him 5l. he would screw its neck round first—on this same day I heard a conversation between Parish, Dodd, and the prisoner about the red cock and black hen.

Cross-examined. A large number of Jacobins are shown about the country, and there are a large number that are not shown, I have no doubt there are thousands of them—their colours are in nowise uncommon for Jacobins—Hurst, of Eastbourne, bought the red cock from Frame, of Belfast, he told me—I put the birds up myself for the Hatfield Show—I made a claim on the railway company of 50l. for compensation for the loss of the two pigeons, they have given me nothing, the case was never settled—I had said the birds were worth 50l. when I sent them—about 120 Jacobins would be shown at a Crystal Palace Show—the first prize at the Kilmarnock Show was 15s.—from July to January 'I never saw my birds—fancy pigeons and Jacobins are sold all over the country, in every large town, and in a great number of small towns—Stevens was showing three Jacobins at the Kilmarnock Show, I don't know what else—I went to his father's house to see him—before I went there I had seen the three Jacobins at the show—I saw this hen there, she was in the selling class, not the Jacobin—I did not recognise her—we went together to look at it, and Mr. Waters told me Stevens was showing it and pointed it out to me—I said I thought it was not my hen, I could not

fully recognise it—I was not sure about it—I saw the strawberry there too—I made no claim to that—the black hen was sold by auction to Mr. Waters for 2l. on the last day of the show, she was not in good show condition; it was in January—these birds when fully through their moult look much better than when they are not—people show birds when their feathers are not fully grown again—that would be the case in January with some old hens—an old Jacobin hen is one three years old—I had bred the hen and seen it moulting and before it had recovered—I did not see it again until I got it from Waters—I had no difficulty; the prisoner and I went at once to his father's house in Kilmarnock; the birds were showing in his brother's name—the prisoner was stopping at his father's house, where his brother was also living—some pigeon fanciers may romance a little—the prisoner admitted that he had bought birds—he said he had not shown that red cock very much—I don't think Mr. Brown asked him several times to give the cock up for 12s. 6d.—there was not a considerable conversation before he said he would do so; after he admitted he bought it for 12s. 6d.—he said he had bought two birds at Glasgow fair—I believed he might have my hen amongst his others—that was after I had seen it in the show—I would have given 3l. for it and there would have been an end of the matter—I did not tell him I had seen the other hen—I said I had been to the show—I knew Mr. Waters was going to buy the black hen at the show—after I got home I wanted to see if he sent me a hen, and wrote him this letter. (This reminded the prisoner of his promise to send on thee black hens, and stated that he had no doubt his black hen was amongst his (the prisoner's), and that the man that stole the red bird had got the black one, and that if the black bird was not forthcoming he would set about turning up how the prisoner came by the red cock; that he would give the railway authorities full particulars of his visit to Kilmarnock, and instruct the Kilmarnock police to investigate the case, and put his own solicitor on the case; that he could give them a good idea of how to find it out, and that if the prisoner were in possession of stolen property, and could not give a good account of it, the case would go hard with him in a police-court.) That was not a threat to prosecute—in answer to that I received the letter with the strawberry hen—he told me at Kilmarnock he had no wish to keep other people's birds—I wrote to him again. (Acknowledging the receipt of the letter and the strawberry hen, expressing surprise that it had been sent, as he had asked for a black hen, which he had no doubt the prisoner had, and stating that he would give him another chance to send the bird.) There were no bidders when Mr. Waters bought the bird for 2l., it was arranged he was to buy her—he answered me inviting me to do as I liked, and I replied that I would do my best to find out where he got the red cock, as I was satisfied some of them stole it; I meant by that some of his friends in London; I said I had asked Robert Fulton, who is a provision dealer in London, to call and see him—a few days after I saw the prisoner at Kilmarnock; he wrote in answer to my letter, giving me his address at Finchley—I got the hen from Waters after I had been to the prisoner's place in town—I saw the prisoner's pigeons; I wanted the strawberry hen—Parish suggested I should have that, and there would be an end of that matter, as far as that hen was concerned; there still remained the black hen—there was a long interview on that occasion; I went away not getting the strawberry—I had nothing to do with getting a summons—as soon as I got home I wrote to Waters, and he sent me

the hen—I believed it was my hen when I saw it about my place in February; I had good proof then; I paid Waters the reward of 10l. which I had offered on the handbill; I paid him nothing besides that—I did not buy the young one as well.

Re-examined When I got the black hen home I turned her out in the loft she had been accustomed to, and the first thing she did was to go right to her own nest-box, where she had several times nested before—here are boxes in this loft about a foot high, divided off, and there are about eight or nine in the loft—the cock she had previously paired with the two previous years was in the room paired with another hen—I left them there all night, and next day found she had driven the new hen away and taken possession of her old cock, and the two had paired together—when laying, hens go off plumage a bit—the first letter I wrote to the prisoner was to the father's address—I never had the address at Tottenham Court Road—the only letters I received from the prisoner was at Finchley, at the Swan with Two Nicks—when the hen was at Kilmarnock she was out of condition—when I got her back she was in full condition—Waters knew how take care of birds.

JOHN WATERS . I live at 40, Victoria Street, Belfast, and am a surveyor—I am a pigeon-fancier and a breeder of Jacobin pigeons—I have about 120—I know all their points and go frequently to shows, and I have been a judge at a great many shows—I was present at the Kilmarnock Show on 1st January—I knew Mr. Maughan as a breeder of Jacobins and had heard of his loss of these two Jacobins—the red one I had seen a number of times, the black one only once—they have taken prizes and are rather notorious birds among pigeon-fanciers—at the Kilmarnock Show I saw the red pigeon—I did not recognise it immediately, as it was early and not very light; but when I saw it again I recognised it as the Ruby King belonging to Mr. Maughan—it was priced at 20l. by the exhibitor—I then telegraphed to Mr. Maughan—the black bird was also exhibited—she was in fair, not in good condition—seeing a bird of her merit in the selling class at 2l. my attention was attracted, but I did not recognise her at the time—I also saw the strawberry hen, that would probably be produced by the other two birds—its age on 1st January I should say was from four to six months—the bird sits on the eggs for seventeen days, then in about six or seven weeks the young birds could be shown in full condition—I bought the black hen for 23l. when it was put up for auction—I also bought the young strawberry Jacobin for 2l. 16s.—I received a communication in February, 1886, from Mr. Maughan with reference to the black hen, and in consequence of that I sent it to him—she was then in much better condition than she was on 1st January—Mr. Maughan gave me the reward of 10l.—this is the bird I saw at Kilmarnock.

Cross-examined. I showed Mr. Maughan the black bird—prohibitory prices are often put on birds at shows, this bird was entered in a class where there were a large number of birds at 50l.—a friend actually bought the bird for me at the auction—when I saw the strawberry, I said "This red cock and black hen must be the birds Mr. Maughan bought"—I did not identify the black hen as Mr. Maughan's.

GEORGE BROWN . I am a draper at Kilmarnock, and was one of the Committee of the Kilmarnock Show in January this year—on 1st January Mr. Waters and Mr. Kennedy called my attention to the red cock an I on

2nd January I went with Gibson and Maughan to Henrietta Street, where I saw the prisoner—I said this is Mr. Maughan from Liverpool, who has come to see about the Jacobin cock shown at the Kilmarnock Show"—Maughan said "What about that Jacobin cock, did you breed, or did you buy it?"—he said "I bred it four years ago"—Maughan said "You told the gentlemen in the show yesterday that you bred it last year"—he said "Not that bird, another bird"—the prisoner appeared a little excited then—Maughan said "Four years ago, that bird! now is it you have never shown it till now?"—he said "I keep the birds for my own amusement, not for showing"—Maughan said "Four years ago that bird could not have been bought, it was one of the best pigeons in the fancy"—Gibson said "Mr. Stevens, this is a very serious matter"—I said that I was perfectly satisfied the pigeon was Mr. Maughan's, and therefore it would be much better to give it up—the prisoner said "What am I to do?"—I said "I think the best thing? You can do is to give up the birds"—he said "Do you think I stole the birds?"—I said "No, certainly not, but is it not possible that you have got mixed up with your pigeons, and that you imagine you bred this bird when you really have not, but have bought it in some market place, and that the party that has sold it to the party in the market has stolen it?"—the prisoner then said he had bought two pigeons in the market, one for 7s. 6d., and the other for 12s. 6d., he did not mention in what market—he said "Am I to be the loser of the money I paid for it?"—I said "Certainly not, Mr. Maughan, You will surely give him the 12s. 6d. he has paid for it?"—he said "I will—the prisoner said he had one or two more.

Cross-examined. He said he had bought birds from time to time—I took Maughan to his father's house—his people live close to where I live, they are respectable.

JOHN GIBSON . I live at Kilmarnock—I was at the meeting at Stevens's father's house on Jan. 7, and heard the conversation—John Stevens asked Mr. Maughan why he did not prosecute the Railway Company—I said "Why, do you know that the pigeons were stolen on the Great Northern?"—previous to that nothing had been said about the Great Northern, because they had to go over two railway systems before reaching Hatfield—that was a conversation with the prisoner's brother, but the prisoner could hear it—the brother simply remarked he knew the district well—the prisoner said nothing.

Cross-examined. Maughan was introduced as having lost his pigeons at Hatfield—Hatfield was mentioned late on in the conversation.

WILLIAM OWENS . I am in the service of Mr. Marshall at Liverpool—on 8th July I took a box containing some pigeons to the railway station at the Cheshire Lines, and gave it to Dean, the parcels clerk at the station—the box was one like that (produced).

JOSEPH DEAN . I live at Liverpool, and am parcels clerk in the employ of the Cheshire Lines Company—this waybill (produced) bears my initials and refers to a box sent by our line to Hatfield—it passed through my hands and was forwarded in the usual way—I have no special recollection of the matter.

ELI BURFORD . I am a guard in the employ of the Cheshire Lines Company—this waybill bears my initials—the box referred to in it passed through my hands and was put out by me at Godley Junction,

where the Cheshire Lines join the Manchester, Sheffield, and' Lincolnshire Railway.

Cross-examined. I do not remember it, but that is how it would have to go, and these are my initials.

THOMAS MORLEY . I am a guard on the Great Northern Railway—on 8th July I was in charge of the slip carriage from Peterborough to Hitchin, from there I go on to London with a slow train—amongst the luggage in my charge was a small box similar to this—as far as I knew it contained live pigeon—I went on to Hatfield by the next train and took this box with me—I was due at Hatfield at 8.47—I left the box on the platform there—my initials are on this waybill, which I slipped under the strap of the box at Hatfield and placed it on the platform—I heard the pigeons cooing and stirring about in the box—I had received the box at Peterborough—I left it in a safe condition with the live pigeons in it as I had received it.

Cross-examined. I received the box from the parcels porter at Peterborough—that is not the same as Godley Junction—I did not come through there—I do not know how the box got from Godley to Peterborough—I have no particular recollection of the box—at Hatfield it would go into the hands of the parcel porter, who would take it to parcels office.

Re-examined. I saw no signs of the box having been tampered with at Hatfield.

WILLIAM GREEN . I live at Railway Cottage, Hatfield, and am a ticket collector in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company at Hatfield Station—it is my duty to collect tickets and to take charge of the cloak room—on 9th July I found this waybill on my desk in the morning, about 9 a.m.—the key was in the door of the room—I made inquiries for the box referred to in the waybill with no result—I could not find who had put the waybill on my desk—if a box were put out of the train by the guard on to the platform, Thurborn, the parcels clerk, would deal with it first, and would put it in the cloak room on the desk—I don't remember any parcel coming by the 8.47 train on the night before, and none being put into my room that night—I went off duty at 10.

Cross-examined. I remember no box or parcel of any kind arriving by that train—if it reached the cloak room I should know of it, and it would be under my charge—no box came under my notice that night—I should be out of the cloak room about five minutes to collect the tickets—the door would then be locked, with the key in it—after collecting the tickets I went back to the cloak room—Thurborn was on duty that night—he brought me no parcels—there was no waybill on my desk when I went back—the public should not enter into that room—I and other officials use it—when I left at 10 the foreman porter would take possession of the station for the night, and he would take possession of the key and have it till next morning—Thurborn did not speak to me that night—when I went there next morning at nine o'clock my waybill was on the desk.

Re-examined. I have seen the prisoner several times as travelling between Luton and Hatfield.

By MR. GILL. I collection the tickets—I do not suggest the he traveled by that train on that night—five or six passengers got put of the train—the parcels porter would take the parcels up,

ABRAHAM THURBORN . I was parcels porter at Hatfield in July, and it would be my duty to take up any parcels that were left on the platform by the guard and take them into the parcels office—I cannot say I recollect seeing any box left on the platform on 8th July—on the following morning the last witness spoke about the waybill to me, and I had then no recollection of having seen such a thing—I did not see the box containing pigeons.

Cross-examined. The Company have never charged me with stealing it—I did not see the waybill till the following morning—I did not put the way bill in the cloak room, to the best of my belief—I did not notice it—I am not quite positive whether I met that train or not that night—Childs the number taker, generally assists me—he may have relieved me on that night, I cannot say—there was an agricultural show there in July.

JOHN LAIDLAW . I live at 25, Etterby Street, Carlisle, and am a traveller in Mr. Maughan's employ—I understand the various points in different kinds of pigeons—I know these two pigeons quite well as being Mr. Maughan's—I saw this black pigeon after 27th February this year in Mr. Maughan's premises, and recognised it in less than a minnte among about ten other Jacobins—there would be about forty altogether, of various breeds, in the room.

Cross-examined. I used to see the pigeons two or three times a week up to a year ago, when I lived in Liverpool—I go over there occasionally now—there were ten other Jacobins in the room—I did not been in Liverpool for three months previously—a strawberry pigeon is quite usual from red and black parents—a strawberry is not an extraordinary kind, there are any amount of them—you could not always recognise the likeness between a young pigeon and its parents—in fifteen cases out of twenty I should say the offspring of a red cock and black hen would be a strawberry.

JOSEPH HAYDEN . I am a booking clerk at Woodside Park Station, Great Northerm Railway, close to Barnet—in September last, 1885,I remember the prisoner came there for particulars about sending pigeons away, as to distances and price, and so forth—I gave him the information, and in September he brought me pigeons, and I sent them away—this is the entry I made: "September 17th, sent to Northallerton, box, alive, from Cole, at the Swan with Two Nicks"—the prisoner gave me the name of the sender as Cole, coming from the Swan with Two Nicks—I did not know him by any other—I saw the pigeons at one time, I cannot say if I did then—he frequently sent the pigeons away afterwards, always in the same name—I don't think he told me for what purpose they were going on any occasion, they were always directed to the secretary of some show—he showed me a red pigeon once at the early period of his sending them—it was a smaller bird than that, I had never seen a bird like it before, and therefore I noticed it—I don't recollect that I ever saw any other coloured bird in his possession—I noticed the red bird had a ruff round its neck.

Cross-examined. I did not know that all Jacobins had ruffs—I have learned it since—Cole is the name of the proprietor of the Swan with Two Necks, North Finchley—I knew that, and that the prisoner was there, and that that is where the pigeons would go to.

Re-examined. I knew the prisoner by no other name than Cole.

By MR. GILL. I knew that the prisoner was not the proprietor, and that Cole was.

JOHN COOK GAUTREY . I am a clerk to Mr. Ruston, who is a solicitor at Chatteris, and honorary secretary of the poultry show there—I was assistant secretary to the Chatteris Ornithological Show on 7th October—I produce a post card sent to Mr. Ruston, as honorary secretary. (This was from the Swan with Two Necks, applying for entry forms for pigeons, and signed Edward Cole.) I sent him a form, and it was returned filled up as it is now. (This form described various Jacobins and a Barb as entered for the show.) Three Jacobins were exhibited at the show in the name of Edward Cole to the best of my belief—one of them was highly commended.

Cross-examined. They only got a card for that—there were better Jacobins there—I should say there were twenty-six Jacobins in one of the classes he entered—a Barb is a different pigeon altogether—the black Jacobin was the one commended—all dealers are excluded from exhibiting—it is not allowable to exhibit in another name than your own—I do not know that it takes place—I don't know much about pigeons; I have seen a few Jacobins, not 100—the entries would cost 10s.; I know nothing about the prizes given—I was not one of the judges.

HORATIO IRONS . I am a bill poster—I have known Stevens about two years; in the spring of last year I had to take care of some pigeons for him; I kept them for him till July—up to the end of June the prisoner was in the employment of Mr. Johnson, a draper, of Milsom Street, Luton—on 9th July I sent some pigeons for the prisoner from Luton to Hatfield, for the Hatfield Show—I packed them and took them to the station myself—they were not these pigeons—I had never seen pigeons like these—they were three Fantails and a Barb—up to 9th July I had, as far as I knew, taken care of all the pigeons the prisoner had—I do not know anything about pigeons—I know what a Jacobin is—I had never seen anything like these in the prisoner's possession.

Cross-examined. I believe the pigeons came to my place because Mr. Johnson did not wish them at his place—I had them up to 18th July; they then went to Mr. Elworthy, at New Southgate, he is a licensed victualler; I sent them in this box, two Fantails and two Barbs—before July they had been used at exhibitions in the name of his master.

WILLIAM ALLKINS . I am a licensed victualler, and keep the Swan with Two Necks at Whetstone—up to 18th June, 1885, I was barman at the Swan with Two Nicks—the prisoner succeeded me there as barman—on 1th June, 1885, I returned from Margate—a few days after that I went with the prisoner to Elworthy's in Sation Road, New Southgate—heard the prisoner say to Elworthy, "I want to take my pigeons away"—upon that Elworthy went up the loft, he came back and said they were not there—I did not see him go up—there was a little swearing and questioning about it, and I said he had better go and see whether they were there; he accused Elworthy of having made away with them—we then all three went down the yard to the loft above the stable—Elworthy and Stevens went up in the loft, I remained at the bottom—I heard Stevens say, "Here they are," and I went up in the loft and there saw two pigeons in a drain pipe—they were much feathered about the heads; they were pigeons such as I had never seen before, they were of different colours—I don't remember what colours they were, it was not a very good light—

they were after the style of these—one was much darker than the other; the heads were very much the same as these—they were put in a box and brought down, I don't know by whom; they came down together and left together, and we all three went away in a cart with the box containing the pigeons—I afterwards saw them at Woodside Park railway station, or a pair resembling them.

Cross-examined. Before taking the house I have now I applied for another house; the Magistrates did not refuse me, the brewers did—Elworthy has a licence—only two pigeons were taken away—I do not think this is the box they were taken in, it was smaller than that—I swear only two pigeons were taken, the others were left, they belonged to Mr. Elworthy—I could not say what they were, my attention was not called to them—there might have been a white barb there, I did not see one—I was given to understand the other pigeons belonged to Elworthy—I had been in the house before and seen them there, not in the loft, I had seen them flying about—I went up a ladder to the loft by the side of the wall at the back of the stable—the prisoner said that the pigeons had come from Luton, from Mr. Irons—I do not know Irons except through seeing him here—I heard that he had been keeping Stevens's pigeons—I swear that I went into the loft; I had never been there before—the ladder was not a loose one, a fixture like the side ladder of a ship—I cannot give a description of the pigeons that were left—there was a little light in the loft, an indistinct light—the pigeons were put in the box in the loft—I saw the pigeons at the Court at Highgate, not close, they were not shown to me—I have not taken an active part in this case, very little—I have not offered to bet on the result—Stevens asked me how I thought he would get on, and I said I thought it was very bad with him—Mr. Parish, the Great Northern detective, spoke to me about giving evidence.

TILDON DOVE . I am a master bricklayer at Whetstone—I know the prisoner by using the house now and again—in August, 1885, I saw him there—he had a bag with him with three pigeons in it, he showed them to me—it was either the latter end of July or the beginning of August, as near as I can judge—I know a good bit about pigeons—two of the pigeons he showed me were short-beaked tumblers, and the other a black Jacobin—this is a Jacobin, and is very similar to the one I saw; I could not swear to it—I did not notice the others—the prisoner asked me if I had got a hen sitting; I said "Yes"—he said, "Well, I might have some eggs"—I asked him about the price of a couple of eggs, and he said about 15l.—he said they might lay on the floor, as he had not got any boxes for them.

Cross-examined. I asked him where he got the pigeons from—he said he had bought them in the Cattle Market that day, he had just come home—he was behind the bar; people were standing outside the bar—he did not say what price he had given for them—on the next day, Sunday, I went there to play a. game of quoits—he took me up the loft and showed me the pigeons again—the red cock was not there, only the red-headed Jacobin and the two tumblers, the same I had seen before—I saw them flying about the loft—people who have pigeons do romance a good deal about them—I have had some that I asked 3l. for, and they have not been worth more than 3s.; a man must be silly not to ask what he can get—Mr. Parish said he would give me a sovereign if I could

find out the party whose hen hatched such a pair of eggs, and he would also give a sovereign to the party who had hatched them—I did not find the party.

HORATIO IRONS (Re-examined). I was at Luton all day on 8th July—I saw Dove there—it was while I was at Luton I sent the pigeons to the Hatfield Show—I saw them three or four times in the day, at breakfast-time, dinner-time, and tea-time.

RICHARD PARISH . I am chief inspector of the Great Northern police—I have had charge of this case from the commencement, when the complaint was made to the Company—about 27th July I received information of the loss of two pigeons—in January last I arranged with Inspector Dod for an interview with Stevens at the Swan with Two Nicks, and it took place on 17th February, 1886—Mr. Morris was with us and Inspector Dod—I went to the bar and saw Mr. Cole, the prisoner's master—we went into the private bar; the prisoner was called in—I said, "I am chief inspector of the Great Northern Railway Company's police; this is Inspector Dod, of the Metropolitan Police, and Mr. Morris, whom you know at Kilmaranock; I have called to see if you can give me any information as to how you came in possession of the red cock Jacobin that you gave up to Mr. Morris at Kilmarnock"—at first he said, "I decline to give any information whatever"—I said, "The bird has been stolen, and I want to gain some information if I possibly can; how did you come into possession of that bird?"—he said, "I bought the bird, I paid 12s. 6d. for it; do you think I stole the bird? I was very foolish to give up the bird; I have consulted my solicitor, and you have to prove that it is Mr. Morris's bird, and if I had known as much as I do now I would not have given it up"—Inspector Dod took notes of all that passed—I said, "Have you bred any birds from this red cock?"—he said, "Yes, two; one I have upstairs, and the other one I sold to Mr. Waters, of Kilmarnock"—I said, "What hen did you put the red cock to to breed these young birds?"—he said, "I put it to the black hen, and I bred them myself twelve months ago"—I then asked him where he got it—he said, "I bred it two years ago"—I said, "Did you show these birds anywhere?"—he said, "Yes, I showed them at Chatteris, Perth, in Scotland, Galashiels, and a number of shows at other places"—he said he could take me to a man who was with him when he bought the red cock in Leadenhall Market in August or September for 12s. 6d., the man asked him a pound—he said, "The man's name is Elworthy, and he lives at 29, Station Road, New Southgate"—at that time Elworthy came in; I then inquired of Elworthy if he was present with him—he said, "One evening, I believe, since he came to his house, I drove him to Leadenhall Market; I saw him standing by a man offering some pigeons for sale; I believe the man asked him a pound, and I believe Stevens gave him 12s. 6d.; we brought the pigeon home, and put it up in a loft with some other pigeons, barbs and fantails"—I said to Elworthy, "Can you give me any description of this pigeon?"—he said, "No, I can't"—I said, "Can you tell me if it was a white or a black pigeon?"—he said, "No, all I know is that I told him he was very foolish to give 12s. 6d. for it"—I then asked Stevens if he had any more pigeons in the house—he said, "Yes, I have, you can go upstairs and see them"—I went upstairs with Mr. Morris, Mr. Dod, and Stevens—we there saw about four pigeons; one was a young strawberry Jacobin; I believe the others were fantails and barbs—I said, "Where did you

get this young strawberry Jacobin?"—he said, "It was bred from the red cock Jacobin which Mr. Morris has, and a black hen which he had bred himself two years ago"—Mr. Morris then took up the young Jacobin in his hand and said, "Well, if this was bred from my red cock it should belong to me"—he said he had only bred two from the red cock and black hen—we then came downstairs, and I said, "If there is any one present who can give me such information which will lead me to recover the black hen I shall be glad to give any one 5l."—that practically ended the conversation, besides what Dod has to tell; there was a great deal more which Dod took down; I did the talking part.

Cross-examined. I generally do the talking—I should say the conversation lasted very nearly two hours—Mrs. Cole had a lot to say—I went there in consequence of information I had received—it was early in January that I first came into communication with Mr. Morris—he did not tell me then that he had been writing to the prisoner about the black hen, not at first—I did not go there particularly in search of the black hen, I went to get other information as well as that—I asked where he had been employed, and where he kept his pigeons—he said the pigeons were first kept at the house of his master, Mr. Johnson, and in consequence of his master's complaint he kept them at Mr. Irons'—I never learnt that they had gone to Elworthy's—he did not give me Elworthy's address—I did not tell Stevens that I did not believe he had stolen the pigeons—I did not say I thought he had bought them from one of the porters at Hatfield—I did not tell him I would give him a reward of 5l. if he would tell the truth, and give him a written guarantee that his name would not be mentioned in the case—I did not hear him say in I gave him 1,000l. he could not tell me any more than he had told me already—I did not ask him to give up the strawberry to Mr. Morris, and make an end of the matter—I said, "Will you give it up to Mr. Morris?"—he said, 'No"—I said, "What do you want for it?"—he said "5l., and I would rather twist its neck than give it up to Mr. Morris"—I wanted him to give it up because it was bred from Mr. Morris's red, cock, and I considered it his property, and I consulted the Company's solicitor whether it should not be given up; that was a after the interview—I was not called at the police-court—I offered the 5l. to the company generally—I don't remember that I offered it to him—I have offered money to one other man to give me important information, that was to Pizzey—I did it entirely on my own responsibility—when I spoke to Elworthy I said, "You are a countryman of mine; can't you tell me anything about these pigeons?"—I did not offer him any money—he said, "All I know is I went with him to Leadenhall Market where he bought the pigeon "—I did not say, "Very well, then, I have done with you"—I might have said, "If you can't give me any further information, that won't assist me"—I won't say that I did not say, "I have done with you"—Elworthy has a beer licence, and hawks beer about in a cart about the neighbourhood—Mr. Johnson is a tallyman and draper—I never gave him any money.

CHARLES DOD (Police Inspector Y). I received information about the loss of these two pigeons, in consequence of which I went with Parish and Mr. Morris to the Swan with Two Nicks on 9th February—I took notes of some portions of the conversation in the prisoner's presence—the prisoner said, "I have given you all the information in my power; I bought the red cock Jacobin, which I handed to Mr. Maughan, at

Leadenhall Market about August or September. I decline to say what I gave for it. I decline saving to Mr. Maughan at Kilmarnock that I purchased them at Glasgow Fair. I was with a friend of mine, whom I can take you to, who saw me purchase the bird at Leadenhall Market; his name is Elworthy, he lives at 29, Station Road, Colney Hatch, and keeps a beer-house. I paid 12s. 6d. for the bird. I have been showing pigeons fur for the last five or six years. I have had many, and I know the value of pigeons. I was passing through Leadenhall Market in the afternoon. I saw the bird; it was shown to me by a man, age 30, tall, with a moustache. I should not know him again. I saw several birds, and amongst them were two or three black Jacobins. I asked the price of them; he said 3s. 6d. or 4s. He said, 'I have one here that will suit you;' it was the red Jacobin. He asked 1l. for it; I gave him 12s. 6d. Mr. Elworthy was with me, and we brought it home here. I put the bird with others, a black Jacobin, barbs and fantails, six or seven of them; the black Jacobin there was one I had, and I had it 12 months. I first showed birds at Kilmarnock, Galashiels, Lanark, Bootle, Perth, Bishop Auckland, Barclay Heath, Hatfield—there I showed fantails. I was in the employ of Mr. Johnson of Luton on the day of the Hatfield Show. I sent my birds from Luton to that show. Persons have kept them at Mr. Ryan's, William Street, Luton. I was then packman to Mr. Johnson. I come direct to Mr. Cole. I also showed the bird at Chatteris and Derby; Jones was judge. I did not show the red cock at the Crystal Palace. I think Bootle was the first show with the red cock, to the best my recollection. The pigeon did not get a prize. I have given you all the information in my power." That was all he said then—about that time Elworthy came in—Parish took notes of what was said by Elworthy—I then went with the other persons and the prisoner to the loft and there saw some pigeons, among them was a strawberry Jacobin—Mr. Morris took the bird in his hand—the prisoner said that bird was the product of Mr. Morris's red cock and the black hen he had sold to Mr. Morris at Kilmarnock—Mr. Morris said he thought the bird ought to belong to him, as it was the product of the birds that were stolen from him—the prisoner said rather than he should have it he would wring its neck, but he could have it for 5l.—we then came away from the loft—downstairs there was some further conversation about the black hen—Parish offered to give 5l. to the prisoner or any one that could give information that would enable us to discover where the black hen was, or who had stolen it.

Cross-examined. The only conversation I heard with respect to the black hen was in the loft—he said that the black hen was the mother of the strawberry bird that he had sold to Waters—the object of our visit was to find a black hen—Mr. Morris did not tell me he had seen a black hen at Walters's—I did not know that he had seen it—the conversation lasted I think very nearly two hours—the prisoner was asked in what employment he was before—he said, "Mr. Johnson's"—he told us where he had kept his pigeons.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence:

ANDREW JOHNSON . I am a draper at Luton—Stevens was in my employ a little over two years and four months, in a confidential capacity, and had to deal with money and goods—he conducted himself in an honest straight forward manner in every respect—he left me on 11th July, 1885

—on 8th July he was in Luton the whole day and during the evening, and slept at my house—at this time I was settling up my books—on the 9th he came from Luton to Hatfield with me, and from Hatfield to New Barnet by train—he was in my company the whole of that day—he had no box of pigeons in his possession—we got to New Barnet about ten minutes or a quarter to nine; I had a horse and trap, and we went to New Southgate and he showed the customers to me and collected money—he was with me up to half-past five in the evening at New Southgate—I left him there from a quarter to half-past five; I saw him again the same evening about 10 at the Swan with Two Nicks—he was with me the next day, driving about with me; we called at about 150 different places—he was with me on the 11th—I produced a book before the Magistrate showing the entries he made on those days; I have it here (producing it)—he left me with a good character.

Cross-examined. This is a tally book; it was kept by the prisoner up to the 9th, and after that by me—he made both these entries on the 9th; it is his handwriting—I told Parish that the last entry he made in the Luton book was on 30th June—I have that here—I did not tell Parish that the prisoner left me on 30th June—before I was at the police-court Parish took down my statement from my dictation; I can't say what he wrote; I know what I told him—he did not read it over to me—I never saw the pigeons at Irons's after they left my place.

Re-examined. I have been in business since 1869 in Luton—I have no interest whatever in this matter except to tell the truth; the prisoner was nothing but a servant—I was subpoenaed by the railway people—the prisoner left me because, I think, he did not care much about the business, and he wanted to go into the public line—he gave me notice and left of his own accord.

WILLIAM ELWORTHY . I am a beerhouse keeper at Station Road, New Southgate—I have known Stevens some few years—he spoke to me about some pigeons of his coming from Luton—I did not know of his having had pigeons at Irons's place—I did not know where they were, some pigeons came to my place in a box; I don't know when that was, it was some time after he went to where he lives, at Coles' place; it was put in the stable—he said they were fantails; I did not see them—the prisoner fetched them away in the box as they had come to my place—I drove away with him—Allkins never went into the loft nor saw any pigeons—they were at my place about a day; they were never taken out of the box that I am aware of—when the prisoner came to fetch them I gave him the key; I did not go into the loft—Allkins did not, that I am aware of, go into the loft, he was there talking to another man at the time—Stevens was going to take the pigeons to Mr. Coles at the Swan with Two Nicks—I remember one day some time after that driving him to Leadenhall Market; I could not say when' that was—I there saw him buy a pigeon of a man standing by a stall; he gave 12s. 6d.—I told him he was a fool to give that, I would not give 1s. for it—I am not a pigeon fancier; about 6d. or 8d. each would be what I should give for them—I saw a pigeon similar to this large one, it was dirty when he bought it—he took it home in the box, I did not go with him—Parish came to my place and asked if I knew any more about the pigeon—he said "I am a countryman of yours, I have done with you."

Cross-examined. The pigeon he bought at Leadenhall Market was like

this red one—I think Parish took down what I had to say; it was not read over to me—I swear that I told him I would not swear to any pigeon—I did not say it was a black one—I was not asked what the colour of the pigeon was—I did not say I could not possibly swear what kind of bird it was—Jessey Main was present when Allkins came to my place, he rented the stable of me—all the lofts lead one into the other above the stables—Allkins came with Johnson, I don't know the time or as to the date—he came for his birds; we just passed the time of day—he said he had come for his pigeons, a box that had come by the Great Northern to Luton—I did not go to the loft to get them, I gave him the keys and he fetched them himself—I don't know that any one went with him—I did not see Allkins go with him, he stopped talking to Main—I did not stop there with him, they were talking when I came back—I don't know whether he went up to the loft or not; I knew he was a licensed victualler—I don't know what he has sworn here—the man in Leadenhall Market had the pigeons in a basket.

Re-examined. I have no interest in this case; I have not been given any money to give evidence, or offered any—there is no ladder from the stable to the loft, you get up from the inside; there never was a ladder since I had the property—there is a hole inside just over the manger, you get on the manger and then go through the hole; there was no ladder nor any steps in the wall—if you had to get into the loft from the outside you would have to place a ladder against the wall.

JESSE MAIN . I am a greengrocer; I come from Cambridgeshire—I know this stable of Mr. Elworthy's—there is no ladder in it or anything of the kind; you get upon the manger and get up through the hole; there is no mistake about it—I know the stable; I rent part of it—I am quite sure there never was a ladder—I remember Stevens coming to fetch a box; Allkins was there—I was with them all the time till they left—Allkins did not go in the loft; the prisoner did not go away anywhere—I don't know how he got the box; I never saw the box—all I know is he had a box; I saw a box—I saw him and Allkins go off together and they left me; I never saw any box; I did not know what box it was—went away in a cart with Allkins with a box—I went to Hatfield with Stevens on the 9th to see the show, but it was all over; I was too late—a gentleman from the Great Northern came to see me—he asked me if I knew anything about any pigeons—I told him no—I told him I had gone with Stevens to the show, and when we got there it was all over—I told him all I knew about it.

Cross-examined. It was about three or four in the afternoon when we got to the show—I went there with Stevens—I had not been with him at Finchley—I met him when I was coming off my rounds at Southgate Station, about 3 o'clock—Allkins came with Stevens about the pigeons—he saw Elworthy, and so did Stevens—I did not see Elworthy go to the loft—I believe he was about 15 to 12 yards from the loft—Elworthy spoke to him; he never went in the loft—he said nothing about the pigeons—I did not hear the prisoner say to Elworthy that Green must have made away with them or sold them, nothing like it—I did not see Stevens, Elworthy, and Allkins go back to the loft—I did not see Stevens go back to the loft—I was in company with Allkins and Elworthy—I never saw Stevens go to the loft; I did not see him go—I did not see any pigeons—I am quite sure there was no

ladder in the stable—the prisoner had no pigeons with him when we went to the show, or in coining back—on the day Allkins was there I was with him all the time.

EDWARD COLE . I keep the Swan with Two Nicks, at North Finchley—Stevens came into my employ as barman on 12th July last, and remained so up to the present time—I am bail for him—he had some pigeons in my name with my sanction; there was no mystery about it.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.

FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, April 7th, 1886.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18860405-435

435. ELIZABETH SMITH (26) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

CHRISTIAN HERMANN . I am a baker, of 71, Great Titchfield Street—the prisoner came there at about 5 p.m. on 12th March for a half-quartern loaf—she offered half-a-crown and I gave her the change—she left, and I found it was bad—I put it on a back shelf, and the missus afterwards passed it—the prisoner came again about 2 o'clock next day for another loaf and offered half-a-crown, which I at once saw was bad, and told her—she made no answer, but left the loaf and took the coin and left—I sent a boy after her—I next saw her at the police-station.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not pass the bad half-crown. Re-examined. I put it on a back shelf by itself—I took two bad half-crowns the previous week—I don't know that she tendered then.

GEORGE BROWN (Policeman E 325). About 2.15 p.m. 13th March I saw the prisoner walking up Poland Street—I took her back to the baker's shop and asked her where her half-crown was—she opened her hand and I took it; that was 60 or 70 yards from the shop—she made no answer.

CHRISTIAN HERMANN (Re-examined). I identify the coin by the mark made by the mouth—I was not in the shop when she was brought back.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . This half-crowl is bad.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-436

436. ANN COLLINS (25) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

AMANDUS RICHTERS . I keep the Oxford Arms, Brushfield Street—on 4th March my daughter, who was serving in the bar, called out to me "Father, here is a woman with a bad shilling"—I went round to the bar, and she gave me this shilling (produced)—I said "How did you come by this shilling?"—she said "I am a prostitute, and a man in Commercial Street gave me a shilling"—I gave her into custody with the shilling.

ALICE RICHTERS . About 7 p.m. on 4th March I served the prisoner with half a pint of beer—she gave me a shilling; I tried it in the tester and found it bad—I took it to my father in the parlour—this is it.

WILLIAM WATCHORN (Policeman H 92). The prisoner was given into my custody at the Oxford Arms on 4th March with this bad shilling—I said "Have you any more coins about you?"—she said "No, I got it from a man who had intercourse with me in a brothel"—she gave her

name Ann Rebecca Brown—she was taken before a Magistrate, remanded, and discharged.

ANN KUHLKE . I keep the Cock and Hoop Tavern, Hanbury Street—on 13th March I served the prisoner with half a pint of ale—she tendered a shilling, which I put in the tester and found bad—I did not draw the beer—I said "Have you got any more of these?" or "Where did you get it?"—I did not exactly hear her answer—I went round the counter to fetch a policeman, and she went out; I went after her and put my hand on her shoulder and said "I want you"—I called a policeman and gave her in charge with the coin.

FREDERICK NORMAN (Policeman H 53). I took the prisoner—I said "Have you any other coins about you?" and she said no, and that she received the coin from a man in Whitechapel Road.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . Both these coins are bad; they are from different moulds.

Prisoner's Defence. I did not know one was bad, and I don't know anything about the other at all.

GUILTY .— Eight Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-437

437. FREDERICK STACK (63) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

MARY CASE . I am assistant in Mrs. Varnall's provision shop, 30, Farringdon Road—the prisoner came there on 13th March with another man who called for a loaf and some cheese, which came to 5 1/2 d., and he put down a good sovereign—as I was going to give him the change he said "Give it me back, let the other man pay, he has plenty of money"—the prisoner was rolling about as if drunk—I gave the sovereign back—the prisoner said he would not pay, and the other said "You owe for the things, you pay it"—the prisoner said "I have only got a 5l. note, will you change it"—I said "No"—the other said "Very well, miss, I will pay for it," and put down this bad sovereign (produced)—I took it up and told them I thought it was bad, and that it was not the one they gave me before—the other said "Who says it's bad?"—I said "I do"—he said "Give it me back, I will soon show you"—I refused and said "I will fetch a policeman"—they both ran out, and I ran after them and caught the prisoner; he was not running like a drunken man—I told him I should detain him, and he struck me in my chest—I let him go for a minute or two, but kept him in sight—I pulled myself together and chased him till he could not go any farther, and outside the House of Detention he was taken by a policeman—the other man got off.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not offer me any coin, nor did I give you any change.

Re-examined. The other man said the prisoner was his father; I suggested it.

JOHN JAMES (Policeman G 178). I stopped the prisoner walking by the House of Detention at about 9.50 p.m.; the prosecutrix was following him—she came up to me and said that he and another man had been to her shop and tried to pass a bad sovereign—the prisoner made no answer—this was about 200 yards from the shop—he had upon him 1s. 6d. in silver and 3 1/2 d. in bronze.

Cross-examined. They both seemed blown—he was not drunk—some children followed the prosecutrix, seeing her follow the prisoner.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . This is a bad sovereign. The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I had been into a tavern and a young man came up to me and got into conversation and told me I was very much like his father, a farmer in Devonshire. We had five or six glasses together, and he accompanied me towards Islington, and he asked me to go into the prosecutrix's shop to have something to eat. I had no knowledge whatever of what he was attempting to do."

GUILTY .**— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-438

438. THOMAS BROWN (18) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

WILLIAM KYBERT . I live at 8, Green Terrace, Clerkenwell—on 20th March, about 3.40 p.m., I saw the prisoner at the corner of Gloucester Street—he said, "Which of you boys will go and get me half an ounce of tobacco?"—another boy was with me—I said I would go—he gave me a shilling and pointed the tobacconist's out to me—I went there and asked for the tobacco and gave the shilling—I got no change—I then went back to where I left the prisoner and Mr. Till followed me—the prisoner was not there but he came to me from the other side of the street and said, "There's a good boy," when I handed him the tobacco—Mr. Till then came up and said, "Did you send this child for the tobacco?" and he said he did not and walked away—I did not follow him—this is the same coin—I did not think he was the man—I think he is now—I did not look at him when I handed him the tobacco—I looked at him when he gave me the shilling and when I looked at him I recognised him.

LINDSAY TILL . I am a tobacconist of 8, Myddelton Street, Clerkenwell—the last witness came to my shop for half an ounce of shag and gave me this bad shilling—I marked it—I asked him where he got it and he said a man gave it him at the corner of the street—I gave him the tobacco and followed him—he asked me for the change and I said I would bring that—I let him get half way up the street and then followed quietly on the opposite side of the road—when I got to the top of the street I saw the prisoner 20 or 30 yards down the street—as he crossed towards the boy I went back towards Upper Gloucester Street—the prisoner had the tobacco in his hand and I heard him say "Where is the change?"—I had the shilling in my hand and said, "Change for this? I have it," and showed him the coin—as soon as he saw me at his elbow he gave the tobacco back to the boy and said, "It is not mine, the boy gave it me, I don't want your tobacco," and walked away—I asked the boy about it but he seemed confused—finding I was following him he turned round and made some disgusting remark to me and ran—I followed and a constable who followed me went up another street and caught him—I charged him and he made no remark.

Cross-examined. You certainly asked the boy for the change.

EPHRAIM WARNER (Policeman 463 G). I was in St. John's Street—heard some one and saw Till pointing to the prisoner, who was running towards Northampton Square—I took a short cut and stopped him—the prosecutor said, "Take him to the station, I charge him with passing a counterfeit coin," which he showed me—I took him to the station, where

a shilling, a sixpence, and sixpence-halfpenny in bronze were found on him.

WILLIAM DAVIS . I live at 29, Aylesbury Street, Clerkenwell—I am assistant to a hosier—I was in the prosecutor's shop when the boy came in—I followed him out and saw the prisoner in Gloucester Street—the boy stood for a minute or two at the corner and I waited at the other corner—I saw the prisoner cross the road and take the tobacco from the boy—Mr. Till came up and I saw him hold out a shilling in his hand to the prisoner, who then handed the tobacco back to the boy and said it was not he who sent him for it and he did not want it.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . This is a bad shilling.

CHARLES HENRY NORBURY . I was with the other boy when the prisoner came up and said, "Which of you will get me half an ounce of tobacco?" and the boy said, "I will go"—I saw the prisoner give him a shilling—I afterwards saw the prisoner run down Gloucester Street, where he was stopped.

Cross-examined. You are the man who sent the boy with the shilling, I am sure.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "The boy came up to me with the tobacco. I asked him where he had got it from, and he said a man had given him a shilling to buy it, and then the prosecutor came up. I am not the man."

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-439

439. JOHN SMITH (20) and GEORGE JONES (22) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

HENRY HINES . I am barman at the Golden Lion, 104, Wardour Street, Soho—about 9.30 p.m. on 9th March the prisoner came in for a glass of stout and offered me a shilling, which I broke with my teeth—I said "This is a bad shilling; have you got any more?"—he said "No," and he paid me with a good florin—I gave him one piece back and kept the other—he left and I followed him to the Carlisle Arms, Bateman Street—two others joined him and went with him to the corner of Frith Street, where they separated, and Smith went into the Carlisle Arms—I went in afterwards and asked the barman what he had—he was just coming out as I went in, and I pushed him back—the barman, Burt, said he had a glass of bitter—I said "What did he pay you with?"—he said "A shilling"—I said "See if it is a good one," and he took it out of the till and broke or bent it—it was bad—I said he had just passed one at my place, which I broke—the prisoner said "Pray let me go"—one of his companions (Jones) was on the other side of the road—I came out and walked up the street till I saw a policeman, to whom I pointed, out Jones.

Cross-examined by Smith. I never lost sight of you—I never gave you any bad money.

CHRISTOPHER BURT . I am barman at the Carlisle Arms—Smith came in about 10.20 for a glass of ale and gave me a shilling—Hines then came in and said "Just see to that shilling"—I asked Smith if this was the shilling he gave me and he said "Yes"—I had placed it in the till—there were only shillings there—this was at the top—it was warm—I sent for the police.

Cross-examined by Smith. I put the shilling in the till—I am sure it was the shilling you gave me—I did not give you your change.

LIZZIE RICHARDS . My father keeps the Carlisle Arms—Jones came there about 9.30 on 9th March for twopennyworth of whisky and gave me this shilling—I gave him the change and put it in the till, where there were several shillings—he was brought back by the policeman about three-quarters of an hour afterwards, and I recognised him and said "That is the man I served with the whisky some time ago"—he said nothing.

Cross-examined by Jones. I found it was bad as soon as we found another bad shilling had been taken—the policeman did not tell me to look in the till to see if I had a bad shilling—I cannot swear that it was the shilling you gave me, for I might have taken it from some one else.

By the COURT. I did not see Smith until I came out into the bar.

JOHN SIMPSON (Policeman C 83). Hines called me to the Carlisle Arms at 10.30 p.m. on 9th March, and Mr. Richards gave him in charge for passing a bad shilling at the Carlisle Arms—Jones was brought in shortly afterwards—they said nothing to the charge—I searched Smith and found a half-crown, sixpence, and 6d. in bronze; no bad money.

SAMUEL LYNG (Policeman C 264). I was on duty in Greek Street, Soho—Mr. Hines came to me and I went with him and he pointed out Jones—I took him into custody on the charge of being concerned with others in passing bad money—he said I had made a mistake—he was searched at the Carlisle Arms and a shilling and twelve sixpences and 1s. 10 1/4 d. in bronze were found on him, all good.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . These are two counterfeit shillings and fragments of another, all of different moulds.

The prisoners in their statements before the Magistrate and in their defence denied knowing that the coins were bad.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour each.

Reference Number: t18860405-440

440. THOMAS DENCHFIELD (24) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

JESSIE FORSYTH CHRISTIE . I help my father, a confectioner, at 102, Warwick Road, Earl's Court—the prisoner came in between 6 and 7 p.m. on 18th March for two scones, and offered a half-crown—I gave him a florin and fourpence change—I asked him if he had any smaller money, he said "No"—he left, and I took the coin to my mother—he came next day between 6 and 7 o'clock for two Bath buns, and offered a florin—I handed it to my mother to change; she showed it to my father—I afterwards received it at the police-station from a policeman.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I laid the half-crown on the desk till you had gone out of the shop, and then took it to my mother—this is it—there was no other customer in the shop.

ELIZABETH CHRISTIE . My daughter showed me this half-crown—it was not so much defaced then—I saw the constable mark it—I showed it to my husband, who sent for a policeman and gave it to him—the prisoner had gone—on the 19th my daughter showed me this florin, and the prisoner handed a good one to my husband, who gave him in custody with the coin.

WILLIAM MEAD (Policeman F 282). I was called on the 18th, and Mr.

Christie handed me this half-crown, which I recognise by this mark I put on it in their presence.

JOHN ISOM (Policeman F 282). I was called to 102, Warwick Road, on 19th March—Mr. Christie handed me two good florins and one bad one—I bent this bad one with my teeth—the prisoner was given into my custody—I gave the good coin to the prisoner and the bad one to Cooke.

CHARLES COOKE (Policeman F 213). I went to 109, Warwick Road, on 19th March, and saw the prisoner and Isom, who gave me this coin, which I know by the mark—I said to the prisoner "I shall take you in custody for attempting to pass this base florin"—he said "Two twoshilling pieces were given me last night; I did not know one was bad"—I took him into the back room, searched him, and found a purse and a good florin on him—he told me on the way to the station that he lived at St. James's, and had come to Kensington to look for work—he afterwards said voluntarily that he lived at 37, Old Compton Street, Soho.

Cross-examined. I inquired, and found you had lived at a common lodging-house for the last few months, and could not find that you had done any work.

FREDERICK WESTON (Police Inspector T). The first witness handed me this florin.

WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER . This half-crown and florin are bad. The Prisoner's first Statement before the Magistrate. "On the 18th March I was in Leicester Square. I held a gentleman's pony and trap from 7 till nearly 11.30, when he came out of a theatre. He gave me two two-shilling pieces; I thanked him and came away." Second Statement. "I was in the shop on the 18th, about 5.30. I called for two scones. A female was in the shop. The youngest witness served me first. I threw a half-crown down. The witness bounced it. She afterwards gave me the change, and put the half-crown with the other silver."

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-441

441. THOMAS WALKER (37) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and WILKINSON Prosecuted.

FREDERICK JAMES DEE . I am under manager of the Gross Keys Coffee Tavern, Hampstead Road—about six weeks ago the prisoner came in and ordered a cup of coffee and gave me a bad shilling—I broke it between the join in the marble counter, in his presence, threw it at the back and burnt it after I shut up at night—I told the prisoner it was bad he said he didn't know it, he had no more money about him—about a fortnight after he came in for coffee and a scone I think and paid with a bad florin—I bent it in the join of the counter and broke it with a weight—I burnt that also—they both consumed directly—I told, him he must not come that game any more—he said that it was a good florin but that I was trying to get him into a row because he had a bad coin the time before—I said if he liked to stop I could prove it was bad, but he didn't stop—I next saw him on 23rd March when he called for a cup of coffee and brought a bad shilling—I told him if he came that game any more I would lock him up, and the next day I saw that he was locked up—the shilling burnt the same as the others—it was a fierce copper fire—when I said I would lock him up he bolted out of the shop—in each instance I took the coffee from him.

EDWIN JAMES CURBURY . I am barman at the Lord Palmerston public house, Hampstead Road—at about 4.15, on 24th March, the prisoner got some beer and gave me this florin, which I tried in the tester—it bent, and he ran out up the Hampstead Road—I jumped over the counter and ran after him—I took it to the manager first and he told me to go after him—I caught him and and brought him back and took him into the private bar and sent for a constable and charged him—he said "All right, I didn't do it intentionally, some other man gave it me"—there was a woman and another fellow in the bar but they ran out when he did.

Cross-examined. You did not resist—you told me that another man gave it you, and told you to call for a pot of beer and he would be back directly—you told the manager the same and that the woman in the bar was your sister-in-law—I know you as a customer—I have never known you do this before—there was a man in the bar with You.

By the COURT. I cannot say that he said he would fetch the man who gave it him.

By the JURY. He was running when I caught him—he had been drinking all the morning and tendered sixpences which were all good.

RICHARD NELSON (Policeman 422 S). I took the prisoner at the Lord Palmerston—he said a strange man had given him the florin—I took him to the station and found 2d. on him.

Cross-examined. I did dot question you at the police-court as to who gave you the florin—you gave your address, 8, Church-way, Euston Road; that was correct.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This florin is bad.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I gave my right address."

The Prisoner called.

GEORGE GILL . I live at 23, Little George Street, Euston Road, and am a labourer—you were with me all day on 23rd March till you left me late at night near the Drummond Hotel, close to your home—you have been with me on previous occasions doing odd jobs.

By the COURT. We were walking about from one public house to another, looking for work in the meantime.

FREDERICK JAMES DEE Re-examined. The prisoner called for coffee the third time between 10.30 and 11 p.m. on 23rd March I am certain.

The prisoner in his defence said that Dee's evidence was a lot of lies, that he had never had a cup of coffee out of doors, and that the florin tendered at the public house was given him by some man to pay for the beer, and if he could have caught him he would.

GUILTY Judgment respited. .—

NEW COURT.—Thursday, April 8th, 1886.

Before Mr. Justice Wills.

Reference Number: t18860405-442

442. WILLIAM SYMONS SALT (25) and THOMAS CHARTER (17) , For an unnatural crime.

MR. SANDERS Prosecuted; MR. FULTON appeared for Salt.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-443

443. FREDERICK WOOD (30) and WILLIAM PARNELL (29) , Robbery with violence on John Gladhill, and stealing 2l., his money.

MR. POYNTER Prosecuted.

JOHN GLADHILL . I am a ship's rm

the Eldersley—on Friday, 26th March, I arrived in London from that ship—I saw both the prisoners that day—I told Parnell that I was going to be paid off on the Saturday afternoon—I stopped at Parnell's house on the Friday—I had a sovereign then—I was paid off on the Saturday at Green's Sailors' Home, Poplar—I received 4l. 7s. 8d.—neither of the prisoners were there—I saw them directly after in a public-house—I don't know the sign—I then had the money in my pocket—I spent some money there for two or three pots of beer—I gave Parnell 5s., and 1s. to two or three other men—I went to several public-houses and spent a few more shillings—the last public-house I recollect being in was the Prendergast Arms—I then had more than 2l. in my right-hand trousers pocket in gold and silver—I cannot tell where I went to after that, but I was Knocked down in a side street; I don't know the name of it—these two men tripped me up and took my money out of my pocket; they did not illuse me much—some boys saw them, and I saw a policeman run after them—I had had a little to drink—I was not in any cab with them that day.

Cross-examined by Wood. You met me in a public-house with three prostitutes and another man—I gave 4s. or 5s. away to them—I was not in your company at all till you asked me to show you where the Freemason's was—I lost 2l. or 3l.

Cross-examined by Parnell. I did not pull my discharge note out of my pocket myself—you helped to trip me up—the discharge note was taken out of my pocket when the money was taken; it was found by the boys.

GEORGE FAGG . I am sixteen years of age, and live at 70, Bromley Hall Road—on Saturday, 27th March, I was in the fields near the Prendergast Arms—I saw the prosecutor and saw the two prisoners trip him down and take his money from his right-hand trousers pocket—I am quite sure of them—I did not know them before—after taking the money they ran off—I and two more lads followed them, and I saw Wood taken by Duck; I did not lose sight of Wood—in Lattice Street I saw the prisoners divide some money between them, and then they went in different directions—on the following Thursday I picked Wood out of eight others at the station—he was not pointed out to me.

Cross-examined by Wood. You put your hand in his pocket and took his money out.

Cross-examined by Parnell. I saw you take some money out of his pocket and run off with it, and the discharge paper also.

WILLIAM JESSOP . I am 15 years old, and live at 50, Bromley Hall Road—I was with Fagg when this happened—I saw the prosecutor tripped up by Wood—Parnell took the discharge out of his pocket; Wood took the money; they then ran off—I went after them—I saw Wood stopped by Duck.

Cross-examined by Parnell. I don't know whether it was a discharge you took; it was a white paper—I was within a few yards when I saw this.

JOHN WILLIAM SMITH . I am 15 years old, and live at 54, Bromley Hall Road—on this Saturday afternoon I saw the prisoners trip the prosecutor up—I was about 100 yards off playing rounders with a lot of us in the fields—I never saw the prisoners before—I am sure they are the men—I saw them take his money—I and Jessop and Fagg gave chase—

I did not see Wood taken—I went back after the prosecutor—on Tuesday I went to the station and identified Parnell—no one told me to do so.

Cross-examined by Wood. You had the discharge—I could not say if you had any money.

HUBERT DUCK (Police Sergeant). On this Saturday afternoon I saw Wood running in Bromley Street—I saw the three boys there—I followed Wood and caught him—I told him I should take him to the station, and he would be charged with robbing a man—he said "You have made a mistake; I was going to my brother's at Mr. Munday's to ask him to give me some money"—I took him to the station, and on him found 9s. 6d. in silver and 4 1/2 d. in bronze—the prosecutor was not sober—Wood was perfectly sober—he said his mates had given him the money.

Cross-examined by Parnell. I did not tell the boys or any one that you were the second one on the left with plaid trousers.

Re-examined. I was present when Parnell was identified by the boys; no one indicated who the man was; they were in a separate room and were brought out one at a time.

WALTER BREED (Police Sergeant). On Tuesday afternoon, 30th March, I took Parnell in custody at West Ham—I told him he would be charged with being concerned with Wood in robbing Mr. Gladhill on the Saturday previous—I said "You will have to go with me to Poplar"—he made no reply.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Parnell: "The prosecutor was at my house last Friday. I went with him to get paid off; he gave me 5s. and I left him." Wood: "I am not guilty; the other man had the money, I only had the shilling he gave me."

GUILTY .— Three Months' Hard Labour each.

Reference Number: t18860405-444

444. WILLIAM MEEKOMS (34) and CHARLES HEATH (54) , Robbery on Richard Nagle, and stealing a purse, a handkerchief, and 3l.

MR. LYNES Prosecuted.

HENRY ARTHUR COX . I am landlord of the Flower Pot, in St. Ann's Road, Tottenham—on 10th March, about 3 in the afternoon, the prosecutor came in, he was followed immediately by Meekoms and afterwards by Heath—Meekoms called for a pot of fourpenny ale—when I put that on the counter he called for a separate half-pint of fourpenny ale—he then asked the prosecutor to pay for it—the prosecutor produced his purse and opened it—whilst doing so Meekoms looked over his shoulder as though he was trying to find out the contents of it—I was going away when Meekoms asked me for a pinch of snuff—I put the snuff-box on the counter; I then went to the other end of the bar—in consequence of what I was told I went back again, and I saw Meekoms in the act of doing something to the pint pot, as though he was mixing something—I saw him hand the pot to the prosecutor, which he drank out of; he then put the pot back on the counter, pretending to wipe the counter down—I picked the pot up and looked into it, and I found there had been some—thing put into it; I then took possession of the pot and put it behind the bar, having suspicion that things were not all right—I watched the prisoners and saw Meekoms in the act of meddling with the prosecutor's button holes, at the lower part of his waistcoat, pretending to button it up—I then asked a customer to fetch a policeman—the prisoners led the prosecutor out into the back place; my potman went and brought him

back, and put him on the seat—I continued watching; in the meantime the policeman called in—I explained to him how things were and he stayed in the bar some little time and then went outside—one of the prisoners then said to the prosecutor "We had better go up to the Turnpike, "that is another public-house—he lifted him up and they went to go out, and they got behind the partition, where I could not see them—they stayed there a little while and then went outside—I do not think he was drunk—after taking this drug he appeared to be drowsy, but when he came in he appeared perfectly sober.

Cross-examined by Meekoms. You were perfectly sober; there were about 12 or 15 persons there—they came in one after the other—you paid for two pots of beer.

By the COURT. They were persons of the same description as the prisoners—I knew enough of them to think it desirable to keep an eye on them.

Cross-examined by Heath. You came in immediately after Meekoms—it was nearly 20 minutes to 4 when you came in—you never paid for any beer in my place; the prosecutor paid for the first pot and half-a-pint—you were in the same department as the prosecutor and Meekoms.

WILLIAM MORTLOCK . I am a cheesemonger at Station Road, Tottenham—on the afternoon of 10th March I was at the Flower Pot public house—I saw the prisoners there with others in conversation with Nagle—I was in the next compartment; I watched them—I saw Meekoms call for a pot of beer and also half-a-pint separate, which was given to him in a pint pot—Meekoms then asked for a pinch of snuff; he emptied some of the snuff into the smaller quantity of beer, shook it up, and gave it to the prosecutor, and he took a large draught of it and put it back on the counter—I then spoke to the landlord, and he immediately took it up from the counter and put it on a shelf at the back—soon after that I saw Meekoms look for this particular pot; he had not seen the landlord take it away—not being able to find it Meekoms put some snuff into another pot and again gave it to the prosecutor to drink; he drank it—soon after he appeared to be overcome, and he was taken out into the back, not by either of the prisoners, but another man and a party who was charged with them; he was brought back again, I believe, by the potman—soon after he was brought back I saw Heath in conversation with him, he had a knife in his hand; he was playing with his watch chain as if in the act of relieving his watch from his button hole—he seemed to be disturbed from doing that—I noticed nothing more particularly after that until he was taken outside; his trousers were unfastened down the front, I noticed that when he came back from the back.

Cross-examined by Meekoms I saw this through a hole in the beading of the partition.

DAVID RICHARD NAGLE . I am a coal merchant at North End Road, Fulham—On 10th March I was in St. Ann's Road, Tottenham—between 10 and 11 o'clock I went to a public house to have a glass of ale—I saw three men standing outside I thought belonging to the working class; Meekoms was one of them, I can't say that Heath, was—I gave Meekoms 6d. and said "Have a glass of beer and give the other men a glass also"—I went into the public-house and called for half-a-pint of porter or ale, and Heath came in—I don't know what happened after that, I have no recollection of anything till I met the doctor that night—I was not in

liquor; I don't know the name of the house I was in—I am speaking of between 10 and 11 in the morning—I lost a purse containing 3l. in gold, a handkerchief and glove—I had some silver, but I could not say how much; I lost that also—I did not lose my watch or chain.

Cross-examined by Meekoms. I did not give you the handkerchief—I don't know what I was doing at Mr. Cox's—I could not have been the worse for liquor; I don't think I had taken a drop for three days.

WALTER DELAHONY . I am potman at the Flower Pot—on 10th March about half-past three in the afternoon I saw both the prisoners there with some other men—I saw the prosecutor sitting on a seat with his head buried in his hands—I did not see him come in—Mr. Cox told me to go to the back; out there I heard one one of the prisoners, I can't say which, say to the other "I have a knife, that will not cut the chain, but it will cut a button hole"—they then walked through into the bar—the next I saw was Meekom's hand in the prosecutor's pocket; I did not see him take anything out—the prosecutor made a struggle; they both went out of the door together, Meekoms leading the prosecutor out—the next thing I saw was the prisoners in custody about half-past four or a quarter to five.

Cross-examined by Meekoms. It was as you were going out that I saw your hand in his pocket—you said "Come on chaps, we are going up to the Turnpike."

Cross-examined by Heath. I saw you in the prosecutor's company by the bar, you were some distance from him.

GEORGE LENNOX (Police Inspector Y). On the afternoon of 10th March, about a quarter to five, I was in St. Ann's Road, Tottenham—I saw the prosecutor being led out of the Flower Pot by Meekoms by his left arm—Constable Elston, who was with me went up and asked the prosecutor if he had lost anything—he made no answer that I heard—he seemed to be partly intoxicated, he was not able to walk alone; I assisted him to the station—I took Meekoms into custody; at the station the two prisoners were charged with administering an overpowering matter by putting snuff in beer with intent to commit a felony—they denied the charge, and said they were drinking together—there were then three in custody, one was discharged before the Magistrate; they denied the charge and said they were drinking together—this red handkerchief was found on Meekoms; he said "It is my own, it is not worth sixpence, it is full of holes"—I opened it, there were no holes in it—he said "It is my own, it only just came out of pawn for sixpence—I showed it to the prosecutor, who identified it as his—he had complained of having lost one—this glove, which the prosecutor identified, was found under the seat where Heath was sitting—the prisoners appeared to be perfectly sober—I sent for a doctor to see the prosecutor.

Cross-examined by Heath. The glove was lying on the floor, and I picked it up and carried the prosecutor's stick to the station.

JOHN EELSTON (Policeman Y 359). On 10th March I was outside the Flower Pot at a quarter to five—I saw Meekoms leading the prosecutor out by his arm—I asked the prosecutor if he had lost anything—he said "I don't know"—I said "Try and find out; see in your pockets"—he felt in his pockets and said "Yes, I have lost some silver"—I said "How much?"—he said "I don't know, but I think about 14s. or 15s."—Meekoms said "It's all right, I know the man"—I said "I can't help

that, I must take you in custody; from what I have heard I believe you put snuff in his beer"—he laughed—Heath was in the public-house—I sent another constable into the house to fetch him out—he came out and I told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with the other man in putting some snuff in his beer, supposed for the purpose of robbing him—he said "All right; I know him, we have been drinking together to-day"—I searched him at the station and found on him 2 1/2 d. and a knife; on Meekham was found 4s. 3d., a knife, a pipe, and this handkerchief—Heath had a stick with him—to the best of my belief they were all three sober.

WILLIAM HALL . I am divisional surgeon at Tottenham—On 10th March I was called to the station to see the prosecutor—he was unconscious on my arrival, but after half an hour he became partially so, and before I left he was pretty clear—I examined the state of his mouth and throat—I found a very strong odour of snuff, and particles of snuff clinging all around his jaw—the remains of what he had been drinking was shown to me and it was very much impregnated with strong snuff—I tasted it; it was of a most acrid character—I think drinking a quantity of stuff like that would put a man into that state—from the potency of it it would be very nasty—I think he must have been very drunk before he could be got to take a large quantity of it.

Meekom's Defence. I am quite innocent of giving the gentleman any snuff, if it was given to him. I was in such a state I did not know if there was any. I had been a customer and neighbour of Mr. Cox for some years. He trusted me for a little beer score; we fell out about it, and he told me if I came in his house again he would have me in.

Heath's Defence. I was not in this man's company at all,' and he can say the same.

GUILTY .—The prisoners PLEADED GUILTY to having been previously convicted: Meekoms on 14th December, 1883, and Heath on 21st February, 1881. Other convictions were also proved against them.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-445

445. JOHN GIBBS and ALFRED HUMPHREY , Robbery with violence on Thomas Chaffers, and stealing a watch and chain, his property. ( The Jury being unable to agree, were discharged without giving a verdict, and the case was tried before another Jury. See Tuesday, April 13.)

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, April 8th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-446

446. WILLIAM BROUGHTON (50) and JOHN SASSE (35) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing fifteen bags of pepper, the property of William Livingstone Watson, the employer of Sasse.

SASSE was recommended to mercy by his employer.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. BROUGHTON— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-447

447. FREDERICK KNIGHT GREG—SON (33) to converting a security to his own use and benefit; also to omitting certain material particulars from the books of his masters with intent to defraud; and to stealing a cheque for 1,000l., the property of the Commercial Bank of Scotland, his masters.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-448

448. CHARLES EDWARD HOLMES (47) to marrying Ellen Stanlick, his wife being alive.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18860405-449

449. HENRY ADOLPH NELL (45) to obtaining money from Kate Robarts by false pretences with intent to defraud, and to stealing a cheque-book her property.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-450

450. THOMAS SMITH, Wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. DE MICHELE Prosecuted; MR. BESLEY Defended.

After hearing a portion of the evidence in this case the Recorder was of opinion that there was scarcely sufficient evidence to go to the Jury; the Jury expressing a similar opinion, found the prisoner

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18860405-451

451. SIDNEY SWAIN was indicted for a like offence, upon which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY

Reference Number: t18860405-452

452. CHARLES WILLIAMS (29) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles William Stephens, with intent to steal.

MR. GREENFIELD Prosecuted

ALEXANDER JOHN . I am a clothier, and live at 117, High Street, Camden Town—on 20th March, about 5.15 a.m., I was disturbed by a constable and found the glass broken at my shop, No. 131, whore Mr. Stephens, my manager, lives, and found the plate-glass window broken for about half a yard, but I do not think it would admit anybody.

HENRY LANCASTER (Policeman S 125). I heard a smash of glass about 5.15, and saw the prisoner and another man, by Mr. Jones's shop, the window of which was broken—they crossed the road and I followed them down High Street; they separated at the corner of Park Street—I stopped the prisoner and asked what he was doing there; he said "Nothing "—I took him to the shop and pointed to the widow; he pretended to know nothing about it—I took him to the station—he refused his address.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I saw you leave a recess after the window was broken—I did not take you then because I was not close to you—you volunteered to go to the station with me.

WILLIAM TERRY (Policeman S 15). I was in High Street, Camden Town, on 20th March, about 1.40 a.m., and saw the prisoner and another man at the corner of Hart Street—they stood still a few minutes and crossed and went up Camden Road together.

CHARLES WILLIAM STEPHEN . I am Mr. Jones's shopman, and live at 131, High Street, Camden Town—on 19th March I went to bed about 11.30, leaving everything safe; a policeman aroused me about 5.15 and called my attention to the window being broken, but it was not disturbed—there are no shutters.

The RECORDER considered that there was no proof of burglary.

GUILTY of the attempt.

He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on 6th February, 1882.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday, 8th, 9th, 10th and 12th April, 1886.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18860405-453

453. WILLIAM WOOD (20) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining from Abraham Cohen a gold bracelet by false pretences, with intent to defraud; also to feloniously forging and uttering a request for the delivery of the same; also a request for the delivery of a single stone diamond ring, with intent to defraud; also a request for the delivery of a gold watch; also to feloniously receiving a gold bracelet by virtue of a forged instrument, with intent to defraud.— Judgment respited.

Reference Number: t18860405-454

454. LAWRENCE BARKER (16) to burglary in the dwelling-house of Esther Scammell, and stealing therein an oven and other articles.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Ten Months' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18860405-455

455. JOHN CANE (23) to burglary in the shop of Lawrence Ansel, and stealing a coat and pair of trowsers, his property.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Ten Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-456

456. BERNARD SILVERMAN , Unlawfully endeavouring to persuade Edward Bryant to steal sash-weights, the goods of >Robert Crossthwaite and others, his masters.

MESSRS. MOYSER and PARKES conducted the Prosecution; and MR. FULTON

the Defence.

EDWARD BRYANT . I live at 3, Brooke's Market, Holborn, and am a warehouseman to Messrs. Crossthwaite, 24, Upper Thames Street—I have been with them seven years—I have known the prisoner about three years as a customer—on March 3rd he came in the warehouse and wanted some weights of the foreman—I asked him what size—he said 70 6lb. sashweights, and 72 6 1/2 lbs.—I had Procter to help me to serve, and the prisoner paid for them—in the gateway he said to me, "the next time I come down above more on to me," meaning some sash-weights—I said "All right"—I made a communication to the foreman, but got no instructions from him or from my master—I next saw the prisoner on the 15th—I had then received instructions from Detective Davidson as to what I should say—About 5.15 the prisoner came, and wanted 50 71b. sash-weights which I served him with, and put into the van—he covered them over with straw, and said, "Cannot you shove some more on to me?"—I said, "What do you mean?"—he said, "Oh, shove on a load"—I said, "What size do you want?"—he said, "Oh, anything,"—I said, "50 6 1/2 lbs.?"—he said, "Yes, that will do"—I said "What do you intend to do?"—he said, "How much do you want?"—I said, "3s.?"—he said, "Yes, go and shove them on"—when I had got them up I said, "That is all you want to-day?"—he said, "No, shove on a load," and I shoved another 44 on, and he gave me 6s. for them, for myself, not for my master, besides the 3s.—I served him in the gateway where there is not much light at that time of day—I took the sash-weights from the cellar—we have gas down there—after he had got the load he came into the office, and I asked him what he intended to pay for—he said, "I will pay for 50 7 lbs. and 10 6 1/2 lbs."—it was necessary that I should know how much he intended to pay as I had to call over the weights—I called "50 71bs. and 10 6 1/2 lbs., Silverman"—he was standing close by, and he paid for them—I cannot say what he paid—the clerk repeated the order the second time—the prisoner gave me a penny in front of the clerks—he never gave me anything before—he then felt, and I signalled to my master, and afterwards heard the prisoner had been taken—I showed the money, 9s. 1d., to my master.

Cross-examined. No other person was present at the second conversation—he had an open van—there was no one in charge of it—on the first day I saw a small boy, about 14 years of age, in the cart when he was about to drive away—I did not recognise him—I do not know his

name—I should not like to say that that is the boy (Draper)—he is rather like him—it was rather dark—the prisoner and his boy were sitting on the seat board on the first occasion—the boy must have heard any conversation—I have heard the prisoner's name mentioned, and seen him before the 3rd, but not to take much notice of him—he is a customer of my master's—I knew his face—I have served him before about twice as I ought to serve him in an honest way—he asked me if we were all new hands there—I said "Yes"—I have been there seven years in September—there are one or two new hands—my master is here—on the 15th I loaded these things up myself—I told the policeman what the prisoner said on the 3rd, and he told me what to do if he asked me to steal—the loading up took place before the bill was given to him—my master looks to me for statements, whether correct or not, as to the amount loaded—I do not know where the policeman was—there was an arrangement as to where he was to be on the Friday if he had come, but not on the Monday.

Re-examined. I have only served the prisoner four times altogether—Three men always used to serve him—two have left, and one has been discharged.

ALFRED ROBERT MULLEY . I live at 7, Chatterton Road, Finsbury Park, and am an invoice clerk in Mr. Crossthwaite's service—I remember seeing the prisoner at our place on the 15th with Bryant; Bryant called out "50 71bs. and 106 1/2 lbs."—I wrote this invoice, then I repeated it—the prisoner was inside just by the door, not very far from me—it is a small office, he could have heard all that took place—he paid 15s. and I gave him a penny change—I did not see him give that to Bryant.

WILLIAM PROCTOR . I am warehouseman to Messers. Crossthwaite—on 3rd March, the prisoner came with his van; the foreman called me down to help Bryant who was serving him—after we served him I went out into the gateway, he said "The next time I come, shove some on to me, so that you can have a couple or three shillings for yourself"—Bryant was not there then—I said "All right"—He said "What day shall I come?"—I said "About Friday"—he said "What time?"—I said "About 5" he said "All right"—I told the foreman.

Cross-examined. On the 3rd, a boy came in the cart with the prisoner—the conversation took place near the cart; the boy was just getting down; I don't think he could hear, it was too quiet—the other young man was not there—I have been in my master's service nearly two years.

JOHN DAVIDSON (City Detective). I have watched the prosecutor's premises on and off since December, 1885—In consequence of information I received from Mr. Crossthwaite, Martin and I watched 24, Upper Thames Street; on Friday I saw Bryant with Proctor and Mr. Crossthwaite—Bryant spoke to me, and I gave him certain instructions—Shortly after 5 p. m. on 15th March, I saw the prisoner down a gateway on Mr. Crossthwaite's premises, with a horse and van, standing by the tail board of the van, which was down; Bryant was placing sash-weights from his shoulder into the van—I passed through the gateway, and passed them just at the moment—the prisoner could see us—I was in plain clothes—shortly before six I saw the prisoner drive away; we followed him, and stopped him—I said "We are police officers, how many sash-weights have you got in that van?"—he said "Sash-weights?"—I said "Yes"—he said "I don't know '—I said "Will you get down?"—he got down, and

I said "You have just come from Mr. Crossthwaite, ironmonger"—he said "Yes"—I said "Can you tell by the amount of money you have paid, how many sash-weights you have in your van?"—he said "No, I told the chap to load them up, I don't know how many he put in"—I said "Do you know how much money you have paid?"—he said "No"—I said "Have you got a bill?"—he said "No"—I sent the prisoner to the station by Foster 686—he was charged with inciting Edward Bryant, and William Proctor to steal—I searched him and found this receipt and invoice, referring to 60 sash-weights—Martin and I searched the van, and found 144 sash-weights; a number were packed in front of the van, covered with straw and other goods—Bryant afterwards handed me 9s. 1d. which the prisoner has had since—he made no reply to the charge.

Cross-examined. The conversation took some little time—I did not take a note of it; I did not consider it necessary—I don't know that there is a regulation in the City Police that every officer shall at the time., or as soon after as may be convenient, take a note of conversations—every officer may exercise his discretion—he said he had no bill—I waited three quarters of an hour considering what were the best questions to put to him.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOHN DRAPER . I live at Green Street, Enfield Highway—I have been in the prisoner's service—I look after his two horses and help him in his business—I have occasionally accompanied him to the prosecutor's premises when he has gone there for orders—I was with him on 3rd March—I was not present at the conversation between him and Bryant—I only heard the prisoner tell him what size he wanted—I did not hear him say anything about shoving some more on, and coming again, and so on—I know Proctor; I saw him that day—I did not see my master holding mysterious conversations in an under tone with him—I did not hear any conversation about shoving some weights on which were never to be paid for.

Cross-examined. I was walking about by my master's side up and down till they started loading—then I stood against the tail-board all the time—the horse did not want looking after; put his nose-bag; on, and he will stand and feed well enough—I know I am 17 by the register we have got at home—I cannot read—I heard all that took place between the prisoner and Bryant on the 3rd, every word they said.

By the COURT. I was walking up and down with my master till loading, and then he went and had his tea—when he came back the van was loaded, and he brought ma two slices of bread and butter—that was after Bryant and Proctor had been with him—I did not go to the office with my master.

The Prisoner received a good character.

EDWARD BRYANT (Re-examined). I received no instructions from my master or the police prior to the 3rd.

GUILTY .— Nine Months, Hard Labour

Reference Number: t18860405-557

557. EDWARD ROGERS (40) and FREDERICK BODE (42) , Unlawfully conspiring with William Thomas Lowden and others by false pretences to cheat and defraud Eugene Schmalz.

MESSRS. BESLEY and NEVEN Prosecuted; MR. BLACKWELL defended Bode.

HERMANN HACHEN . I am a Swiss, and represent, in this country, Messrs. Guenin and Schwalz, manufacturers of watches in Switzerland—

on 23rd September I put an advertisement in The Daily Telegraph and received this reply: (This was dated "321, Liverpool Road, Islington, 23rd September, 1885," stating that in reply to advertisement he would take a commission for the sale of watches to the wholesale and shipping trades, amongst whom he had an extensive connection and eleven years' experience [Signed] Edward Rogers") Rogers called on me at 39, Claremont Square, and I talked the matter over with him—he said he could give any security required, and that he lived at 321, Liverpool Road, which belonged to him—I went and found him there on 1st October, 1885, and talked matters over, and these were the final terms he wrote down, which I acceded to: "321, Liverpool Road, Islington, 1st October, 1885.—Mr. Hermann Hachen, 39, Claremont Square—Dear Sir,—I beg to confirm our arrangement of this date to represent the sale of your watches on the following terms, namely, that you pay me a commission of 3 per cent, on all orders, as follows: half commission (1 1/2 per cent) to be paid on delivery of goods to the customer and the balance of 1 1/2 per cent, on receipt from the customer of payment for the same"—I gave his eleven sample watches to procure orders and he signed this: "321, Liverpool Road—Received from Mr. H. Hachen eleven watches as samples—Edward Rogers"—the value was 10l.—they were made of silver and metal—I have never had any of them back or any money for them, nor have I seen them—on 16th October I got this letter from Rogers: "Your favour of 14th inst. I received yesterday morning. I have now the pleasure of enclosing two orders from Messrs. Bowers and Co., the well-known shippers, &c. I shall have a few more orders for you to-morrow," &c.—These two orders were enclosed—I don't think they are in Rogers writing (Signed Wm. Bowers and Co.)—I had forty-two watches in stock, but not enough to meet those orders—I had never heard the name of Bowers and Co.—I believed them to be a London firm—on 17th October I saw Rogers at his house, when he repeated that they were a very good firm and that he had known them for years and had also done business with them satisfactorily—on the same day I delivered the watches—nothing was said about payment for them—I handed over forty-two watches on that occasion, value 27l. 6s., on account of the 116 ordered—I took a list of their numbers—the firm were to be paid thirty days after delivery—I have seen thirty-six of them at Harrison's, a pawnbroker's in Aldersgate-street—I got no money for them—Rogers gave me this billon 10th November: "London, November 20th, 1885—Two months after date pay to our order 27l. 6s. value received.—Guenin and Schmalz. To Messrs. Bowers and Co., 67, Bishopshate Street Within, London, E.C. Accepted payable at the Middlesex Banking Co., Leadenhall Street. W. Bowers and Co. Indorsed Guenin and Schmalz—E. Schmalz." I sent it to my principals in Switzerland, and it was returned, indorsed "Account closed"—on 26th October I received this letter from Rogers (Requesting Bowers and Co. to hurry their order on as much as possible and all other orders. E. Rogers")—that refers to about twelve dozen from Switzerland for sale here—I wrote to Rogers about 18th November—he replied "In reply to your favour of yesterday, to hand this morning, I have to-day called on Messrs. Bowers and Co. and ascertained that thirteen levers are what they require, &c.; E. Rogers."—the three orders enclosed are headed "The London Watch and Jewellery Co." (signed "F. B.")—the three orders represent 189 watches—I parted with sixty-nine to Rogers to deliver to the company—

this bill for 43l. 17s. 3d. was enclosed in respect of the sixty-nine watches—Rogers told me it was an old-established company, that he had done business with them for a long time in jewellery, and considered them safe for the amount, and I believed it was a real company carrying on business—I did not see Bode—there were fifteen delivered to him at one time and fifty-four after, making sixty-nine—after the bill was dishonoured I went to the place of business about a dozen times, but the door was locked and I never saw any one—I have got some money in respect of the sixty-nine watches since the charge was made—about 3rd December I got this letter from Rogers (Enclosing an offer from Mr. Lowden for watches)—Rogers never told me that Lowden was in the provision trade, or that he and Lowden took the place for Bowers and Co.—I knew nothing about the cheese business—I parted with the five and a half dozen and a dozen and a half more—I had a receipt from the railway carrier—I have seen seventy-eight of them at Harrison's, the pawnbroker's—I have not seen the six missing—I know them by the actual numbers which were on them when I received them from Switzerland—I went to 14, High Street, Kingsland, and saw Lowden's wife—I got no part of the 39l. 18s. or he value of the eighty-four watches—I delivered no more watches after Lowden's lot—I went about a dozen times to Liverpool-road to see Rogers without success—I wrote to him frequently and got one answer—this is one of my letters. (Stating that Bowers and Co.'s acceptance also had been dishonoured, and that Lowden had not paid, and requesting the return of his samples)—I got a warrant against Lowden and Bode—a man made an appointment in the City afterwards and gave me 20l.—I told Moser about it—it is all I received in respect of those goods—the wholesale price of the goods is: Bode, 28l.; Lowden, 43l. 17s. and 39l. 19s.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. I took the 20l. on account of the watches relating to Bode—I never saw him in the transaction—all I know of him is what I derived from these three orders and that bill of exchange—Rogers did not say anything about Bode, but the London Watch Company—I delivered the 69 watches to Rogers, but not the watches for Lowden—they were sent by the Parcels Delivery Company—the watches for Bowers and Co. I gave to Rogers on 17th October—I cannot tell whether the bill was given in blank—the "W" seems to be over "shillings," but the next "a" seems to be under the other writing—I keep copies of the principal letters I write—I have not my book here—I do not make entries of letters I receive from my principals—they are endorsed in the usual business way—if a letter was addressed to me I should keep it; if it was addressed to a customer through me, I should send it to him—I should not make any entry of having received it—I will not swear that I did not receive a letter from my principals requiring an explanation about the orders of the London Watch Company—I keep my manufacturers' letters—I don't think I wrote to the London Watch Company asking for an explanation—beyond the 69 watches delivered to Rogers there has never been an application on the part of anybody, or order from the London Watch Company for delivery of a further portion of those goods—I received the 20l. on the 27th January—I was not told that the watches had not come into Bodes possession—I gave a receipt in full—I did not give a promise that I would not go on with any proceedings—I promised to give back the acceptance of the

London Watch Company to the person who gave me the 20l., if the police consented—I did not agree to take 20l. because I believed that Bode had not had the watches—I took it simply to save 20l.—I was never asked the question at the police-court—I know Leo—he is not a friend of mine—I did not give him a letter to take to Inspector Moser—I did not say to him that I thought Bode had been duped in the matter—I thought it better to save 20l., and I intended to give back the bill if the police would let me—I told Moser all I did—he told me had to speak to the Treasury about it—beyond the fact of delivering the watches to Rogers and receiving the bill there was nothing to show that the watches ever came into Bodes hands or the London Watch Company's—some of our customers require English hall-marked watches—they are made in Switzerland.

Cross-examined by ROGERS. Our terms were to pay 3 per cent, commission, half when the goods were delivered, and half when they were paid for—all the watches were made in Switzerland—I mentioned in my advertisement a special kind of watch—it was not an imitation of an English lever—the 23s. patent lever was a special make for Bowers and Co.—I consulted you about a die or stamp being made to stamp the boxes—it was required by Goldsmith's Hall; it was merely the stamp of our initials, and not for the purpose of stamping Swiss watches with the English hall-mark—Swiss watches were to be brought into the English market with the English hall-mark—that was not to cause the public to believe they were English watches—the movements were Swiss, and they were sold as Swiss watches—the public would know the difference—it was sometime before you could get the do—you ordered it by my instructions—I called on a Mr. Wright and obtained the die and paid for it—I stamped the faces of the watches with the die, and engraved on the works "patent lever" according to instructions—that was my custom—they were compensation balance—one night you called on me when I was preparing the stamp with this die—12 dozen were stamped, not in imitation at all, they were stamped at Goldsmith's Hall—I stamped them with our initals, and afterwards the Goldsmith's Hall people put their hall-mark on—I did not instruct you to get cards describing you as an English manufacturer—I consulted you about getting the hall-mark—I did not say it was necessary for me to believe you were an English manufacturer—I never took a card to Goldsmiths' Hall describing me as an English manufacturer—I had several answers to my advertisement—I thought you would be of service to me in more ways than one, my choice fell on you—I asked you for security—I did not insist upon it because I believed your good speech, and that you were really in the good position you pretended to be—I did not order from Switzerland a special watch with a metal winder and a silver case—not as a sample—three accounts were executed by your orders—they are the subject of this charge—the first order was Bowers and Co.—you said you knew them personally for some years, not that Bowers had a Government appointment, nor that he was an engineer in Her Majesty's Navy—I suggested that Bowers and Co. should give references, and that it would relieve you of responsibility—you called on them for references, and wrote me the result that Mr. Bowers would not give you references, but would write me direct—I afterwards received two references from Bowers and Co. in December—this is the letter

dated 21st December, 1881—I wrote to the addresses given—letters came back which gave us such good information that the Bank of England could not expect better—I afterwards wrote to you and complained that you were not giving sufficient attention to the watch business. (A letter of 22nd December, from the witness to Rogers was here produced stating, "You spend your time more voluntarily than on my manufactory.") I wrote for 26l.—at the same time brought you the goods to deliver to Bowers and Co. and to the Watch and Jewellery Company, with invoices on both occasions—the terms were one month's credit and 2 1/2 per cent allowed if paid within a month—within a fortnight of delivery I asked you to get bills on them—Bodes bill became due in December—Bowers and Co. would not accept for one month—at their request you made it two months—the third order, Lowden's, was taken two months after the others for seven dozen metal watches at 9s. 6d. each—you never told me Lowden was a provision dealer, nor that I could have any goods I liked from him, nor that he gave away goods on the bonus system—you told me Lowden was taking 120l. to 140l. a-week over the counter. (The prisoner being undefended by Counsel, the COURT warned him that he was fortifying the case for the prosecution by his cross-examination.) You did not tell me he rented his house from the North London Railway Company; nor that he paid 150l. a-year rent—Lowden's takings were for jewellery per week—you showed me his name in the directory as "Robert Lowden, Cheesemonger, 14, High Street, Kinsland"—you said the "W" was left out—at the end of 28 days after the goods were sent I called on Lowden—I saw his wife—I wrote him and you the same night—I told you I made an application for the money a fortnight after the goods were delivered—in reply you sent me a letter from Lowden, of 28th or 29th December—I sent him a statement at the end of the month—a few days afterwards I went to the police—Lowden's was an ordinary shop—I did not see any marble—there was a small counter in the back—it looked like a provision shop—I am not aware he was the proprietor of the Aylesbury Condensed Milk Company—one account was settled—Lowden offered me the money for the whole after you were in custody—that is the balance, allowing for the 20l. paid—I did not accept it because the police told me I did wrong in receiving the 20l.—I had no cards printed describing myself as a manufacturer.

Re-examined. A Mr. Macnamara brought the 20l.—the receipt was written as it is now—I put my name—I did not give the receipt to Macnamara—I said I would refer to the police—I gave as a reason that the 20l. was worth having—it was after I had gone to Margate I was examined as a witness, and Lowden was out on bail—it was about February—Lowden said he was the dupe of the others, and he wanted to pay the whole amount that was owing of the 123l.—the 123l. would represent the London Watch and Jewellery Company, Bowers and Co., and Lowden—I said I could not accept it; I had to speak to the police—he cried and said he was a ruined man; that he had to pay a large sum of money to a wine merchant for whom Rogers was travelling, and if I would not accept the money he would spend it in law, and that business would oblige him to sell his shop—he said he was the dupe of others, specially Rogers.

MAURICE MOSER (Detective Officer). Amongst the papers found at Rogers' residence were these six letters produced. (From the Witness

to Rogers, dated 18th, 21st, 28th, and 31st December, 1885, and one to Bower and Co., complaining of the non-settlement, of the dishonoured bill for 45l. 3s. 3d., and giving instructions to Rogers about the watches, and one from Schmalz and Co., of January 5th, 1886, dissolving Rogers' connection as agent for the firm.)

HENRY HACHEN (Re-examined). The London Watch and Jewellery Company had asked for more goods, though their bill was dishonoured, so Rogers said in his letters—I replied that that was ridiculous—I called there three or four times a day—I got no reply to the letter of 5th January nor to its demand to return the fourteen watches in hand—I sent a copy of it to Rogers by registered post—I had no reply to that—the Goldsmiths' Company marked the silver and the gold goods differently—all the marks were genuine—my own die was simply for my initials—the Swiss movements in watches are quite different to the English, an ordinary person can tell it—the customer, Bower and Co., suggested putting on the words "Patent Lever" by letter and by word of mouth also—I believed Rogers' statement about Lowden doing 100l. a week over the counter—my discovery of Lowden's real character was after I had parted with my goods.

By MR. BLACKWELL. I did not get a receipt signed in the name of the Watch and Jewellery Company, for the watches that had been delivered as registered in my letter of 28th December.

By MR. BESLEY. I had Bodes acceptance long before the request—no complaint came from the Jewellery Company that they had not the goods.

EDOUARD CHARLET . I am a professor of the French language at 57, Bishopsgate Street Within—I had a room to let, and two gentlemen, Rogers and Lowden, called on 6th October about it—I saw them again on 17th February in the dock—Lowden said he was a general merchant, or agent—the room was fitted as a schoolroom—the conversation took place in it—there was a long table with a green cloth, and two cane-bottom and four sitting-room chairs covered with American cloth, and eighteen hat hooks—Lowden asked me the rent—I said 30s. a month paid in advance—he said he wanted the room directly, and paid the money—I gave him a receipt dated the 7th and a key, and said they could use the room till next day—I asked them what name I was to make out the receipt in—one of them said, "W. Bower and Co."—a few days after they wrote "W. Bower and Co." on the door downstairs—the tenancy lasted till 10th or 11th January—on 7th November, as I did not see them, I put a note in their box to ask for the rent—I put another a few days after in which I said if they did not give me the money at once I would make an end of the tenancy—the money was put in my box wrapped in paper, and with that they asked for a receipt to be put in their box—on 7th December the same thing occurred—on 10th or 11th January I let the room to Richard Norman, who is there now—there was nothing more in it when I relet it.

Cross-examined by Rogers. It was about 5.30 when you and the other gentleman called—I could not see very well—I lit the gas—I said I could not swear to the two men at the police-court. (Deposition read.) I think the defendants, Rogers and Lowden, are the two, but I am not certain—if it was you I have seen you before now, if not I have not.

WILLIAM SKINNER . I am manager to Messrs. Gardners and Co., Engineers, 2, New Broad Street, City—Broad Street House adjoins the premises in which a room was to let in October last-Bode applied for

the room, asking the rent, etc.—I took him into the first floor back room—the rent was to be 15l. a year, payable quarterly, unfurnished—he gave his name, Frederick Bode—he said he was an agent for a manufacturing jeweller—he also dealt in cigars, and that the room was required for keeping samples and for occasional use in seeing customers—I gave him possession on 19th October—the name was put up on the door outside, "Bode and Co., first floor,' and on the room itself "The London Watch and Jewellery Company"—there was a slit in the door for letters—I saw him pass the house on several occasions—I also saw Lowden go there—no furniture was brought to my knowledge—on hearing of police proceedings we regained possession through the brokers—the room was in the same condition as when we let it.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. The entrance to the building is in an enclosed yard—there are only two floors—there are two other tenants, one holding offices in the next house, the room being always locked except when he brings customers to show his samples; the other, a German, had a notice on the door, "Will not return till March 5th"—there was a tin-plate worker in the front room—I did, not apply personally for the rent, but the application would be made from our chief office—as far as I could see Bode only came for letters—Lowden stayed two or three minutes when he came—part of my business that morning was to see who fetched the letters—I was not asked that at the police-court—whatever is in the deposition I must have said—I had a reason for noticing any one who went in and therefore for noticing Lowden—when I said "I saw Lowden at the house, I was in my yard and he passed close to me, I had never seen him before, I had no reason for noticing him," that was in answer to your questions about his personal appearance—I will not swear that question was not put by Mr. Richards.

Re-examined. I said at the police-court, "I am sure he is the man," and then I was cross-examined as to Lowden's beard and whiskers, and I said I did not notice—he came so close to me I am sure he was the man—two workmen are employed in the tin-plate worker's room.

ALFRED OWEN MILLER . I am a clerk at the London and General Bank at 20, Budge Row—this bill of exchange for 43l. 17s. 3d. was accepted, payable at our bank—the words written on it are, "F. Bode, Manager—it is impossible to say positively whether the acceptance was written before or after the bill was written—the bill would fall due on 14th December—it was drawn on 11th November—it was presented for payment and marked "No account"—F. Bode had no account at our bank—we know nothing of the London Watch and Jewellery Company.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. It is common for a customer to accept a bill payable at a bank where he has no account—it is customary, if the bill is not to be met, to pay it into the bank not to be cleared—the bill may be dishonoured although there are funds to meet it on a general acceptance.

Re-examined. The bill is addressed to the London Watch and Jewellery Company, Broad Street Buildings, 2, New Broad Street, London, E. C.—I have been four years at the bank—we do not take account of bills returned—we have a great number—it would be different if the person has an account—I have no doubt there would be some in March.

JOHN LOVELL DENNING . I am cashier of the Middlesex Banking Company, 90, Leadenhall Street—I produce a copy of the account of Bowers and Co. from our ledger—(MR. BLACKWELL objected that by the Banker's Act it was necessary to prove the bank made a return to the Inland Revenue Department. MR. BESLEY explained that Act was modified by the Friendly Societies' Debtors' Act, 45 & 46 Vic. c. 72)—the bank started in April, 1885—it is registered as a limited company—I am the secretary—a proper return and list of shareholders and summary have been left at Somerset House, and is in the office—the ledger from which the copy is taken is a book properly kept in the course of business—(this statement showed a credit balance of 17s. on 1st January, 1886, against which was a debit cheque to "Ernest" of £1,on 4th January)—the account was then closed by order of the Board—I informed Bowers and Co. of it.

Cross-examined by Rogers. I have seen Bowers—he is not Lowden—he is above the middle height, rather slim, and between 35 and 40—I did not know Lusher—he had an account at our bank—I do not think his Account is closed—I did not understand that he was in partnership with Bowers—Bowers' signature was registered—the cheque is the same signature.

Re-examined. The manager told me Bowers' name—I never knew anybody else call him Bowers—I do not know who "Ernest" is.

WILLIAM ATTEWELL . I am an assistant to Henry Harrison, of 41, Aldersgate Street—I produce two specimens of 31 silver watches, one metal and one silver—Mr. Hachen has seen the whole—36 were pledged for 18l. for three months in the name of Lowden—I have known Lowden as a provision dealer—I saw him at the police-court—the time expired before I had notice.

HERMANN HACHEN (Re-examined). I have compared the numbers, and find the numbers of the 36 watches referred to by Attewell are the same as some of the 44 watches I supplied to Bowers and Co. on 17th October.

WALTER HEWETT SEWELL . I am assistant to Mr. Lawrence, Pawn-broker, of 250, Upper Street, Islington—I produce a silver watch pledged with me on 7th November, in the name of John Hodges, 2 John Street—Rogers is that person.

Cross-examined by Rogers. You might have given the name of Rogers—you generally do pledge in that name.

Re-examined. Rogers had pledged clothes with me and taken them out—I thought he was a respectable man—I cannot say if I saw him between September, 1883, and March, 1885.

HERMANN HACHEN (Re-examined). This watch is the 37th of the 44 supplied to Bowers and Co.

Cross-examined by Rogers. I do not recollect one of the sample watches supplied to you being out of order—I will not swear I did not say I would get another one—you could exchange a sample watch that was out of order before you delivered them to Bowers and Co.

Re-examined. Rogers never mentioned that he had done so; I never gave him authority to pawn his own or Bowers' sample—he never told me he had pawned it.

ALFRED VOKINS . I am an assistant to Smith and Dymond, pawnbrokers, of Newgate Street—I produce a metal watch, pledged on the 1st December, 1885, in the name of George Sims, 14, Liverpool Road, for 6s.; also a

watch pawned on 19th January, in the same name, of 2, Finsbury Street, E.C.

HERMANN HACHEN (Re-examined). These are some of the watches—the one pawned on 19th January, is from the parcel of 84, delivered to Lowden.

Cross-examined by Rogers. I sent 83 direct to Lowden.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. Those sent to the London Watch and Jewellery Company, were six in a box, and I have only the number of the box—they had five, and Rogers one; I do not recollect what number I gave to each.

WILLIAM ATTEWELL (Re-examined). I produce a specimen of 78 watches, pledged on 19th December at Mr. Harrison's, for 15l. 12s., in the name of Lowden, the same man as pledged the other—he was at the police court—I have allowed Mr. Hachen to examine them.

HERMANN HACHEN (Re-examined). This is one of the 78 watches in Lowden's parcel, sold 17th December—I sent them by Parcels Delivery Company—that would occupy a day.

THOMAS LEON GUETTIER . Rogers lodged with me at 321, Liverpool Road, Islington for six months from about June, 1885—Mr. Moss is the owner of the house—Rogers has no interest in it.

MATTHEW MOSS . I am a wholesale cheese dealer, of 342, Stedford Road, Hulm, near Manchester—in consequence of the letter produced I supplied a person named Lowden with samples—he paid me 2l. or 3l. on account—I saw him at the police-court—I received this letter from Lowden. (Not dated, and recommending Bowers and Co. at customers.) Also this letter. (9th October, 1885, from Bowers and Co., asking for price list.) Then I got this letter. (14th October, 1885, order for 60 cheeses at 66s. per act., from Bowers and Co.) I sent the 66 cheeses, value 98l. 3s. 6d.—I expected cash—on 19th October I called at Bowers and Co.'s offices at 57, Bishopsgate Street, Within—I saw Rogers—there was a desk in the room, five or six feet long, a few chairs, samples of sardines, of which he gave Lowden to give me a box—Lowden was not there when I first went in—I told Rogers I had come for the money for the cheeses—he told me he was the traveller for Bowers and Co., that Mr. Bowers was gone to Ireland, and that Mr. Lusher, one of the firm, would be in in a few minutes, and in a short time he came in—I told him what I told Rogers—Lusher said, in Rogers' presence, that he was sorry he could not do anything for me; that Mr. Bowers had gone to Ireland—not being able to get any money, I went to Lowden's address, 14, High Street, Kingsland—I told Lowden I had been to Bishopsgate Street with respect to my account, and they could do nothing for me, and I asked him what sort of firm they were, as he had represented them to be a respectable firm carrying on the trade of shippers in Bishopsgate Street—he said he would go there with me—he said they had a warehouse down at Brewer's Quay, and had horses and vans to deliver their goods out—I went with Lowden to Bishopsgate Street—I found the door closed, and a note fixed in the door, "Be in again about three or four," or something like that—Lowden put a card in the box fixing a time to meet—we went again at the appointed time, and were admitted to the room—Lusher and Lowden had some conversation—I urged them to give me my money—Lowden said that being the first transaction he considered they were not treating me in a gentlemanly sort of way, and he ought to have paid

cash—Lusher said he would give me a cheque for 10l., and a bill for the remainder—I got a cheque for 10l., and Lowden cashed it for me—this bill was given to me for 83l. 3s. 6d., dated 20th October, for a month—Lusher wrote it—I passed it to my bankers—it came back to me, I believe, through its having a wrong stamp—it was a 3d. stamp—I sent it to Somerset House and it had a 9d. stamp added—I issued a writ against Bowers and Co.—I only got the 10l.—I received this letter of 25th November from Lowden, headed "By Special Appointment" (with the Royal Arms and Prince of Wales's Feathers) "Aylesbury Condensed Milk Co., Purveyor to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. W. R. Lowden, Proprietor," 11th November, 1885. (Advising witness to send Bowers a solicitor's letter.) I afterwards got this from Lowden. (Advising the witness to sue Bowers, ordering more cheese, and asking if he could do with some Irish butter.) Also this letter. (From the Sandringham Direct Supply Association, 14, High Street, Kingsland, 17th November, 1885, stating that Lowden had not seen Bowers; that he had some Irish eggs equal to new laid, and would forward a case of 1,200; asking whether he should return the 18 Cheddars not sold, or accept an offer two of them.) Lowden returned the 18 cheeses—they had nothing to do with the sixty—they were samples—I went to learn something about Bowers and Co., at Brewer's Quay—I could not find any one who knew them.

Cross-examined by Rogers. You said your parents were farmers in Cheshire—I slept at Lowden's three or four hours after looking after Bowers and Co.—Lowden's was a bussines should not have liked to have carried on—I saw a few coppers taken—Lowden's wife took the money in a desk—I do not think he had any cheeses, there were some boxes and one or two half-cheeses on the counter.

Re-examined. I have been to London three times to find Bowers and Co., the solicitors could not serve the writ—I might have gone to the shop three or four times a day making inquiries—on one occasion I saw some letters in the box at Bowers and Co.'s office, and was determined to wait and see who fetched them—I saw Rogers come up the steps and I had a conversation with him, Lowden being with me, respecting the cheese being sent, the money not being paid and the bill dishonoured—Lowden made some suggestion to him, as he did every time—Lowden took possession of the letters—it was suggested that we should go down to Brewer's Quay, and I thought I would see who cleared the letter-box—we had met a man on the steps—Lowden said "Good morning, Mr. Bowers"—he said "My name is not Bowers"—when I went back I met the man coming out, and the letter box was cleared—I was not away more than two or three minutes—I did not see the man take the letters—I believe it was Bode.

By MR. BLACKWELL. I was never asked that before—I did not say it at the police-court.

HERMANN HACHEN (Re-examined). This bill for 83l. was accepted, payable at my bank, the Middlesex Bank—it was dishonoured—the proper stamp is 1s.

ALFRED MARSH . I am a provision merchant, at High Street, Brierly Hill, Staffordshire—in July last I sold 18l. or 19l. worth of provisions to William Lowden—I was paid for the first transaction—I received these letters. (One of 29th October, 1885, from Bowers and Co., referring to Lowden's purchase, and asking for price-list of hams, the other, without date,

pressing for reply.) The amount would have been about 100l.—I did not supply them—contemporaneously Lowden got goods to the amount of 90l. between the 19th and 30th October—he sent me a cheque signed by his wife; it was not paid—I received a bill signed in the name of Rogers, which I returned to him—I hare not been paid—the number of hams was 200.

Cross-examined by Rogers. I was not asked at the police-court about the bill signed Rogers—Lowden's shop was in a good position—from Lowden's conversations I thought he was doing a good business—I was introduced to Lowden by Manly, a commission agent.

JOHN SMITH (Police Inspector). I took Lowden at 14, High Street, Kingsland—he was charged with conspiracy and fraud—Rogers, Bode, Lustier, and Bowers and Co. are mentioned in the warrant—Lusher was a tall thin man; I have endeavoured, but have been unable, to find him—Lowden was admitted to bail; he appeared on three occasions—after Mr. Moss gave his evidence he absconded, some time between February and 10th March—I found at Lusher's residence a number of printed cards—I have seen Lowden write several times.

MAURICE MOSER . I have known Bode about two years—I took both prisoners; Rogers on 25th January in the Liverpool Road—I was with Smith and White—he was entering a Hansom—I said "Are you Ropers?"—he said "Yes"—I said "We are police officers, and we are going to arrest you"—he said "What for?"—I said "I hold a warrant for conspiracy to defraud Mr. Hachen out of a quantity of watches"—I read it to him, he made no reply; it was similar to the one referred to by Smith—on the way to the station I said "Of course you know Lowden?"—he said "He had 30l. worth of watches from me"—he was charged at the police-station and made no reply—White, on my instructions, brought Bode to Clerkenwell Police-station, where I was waiting for him, on 2nd February—I said "You are Mr. Bode?"—he said "Yes, I know all about it"—I then read the warrant to him, and he made the following statement, which I took down in writing at the time: "I never received any of the goods, and a bill was got out of me in blank to oblige Rogers. Rogers brought his own cards and asked me to do some business for him. I agreed to it. I gave him an order for watches. There was a dispute about the goods, as they never came. He got a bill out of me, and promised me goods, which I never had; since then the bill has been paid. I do not deny having offices as the London Watch and Jewellery Company,' but Rogers induced me to take those offices." I then knew of Hachen taking 20l. of Macnamara, and I told him he was liable, and ought not to have taken any money at all.

Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. Bode was taken by White at, Sandford Hill—we looked for him some time and watched his offices at Broad Street.

Re-examined. Every endeavour has been made to find Lowden.

By MR. BLACKWELL. The Magistrate admitted Bode to bail on the same recognizances as before.

HARRY WHITE (Detective Sergeant). Examined by MR. BLACKWELL. I received instructions from Inspector Moser on 2nd February to arrest Bode about a week before I knew his whereabouts—he has been to various pawnbrokers with me since his apprehension—I had difficulty in

finding him—I went to his house, he was not there—I went to ask him to speak to Moser at the police-court.

Re-examined. He took me to one pawnbroker which was no good—I found him the second time.

Cross-examined by Rogers. I called at Lowden's shop twice before the warrant was issued—I represented that I had jewellery to sell because Lowden surprised me by saying he was Lowden, and I made the best excuse I could—Lowden had an apron on, but no trade was going on in the shop—it is a large shop but there was not much stock—I call anywhere as a traveller—I have not travelled in the provision line—from the position of the shop I should think he was good for 30l. or 40l.—I have not heard that Lowden obtained a judgment against Lusher.

Re-examined. Before the warrant was issued I had to make inquiries and received information that a man named Lowden only occupied one room upstairs, and on my going there Lowden said, "I am Mr. Lowden"—I saw no sign of jewellery in the shop.

Rogers, in his defence, stated that Charlet could not swear he was the man who left the office, that Bowers had been an engineer in H.M.S. service, left through an injury to his hands and had asked him to do business with him and Lusher as shippers, and he obtained an order for Hachen in the ordinary way; that Hachen, approving of Bowers and Co.'s references, blamed him for not doiny more business with them, and he was himself deceived as much as Hachen; that Bowers brought an action against and seized Lusher's property and the watches among them; that he pressed Bode for payment and that he did hit best in the matter and called on Lowden and on Bowers as a commercial traveller and stated that his representations were true and that he had been in custody since 25th January.

ROGERS*†— GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude. BODE**— Twenty Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, April 9th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-458

458. WILLIAM SEYMOUR BOURNE (41) , Feloniously using a certain stone on which was engraved a promissory note of the Colonial Bank; other counts for having parts of engraved notes in his possession.

MESSRS. EDWARD CLARKE POLAND, and H. AVORY Prosecuted; MESSRS. LOCKWOOD and GRAIN Defended.

EDWIN FREWIN . I am a photo-lithographer at 11, Lavender Road, Clapham Junction—I first saw the prisoner on 6th February this year, when he showed me two prints and asked me if I could reproduce them, and then he showed me two sides, the back and front of a five dollar Colonial bank note like this and asked me if I could print copies of it for advertising purposes from a stone which he already had—I said I could—he asked me the price for printing 5,000 or 10,000 copies and if I could make blocks or stamps to fill in the blank spaces—I said I dare say I can manage them—he gave me the address, "W. S. Bourne, 11, Amersham Park Road, New Cross—I told him if this had been a Bank of England note it would not be allowed to be copied—he said that it was for advertising purposes and he did not think it would make

any difference as the bank was not in existence now, but that ho would inquire whether the bank was in existence and whether it was right to copy it—he went away leaving those portions of the note with me that he had showed me—he asked me if I could find the paper—I said I should prefer his finding it—I sent him the price by post on Saturday and he wrote to me on the Sunday (This stated that he was making inquiries and if he found it would be legal he would call)—he called on me on the Monday and said he had not had time to make any inquiry but that he would do so and let me know, and he repeated that he believed there would be no harm in printing it as he believed the bank was not in existence—he asked again if I could make him stamps for the blank spaces and whether they could be done at once—I explained they could all be printed at one printing—he asked me for the two pieces of the notes, the copies he had given me, and I gave them to him, and he left with me this small reproduction of the Times, saying he would probably give me an order for a similar reproduction of a Colonial newspaper—he asked if he left me the customers address would I pack and forward them to the colonies as it would give him a little trouble—he left asking me if he made the inquiries and came to the conclusion to give me the order for printing and forwarded me the stone and the paper and a cheque, would I complete the order and send it to the address he had given me—I told him yes—I never saw or heard from him again—on the Saturday after he left and before he called on the Monday I looked in the Directory and finding the bank existed I communicated with the Colonial Bank.

Cross-examined. The pieces of paper were left with me from the Saturday to the Monday—he said when he first came he was inquiring with regard to certain modes of advertising—he did not tell me then it had been done in the case of the old West Indian Bank, of Bridgetown, Barbadoes, for advertising purposes—I don't think that was the bank he told me which was not in existence, he may have—I have thought over every word he said—I knew nothing about colonial notes—I was doubtful whether it was allowable to copy them, knowing that it was not to copy Bank of England notes—I sent the price to him of 6l. for 5,000, or 10l. for 10,000.

RICHARD GODSALL KIMBER . I am secretary to Hughes and Kimber, Limited, manufacturers of printing machinery—on 12th February the prisoner came for a lithographic press with all necessary materials—I showed him presses, and he selected one of the smallest—he gave his address "W. S. Bourne, Amersham Park Road, New Cross"—a lithographic printer named Ramsay was with him—the prisoner paid for the press, this is the invoice and receipt (produced)—I know nothing about the pencil memoranda on the invoice—they were not made by me, or in my presence, or to my knowledge, and they were not on the document when we parted with it—the press was sent to his address—he asked if we could pack and send it abroad if he wished it—this is the press (produced)—these stones have been used—on them now is "Hughes and Kimber," with an address and rough sketches of a cottage and of a head—those have been put there since we parted with them—when I saw the materials afterwards some of the ink had been used.

Cross-examined. I understand lithography—this (the imitation note) is lithographed; I could tell it at once, there is a sort of blurred look as

compared with the sharp impression of an engraving—they fill up the blanks by means of this stamp; the blank date and number would be set up in type, a transfer taken on to stone, and then the required parts of notes printed from the stone—if you required to vary the numbers you would have to vary them on the stones, and so increase the number of stones, but you could print half a dozen at once by overlapping the notes—you could not in that way fill up all the blanks on each note at the same time; but I should have one stone for one blank and another stone for another blank, and so on, a stone to represent each blank—the proper and easiest way of filling up the numbers would be by a rotary stamp—these stones are used a great deal in business for the purpose of small circulars and duplicate letters to a great number of customers.

CARL HENSCHEL . I am sub-manager to the Direct Photo Engraving Company, No. 85, Farringdon Street—I first saw the prisoner on Monday, February 22; he came and asked whether we had any novelties for advertising purposes—I said we did not go in for that, we were simply reproducers—he showed me a portrait of the Princess of Wales, a coloured chromo, and a proof of a Colonial Bank note which I took to be a circular—I believe it was the back and front of one—he asked whether I could print them—I said we could, and he asked a price for about 5,000—I said 1l. per 1,000, 5l. for 5,000—he asked if he brought the stone if we would print them, and if we could supply the paper, or if I could recommend him to a place where he could get the paper—I recommended him to Messrs. Tanner and Co., Salisbury Square—he showed me also a coloured photo and asked if we went into that—I showed him specimens of our work—he seemed satisfied with the price, and said he would bring or send the stone—next day ho brought this stone wrapped in brown paper, with a piece of white paper gummed over it so as to protect the surface—he left the stone and said the paper would follow; would we have them printed—I asked his name; he said, "Stanley, Gannon Street Hotel"—shortly after, on the same day, a packet of paper came from Messrs. Starkey and Sons, with a letter signed Stanley, (This was headed "12 o'clock, Tuesday, February 23," and requested that a proof might be ready at 5 p.m., as he was leaving for the North next day, and that it should be taken from his paper then sent). In consequence of that we got a proof ready, and about 5 o'clock the prisoner called again and I handed him one or two proofs similar to these, but printed on large paper back and front and not cut down—he seemed satisfied with them and simply asked whether we could print them a little bit lighter or greyer, I believe he said lighter—I said we could easily do that—I mentioned to him that we had enough paper to print about 7,000, and he told me to use it all up and that he wanted them the following Monday—he asked if we could get them packed up in a light deal box for shipping with his mark on, a diamond I believe—I said it should be seen to and then he left—he did not pay—I did not see him again till he was in custody—our attention was called to the matter, and our secretary made inquiries at the Colonial Bank—we had printed a few more notes in the interval—I have compared this genuine note with the proofs we printed, and they are a photographic fac-simile of it, with the exception of blanks for the name of the branch, the number, the signature, and the date—this was one of those we printed—I should say the paper which we used was as close a match as you could get in the trade to that of the genuine note—this one, except for the colour

and dirt, is, precisely the same as the one we printed—dropping a note into any brown liquid would produce this colour—I should say it was printed from the same stone—the name of the engravers, Perkins and Bacons, appears on the stone and on the note.

Cross-examined. The original note is from a steel engraving, and is sharp and clear—I should not call this other good work for lithography; it was cheaply done, I believe; we did not do it, it appears to me rough work—I don't say the paper is the same, but it is a close match—we had no instructions to cut the notes, and as they were printed four on one slip we should have packed them like that for shipping—I understood we were to ship them—we employ about 30 men—the order was not allotted to any particular men, but simply given into the printing room in the ordinary course of business—I took the order thinking it was an advertising novelty—he just discussed the Princess of Wales's portrait with me and I showed him a specimen of Tit Bits among our specimens, and he asked about that and I said if he wanted anything done with regard to that he must apply at Tit Bits office; I believe he asked if he could get copies of it—we had not got them, Tit Bits had—I did not catch the remark he made about how the case was to be marked—there was something about a diamond, but I did not catch the letters—he might have said "W.S.B." in a diamond; he mentioned some letters—he said nothing about letters finding him at Gannon Street Hotel—he asked if I could recommend him to a firm of photographers, and I recommended him to Meisenbach and Co.; he wanted some photographs reproduced—we were talking about advertising novelties.

Re-examined. He asked me not to let the proofs be seen by anybody, as tome one might take the idea; I think those were his words.

ALFRED SAMUEL CORTRAY . I am in the employment of Messrs. Starkey and Co., of 27, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars, wholesale stationers and exporters—on 8th February the prisoner came and said he wanted an imitation parchment paper suitable for school certificates for the West Indies—I showed him samples of that and of real parchment—he merely examined them and left, saying he would bring a small sample of what he wanted, and then perhaps we could judge—next day he came again, and brought a very small slip about one-eighth of an inch wide and six or seven inches long—I thought it was a hand-made paper, and showed him samples fit for school certificates—he asked the price, and took the sample sheets away with him—on 23rd February he brought a plain piece of paper as a sample of what he wanted—it was not part of what I had given him before—I afterwards gave it to the officer—I told the prisoner I could match it—he asked the shipping price of two reams of it; I told him—he then gave me an order for two reams to be delivered at the Direct Photographic Company, 85, Farringdon Street—I made out a receipted invoice for 4l. 6s. in the name of Stanley, the name he gave me, and he paid cash, and I gave him the invoice—there is no margin at the bottom of this genuine note—the slip he brought me as a sample is similar to the margin at the top of the note—while I was making out the receipt he said, "I want to write a note to send with the two reams"—I gave him paper and envelopes, and showed him to a desk, and he wrote a note and handed it to me—I afterwards sent it with the paper to the Direct Photographic Company—the lad brought me back a receipt

for the paper—the paper we supplied is something very similar to that of the genuine note.

Cross-examined. It is hand-made paper, cream-laid medium—I do not say it is the same as that the note is made on; one is thicker than the other, there is a difference between the papers.

Re-examined. I have had some years' experience with paper, and could tell the difference by the touch.

ALFRED BACON . I am clerk and bookkeeper to Perkins, Bacon, and Co., of 69, Fleet Street, and son of one of the partners—they print the notes of the Colonial Bank—this note is a genuine one of that bank, printed by us—they all bear the name of our firm as printers, back and front—we print the body of the note from a steel plate, leaving blanks for the date, number, place of issue, and signature, and those blanks are afterwards filled in when we get the order for the particular branch—the branch and the date are stamped by hand, the first two figures of the date being on the plate, and the last two being stamped—the numbers are put on by a rotary machine, and the signatures are written on by the bank manager and accountant—this note printed from the stone is a facsimile of the original note, leaving the blanks; it contains our name on front and back—I can see in the blank space for the date a faint trace of the date 1st July, 1884. which corresponds with that of this genuine note—the date and number pasted on this paper appear to have been cut out of the genuine note; I trace round the numbers and letters the stamp writing of the genuine note—the date and figures have been altered in pencil, the 4 of 1884 to 0, and the F to E in the numbers.

Cross-examined. Our note was worked from a steel engraving, and was sharp and clear, and easily distinguished from the blurred appearance of a lithographic note—one of these is much darker than the other; I cannot say if that is the fault of lithography—we are copperplate printers—the stamp writing is on the lithographic note, but it is very blurred and indistinct, and difficult to make out as being there.

Re-examined. Where the date and numbers have been cut out the stamp writing has been attempted to be filled up, but it does not run regularly across as it should, and is far more indistinct than the other.

GORDON WILLIAM TURNER . I am assistant secretary to the Colonial Bank—I produce the Charter of incorporation—I have been there nearly 20 years, and was in the West Indies 11 years—I have counted thousands of these notes—if these notes were completed and presented with genuine ones we should probably take and cancel them without looking at it further—I should think this has been deposited in a solution to make it look old—genuine notes get into this condition very soon by usage; after being in use some time they feel quite different to when first issued, they get nasty and sticky.

Cross-examined. W. S. Bourne and Co. had an account with the bank in Demerara, when I was there, about 1876 and 1877; it was no specially large amount that my attention would be called to—I could not say if it was a substantinl account; I took no notice of what was not more than ordinary commercial accounts—I believe I was asked that at the police court—I have since looked through some account books, I have not found that between 1874 and 1879, 40,000l. bills were purchased on London—I cannot say if I was asked that question before—I believe I was asked

whether thousands had passed through their account, we have no means of ascertaining—I have looked through our accounts casually, there has not been time to communicate with Demerara, we had four weeks, and it takes six weeks for the home and return voyage—I cannot say I know they were permitted to over draw their accounts on mail days—I was not asked that before—I believe I said before "Bourne and Co. used frequently to buy our three months, bills in Demerara; my memory as to these transactions is now very small, and does not serve me; I fancy we can find out the amount of three months, bills bought by this firm"—I did not try to find that out, I don't know why, it was no business of mine to do so—Mr. Humphrey's clerk called at the bank to obtain information with regard to this; he was refused any information, and was told to the effect that it was a piece of impertinence his having come—I believe there was such a bank as the old West Indian Bank, Barbadoes; I know nothing about it, it was before my time—it has ceased to exist—I never heard that the prisoner had been printing his name on the notes of the Colonial Bank, in circulation, or that the bank quarrelled with him on that account—I could give you some information as to Bourne and Co. for dealing with the bank, out I should have to bring records for years and years; I was asked about it at the police court, I had the means at my disposal to obtain the information, but I have not done so.

Re-examined. Bourne and Co. ceased their transactions at our bank in 1879 I think—we cannot trace that they had any account with the Barbadoes Bank last year—returns are made to the bank every fortnight, from its branches of current accounts, and drafts advanced—if the books have been kept, they are still in possession of the bank, and could be examined—firms do not always buy bills from us in Demerara, they might do so for other bankers, so the information in our books would be incomplete.

By MR. LOCKWOOD. Our manager reported to us that Bourne and Co. were in the habit of sending money over in specie instead of buying our bills—we at first refused to let them open an account, but that at the request of Mr. Quick we allowed them to, on the condition that it was never never overdrawn and that no facilities of any kind should be given—they did open the account—it was before that he was sending the bullion.

ROBERT CHILD (Detective Sergeant, City). On 26th February, about noon, I and two other detectives were watching the prisoner and arrested him at Cannon Street Railway Station—I said "We are detectives, I shall arrest you—you will be charged with knowingly having in your possession a lithographic stone for the making or printing of parts of a bank bill or blank bank-note of the Colonial Bank without lawful authority or excuse—he said "Yes; I did not know I was doing wrong; I intended it for advertisement"—he asked to be allowed to go and see a friend—I told him he could not—on the way to the Old Jewry he said "They ought to have told me I was doing wrong"—I said "Who?"—he said "The lithographers; they told me they had printed bank-notes before"—I searched his office, and in a pocket-book found the lithographed notes with the blanks and the original notes and this stained note, a piece of paper with the date and numbers on it cut out of the original note—also the receipt for two reams of paper from Starkey and Son in the name of Stanley—he was taken to Bishopsgate Street Police-station and charged with having these notes his possession—he said the two were pulled off

the stone and the other was the original note—he gave his name as William Seymour Bourne, and his address 11, Amersham Park Road—I went to that address and found there the printing-press which is produced here—he occupied two furnished rooms—in a black bag in the room I found the other copies of the Colonial Bank notes on thicker paper, not printed back and front—I received from Mr. Henschel this stone and these other proofs—I also found and produce a number of documents.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WALTER GREGG . I am a manager to my father, a lithographer, of Elm House, Peckham, who has been in business about twenty-two years and employs from twenty to thirty hands—the prisoner came there as near as I can say on 30th or 31st January, 1886, when my father was out—he brought a bank-note like this produced, but these two pieces were not cut out—he said he wished for an advertisement squib, and showed me a small copy of the Times and a portrait—he wished them copied, and we copied them—we were to copy the whole of the note and afterwards to take out two small pieces of it, the number, the signature, and the place—he said he was going to fill them up for advertisement purposes—he asked me whether an indiarubber stamp had been used for those portions of the original note—I said that was not in our line of business, but if he gave the order we would have it done—he said he thought he should want 1,000. but he might want more—we had to print the whole note in the first instance, and then erase those parts—we put it on the stone which is here and took two copies from it, for which he called, but they were not ready, so we sent one or two good proofs to 11, Amherst Road, New Gross, with a bill, which has been paid—we did not take off any other specimens, but sent the stone to him—the numbers, dates, and addresses could not be filled in by the press produced without the greatest difficulty—it could not be done with this stone—it is more for an amateur and is of no practical use—it would be much easier, except where a complete fac-simile is required to take the whole of it on.

Cross-examined. I had not known him before—he gave his name Boor or Bull—these parts were removed by a knife which scratches deep into the stone—we did it clumsily because we were not told that it was a particular piece of work—we declined to print a quantity—we heard nothing of him afterwards.

Re-examined. The stone left our possession on, I think, 4th February, five or six days after he called.

GREGG. I have been in business about fifteen years on my own account and about twenty years before for the Indian Government—I took this order from my son—I saw the proofs before they were sent away—I saw nothing to create suspicion or I would not have done it—I employ fortytwo hands at present.

RAMSAY. I am a lithographer of Walworth, in the employ of Mr. Merry, who is in a large way of business—the manager introduced the prisoner to me, who said he wanted to learn something about lithography; he wanted to print circulars, invoices, and prices current, and said he was advised to buy an amateur press—I said that I did not believe in them, he must have a small lithographic press, and I went with him and chose one and a number of necessary articles, and I gave him some lessons and showed him how to place the paper on the notes,

and I stood by while he placed it on the stone to see that he made no mistakes—that is the only instruction he received from me, but many men who had served seven years would not do it better—I have had 54 years' practice.

HARLING. I am one of the firm of Champneys and Co.—Mr. Bourne was originally their agent in Barbadoes—Mr. Champneys gave the West Indian firm certain credit, and subsequently a sort of open credit was transferred to Mr. Hudson, of Manchester—my partner went out to the West Indies and advertised very largely in all sorts of ways and striking novelties—only last year he gave a gold watch to the lady who would produce the largest number of vouchers for articles purchased at his stores, and that watch has gone out—Mr. Bourne has spoken to me about advertising in public conveyances, and last week he spoke about a tricycle to be painted red for a nigger with white eyes to ride on, and we received sketches and designs from a Nottingham firm which were found on him, in which you will find quotations for a quantity—when goods are shipped from London a declaration has to be made whether they are duty articles or in bond.

Cross-examined. I hare known the defendant since 1882—he was in business for himself in 1884 as W. S. Boord and Co., of Barbadoes—in February, 1884, the business passed to Mr. Hudson; it does not matter how much we got for it because we have not been paid—we have received 500l. or 600l., that was about the date of the transfer—we have received a loan from Mr. Hudson that stands to his credit in our books—we hope to get the lot eventually—it is a fact that we consigned the debt to Hudson, he is a man of considerable means—we got a loan of 500l. or 600l. which we owe to him—I never knew the defendant by any other name.

JOHN DENHAM . I live in Brixton Road—I have known the defendant and his family three years or more—I saw him on his last visit here and spoke to him about the increase in his business—he said that it was a great success, beyond his expectation, and that he had extended it by advertising; and he had projects in view which would startle us all relating to some new method or advertising, and he should not tell us what it was till he brought it out—he and his wife and family stayed with me when he was over here 18 months ago—he has borne a very high character—I have no occupation.

Cross-examined. I have known him between three and four years—he did not stay with me 18 months, but his family did; he went back to Barbadoes and was away eight or nine months out of the 18—I never heard that he went by the name of Stanley.

JAMES PINCOTT . I live in Brixton Road, and hare known the defendant more than nine years—I have seen him when he was in this country—his repute, as far as I know, has been honourable and respectable.

Cross-examined. I never knew anything against his private character—he was charged with arson about four years ago with regard to a fire at Demerara, but he was acquitted—I saw a great deal of him while he was in England.

Re-examined. After his acquittal he brought an action against the insurance company for the amount; Mr. Clarke appeared as Counsel for him, and he recovered the amount.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT.—Saturday, April 10th, 1886.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18860405-459

459. JOHN BROOME, Unlawfully making false entries in a certain parish register with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. POLAND and H. AVORY Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.

CHARLES TOWNLEY . I am Superintendent Registrar of the pariah of Islington—the defendant is Registrar of Births and Deaths for the Upper Holloway sub-district; his office was at 37, Tufnell Park Road—he was previously vaccination officer for one division—as Registrar of Births and Deaths he was supplied with books printed in different columns—this is one of them; No. 9—the entries are numbered consecutively—it was his duty to enter all the particulars, and for the informant to sign in this column—at the end of each quarter he has to make out a copy of the register, certify it to be correct, and send it to me; he has to copy the signatures—it is also his duty at the end of each month to send to the vaccination officer of his district a return of all the births registered by him for the purpose of checking the vaccination—when a birth is registered it is the prisoner's duty to hand to the person registering, a form similar to this (produced), on the flyleaf of which is a certificate which has to be signed by the medical man who vaccinates the child—the prisoner was paid for that by the guardians, for which he makes out an account at the end of each quarter, and returns it to me, and it goes to the clerk to the guardians, and it is paid by him—the prisoner was paid 2s. 6d. for each of the first 20 entries, and 1s. for each subsequent entry; and a fee of 2d. for each birth in respect to his monthly return to the vaccination officer; also 1d. for each form he gives out—in book No. 9 entries 256 to 263 are made by him on 24th August, they are the last 8 entries that day—entries 264 and 265 on August 25th are also made by him; also 494 and 495 on September 24th—they all purport to be signed by the person registering the births, except 267 and 264, which are signed with marks as if the person was illiterate—the prisoner made a record at the end of the quarter, including all those entries—I compared it with the register, and certified it to be correct—this is it, it goes to Somerset House, and is filed there—he also sent me the account at the end of the quarter to be rendered to the guardians, and I certified it to be correct—this is it, it shows 632 births registered during that quarter, including the cases we are now inquiring into—I know the style in which the prisoner writes, and he writes in a great many styles—the signatures of all these entries in the register book are his writing partially disguised—one or two of them purport to be a woman's writing, the mother—on 30th October I saw the defendant in consequence of a report from the Board of Guardians—I asked if he was aware he was charred with manufacturing entries of births, he said "No"—he came to the office two or three hours afterward; took me on one side and said "Do I understand that I am charged with making false entries; I hope you will understand that I deny making any false entries"—that was all that passed—I saw him again when I made the inquiry for the Registrar-General, I showed him these 10 entries, and asked him to give me any reasonable explanation why 10 persons should come consecutively and give false addresses; he said that they were anti-vaccinators, and explained the medical certificates as

being made by them, or by the secretary to the society; I asked him to give me the name of any anti-vaccination society in the district, or any number of persons who were endeavouring to resist the vaccination laws; he said he could not; I asked him why ten persons, supposed to be antivaccinators should be registered, 8 on one day and 2 the next, giving false addresses, and also indulging in the luxury of forgery—he said nothing—I called his attention to two other certificates, none of these, one in the name of Lucas which contained the name of Martin in the body of it, and one in the name of Martin which contained Lucas's name; I noticed that the "M" in Martin was like the "M" in his admitted writing, and asked him if he would mind writing in a back hand the word "Martin"; he wrote this, and I compared the final "tin" with "Austin," which is very like—when he mentioned the anti-vaccinators, I said, "Do you suggest that they do this in registration ink?" that is a peculiar ink ordered to be used—he seemed staggered, and did not answer for a few minutes, and then he said, "I suppose it is possible for other people to get registration ink"—I said, "It is possible, but not probable"—I called his attention to entries 494 and 495—the twins supposed to have been born at 82, Brunswick Road, the father's address being in Scotland; he said that he had no recollection of the case, but assumed it was given in the ordinary way, and he had marked "d" signifying that the children were dead—there is a pencilled "d" to each entry, and the entries should be in the death register; but he explained that the deaths had taken place in Scotland—one entry is by a railway porter, and another by a plasterer; they are in a very clerkly hand, which I called his attention to, but he said nothing.

Cross-examined. Mr. Malins first set the inquiry on foot, and the Board of Guardians reported to the Local Government Board—after I had inquired, an inquiry was held by the Inspector and the Registrar-General, Mr. James Lewis—the defendant and I were present—Mr. Lewis conducted the inquiry and took notes of the points in the case—the inquiry lasted about an hour—it was for Mr. Lewis to report to Somerset House—the defendant was suspended at that time, but he was afterwards reinstated, and has been discharging his duty up to to-day—in the regulations we have the names of two stationers given for obtaining registration ink—one is Morrell—Morrell sells ink to anybody besides Registrars—it is not manufactured for Somerset House, but it is selected as the blackest and best—the defendant had to return duplicate copies to me every quarter, and a weekly return to the Registrar-General with the names and dates only; and to the vaccination officer he sends a monthly list giving the numbers of the entries and the names and addresses—each entry is numbered consecutively—the vaccination officer never sees the register—if he sent a number of fictitious entries to the vaccination officer and missed them afterwards, the Guardians would at once detect him, because he would alter the total; the numbers are not only consecutive but corresponding—each entry has a number which covers all the entries—he was not registrar of marriages—in the case of deaths he acted on the informant's statement and the medical certificate—the entries of August 24th are considerably in excess of the other days of that week, and of the average of the month—all that the vaccination agent had for his guidance was the monthly list sent him by the Registrar.

Re-examined. Mr. Lewis did not examine any witnesses; it was a sort of revision of my inquiry to see whether I was right, and the defendant was reinstated pending the inquiry.

By MR. PURCELL. In the case of the twins 494 and 495, the date of birth is July 4th, and the date of registration 24th September.

WILLIAM MALINS . I am Vaccination Officer, of No. 1 District of Islington—that includes the district for which the defendant was registrar—I received from him the returns of births by him in August last; this is it, it is signed by him as a correct return; it includes entries 256 to 265—I also received from him this return of births registered in September, and numbered 494 and 495, the Brace twins—that is also signed by him as a correct return—I also received the vaccination certificates after they had been given by the medical men, either from them or from the parents—I received these nine certificates relating to entries 256 to 265, number 259 excepted—they all purport to be signed by medical men—in the case of the twins 494 and 495 I received no certificate, and did not expect one, because on this form the column is left blank, showing that no certificate was given out—that implies the child is dead; and he told me that the children had died in Scotland, and I marked it in pencil—numbers 256 and 257 purport to be signed by Dr. Goode—I knew his writing and communicated with him, and finding that they were not signed by him, I communicated with the guardians—I afterwards received a letter from Dr. Goode, and showed the defendant all the certificates, and said, "I have got a number of certificates here which I believe are all forgeries"—he looked at them and said, "I expect they are from anti-vaccinators, I used to have lots of them;" and he said he thought if I made inquiries at the addresses I should probably find they were false—I said, "I don't know whether it is my duty to trouble about them"—he said, "No; if I were you I should send them in"—and I did so because I get a fee from the guardians for each—I afterwards made inquiries at all the addresses, but was not able to find any of them—after I had reported the case to the guardians I received this post card in the defendant's writing, "Will you be at your office soon after 9 to-morrow; I want to get some addresses from you. J. B."—I also received this, "I sent you a post card on Friday, but I am afraid it went to your office so you did not meet me; will you be at Road at 9 o'clock on Monday morning; try and find some of these people out, and get the addresses for you"—these certificates and returns are in the defendant's writing—I have received them from him at different times.

Cross-examined. When on inquiry I found that a child had not been born at the registered address I generally marked it "Not found," but it might be found afterwords or it might be that the parents deny themselves—I make my returns monthly to the Board—I am paid for every case of successful vaccination, and not for "Not found cases, so the number of entries of births registered, and the number of entries for which I claim payment, cannot possibly correspond, because in the case of death I cannot expect to get a vaccination certificate, but Mr. Broome was paid for the births—I have to return every case, but I am only paid for the vaccination cases—I am paid on the certificates and Mr. Broome on the entries, therefore the numbers could not correspond—these entries show the births and how many of them are vaccinated—I send those certificates every three months to the Board, but I send my certificates every

month on which I am paid—I never see the original register, only the certified copy.

EDWIN DAVEY . I am clerk to the Guardians of St. Mary's, Islington—I receive every quarter from the Registrar of the district an account showing the number of births and deaths registered, and at the same time an account under the Vaccination Act to show the number of entries of births, the number of notices given out, and the number of deaths—the Guardians pay half-a-crown for the first 20 entries and a shilling for each subsequent one, also a fee of twopence for the births returned and a penny for every notice given out and twopence for every death—I received these two accounts from the defendant, showing 632 births registered during the quarter, 632 returned to the Vaccination Officer, and 611 notices given out; those two accounts together amount to 65l. 18s. 9d., to which the defendant was entitled for the quarter, and which I paid him by this cheque (produced)—it passed through the bank, it is endorsed by him—I believed the account to be correct—I know his writing—to the best of my belief entries 256, 265, 494, and 495 have his signature, and to the best of my belief the signatures of the supposed medical men are his.

Cross-examined. I will not say that is his ordinary writing because he writes many different styles; there is a dissimilarity in these nine entries, and there is a similarity—Dr. Goode's signature is only partially disguised any person could see that it was written by Broome; Warne's is somewhat disguised but not much, it is very like Broome's ordinary writing; Griffiths is more disguised, but something like Broome's writing—I have known Broome nearly 16 years and have had frequent opportunities of seeing his writing.

Re-examined. Number 261, Naggs, is somewhat disguised, but there is something of Mr. Broome's style in it—they come from the Registrar, the Vaccination Officer returned them to me, and the defendant wars paid upon them.

HERBERT GOODE , F.R.C.S. I am in practice at Holloway, and am in charge of the Highgate smallpox hospital—I know of no other medical man of my name in that district—this vaccination certificate 257 relates to a child of Susan Smith, born at 48, Orpingley Road—I never signed it; I never vaccinated such a child—256 relates to Cox, of 46, Orpingley Road—the defendant knew me as the medical man of that district.

Cross-examined. The signature does not at all correspond with my writing—I put a stamp on the certificates when they are brought to me for examination.

REUBEN THOMAS WARNE , M.R.C.S. I live at 37, Highgate Road—these certificates, 258 and 262, are not my writing; they are signed "W. C. Warne"—I never vaccinated the two children mentioned—there is no other person named Warne in the profession in the Register.

Cross-examined. The writing is not like mine.

HENRY VALENTINE NAGGS , M.R.C.S. I am in practice with my father at 189, Camden Road—this certificate, 261, referring to a supposed child of a man named Fenton is signed "H. Naggs, M.B."—I did not give that certificate nor did I vaccinate that child—it is not in my father's writing, he has seen it—I have put my signature here and my father has put his.

ROBERT CORY , M.D. I live at 73, Lambeth Palace Road—this certificate

263 is signed "R. Cory," it is not signed by me—I never vaccinated such a child.

ROBERT HOMER POPHAM . I am a surgeon, of 67, Bartholomew Road, N. W.—this certificate, signed "R. H. Popham," is not signed by me nor did I vaccinate such a child—there is no other R. H. Popham in the profession.

SARAH BARRETT . I am the wife of William Barrett, of 2, Orpingley Road, Holloway—we lived at No. 48 last June and had done so for three years—no Frank or Susan Smith lived in that house in June last, nor was any child born on June 16th.

LAVINIA WEBB . I am the wife of William Webb—on 17th June last we lived at 46, Orpingley Road—no such persons as Robert and Mary Cox lived there, nor was any child born in the house on 17th June.

HARRY PEARSON . I am a commercial traveller, of 2, Duncombe Road, Hornsey, and have lived there nearly ten yean—William and John Fish did not live there in July last, nor was any railway porter living there, nor was any child born there on 30th July.

WILLIAM WILKINSON . I am a boot and shoe maker, of 360, Hornsey Road—I have lived there between two and three years—no person named George and Alice Smart lived there in July—no butcher lived there and no child was born there in August.

ALICE BLAND . I live at 3, Wells Terrace, Fonthill Road, Finsbury—that is the only Wells Terrace in the neighbourhood—I have been there since March, 1885—no such persons as Leonard and Harriet Fenton lived there, nor was any child born in the house on 4th July.

SOPHIA BAKER . I am the wife of Alfred Thomas Baker, of 1, Clifton Terrace, Upper Holloway—John and Marion Ord did not live in my house last July, nor any carman, nor was any child born there on 13th July.

ANDREW GEORGE LONCH . I am a boot maker, of 100, Fonthill Road—I have lived there for the last three years—Job and Lucy Herriott did not live there last July, nor was any child born there on July 2nd—I occupy the whole house.

MARTHA HUMPHREY . I am the wife of John Humphrey, of 8, Victor Road, Upper Holloway—I have lived there since 1883—Albert and Julia Noon did not live there, nor was any child born there on 3rd July.

ARTHUR JOHN THOMPSON . I have lived at 82, Brecknock Road, Holloway, since April last year—no such persons as Harry and Mary Brace have lived there during that time, nor were any twins born there on 1st July.

GEORGE SMITH INGLIS . I live at 8, Red Lion Square, and have been engaged some years as an expert in handwriting—I have examined the entries in Register Book No. 9, 256 to 265 and 494 and 495—I have also examined the nine medical certificates relating to these entries and have compared them with the defendant's writing and the returns made by him at different times, and in my opinion the entries in the Register are signed by the defendant, and the medical certificates are in his writing, disguised—in the case of Noon, entry 265, the signature of the Register is in his ordinary writing—some of the signatures purport to be those of women; they are more disguised than the others.

Cross-examined. I have been engaged several years as an expert, by the Treasury—I have usually been called on the part of the Prosecution—I

cannot recollect whether any other expert has been called with me for the Treasury—an expert has been called against me for the defence—not Mr. Chabot, but Mr. Netherclift—I have practised since Mr. Chabot's death in 1882—Mr. Netherclift was before Mr. Chabot—Mr. Netherclift his only given his opinion against mine twice—I have been a witness on many occasions—I do not always expect a jury to accept my conclusions—I have not known of experts swearing that documents have been written by one individual when another individual has got up and said he wrote them, but I have been told of it—I have compared these entries with the numerous registers and sheets written by Mr. Broome, his own official work—the signature "Noon" is like his ordinary writing—the "n" finishes like a "u," but with that exception it is like his ordinary writing—No. 256 is in a lady's writing—the "mith" is like the defendant's writing when you turn it into a lady's hand, which is more sharp and angular—the remaining nine entries are some of them disguised and some very like his writing—this "Smart" is in a lady's writing—"Fish" is very like his, and so is "Fenton,' and "Noon" and "Ord" is like some of his writing, and would at once be noticed, I should say, by any one acquainted with his writing—the vaccination certificates are, I think, all very much disguised—there is the educated hand and the uneducated, and there is a great similarity between individuals of such classes. I find similarities between them—I should not say that in the uneducated classes there is a great resemblance in persons' writing; they differ much more than those of the educated class—I did not know the defendant before this inquiry—I was sent by the Treasury, but not to give evidence against him—I did not think the Treasury were defending him.

Re-examined. This matter was submitted to me for the mere purpose of making a report to the Treasury—I was not influenced by a desire to get up a case against the man—in No. 258 W. Fish is described as a railway porter—the signature is that of an educated person—the signature of Mr. Fenton, the plasterer, is in a good clerkly hand—Noon is a house painter, and his is a good round hand—in each entry the same hand occurs in the defendant's admitted writing—in the medical certificates he writes the name of the child who is to be vaccinated, and I have his own writing with which I can satisfactorily compare the rest—this signature H. Brace is decidedly in the same writing—the signature Harry Brace and Mary Brace are the same—there are two entries in each case—there is a difference in the "H" and in the "B," but the "B" is like some that were made by the defendant some years ago.

GUILTY of falsifying the books and obtaining the cheque by that means.—Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-460

460. THOMAS PAYLON (17) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Davis Goldberg, and stealing seventeen pairs of boots and one boot, his property. Second County receiving the same.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

SAMUEL GOLDBERG . I am the son of Davis Goldberg, a shoemaker, of 6, Bell Lane—on 28th March, about 5 p.m., I left the shop quite safe, the windows fastened and the shutters up—I returned about 11 o'clock and found the outside shutters open and the window smashed—I missed from the window and from the wall all these boots (produced) that are here—there are tenants upstairs.

DAVIS GOLDBERG . I am a shoemaker of 6, Bell Lane—these boots are my property, they are worth 10l., they were safe in the shop on 28th March, at 8 p.m., when I went there.

CHRISTOPHER FAGAN (Policeman H 260). On the night of 28th March, about 11 o'clock, I was on duty in Commercial Street, and met the prisoner with two other men not in custody, he was crossing the road, carrying this bag—I was in uniform, he saw me and went up Commercial Street and kept looking round; I followed him, he dropped the bag and ran; I ran alter him about 300 yards, and caught him without losing sight of him—I took him back and found the bag in a constable's possession; it contained boots—I said to the prisoner "How can you account for this?"—he said "The old tale, I picked them up"—I took him to the station.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not say that some man gave you the job of carrying them.

Prisoner's Defence. A young man asked me to carry a bag of goods; the constable stopped me and asked me what I had in the bag, I said I was carrying it for some man. He took me to the station.

GUILTY on the second Count.— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

Reference Number: t18860405-461

461. THOMAS REYNOLDS (46) , Feloniously wounding Elizabeth Coombes, with intent to do her grevious bodily harm.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

ELIZABETH COOMBES . I am a charwoman of 8, Caversham Street—I have for some years past, down to two months ago, lived with the prisoner as his wife, and hare had five children by him, three of whom are living—there was some dispute between us and I left him—on 10th March, about 9 o'clock, I met him in the King's Road, Chelsea; I think he was a little the worse for drink; he said he wished to speak to me, and I followed him home—I went into the room, some further quarrel took place; I was standing up, and he went to push me out of the room, but I don't recollect what he did—when I came to myself the prisoner was still in the room—I found blood flowing from my left arm, I was also wounded on my right arm and on my back—I cannot tell how I received these hurts—I then went to the top of King's Road; I did not find the blood flowing till I got there—I spoke to Hooper, and was taken to the hospital, where I remained till the 22nd or 23rd.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I met you in the King's Road you asked me if I would come home and wash the children's clothes; I said I would come home soon—you are a hardworking man, and very fond of your children—I went away and lived with another man—I have not had a child by another man—I have earned 17s. 6d. a week for you, and never came home drunk—I never encouraged prostitutes—I did not say I would skin your face.

Re-examined. I was perfectly sober when I went back with him.

JOHN HOOPER (Policeman B 402). On 10th March, about 10 p.m., the last witness made a communication to me—she had blood flowing from both arms, and appeared to be fainting—she appeared to be sober—she said she had been stabbed, but did not say by who—I took her to the hospital.

EDWARD CLOUGH (Police Sergeant B). On 10th March I went to 122, Kepple Street, and saw the prisoner—I said to him "I am a police officer

I hear a woman has been stabbed; you will have to go to the station until I have made some inquiries about the matter"—he made no answer—I sent him on to the station and took a cab to the hospital, where I saw the prosecutrix in bed—she made a statement to me, and I charged the prisoner with cutting and wounding her—he said "She struck me twice; I decline to say anything more at present"—I afterwards went to the prisoner's house, and found this knife on a table among a quantity of tools—I found some blood on it, and there is some now.

Cross-examined. The neighbours told me they expected this would have happened long before.

WILLIAM FREDERICK DEWSNAP . I was house surgeon at St. George's Hospital—on 10th March, about 9 p.m., I saw the prosecutrix—she was in a collapsed condition—she had six incised wounds on the back of her left arm, five of them being an inch long, and one two inches long—there was also a wound at the lower angle of her left shoulder-blade, a little over an inch long—they were all incised wounds, such as might have been caused by this knife, upon which I see marks, but I cannot say positively whether it is blood or not—she remained in the hospital until the 21st March—she is cured—I should say the wounds had all been inflicted by the same instrument—they were all separate wounds, but were not dangerous—she did not appear to be under the influence of drink.

Prisoner's Defence. I turned her out for a week, and a man took her in for three nights and three days, and brought her to me and asked if I would take her back, and she would not do so any more. I will willingly give her my furniture if I have to go to prison.

GUILTY The Jury considered he was labouring under provocation.— . Four Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-462

462. CHARLES COLE (25), and ELIZABETH COLLECT (29) , Robbery with violence on Charles McDonald and stealing from him 12s. 6d., his money.

MR. FRITH Prosecuted.

CHARLES MCDONALD . I live at 77, Church Street, Kensington, and am an oil and colourman's assistant—about 1 a.m. on 30th March I was coming down Praed Street and met Collett—I walked with her down Westbourne Terrace—I gave her 1s. and she demanded more—I would not give it her—she then caught hold of me and I pushed her away—she caught hold of me again and I gave her a back-hander—Cole then came and caught hold of me and said he would lock me up—I said that he had nothing to do with it and gave him 6d.—he said "That is not enough"—I then pulled out my money and he snatched 12s. 6d., hit me behind my ear and knocked me down twice—he passed something to Collett and ran—I caught him and took him to the station and charged him—when he was brought up at the police-station Collett came there as a witness and I gave her in custody.

Cross-examined by Cole. Collett was not bleeding—I did not say "Don't lock me up, I shall lose my place and my character"—I said I wanted to get to my work in the morning and did not want any bother—I left my hat on the ground and ran after you—you did not leave me and the constable and go and fetch it, I picked it up myself.

Cross-examined by Collett. I did not pull up your clothes—I gave you

a back-hander but I did not see that you had your handkerchief covered with blood—I did not hear a cabman call me a scoundrel—you got hold of me and demanded my money.

GEORGE TURNER (Policeman 332 X). About 1 o'clock on 30th March I was in Westbourne Terrace and heard cries of police—I went to the spot and saw Cole and the prosecutor who said, "This man has robbed me of 12s. 6d. and assaulted me, I will charge him"—Cole ran away and the prosecutor caught him—he knocked the prosecutor over on his back on the pavement—I caught hold of Cole and said "What made you ran away?"—he said "I know nothing about it"—I had made no charge against him—I found on him 4s. 6d. in silver and 9 1/2 d. in bronze—Collett was taken on 31st March in Westbourne Terrace—she came to the police-court to give evidence for Cole and I took her—she said "I am innocent"—she said nothing about being struck in the face and covered with blood—the prosecutor was quite sober.

Cross-examined by Cole. You ran away while the prosecutor was telling me the charge—you did not fetch his hat and give it to me.

Cross-examined by Collett. I searched your pockets at the station and said "What have you got?"—you said "6 1/2 d."—you did not show me your face and complain.

The Prisoner's Statements before the Magistrate. Cole says, "I went quiet to the station and was searched and 4s. 6d. was found on me." Collett says, "The prosecutor knocked me nearly insensible—I know nothing about the money."

Cole's Defence. The prosecutor never lost 12s. 6d. any more than I did I never saw it.

Collett's Defence. The young man gave me 1s. to go round Westbourne Terrace with him, and because I would not let him do as he liked with me he struck me.

GUILTY .

COLE** (Whose ticket-of-leave will not expire till next October)— Twelve Months' Hard labour, after the expiration of his former sentence. COLLETT— Four Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18860405-463

463. WILLIAM WANDBY (52) , Unlawfully publishing thirteen defamatory libels concerning Agnes Bertha Marshall.

MR. GOODRICH Prosecuted.

The Prisoner stated that he wrote the libels and that he had been discharged from a lunatic asylum some time ago and could not control himself upon which the COURT directed a verdict of

GUILTY .— One Week's Imprisonment and to enter into recognizances.

THIRD COURT.—Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, April 10th, 12th, and 13th, 1886.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18860405-464

464. THOMAS FRANK PATRICK KAVANAGH (42), JOHN LEE (32), GEORGE LEE (27), and LLEWELLYN ARCHIBALD (33) , Unlawfully conspiring with other persons unknown to cheat and defraud Lewis John Williams of his goods; also to obtaining certain goods by false pretences.

KAVANAGH PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining goods by false pretences, but not to the conspiracy Counts.

MESSRS. MONTAGU WILIAMS and MATHEWS Prosecuted; MR. RAVEN appeared for the Lees, and MR. OVEREND for Archibald.

WILLIAM BLAKE JAMIESON . I am a decorator, of 8, Duke Street, Adelphi—in March, 1885, my father was the landlord, and I was his agent for letting the premises—I saw Cooke first—on 25th March, 1885, Kavanagh took a back room and ante-room on the ground floor at 18l. a year inclusive—I afterwards saw Kavanagh and others in the room—the room did not require much furniture—there is a fixed mahogany table in the larger room, and a continuous desk in the ante-room—I think there was a fender—I saw no more in the room but packing-cases to my recollection—I saw the defendants in both rooms coming and going—the first quarter's rent was paid in May, 1885, by cheque, 4s. 10s. in advance—I received 3l. more on 15th February, 1886—in all I received 10l., leaving 10l. 10s. due.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I saw people call—only one clerk was there to my knowledge—I understood the place was to be a store; it was not to be used for mixing the fire extinguisher—there may hare been 100 tins there.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I saw the fire extinguisher prospectus—the room was sufficient for the purpose—I was not called before the Magistrate—Kavanagh left about three weeks ago when taken to Bow Street—I have seen the Lees come and go, but cannot say how many times—the elder Lee was there more frequently at the commencement of the tenancy than the latter part.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. A chair was in the inner room—I saw Archibald there frequently—from Kavanagh's statement I presumed he was a traveller; Kavanagh said he was waiting for his traveller Archibald to bring him some money—I have been ill latterly, and have not noticed the place—I had not seen Archibald there so much during the last five months.

Re-examined. This is one of the circulars—I have seen the fire extinguishers—I did not buy any.

HERBERT AUGUST EVITT . I am manager to Henry Barker and Sons, wine merchants, Moorgate Street Chambers—in April, 1885, John Lee called and said he was travelling for Kavanagh and Co., and could induce Kavanagh to purchase cigars if we could supply him at a price that would suit him—I said we should be pleased to do so if Kavanagh was safe to trust—he said Kavanagh was possessed of means, he was a barrister, and he believed he was safe to credit—shortly afterwards I received a letter which has been lost; the contents simply were to supply a certain quantity of goods; it was addressed from Kavanagh to our firm—in consequence of that letter we supplied cigars to Kavanagh for the amount of 3l. 17s. 6d., in three lots, about the end of April or the first week in May, 1885; they were eventually paid for—I received these 11 orders (produced) between 13th May and November, in consequence of which I supplied cigars and wine to the amount of 103l. 4s. 6d.—I applied from time to time for the money, I never received any—I applied personally and by the traveller, as well as by letter—I saw Kavanagh in both the outer and inner offices—on some occasions I may have seen Archibald there—on two occasions I saw George Lee—I also received these two letters from Kavanagh. (The first promising to pay as soon as he received some money from Messrs. Noakes, and the second proposing

to pay part.) I offered to accept a bill if something was paid on account; nothing was paid on account—I have seen seven or nine boxes of the cigars which I supplied; I have not seen the wine—I believe I saw four boxes at Bow Street, and five at Mr. Raper's, the pawnbroker's.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. The first account was paid on the 9th June—I sent the account in before the 8th June—it was paid off within six weeks of the goods being delivered—I have not seen any letter from Mr. Elkington of our firm to you asking for orders for cigars—it was not received by me—I have no knowledge of it—I trusted you upon the representations of John Lee, added to Stubbs and Co.'s reference—one brand of cigars was Conchas, another Regalias, another Muriers—I was not the only agent in London for those cigars—I stopped credit to you in November—I cannot swear the cigars which were pledged are mine.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. Mr. Elkington is one of our travelers—he brought John Lee to our office—so far as I know Elkington is a man to be trusted—I believe Lee gave his order verbally—Lee said he was in Kavanah's employ—that he was an Irishman, a barrister, and a wealthy man—Lee was dressed somewhat as he is now—Kavanah's principal messenger was a man named Cunningham—out of the whole orders we sent no more than half a dozen—Cunningham usually took the goods away—I addressed the goods to Duke Street, Adelphi, except the first order, which I think went to Tower Hill—some I believe Cunningham took to Vincent Square, New Street—Lee never said that Kavanah had been introduced to me, and that I had better look after my money—I have heard since that he mentioned it to Elkington—I called three or four times at Duke Street for payment—I was there some time in November, and perhaps in January and February—I do not think I was there earlier than October—not in August; if so, it would be the end of August—I do not recollect seeing John Lee at the office, nor George Lee, more than twice—he came in each time I was there—I was waiting to speak to Kavanah about the money—I know Kavanah's writing—every order was signed by him—as far as I was concerned the goods were sent to him—Elkington said John Lee was in Kavanah's service.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. I very seldom saw Archibald there—he took me into the back room—I do not recollect telling him the reason of my calling—I spoke to him about an accident to his hand, not about the champagne.

WILLIAM HOUGHTON . I am a portmanteaux maker, of 66, Southampton Row—On 6th June Kavanah called and said he was the inventor of an automatic fire extinguisher at 8, Duke Street, Adelphi, and also at Tower Hill—he asked me to be agent for it—I had no faith in it at first; hut I thought it was a good thing because he mentioned Mr. Whiteley's name—I agreed to become an agent as he said Mr. Whiteley had become an agent for it, and was selling large quantities of them—then we came to an agreement that the account would be settled every three months—he said it wan patented—I believed what he said—I supplied him with two hand-bags for his travellers, which I expected he was going to pay cash for—the value was 1l. the two—I subsequently supplied him with goods to the amount of 9l. 3s. 5d.—I believed he was carrying on a genuine business—about the end of the month I sent him my account—I got no

money—I sent at least 20 or 30 times—I called once, I saw the younger Lee—he said he would speak to Kavanah when he came in—that was at Duke Street—in the passage, I called it—I have seen John Lee several times at my shop—he came to bring the fire extinguishers—I saw Archibald once at Southampton Row—he told me when he received accounts which would come in shortly he would see to my account, and that I got it—this is the fire extinguisher (produced)—I did not sell any—this one is marked 6s. 6d.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. There was a written agreement between us as to the agency—the officer has it—I do not know how many extinguishers have been supplied me, nor do I think you do—they were supplied to me two or three times—I do not think I have had 20l. worth—I have not paid for any, and do not intend to—I hare never sold any—I have not returned them—you brought them—I do not know the number of circulars and descriptive sheets I was supplied with—there was an immense quantity—more than I could carry—you gave me an order to make some small cases for your travellers—you did not offer to pay for the bags—I did not say "Never mind that; you can have all you want, and can settle the whole account at once"—we adjourned to the corner hotel, where I had a glass of stout at your expense, and you had one at mine—in November I received a message from you that you would settle up the account in the course of a week.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I tried the fire extinguisher—it burned like wet gunpowder—it would be more likely to make the fire bigger—I expected to be paid for my goods—Kavanagh had several lots of bags—George Lee was sitting on a stool in Duke Street when I saw him—it was John Lee who called upon me about the extinguishers—that was after the agreement was drawn up.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. Archibald called about Kavanagh's account.

LEWIS JOHN WILLIAMS . I am an ironmonger, at Turnham Green—early last July Kavanagh called and said he was the patentee of the Compound Automatic Fire Extinguisher—he showed me a prospectus—he said Mr. Whiteley was one of his principal agents, and he was going to erect a building and set fire to it, to try the extinguisher—I agreed to act as his agent—Kavanagh wrote out the agreement—I took some extinguishers—I sold three tins similar to the one I have seen—in November he asked me to look out for a house, as he wished to live in our neighbourhood—he said he would be willing to furnish from our establishment—I received these two orders (produced). in consequence of which I supplied him with a fender, fireirons, and coal vase, value 3l. 12s. 6d.—I also received this order of 18th December—I supplied goods, value 56l. 13s. 9d.—I also received this letter of the 11th January. (Asking for the address of Major Lincoln, who he wished to see about a house.) I saw John Lee twice at my shop—the first time he brought a few circulars and some empty tins to show—I asked if he knew anything about Kavanagh—he said he was a gentleman of means, and related to the Kavanagh family, the member of Parliament—the second occasion John Lee came about the coal vase that was damaged in transit to their office—I have seen some of my property, including silver waiters, a few knives, and a coal vase; they came from the pawnbroker's—I saw them in Court.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I saw you on several occasions between July and November at my shop—I believe you called late in October—you gave me three months' credit—you asked me to look out for a small cottage for you—I understood that you wished to furnish the house from us—we are furnishing ironmongers—I know Mr. Beck—I never spoke to him about giving you three months' credit, nor he to me—I do not remember signing an agreement, I will not swear that I did not—you were to advertise the extinguisher in the local paper for three months—you advertised me as the local agent—you saw me about 7th January this year and about the 8th—I instructed my solicitor to issue a writ against you—you didn't tender 3l. 12s. 6d. to him to my knowledge—he informed me of an offer from you, but that is not the offer—he didn't tell me that you objected to pay because you were entitled to three months' credit—he said you entered an appearance to the writ to delay the matter—I instructed my solicitor to take proceedings in bankruptcy—I have not withdrawn from the bankruptcy proceedings, but I have done nothing in it since this prosecution—I identified the goods which Mr. Woodroffe produced at the police-court—I saw the two waiters at Hawes', and Mr. Beck identified them with me—Mr. Beck sold the goods—they passed from the wholesale house—I had not seen them before.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I have seen John Lee twice; I hare not seen George Lee at all—the first time I saw John Lee was about the fire extinguisher—on the second occasion he brought me back the coal scoop that had been damaged; Kavanagh wished another one sent in its place—another one was sent from the wholesale house—I went several times to the office in Duke Street for payment.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. I never saw Archibald at all.

Monday, 12th April.

JAMES JOHN SMITH . I am manager of the Ironmongery Department at Messrs. Whiteley's—in April last Kavanagh called to introduce the patent fire extinguisher powder—I had six of them—I next saw him in May when he called to sell some more powder—he did not succeed—he gave an order for cutlery—I bought extinguishers—the net amounts were 39s. 11d. and 12s. 4 1/2 d.—the second amount represents exchanging some large tins for small ones, and that was the balance paid—I have lost the letter ordering the cutlery—I have looked for it but cannot find it—it was not taken any note of as the order was not executed—the order was for a dozen ivory table knives, a dozen desert knives, some plated forks and spoons, a kettle and stand, which were to be sent to 8, Duke Street, Adelphi—the goods were sent with directions that they were not to be left without the money, and they were brought back—I have not heard of any arrangement being made with Messrs. Whiteley for a trial of this compound, nor of any building being erected in order to blow it down again.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. Mr. Percival, the general superintendent, introduced you to me—Mr. Whiteley has a farm at Finchley—this letter (produced) is Mr. Percival's writing. (Signed "W. H. Percival," 22nd June, 1885, stated that Mr. Whiteley would erect a small structure on his farm and fire it in order to try the extinguisher.)—this post-card is my writing—the other letters (produced) may have been written under Mr. Percival's instructions, but they are not his writing. (The post-card contained an order for three 1lb. boxes of extinguishers, at 6s. 6d., and four other letter

were produced inquiring for particulars about the extinguishers.)—I received a large number of circulars—this agreement was sent to me, but I did not sign it. (Appointing Mr. Whiteley agent, not signed)—there was a verbal agreement that I should circulate circulars with Mr. Whiteley's name on—I also received a number of price lists and descriptive sheets—the agreement has not been cancelled—our firm was to be the sole agent for Bayswater—the circulars we received are similar to this one (produced), leafing out the words "Kavanagh, Cooke, & Co."—it was called Kavanagh's Patent.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I am known as "James" at Whiteley's—I made what inquiries I thought were necessary—I have not inquired at the Patent Office—Kavanagh showed me several letters but no patent—the letters written by Percival to Kavanagh came to nothing—Mr. Percival never bought anything of him.

WILLIAM COSBY BROOM . I am an ironmonger at 130, Earl's Court Road—in May, 1885, Kavanagh came to me and asked me if I would be sole agent for his patent fire extinguisher for Earl's Court and other districts—he showed me a prospectus like the one produced—he said the extinguisher had been taken up by Messrs. Whiteley and a lot of leading houses, and had been extensively used in this country, America, and Germany—he also called my attention to a German proclamation at the time—after he had called twice or three times I took it up—I was supplied with extinguishers to the amount of about 3l. 5s.—afterwards be got some new boxes for them and exchanged some—I never told any—on the 11th of January last Archibald brought this letter of 11th January, 1886. (An order for ironmongery and inquiring as to the success of the fire extinguisher.)—I sent the goods by Archibald—I believed the statements Kavanagh made—I should not have supplied the articles without—I have since seen the articles produced by Woodthorpe the pawnbroker—I have written for the payment of the bill which was enclosed with the goods.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I had two lots of fire extinguishers, amounting in all to about 6l. 10s.—I paid cash for the first lot—I have all of them on hand, and am likely to nave—the second lot you brought down on your own responsibility.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. Archibald did not deliver any extinguishers to my knowledge—he brought me a letter and took some goods away—John Lee brought a fire extinguisher down and wanted to sell me some cigars, but I do not smoke—I never went to Duke Street.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I saw John Lee at my shop about the end of May I think—I saw him since with Kavanagh in my shop—he came with some more goods about the end of January—I think I mentioned the Lees' name at the police-court—if you say I did not I accept that.

ALFRED HENRY CLARKE . I live at 108, Godolphin Road, Shepherd's Bush—I am manager to Mr. Broom—I remember the order of 11th January for cutlery—I supplied it—about the 14th January Kavanagh and Archibald called at the shop with another order to about the same amount—they selected the goods and wished to take them away—I refused to let them go—they selected them too easily to suit me—they were not particular about the price at all—I have applied personally for payment a great many times at the office, Duke Street, Adelphi—I have seen Kavanagh—I have not got the money—once Kavanagh said he would

send a cheque on as soon as Archibald came home—I understood Archibald was the head clerk and manager.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. You and Archibald brought the extinguishers—I did not notice who carried them into the shop, but you were together—you selected the goods—I do not remember Archibald making any remark about them.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. Archibald's position was not mentioned to me—I formed the impression that he was head clerk—I did not see John or George Lee.

OSWALD TALBOT . I am an ironmonger, of High Street, Mortlake—on 27th October Kavanagh called and asked me to become an agent for his Automatic Compound Fire Extinguisher—he said it was a very good thing and most of the leading ironmongers had taken it up—that Mr. Whiteley was one of his principal agents—he said he would advertise it in the local paper, and he brought a book with him showing several cuttings from advertisements and showing ironmongers who had taken it up—so I took it up believing the statements he made to me—I heard no more of him till January—on the 15th January this letter came (Stating that Kavanagh would call on the morrow, Saturday, and give him a small order)—the next day, the 16th, Kavanagh came and gave me an order for table knives, plated forks, and pair of carvers—the amount was 9l. 4s. 3d.—he said he would send me a cheque on that night so that I should get it the first post on Monday morning—I believed his statement and allowed him to take the things away—I received no cheque, but on Monday the 18th Archibald brought me this letter. (Ordering a bachelor's breakfast set, in best electro, not to exceed 10l. or 12l., for a gentleman leaving for India, and asking for a complete account.)—I asked Archibald if he had brought nothing else from Kavanagh except another order—he said he was only Kavanagh's messenger—I did not supply the order—I left to go and see Kavanagh and when I got in the train I sat opposite to Archibald who asked me not to tell Kavanagh that I had seen him as he wanted an hour or two to himself—we came to London together—I went to 8, Duke Street, Adelphi—I saw Kavanagh—I asked him why he had not sent a cheque as promised—he said he would send one that night—I received these letters of 21st and 23rd January (The former stated that as the transaction had been unpleasant Kavanagh would return the goods if the witness would let him know that he would take them back)—I saw Kavanagh and told him I should be willing to take the goods back if they were in the same condition as when they left my shop—he said he would send for them—no one came. (The letter of 23rd January slated that Kavanagh had not yet received the goods but if they were still in good condition he would return them carriage paid.)—I have not received them—I called afterwards when he said the goods were at Norwich—I subsequently saw the goods produced by Mr. Hawes, a pawnbroker in London, and identified them—I saw George Lee when I last applied for the account at 8, Duke Street, in the outer room—I asked him if he could tell me where Kavanagh's private address was—he said he could not tell me because he was only the mixer—I have not seen John Lee.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I sold three extinguishers, a 1 lb. box—one was by your introduction to Messrs. Cochrane—I had a dozen 1 lb. boxes and two dozen 5 lb. boxes—I think the nett value would be 4l. 10s. 9d.—the Duke of Teck had one, and one was sold to a cash

customer—I must get them back from the customers if they have not used them—when I called on 24th January I said I should not take the goods back unless you paid the cost of my summons against you, 13s.—you said you would do so—I was not bound to give you three months' credit—you promised to send a cheque—it is not usual for me to charge 50 per cent profit to my customers, and the goods were not invoiced at that—I have not got the invoice—I think the amount was 2l. 0s. 9d.—I think they were invoiced to you at 3l. 7s.—I will swear they were not invoiced to you at 4l. 1s. 6d.—it is 3l. 7s. 6d. (Invoice produced.)

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I went to Duke Street several times—I saw George Lee once in the outer office.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. Archibald said he was Kavanagh's messenger—my assistant brought the letter to me—it was not marked private or confidential, or he would not have opened it.

CHARLES NUNN . I am manager to Mr. Keynolds, ironmonger, 12, George Street, Richmond—in June last Kavanagh came and saw Mr. Reynolds—some arrangement was made for an agency for the extinguisher—according to that arrangement some extinguishers were sent—on 18th January George Lee brought this order, which Mr. Reynolds handed to me—I supplied the goods mentioned, amounting to 19l. 5s. 8d., to George Lee—he took them away—a bill was sent with them—they were in two parcels—a fortnight afterwards Archibald brought this second order. (Stating that Kavanagh was much pleased with what had been sent, and asking that the bearer should be supplied with a bachelor's breakfast set, in better electro them what had been sent, and a more chaste pattern; or, if they had no other design, to send a case of knives.)—I did not comply with that—I have identified most of the goods that have been produced by Mr. Hawes.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I received one dozen extinguishers—you advertised in a Richmond paper for six months—Mr. Reynolds's name appeared as agent.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I did not go to the office in Duke Street—I believe it was George Lee who took the goods away—I cannot say positively—I saw nothing of John Lee.

CHARLES MCLEWIN . I am assistant to Mr. Attenborough, pawnbroker, in the Strand—I produce a black leather bag pawned on the 21st July, 1885, for 10s. by the prisoner Kavanagh—this is the duplicate—I also produce five boxes of cigars pawned on 13th May, 1885, for 2l. 10s.—also 10 boxes of cigars pawned on 10th June, for 5l. by Kavanagh—the cigars have since been identified by Mr. Evitt and Mr. Houghton.

GEORGE LEGGE . I am assistant to Mr. Clark, pawnbroker, 55, Long Acre—I produce a black bag pawned on 4th July, 1885, for 5s., in the name of Kavanagh—the bag has since been identified by Mr. Houghton—Kavanagh's address is on the ticket.

THOMAS STOCKWELL . I am assistant to Mr. Raper, pawnbroker, of 32, Great Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn—I produce 5 boxes of cigars, pledged with me for 2l. 0s. 6d., on 22nd July, 1885—250 cigars—it is a special contract—Mr. Evitt has identified them.

ARTHUR WOODTHORPE . I am assistant to Mr. Hawes, pawnbroker, of 14, Cranbourne Street, Leicester Square—Kavanagh pledged the following articles with us—half a dozen knives on the 2nd February, 1886, for 10s., and a silver mug on 6th January, 1886, for 2l. 15s., two

silver waiters on 4th January, 2l. 10s. and 5l. 10s., an umbrella stand and coal vase on 18th January, 1886, and a coal vase on 21st November, 1886, for 15s.—I also produce, pledged by Kavanagh on 11th January, several articles which Mr. Broom has identified; also 12 desert knives, and 12 table forks identified by Mr. Talbot for 3l.; I also produce a patent coffee pot, a cream ewer, a case of knives, and three dozen forks, pawned by kavanagh on 19th January, for 9l. 10s., which Mr. Nunn identified; also two boxes of cigars out of 14, on 7th August, for 17s., on 26th September, one box 10s., on 1st October, two boxes 20s., on 5th October, two boxes 7s., on 7th November, two boxes 25s., and 27th February this year, five boxes 2l. 10s., identified by Mr. Evitt.

JOHN LANGRISH (Police Inspector, E). On 6th March, in company with Sergeant Header, about 4.15 p.m., I went to 8, Duke Street, Adelphi—the office was locked, on the door was "Kavanagh, Cooke, and Co."—I knocked, Kavanagh answered the door—I said "I am a police officer, and hold a warrant for your arrest, for obtaining goods by false pretences"—he said "Very good"—I went into the inner office—the Lees were there—I said to them "What is your business here?"—they both said "We have business with Kavanagh"—I said "I must ask you what property you have in your possession"—George Lee produced nine pawn-tickets relating to articles connected with this charge, and several letters and memoranda bearing the name of Kavanagh, and other documents, a 6,000l. promissory note by Henry Labouchere, and another for 5l., which I took from his coat pocket—I found on John Lee documents in Kavanagh's writing, and relating to his business at Duke Street, also a cheque for 10,000l. drawn by "Human Nature" on the National Bank at Drury Lane, payable to Augustus Harris, and three pocket books—the pawn-tickets on George Lee related to three boxes of cigars pawned for 1l. 6s. on 23rd May, two boxes of cigars for 12s. 6d. on 12th May, three boxes of cigars for 15s. on 2nd May, and seven on 16th May, identified by Mr. Evitt; also duplicates for ten boxes of cigars pawned for 5l. on 10th June, in the name of Kavanagh—I have also a duplicate for a pair of trousers, shirts, and so on, in the names of Cunningham, Kavanagh, and Lee—Archibald came in—I said to him "Are you in any way connected with this firm?"—he said "I know Mr. Kavanagh"—I said "I must request you to let me see what you have in your possession"—he produced 19 pawn-tickets, including one on 7th November, 1885, for two boxes of cigars, pawned for 1l. 5s. in the name of Kavanagh; 5th October, two boxes of cigars, 7s., pledged by Kavanagh, identified by Mr. Evitt; 1st October, 1885, two boxes of cigars, by Kavanagh; 26th September, one box of cigars, 10s., by Kavanagh; 17th August, two boxes of cigars, 17s., by Kavanagh; 22nd July, two boxes of cigars, by Kavauagh, pledged with Raper; 21st July, a leather bag, 10s., pledged by Kavanagh with Houghton; 22nd January, a plated tea and coffee service 2l., by Kavanagh, and identified by Nunn; 26th February, 1886, scoop and mallet, 4s., by Kavanagh; 6th February, 1886, one dozen table knives, 12s., Kavanagh; 21st January, six table and six dessert knives, 15s., by Kavanagh; also three tickets relating to wearing apparel and a fire extinguisher canister, 5s., on 11th December, 1885, and 21st January, 1886; also several documents relating to the business of Kavanagh, Cooke, and Co., at 8, Duke Street, Adelphi, something in Kavanagh's writing, and five County Court summonses addressed to

Kavanagh, Cooke, and Co.—on John Lee I found a pocket book and memoranda relating to the business—I searched Kavanagh—I found this pocket book, containing letters and memoranda, some of them bearing the heading of the Automatic Compound Fire Extinguisher, Kavanagh's patent—I examined the rooms—in the first office was a very small desk and a stool—in the next office was a stool and two or three empty boxes, and two boxes containing empty tins of the fire extinguisher, and several full tins, packed up by the side of a bench—one extinguisher was sent to Professor Tidy.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. I did not find six boxes; to the beat of my recollection there were four—there may have been a couple of hundred extinguishers full and empty, about 50 full—I did not count them—there were certainly not 400, or anything approaching it—I found some fuse in a box, but I did not measure it—in the back room there was what I should call a dresser in the corner, with some pigeon-holes fixed into the wall, as if they belonged to the owner; it was not a table—there was a poker, but I could not say there was a fender—there was no carpet; it was a bare floor, with a very small piece of, not linoleum, I should call it oilcloth, and something leading from the front door—you did not say to me" If there is any blame that blame is mine," nor did I say to you" Allow me to conduct my own business; I am a public officer," but I would not allow you to take hold of the papers, and I said "I must request you to sit down and allow me to conduct this case"—the warrant was issued at the suit of Mr. Houghton.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. Reader assisted me—he had some of the pawn-tickets, but I handed them back to him simply to mark them—he brought me some tickets purporting to come from the Lees' father, all initialled by me—they are marked with the prisoner's name, or else the name of the person from whom they were obtained—I found nine pawn-tickets upon George Lee—I marked them the day he was arrested—I was called on two occasions at the police-court, I think.

CHARLES MEYMOTT TIDY . I am the official analyst to the Home Office—on 19th March, Sergeant Reader brought me a tin canister which purported to be an automatic fire extinguisher—having analysed the contents I think its value would be 3d. or 4d.—4d. would be liberal—the contents, taking 100 parts, consisted of moisture 8.80, mixed nitrate potash and soda 37.67, crude sulphur 30.45, resin 12.16, and silica 10.92—the nitrate is worth 3d. or 3 1/2 d. a lb., sulphur Id., resin 2d. or 4d.—it would assist in extinguishing fire, as the resin would burn at the expense of the moisture, and produce carbonic acid; the sulphur would burn; carbonic acid and sulphurous acid would be produced, which are gases which have a tendency to extinguish flame.

Cross-examined by Kavanagh. The canister was sealed and delivered to me with paper round it—the lid of the box was secured, and there was a fuse—it was wrapped in brown paper, and sealed with red wax—it had a label—in my analysis I found no manganese ore—it was badly mixed.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. The fuse comes through the tin; a great many fire extinguishers are on that principle—the difference between your fire extinguisher and others is that yours is a self-igniting one—the hand-grenade is a solution—your idea is a self-acting one, automatic—I do not think it would intensify a fire—a large quantity of

sulphurous gases would be dangerous to people—I do not think there is much skill shown in your extinguisher—the material was mixed very roughly.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. In the event of my having a sample of the fire extinguisher properly mixed, there would be nothing inconsistent with the formula: 30 lb. of resin, 30 lb. of manganese, 56 lb. of chloride of potass, 112 lb. of saltpetre, 112 lb. of sulphur, and 60 lb. of silicate of soda, but there certainly was no manganese in the sample I had.

JOHN LANGRISH (Re-examined). I have looked through the whole of the pawn-tickets—I produce the tickets found on Archibald—there is no charge against George Lee for obtaining clothing, and so far as I know the ticket has nothing to do with this conspiracy—the seven tickets produced have relation to property in this case, the eighth has not—the agency agreement produced is not written by Kavanah, but the signature resembles his writing—I received a letter and two pawn-tickets from Jennings—Reader received two tickets from George Lee, which he has.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. The desk was not locked—Archibald said, "Mind my hand!"—I said, "You have met with an accident"—he said, "Yes," and I assisted in taking the papers from his pocket—I found a little satchel with the papers in, which are produced. (Testimonials to Archibald's character from the propietors of "Coming Events" "Dramatic News," and others.) I only found one pawn-ticket with Archibald's name on it—that was dated 21st January, 1885, for a ring pawned for 1l. at 12, St. Martin's Court—Archibald said Kavanagh had given him the tickets found on him—the inspector selected some of the papers in the office.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I do not recollect having seen that amongst the papers (a newspaper cutting relating to Kavanagh)—I have made no inquiries about the clothes that were pawned, and don't know whether they are new or old.

Re-examined. I found this day-book, but no cash-book or wages-book—I do not recollect having seen a call-book.

WILLIAM READER (Detective Officer) Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. I was engaged with Langrish in this case—I received a number of pawn-tickets from the Lees' father, and two from Mr. Jennings—they are marked—I had a communication from Jennings, in consequence of which I went to his office—Jennings said the two tickets were handed to him by Kavanagh, and that he lent him 5s. on them—he said that Kavanagh owed him a long bill of costs—Jennings is a respectable solicitor—Lee senior handed me over 11 or 12 tickets which he said had been handed to him on 5th instant—I did not know then of the claim against Kavanagh for watches—Jennings showed me the picture produced on the morning I went to his office—I made inquiries, and found Lee senior was a respectable man.

WILLIAM FOSTER REYNOLDS . Kavanagh introduced the fire extinguisher to me in June last—I subsequently supplied him with goods to the amount of 19l. 5s. 8d.—he showed me some hand-bills, and I saw Mr. Whiteley and other firms had taken it up—I was going out when he stopped me at the door, and I told him if he liked he could send me a few samples—some were sent—some were not perfect, so 30s. was paid

on account, leaving a Balance of a few shillings, which he was afterwards paid—at the same time he said he had advertised it in the local paper—that was when he first came in August—that was the whole of the first transaction—I received these two letters from him. (Produced, dated 22nd January, 1886, ordering a bachelor's breakfast set and other goods; also 25th January, 1886, stating that Kavanagh was waiting for the breakfast set.) I could not swear to the Lees—Archibald was sitting with his hand up, I could not see his face—I supplied the first lot of goods, but not the second.

Kavanagh in his defence stated that his patent teas a good one, and that he employed the other prisoners—George Lee as a mixer, John Lee to prepare the fuse, and Archibald as a traveller, and that the tickets found on Archibald and George Lee were what he gave them to take care of, as the desk in the office was not locked.

JOHN LEE received a good character NOT GUILTY . KAVANAGH— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, April 6th, 1886, and four following days.

Before Mr. Justice Cave.

Reference Number: t18860405-465

465. JOHN BURNS, WILLIAM HYDE CHAMPION, HENRY MAYERS HYNDMAN , and JOHN EDWARD WILLIAMS were indicted for unlawfully and maliciously uttering seditious words of and concerning Her Majesty's Government, with intent to incite to riot. Other Counts, with intent to stir up ill-will between Her Majesty's subjects, and Other Counts for conspiracy to effect the said objects.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR CHARLES RUSSELL), with MESSRS. POLAND, R. S. WRIGHT, and CHARLES MATHEWS PROSECUTED; MR. THOMPSON defended Burns and Williams; Champion and Hyndman defended themselves.

JOHN WHILE . I am a reporter to the Times newspaper, and have been so for about 24 years—on Wednesday, 3rd February last, I went to a meeting at the Holborn Town Hall—I there saw the four defendants on the platform with others—Champion was the chairman—they all four addressed the meeting—it was a meeting called by the body called "The social Democratic Federation," to call for measures to meet the wants of the unemployed; it had reference to a meeting that was to take place on the following Monday in Trafalgar Square—Champion called on those who were desirous of seeing effective measures taken, to carry out the resolutions that were submitted to the meeting, to go to 36, Hatton wall on the Sunday night to concert practical measures in regard to the wants of the unemployed, and in direct reference to the meeting to be held in Trafalgar Square the following day—I should think, roughly speaking, about 1,500 to 2,000 people were at the Town Hall meeting, the place was very full—I took a note of Mr. Hyndman's speech on that occasion. (This was objected to and not pursued.) I did not go to Hatton all on Sunday—on Monday, the 8th, I went to Trafalgar Square about half-past 1 in accordance with instructions I received from the Times office—when I got there I saw a great number of persons assembled in the square, but not so many as were there subsequently—they were standing all over the square, but the greater number were round the Nelson monument—the meeting of the unemployed was to be at 3 o'clock, it was called by a different body—I did not see any of the defendants

there at first, except that I saw Burns's back; I did not know him at the time, but I found afterwards that it was him—he was then on the north side of the plinth of the monument; he had a red flag in his hand—there was some speaking going on, but the crowd was so dense and moving about that I could not get near, and I was at the rear of them, at the west side of the monument—I sought to obtain the assistance of the police to get on the plinth—there were a number of people on the plinth—I did not hear anything said at that time—presently I saw Burns on the stone balustrade under the National Gallery, the terrace—I heard him address the meeting there—I have it in my remembrance that the other defendants were there from the first because somebody asked me who they were—I have Burns's speech, I made some shorthand notes of it, and after the meeting was over I transcribed them; a part before I got to the Times office, and there I transcribed the rest—I afterwards saw a copy of the Evening Standard; I did not check my transcript with that, I only took the last part of it—the other speeches I had written before the Evening Standard came out—the original shorthand notes were left as usual on the desk at the Times office; I have asked about them and was told they were destroyed 24 hours afterwards—that is the usual practice when the transcript is made—I have the transcript that I made that afternoon—Mr. Burns was the nominal chairman, there was no chairman there, he stood on the platform in the position of leader—it was just about two o'clock, or a minute or so alter, when he began to speak there—I think I remember the clock striking two—I have made a copy of my transcript for the purpose of being attached to the dopositions—Burns had a stentorian voice, and could be heard distinctly at a great distance. (Reads.) "He declared that he and his friends of the 'Revolutionary Social Democratic League' were not there to oppose the agitation of the unemployed, but they were there to prevent people being made the tools of the paid agitators who were working in the interests of the Fair Trade League. He went on to denounce the House of Commons as composed of capitalists who had fattened upon the labour of the working men, and in this category he included landlords, railway directors and employers, who, he said, were no more likely to legislate in the interests of the working men than were the wolves to labour for the lambs. To hang these, he said, would be to waste good rope, and as no good to the people was to be expected from these 'representatives,' there must be revolution to alter the present state of things. The people who were out of work did not want relief but justice. From whom should they get justice?—from such as the Duke of Westminster and his class, or the capitalists in the House of Commons and their classes? No relief or justice would come from them. The unemployed too, the working men, had now the vote conferred upon them. What for? To turn one party out and put the other in? Were they going to be content with that, while their wives and children wanted food? When the people in France demanded food the rich laughed at those they called 'the men in blouses,' but the heads of those who laughed soon decorated the lamp-posts. Here the leaders of the Revolutionary Democratic League wanted to settle affairs peaceably if they could, but if not they would not shrink from revolution." The crowd had increased amazingly by this time; I should think there were 1,500 people there—a very large part of the crowd were of the orderly working class who were certainly men out of work, but the large part were very violent in their

expressions—the rougher part cheered and applauded the speeches—Burns asked those who were out of work to hold up their hands, and nearly all the hands were held up—then the speaker took up another strain, dwelling on their right to work and their right to live, and warning them not to give ear to the Fair Traders who were having a meeting for heir own purposes; that was the three o'clock meeting—Mr. Champion spoke next—the defendants were in the hearing of each other when they spoke. (Reads.) Mr. Champion "declared that the Government which had now come into power were able in 24 hours, when they thought they personally needed protection from Dynamitards, to carry a measure. Now was needed a measure to protect lives more valuable and of more importance than any of the governing classes, lives which had to be dragged out in miserable homes, and it behoved this Government to set on foot at once remedial measures for the existing state of things. The speaker demanded the provision of work and the enactment of laws limiting labour to eight hours a day, and insisting upon the erection of better homes for the labouring classes at a rent within the means of workers. He also called upon the crowd not to be made the tools of the flair Trade Leaguers, who wished the people to pay more for their food and necessaries of life, in rich men's interests, and then proceeded to say that if the demands of the workers were not granted the people must be contented to go back to their starvation and to bear quietly in the future, or else they must bring home in a practical way responsibility to those who had made it impossible for something to be done." Mr. Williams next addressed the meeting. "He now said he was not contented to clamour any more for work, and advised his hearers as men in want of work to regard the position from his point of view. He quoted words from Shelley, 'We are many, they are few.' The many were workers in want, the few were owners of wealth. The few were organised, while the many were not organised, and if the many organised and banded themselves together, the wealth of the country would change hands. The people should not care for Liberal or Tory, but should seek to benefit their own class. They must put the fear of man in the hearts of the rich and so obtain what they wanted." Mr. Hyndman next spoke. "He said the people out of work were asked to be moderate, but how could they be moderate when they were out of work and starving? If the thousands there had he courage of a few they would very soon alter the existing system of things. But what happened? They went away from meetings like that and forgot all about what they had heard. He and his friends would lead if they would follow, and even 500 determined men out of the thousands present could very soon make a change. It depended upon them whether they would drive the middle classes to bay, and if they did they would soon win." Mr. Burns then spoke again, "he observed that the next time they met it would be to go and sack the bakers' shops in the west of London. They had better die fighting than die starving, and he again asked how many would join the leaders of the Socialists, a question in reply to which many hands were held up. The men over there, Mr. Burns added, referring to the speakers at the rival meetings, were paid agitators, who were living on the poverty of the working classes. Those whom he was addressing he said pledged themselves to revolutionary doctrines, which elicited cries of 'No, no.' He concluded by asking the question, 'When we give the word for a rising will you

join us?' to which a large number of the audience replied that they would, and almost as large a number declared they would not." Besides these speeches other speeches were made—Mr. Burns was constantly, waving the red flag—I heard something said which I did not take down; I heard Mr. Burns make one observation which struck me very much, and that was, "We must have bread or they must have lead"—the speaking at that part of the square went on, I think, till about ten minutes past three, as far as my memory will serve; it might have been a little later—at that time I turned my attention to the other meeting—I did not see the end of the meeting at which the defendants were present; the speaking had finished where they were and the people went away, and I went to the Fair Trade meeting at the Nelson Column.

Cross-examined by MR. THOMPSON. I heard both Mr. Burns and Mr. Williams speak at the Holborn Town Hall on 3rd February—it is in my mind that they all made reference to the meeting of the 8th—I have not got the words they used, but I know they were all referring to it—I can't say that I remember the words they used—I have only part of the notes which I found among the slips on which we write, and they only refer to Mr. Hyndman's speech, the most particular parts; we do not take full notes of a meeting of that character, where only a paragraph is required—I have it now in my mind that Mr. Burns was referring to the Fair Trade League and the Fair Traders, and that the meeting on Monday was not held in the interests of the working-classes, and I remember some expression being used that they should go and break down their platform—I cannot tell who said that—I was communicated with by the Treasury authorities about this—I have here the original transcript that I sent in to The Times office—the original notes are gone, they are not lost, they are gone before—I heard the two resolutions that were submitted to the meeting at the Holborn Town Hall—some portions of the speeches I took from The Evening Standard—the red flag I saw in Trafalgar Square appeared to be bigger than that (produced)—it was on a stick—I will not swear it was twice that size—it was about the size of a very large pocket-handkerchief—the first speech I heard Burns make he was standing on the balustrade—there was a very considerable crowd below him—the rougher class were mostly on the terrace—they were fairly orderly below—I can't say how long Burns spoke—I did not care about putting my hand in my pocket to get my watch; moreover, my attention was diverted to other things—I may have said that what he spoke would make a column and a half, which I reduced to forty or fifty lines—it would be quite a matter of guess—I think you suggested that he might have spoken a column and a half, and I said he might have done so—I don't say it was a column and a half, I only adopt your words—I gave the character of the speeches in a necessarily condensed form—if there had been any qualifying words they would have been reported—it is not a matter of opinion, they are matters of fact—a reporter is an apostle of fact—I heard all Burns said in his first speech—it was not in his first speech he said "We must have bread, or they must have lead"—that was subsequently—in a subsequent part, when the meeting got more noisy, a sentence would be lost, because my attention was directed elsewhere—I was in a position to hear all he said and I heard every sentence he uttered, but I did not take it all down—his voice is a tremendous one—I can't tell how long Williams spoke; I won't pledge myself to time—

I said at the police-court that his speech might make half a column; again I adopted your words—I reproduced it in fifteen lines—he might have spoken about ten minutes, which would make about one-third of a column—a rapid speaker would speak half a column in ten minutes—he spoke rapidly at the Holborn Town Hall, but at a large meeting like this he would speak deliberately, in order to make his language tell—the fifteen lines fairly represents the character of his speech—Burns made a speech later on—I took a shorthand note of that—he spoke several times; then the meeting was getting of a changeful character, and the crowd had very much increased—where I was standing the crushing was not felt—the crushing was on the outskirts of the crowd, 50 or 100 feet from me—there was a roar of voices in the distance, but they did not interrupt my hearing—there was considerable noise and crushing in the square—when there was a noise the speaker turned round and stopped and then went on again—I heard Burns say "We must have bread or they must have lead"—I took that down, but I did not report it in the paper, in the public interests—had I written all the violent exclamations the public, abroad especially, might think there was a revolution in London—it would have given a fictitious character, an alarming character—at the time I wrote it appeared to me that the meeting was of a some-what peaceable character; at least, not of an unpeaceable character—The Times has an editor and a manager—they gave me no instructions as to what I should put in and what I should leave out—I was on my own responsibility and my own feeling—I had no book in my hand—these are the copy slips of the paper used in The Times office, and in the same way I wrote the shorthand notes of Mr. Hyndman's speech that night—in an open meeting of this character my experience has shown me that is the best way to write it—I took down more of the speech than I wrote out—I took down as much as would perhaps make a column and a half, if it was all written out—a good deal was necessarily omitted—the short summary makes forty or fifty lines—I heard Mr. Champion put the resolution—I think Mr. Williams seconded it—I think it was the same that was given at the Holborn Town Hall on the previous day—it was certainly of the same character—I went away before the meeting broke up and moved towards the other meetings that were going on—I did not hear Burns say "A suggestion has been made to me that we should march through the West-end to Hyde Park"—I heard Mr. Champion at Hatton Wall speak with regard to the meeting on Monday—I did not attribute any sinister meaning to what he said, not in regard to life or property in the metropolis—when I left Trafalgar Square I left a very large crowd there—the rough element came on the scene then—there was a very large number of real unemployed people there; people of fustian and with stains of labour upon them—the roughs kept very much together, and so did the working class—that was how I was able to take my notes in peace and comparative quietness—the working class was below and the rough element above—they became very disorderly; in fact, the platform on which I stood was broken down—that was an hour afterwards, near four o'clock—the defendants had then left the square—this was at the other end of the square, not very far from the Nelson Monument.

Cross-examined by Champion. In my report I only gave a sentence or two of your speech in Trafalgar Square; you spoke at some length, as

long as Mr. Hyndman—I had no reason for cutting your speech short except that I had other business to do—I put the salient points—at Hatton Wall you spoke of the steps taken by the Members of Parliament—you said they had been invited to attend, and read letters from them approving the objects of the meeting in Trafalgar Square—you spoke there to the same effect as at Hatton Wall, the two speeches were much the same in tenour—in Trafalgar Square you spoke of the rapidity with which legislation could be carried out, and that Parliament was able to pass the Explosives Act through both Houses in 24 hours, and that a special act for the relief of the unemployed could be passed equally speedily if they liked—you demanded the passing of a law limiting the hours of labour to eight hours; that was the gist of your long speech—you recommended constitutional and legal steps for calling attention to the great distress among the unemployed—there were police all round the Nelson monument—I sought the assistance of one policeman to get on the plinth, not of Superintendent Dunlop—the meeting I went to was the 3 o'clock meeting—yours commenced at 2 o'clock—I heard no language inciting to violence—there were some violent expressions from persons in front of me—I was summoned to the Treasury the day before the proceedings at Bow Street—I objected to be called as a witness, I said it was incompatible with my position as a reporter—I was then handed my copy, and was requested to sit down, and I was asked if I heard anything else besides what was there; the matter was then quite fresh in my mind, and I mentioned some of the expressions, and I said I heard the expression from Burns "We must have bread or they must have lead," and immediately that expression was written down—I said that I heard that—the solicitor did not ask me if I heard it, I volunteered it—I saw one other gentleman in the square who I supposed was a reporter, who he was I don't know, I thought it was Mr. Stead, but I am told it was not—other reporters must have been there—I did not take my notes from other papers—all my notes were written before the evening papers came out.

Cross-examined by Hyndman. I have not, prior to these meetings expressed any strong opinions of this agitation—I never attended any of your meetings, and knew nothing about your opinions—I cannot tell when I took my last verbatim report before this meeting—I go to meetings every day of the week, perhaps 500 in the year; it is almost a matter of daily experience that I have to use verbatim shorthand—at the Holborn Town Hall you spoke of building artisans' dwellings, and said it would be a very profitable thing—you dwelt upon the financial question—at the end of your Trafalgar Square meeting I went over to a fourth meeting that was being formed—there were five meetings altogether in the Square—when Burns was speaking I was about 60 or 65 feet from the balustrade—I went and measured it afterwards—there was an enormous crowd of 15,000 or 20,000—there was no pushing or shoving where I was—I heard the speeches—I heard no qualifying words to what I reported—I was thrown down in the square—the platform broke down, I don't know who broke it down—I saw a bag of flour thrown—that was on the plinth of the monument—before this I saw a policeman covered with flour—I could not tell the names of the persons who were speaking then—I say you delivered a violent harangue—I did not adopt the

description in other papers, I only used the Evening Standard—I saw other journals that evening, but I never opened them.

Re-examined by MR. POLAND. I went to this meeting solely as the Times reporter—I had no notion that I should be called as a witness—when I went to the Treasury I found they had got my transcript that I had prepared for the Times, I had not sent it, it had been obtained from the Times office—I was questioned about it, and I then gave the further statement about "bread and lead" which I had heard, and afterwards I was supoenaed to attend at the police court as a witness—I have not put a word in my report that I did not hear—I put in the passage from the Evening Standard to save the time of transcription; I compared it with my notes, and altered it so as to agree with them—I am quite sure that that was said at that part of the meeting at Trafalgar Square to which the speeches were addressed—the platform that afterwards broke down was by the fountain, about 50 yards from where I stood.

THOMAS MCDONALD RENDALL . I am a reporter for the Daily Telegraph—I attended the meeting in Trafalgar Square on 8th February, I arrived at 2.45 p.m., and saw some persons standing in front of the National Gallery—Burns and Williams were two of them; I heard Bums speak, and took down what I could hear, or that I wanted to take—these are my original notes, and this is the transcript that I made at the time—Burns said "Next time you meet here, will be to sack the bakers' shops in the West End; we have had too much talk; I stand here as an unemployed workman and as a revolutionist; the next time it will not be to move resolutions but to take the wealth and the bread they daily rob us of. You have pledged yourselves to a revolutionary platform; when you are called upon will you respond like men? the Social Democratic League and Union will assist; it is not true we are disunited; will you respond like men? Mr. Sparling, the Secretary of the Socialist League, will now address you"—Mr. Sparling did so—Burns also said "Unless we get bread they must have lead," and as I remember that was said twice—I think he spoke four or five times, and when the meeting broke up he said, "It is suggested we shall march through the West End; those who will go, hold up their hands;" I took that down—a great number held up their hands, and they moved towards the West End—Burns was carried along on the shoulders of the crowd—he had a red flag at some part of the proceedings—Williams had addressed the meeting before I got there, he made same remarks about Mr. Pigly, which I took down; I have the speech here, but I am not certain of the identity of the speaker.

Cross-examined by MR. THOMPSON. I was first asked to give evidence on Wednesday after the meeting, by the Treasury I believe—I do not produce the report which I furnished to the Daily Telegraph; there was a large number of people in Trafalgar Square; they were a bad lot; I tried to get a resting place in front of the speakers, but they were so disorderly that I got to the back of the speakers, where it was quieter—there was a very choice collection of the roughs of London, who did not seem to listen to anything—they were indulging in horse-play, bonneting one another, and all the usual amusements of London roughs—there was a great noise, and I had some difficulty in hearing the speeches, very many sentences were lost—I was several feet behind Burns; but it was after that that the crowd were disorderly, and a contractor's shed broke down every five minute with the pressure of people getting on it—I remember

Mr. Sparling, he was standing behind Bums, except when he was speaking; he was between me and Burns the greater part of the time but some distance off—there is a possibility of his using the words bread and lead, and my mistaking them for Burns's words—it was impossible to pay much attention, because four or five meetings were in progress at one time—I believe Williams spoke, but I am uncertain about it—when Burns spoke of marching to the West End, I think he said "It has been suggested that we should march through the West End"—I heard nothing said about protracting the speeches until the disorderly crowd had gone in another direction; the red flag was like this (produced), and not much larger; it was not a formidable banner, it was on a stick.

Cross-examined by Champion. I don't remember hearing you speak—I fancy I came after you had spoken.

Cross-examined by Hyndman. I think you had spoken before I had got there—it would require lungs in good working order to penetrate that crowd—I could not hear all that Burns said; some of the early part of my report was taken from the evening paper, as I was not there to hear it myself—there was noise throughout the whole business; but according to my understanding, it was Burns who used the words bread and lead—but if two people were on the balustrade, it is possible that I might have mistaken the words of one for the words of the other—I can hear well—my discomfort arose from the people in the square.

Re-examined. I was at two or three points—there were similar rushes and sallies and alarms of various sorts, and then I went behind where Burns was.

EDGAR WINDETT . I am a cricket-bat manufacturer, of 167, Tufnell Park Road—on 8th February, at 1.30, I went to Trafalgar Square—there were some thousands of people there—I saw the defendants at the base of the Nelson monument when I arrived—Burns had a red flag in his hand; he said that it was not the first he had had in his hand—there were policemen there, who turned the defendants off, and then they went to the balustrade in front of the National Gallery—I heard Burns speak there; he said that unless something was done for them, at their next meeting they would ransack the bakers' shops, and they would have to do the same as they did in other countries—he named France, and said they went there in their thousands to the Government and demanded bread, and were laughed at, and two years after the heads of those who laughed were stuck on the lamp-posts—Burns spoke two or three times—I heard all the other defendants speak, but do not remember their words—Burns made a remark about going round west, and somebody shouted out "To the clubs"—the crowd then moved to the west, and I saw Burns as he was leaving the square, with a red flag in his hand in the front of the crowd, and they followed him towards Cockspur Street and into Pall Mall, where I saw Burns climb up the parapet in front of the Carlton Club—he spoke there, but I could not hear what he said—the red flag was still in his hand—he then got down and moved in the direction of St. James's Street, and the crowd followed him—I saw some windows broken at the Carlton, but at no other club that I noticed—I saw a lot of windows broken on the left side of Ht. James's Street—they then turned into Piccadilly, where I saw some windows broken and a trunk being thrown about, but did not see where it came from—I went on with the crowd into Hyde Park and went towards the Achilles statue, and saw several carriages being smashed by the roughs, and I went and warned

one or two of the coachmen in the drive; a mounted policeman followed me, and when he caught mo up I went back to the Achilles statue and saw Burns on the pedestal, and afterwards the other three—I heard Barns speak from the statue and say "We have shown them to-day what we can do with stones, and unless they do something for us we shall show them what we can do with powder and shot"—I saw Williams on the pedestal beckon to a reporter who was below in the crowd with a book, and I believe Williams assisted him on to the pedestal—some of the crowd cried "Lead us to Oxford Street," and "No reporters"—not withstanding that the reporter began to take notes on the statue—the four defendants were close together on the pedestal, and each of them spoke, I cannot say in what order—the reporter stood close to them, in a position to hear and take down all they said—the cry of "Lead us to Oxford Street" was raised once or twice during the speeches—after the speeches the defendants all went off towards Notting Hill together, and the crowd moved towards Stanhope Gate—I went with it and passed with it through Dean Street into South Audley Street; a lot of windows were broken in both those streets, and shop fronts were smashed in and a lot of things stolen—I saw a lot of bread and some rabbits, and all sorts of things; I did not notice any jewellery—I went with the crowd across Grosvenor Square into North Audley Street, and saw shops smashed in, and then into Oxford Street, where there were some constables, I do not know how many, but the crowd dispersed—I left about 5 o'clock and walked along Oxford Street to Tottenham Court Road.

Cross-examined by MR. THOMPSON. I have not seen my depositions since I was at Bow Street—when I was first called to the Treasury they took down in writing what I have told you—I have not learnt it by heart since, I have not seen it—I have three shops and employ four men at present—when 1 was at Bow Street I was only employing one—I supply some of the police with cricketing goods, but never played with them—I hardly know why I followed the crowd—I was not one of the unemployed—I was an idler, it' you like—I had gone in the City to call on my brother, and was going for orders as well, but not for the police—I went to the meeting out of curiosity as much as anything—I knew that there was great trade depression, and I sympathised with the unemployed—I arrived there about 1.30 and saw Burns on the Nelson Column—I left the square about 4 o'clock—I did not follow Burns when he left the Nelson Monument—I only heard Burns make one remark respecting the flag—I was struck by his voice; he had a good voice—I heard him on the balustrade when I was in the middle of the square—there were a lot of people; they were not very noisy—I made no note of what Burns said—I may have had greater power of hearing than others had—I am not dull of hearing—I will not swear to what I have said word for word, it is two months ago—I do not remember the portions between the defendant's sentences—before I left Trafalgar Square the crowd got very noisy and there was a good deal of horseplay—I did not notice any police, except those round the Column, guarding it, I suppose—the crowd was increasing in size and in turbulence, and the police nowhere visible—I saw no police as we went up Cockspur Street—the crowd went on to the Carlton Club, and there I saw window-breaking take place—I saw no police there—I saw some persons at the window of the Carlton Club smiling, I suppose, at the ragged army—no damage was done till then that I saw—I saw something thrown from the centre of

the crowd, but I will not say they were stones—after the crowd got into St. James's Street it increased in violence—I saw no police in Pall Mall or at Hyde Park Corner—I saw a few by the Park gate inside—I don't know what they were guarding—when the crowd got into the Park they separated in two portions—most of them went on the right-hand side of the statue, and I saw Burns get on the monument—there were not more than 200 people at the statue when I first got there—Burns appeared to be waiting for the others, who had got behind—there was horseplay and confusion to my right—Burns was almost in front of me—the crowd ran a great portion of the distance to the gate—I was ten or twelve yards from Burns—he commenced speaking two or three minutes after I got there with the crowd—I was about 100 yards from the front of the crowd, as near as I can judge, in the middle of it—I do not remember hearing Burns say "You have shown by your procession through the streets to-day your poverty and determination"—he may have said so, I did not hear all he said—I did not take down the words "We have shown them to-day what we can do with stones, and unless they do something for us we will show them what we can do with powder and shot," and I cannot swear to their verbal accuracy, as it is some months ago, but they were words to that effect—I heard Williams speak—I don't remember what he said—I said at Bow Street that he said "Those who insult young ladies are not worthy of the name of men," and I remember Champion using similar words; they denounced those who insulted ladies coming along—I cannot say whether it was Williams, but one of the speakers denounced those who had broken windows; one of the speakers said that they were ashamed at what the mob had done—I did not notice any of the defendants during my passage to the West-end—the Treasury communicated with me on the Saturday, but I had communicated with them on the previous Wednesday—you can, if you like, say that I am an informer, but it was not with the intention of giving any of the speeches that I went there—I offered to give them evidence respecting the riot—I had no intention of giving evidence against any of the defendants, but when I was asked if I remembered any of the speeches made, I told them.

Cross-examined by Champion. I do not remember seeing you at the Nelson Monument—I think I first saw you on a balustrade opposite the National Gallery—my brother is not a prize fighter, he is an amateur boxer; he was not with me in the square—I have no evidence to give of what you said in the square—I did not see you on the right at Hyde Park—I do not remember hearing the crowd in Hyde Park say "Shoot the aristocracy"—I heard you ask all those who had brothers among the soldiers or police to get them to side with the oppressed, but I do not remember your saying "If the day should come"—these riots have damaged trade very much—they caused shops to be closed, and that was my motive for coming forward—I saw you go from the meeting, in the direction of Notting Hill; you were on the right hand side of the drive, the left side facing the Statue—I should not be surprised to hear that you were in Piccadilly five minutes afterwards—I did not speak to the patrol—I saw one mounted policeman ride down the drive and go away; he stopped some carriages; I did not speak to him—I preferred this information two days afterwards; in the interim I saw the accounts in two news-papers—I did not go to Scotland Yard to give evidence about what you said, but to put a stop to these riots, as it was said each day afterwards

that many thousands of persons were going to cause another riot, and I went to assist the police in putting a stop to it, as I was in the neighbourhood of Scotland Yard, and they asked me what I knew, and I told them what I remembered.

Cross-examined by Hyndman. I do not remember much pushing when I first got into Trafalgar Square—there was a very large crowd afterwards—there was noise and pushing—I don't remember seeing a man put into the fountain, nor did I notice hats knocked off—there was pushing and shoving if that be horse-play—I saw a bag of flour strike a policeman, it might have been thrown at some one else—it was rather a disorderly than an orderly crowd—I could not have sworn then to seeing you on the Nelson Monument—now I do believe I saw you, if not you some one very like you—I should be surprised to hear you were not there till an hour later—I had never been to a public meeting of that sort before—I took no interest in it; but I wondered what they were going to do, and so followed as far as the clubs—I did not hear much of what was said—there was pushing and running and shouting, but I did not notice any stone throwing till we got to the Carlton Club—I believe there are jewellers shops and clubs along there—I saw some people inside the windows of the Carlton Club; I saw some of them smiling—I saw nothing thrown from the club—I saw something, I could not say what, thrown at it—I should have noticed if it had been a big stone—I noticed no one molested in the neighbourhood of the club—I noticed stone throwing in St. James's Street; at the bottom of that street there was a cart full of rubbish of some sort—I don't know what it was—there are shops on the right hand side of St. James's Street—I noticed no breaking of windows or pilfering going on there—I saw the windows broken on! the left—I did not notice one policeman from Trafalgar Square to the top of St. James's Street—the crowd was scattered and running with no appearance of any special order—I don't Bay there was any appearance of anything like design—I saw no policeman from St. James's Street to Piccadilly—I saw one or two shops broken into at the corner of Piccadilly—I noticed no policeman up to Arlington Street—I did not notice you at all—I went on with the crowd to the park; it took about half an hour I should say to get there from Trafalgar Square—I noticed no clock any where—on entering the park the bulk of the crowd seemed to go to the right of the statue—I did not notice which way they went, they did not get so far as Stanhope Gate, but they were moving that way—I did not see them come back to the statue; I don't know that I should have if they did—I was about twelve yards from the statue—I can swear to the phrase, "We have shown them what we can do with stones to-day, and unless they do something for us, we will show them what we can do with powder and shot to-morrow;" it was to that effect—I say that Burns said that—there were several remarks made, but after that there was a disturbance—there was no disturbance when he first got up, they were very quiet then, waiting for what he was going to say—when I got in the park I went and warned all the carriages just in the drive on the left by the railings close to the statue, and told the coachmen to turn back; Burns was not on the statue when I did that, as he stopped at the bottom of the statue before he climbed up, I thought he was waiting for some of you, those were the first words I heard Burns say, to the effect I have mentioned—I would not swear that was the commencement of his speech—I should think the speaking at the statue

lasted about 20 minutes—it would have been possible for the crowd to go through Stanhope Gate and North Audley Street while the speaking was going on at the statue—I heard you speak at the statue, I don't recollect anything you said—I heard all four speak, but I don't remember anything else—there was a disturbance after Burns's speach, and I heard nothing else for a little while—after I left the statue I saw some policemen at Stanhope Gate—I went into North Audley Street, I don't remember seeing any policemen there—I went down and gave information, with no intention of saying anything about the speeches, but about what I had seen at the riot, the breaking of windows and so forth.

WILLIAM EDWARD BARLING . I am a reporter on the staff of the Daily Telegraph—I was at the meeting in Trafalgar Square, I got there about five minutes past three, and stayed till about 4 o'clock; I was in several parts of the square, chiefly near the Nelson Monument—shortly before 4 o'clock I saw a crowd of three or four thousand people moving along westward, towards Cockspur Street and Fall Mall, and I went with them—at that time I had not seen any of the defendants, I had seen a red flag waving at the top of Trafalgar Square—at the Reform and Carlton Clubs a halt was made, and a speech was given by some one on the balustrade of the Reform—at its conclusion some one in the crowd cried out "Three cheers for the Social revolution"—some one spoke from the balustrade of the Carlton, but I could not hear it; there was a red flag there; no windows were broken at the Reform, but at the Carlton there were—in St. James's Street and Piccadilly, some in the clubs and shops, and all the windows of the hotel at the corner of Wellington Street were smashed—chiefly gravel was thrown about, and some loose blocks of wood paving, and empty trunks were being kicked about—I got into the Green Park on the left and went quickly along to get to Hyde Park—I there saw some carriages stopped and the windows broken, and I saw things taken away from some of the people in carriages inside Hyde Park, and missiles thrown at the carriages, at the glass probably—I went to the Achilles Statue, about 400 or 500 people were there when I got there—all the defendants were there on the stonework of the statue—Burns commenced to speak; I think the first sentence I heard was "We have shown them what we can do to-day"—I was amongst the crowd in front of the statue—I think some other words followed which I did not hear—I took out a book and began to take a note; this seemed to displease some of the crowd, who called out, "No reporters, turn him out"—I said "I am not a Government reporter, I am a newspaper reporter: let me alone"—some of the defendants then hauled me up to the pedestal of the statue, from which they were speaking—I took down their speeches—I have a transcript of my original shorthand notes, which I have compared—Burns began, "We intend to submit to the Government all the resolutions that we moved, and pending the time we shall know what they are going to do, I ask you to be satisfied with that. (Cries of 'No' and 'Oxford Street.') We must insist on their doing what we want. (Cheers.) The reporter has arrived. (Daily Telegraph reporter here arrived.) He probably knows what has already taken place. We are determined that this business shall end as we the workers wish it. (Cheers.) We are determined to have an opportunity for those who through no fault of their own are starving (cheers), and I will ask this reporter to tell the Government and the people of London that unless they concede all our requests, then I say

there will be revolution in the streets of London. (Cheers and cries of 'Now's the time.') It is all very well for some hot-headed men to say 'Now's the time,' but you are not so large as you were. We will choose the time when we are strong enough to go, and not before. It isn't worth while losing one's life for breaking a window. When we lay down our lives it will be on behalf of the hungry. I ask you now to peaceably break up. I hope you will go away (No, no), and next when we meet we will tell you what to do." Mr. Champion: "I know perfectly well that this crowd can't stand against soldiers, or even against police. (Cries of 'Yes.') Listen to me; you cannot stand against them as you are now, but this you can do. Go from here, many of you have friends in the Army, in the regiment of Guards who will be the first brought down to clear this park. Go away and tell them, every man, so that when the day does come for taking sides in this great class struggle they will not side with these people who drive up and down here to-day, but be on the side of the suffering and privation you see here. (A voice: 'Shoot the aristocracy.') No, no, you want to upset the system, and breaking windows or interfering with women in carnages won't do that. I saw the window (interruption) that girl who was frightened. You who are fighting for the (Qy. emancipation) of your class, are you going to fight against your-selves by frightening timid women like thin? (A voice: 'It wasn't a man, it was a cur.') I was ashamed of the men who took the brandy out of the wine shop, and tore down that shopkeeper's (Qy. ties). Those are not the men. If your peaceable (? reasonable) demands are not met (confusion), my counsel to you is separate from here; go each man to his own home, but before you go to bed to-night find out some man in the soldiers or police, spread among them the truths we have told you to-day, so that if we have occasion to call another meeting it shall be so large, so organised, so orderly, so threatening, that your demands will be conceded without bringing you face to face unarmed and poverty stricken as you are (sentence unfinished.)" Mr. Hyndman: "Those who broke the windows were the paid champions of your enemies. If you are firm friends they must give in. They have seen you to-day, seen you march past their palaces. I ask you not to forget that you are (interruption). I ask you as a friend, both a middle class man and an officer (renewed interruption). You know perfectly well we are trying what we can do, at some risk to ourselves, against a system. I ask you not to render our work impossible. We are not organised. Mr. Champion is an Artillery officer and he knows you will have no opportunity against them. Organise, organise, and educate each other. We are going to demand from each party, so that the labourer may live in the land of his birth. I say have a good try first, and if all peaceful means fail we will be the first to call upon you to prevail." Mr. Burns: "Probably all the speakers here to-day will be in prison to-morrow. I hope so. I will tell you for why—the more they prosecute and imprison, the greater the cause of the workers will become. We are not strong enough at the present moment to cope with armed force, but when we give you the signal will you rise? (Loud cries of 'Yes.') Then go home quietly; the signal will be given if the Government doesn't move. (Oh!) We have shown our devotion to the cause of the people for five or six years. We have done everything men could do, and I (urge Qy.) you as a workman, as chairman of the meetings to-day, to disperse and arrange when we shall strike a blow for our own emancipation Kindly disperse; now kindly go home."

Then Williams again spoke: "Kindly go home for the very simple reason that there are a number of roughs who take delight in smashing windows, and don't do it because they want work. Don't attempt a revolution when you are not organised for it." (Cheers and cries of "Oxford Street." Then Burns and Williams said "No more speeches"—I took those speeches down from the lips of the speakers, so that I can speak to the accuracy of them—there had been little movements towards Stanhope Gate, and when the speeches ended the crowd went in that direction—I got off the stonework and ran with the crowd to Stanhope Gate—I did not see what had become of the defendants then; I do not think they had got off the stonework then—I went into South Audley Street, where I saw shop windows broken and goods thrown about in the street—Minton's china shop windows were smashed and the goods thrown about—I waited there some time and then went across Grosvenor Square into North Audley Street, where I saw the same sort of thing had taken place—windows had been smashed and things thrown about—I went as far as Marylebone Lane, where there were policemen—the crowd had begun to dwindle away then; I followed a portion of it into the City—I think about the last damage that I saw done was in Oxford Street, opposite Marylebone Lane—on the Wednesday after I was sent for to go to Scotland Yard, and afterwards I was seen by the Solicitor to the Treasury and my statement was taken—I produce my notes, and this transcript taken from them.

Wednesday, April 7th.

WILLIAM EDWARD BARLING (Recalled). (Cross-examined by MR. THOMPSON). I don't think I saw the leading article in the Daily Telegraph—I had a communication from the manager of the Daily Telegraph asking me to go to Scotland Yard—I was at Trafalgar Square on 8th February for about three-quarters of an hour; I was there for the purpose of taking the speeches, I took some, but did not report them—I arrived there about 3.5, and stayed till a few minutes to 4, about the time the crowd departed—I thought it was a very lively crowd, about as lively a one as I had ever seen—I mean it was composed of a rough element, I should say it was the rough element of London—those who went to the West End were mainly the lowest class to be found in London; there were a few working men, as I found out by inquiry—when they left the Square I was on the pavement in Cockspur Street, on the other side of the Union Club, rather towards the end of the mob, then I pushed my way forward along Pall Mall—I did not see any damage done up to the Reform Club, the crowd stopped simultaneously between that and the Carlton—I observed some speaking going on at the Carlton, I did not see any stones thrown—I did not see anybody at the windows of the Carlton, I think I saw some female servants there—the windows were closed; I don't think anything could have come out of them from Trafalgar Square to the Carlton—I had not met a single policeman, I only saw one behind the War Office gates—I went with the crowd up St. James's Street, I saw stone-throwing there by the roughs; that was my impression—I reached the top of St. James's Street without seeing a policeman—I then went into the Green Park and along the north pathway; I saw no policeman in the route—a good portion of the crowd went to the statue, and another portion remained near the gates—when I got to the statue I found a good many people there already, I gave it as 400 or 500, but the number was

continually shifting—I think Burns was speaking when I arrived—I heard him say "We intend to submit to the Government all the resolutions that we moved, and pending the time we shall know what they are going to do I ask you to be satisfied with that"—I don't say that those were his first words, they are the first words in my transcript—the first words I heard were the fragmentary portions of a sentence. "We have shown them what we can do to-day," or words to that effect—I was standing in front of the speakers—I have my original shorthand notes here (reading them)—then Mr. Williams and Hyndman spoke, then Williams spoke again—at the Achilles statue Burns advised the people to go home quietly—after the speaking the great majority of the crowd proceeded to Stanhope Gate, others went in another direction—I did not see any policemen as I went towards Stanhope Gate; I saw one mounted policeman previously, he did not make any vigorous effort to disperse the crowd, I think he made a vigorous effort to get away from the crowd—I said at the police-court" I have been in crowds inclined to disorder, most crowds are inclined to disorder; I do not remember such an entire absence of constables as on this occasion"—I adhere to that.

Cross-examined by Champion. I did not hear you speak in Trafalgar Square—the crowd took about half an hour in getting from the Square to the park, including the stoppage at the clubs—in order to get at the head of the crowd I had to run along the Green Park; I dare say I ran half a mile—the crowd was running and trotting now and then—on getting to the park about 500 people went to the statue, the remainder were up and down the drive, going in different directions, or standing about—I think about 3,000 people went into the park, the numbers around the statue were fluctuating—there was a little disturbance—they were objecting to me; I thought they were going to do something serious—I was then placed on the statue, six or seven feet from the ground—I don't think I could have got up there without assistance—I think Williams and Burns assisted me, knowing that I was a reporter—I then began to take notes—there were various interruptions and ejaculations from the crowd—I think the disturbance terminated about 5 o'clock—I saw four policemen at Marylebone Lane, their presence stopped the window-smashing at that point—by the time they got to Oxford Street the crowd had dwindled to 200 or 300—a considerable portion of the crowd who heard your speeches moved off in the direction of South Audley Street, and some of that crowd committed damage—I have never seen at such a meeting so small a number of police—after you had spoken Mr. Hyndman said that the crowd would have no opportunity against soldiers—"opportunity" is the word I have down, and I believe that is the word he used—he might have said "chance."

Cross-examined by Hyndman. The crowd in Trafalgar Square was noisy and troublesome—there was pushing and a good deal of noise from five minutes past three and on—I went with the crowd from the square—I saw no stones thrown between the square and the Carlton Club, if anything had been thrown from the Carlton I rather think I should have seen them, of course it is possible they might have been thrown without my seeing them—I think it was gravel that was thrown at the club, that was picked up on the road by Waterloo Place—I did not see any large stones thrown—there were a great many roughs in the crowd—I only saw one policeman from the square to the top of St. James's Street, that

was the one inside the War Office gates—I saw 4 policemen come through the crowd at Marylebone Lane, they stopped further depredations—when they appeared the crowd left off doing damage—I think twenty good men might have stopped them at other places—I have some idea that I saw a body of police at the corner of Arlington Street, but I am not quite certain—I aid not notice the time I got to Apsley House—when I came towards the statue I think you were there, you may have arrived later—the crowd was not absolutely quiet, there were a few ejaculations at different times—I don't think those could have been mistaken for words from the speakers—I have my notes of your speech (Reading the speech again)—I had not heard you speak before—I will swear to the general accuracy of what I have down, not to the words—I should say you had all been speaking at the statue about ten minutes or quarter of an hour from the time I saw you begin till you got down, not longer, the speeches were very short—I have been in crowds before—I don't know that I have been in very riotous crowds; parts of this crowd were specially disorderly.

This being the case for the prosecution, MR. JUSTICE CAVE inquired of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL what were the seditious intents alleged and relied upon. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied the intent to stir up ill-will and disaffection among Her Majesty's subjects, and suggesting that grievances might be remedied otherwise than by Constitutional methods, he referred to Reg. v Sullivan, 11 Cox Criminal Cases, and the report in Reg. v Piggott, p. 249; he did not suggest that the defendants desired the disturbances which took place, or excited the people to cause them, otherwise than it must be assumed that they must have been aware of and were answerable for the natural results of the language they used. MR. JUSTICE CAVE ruled that as the question was one of intent he must leave that to the Jury.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence:

HON. GUY DAWNEY (By MR. THOMPSON). I was a member of the last Parliament—I am a member of the Carlton Club—on the afternoon of 8th February I was in Pall Mall about five minutes to four—I had been to the meeting in Trafalgar Square and turned back about ten minutes to four to keep an appointment at the War Office at four—I got to the Carlton about four o'clock—I noticed about 100 people crowded together in Pall Mall; those about me did not seem particularly decent, ten of them robbed me of my watch and pin in a scientific way at the corner of the passage between the Reform and Carlton Clubs—I had some hustle with the pickpockets and I heard a voice, I believe Burns's, say "Make him go into the club, take him into the house," and I saw Burns three or four minutes after on the step of the Carlton—I could not be quite sure it was his voice but I believe it was—I understood he wished to save me from further molestation—I saw Burns's brother there—he said to me, before I got to the Carlton, "These are a lot of prigs"—eventually I got into the club—my hat was twice knocked off and twice given to me again.

Cross-examined. I know no member of the Carlton would jeer at any of the unemployed, there was no suggestion of that—I saw stone throwing—some one who was speaking to me on the steps of the Carlton was hit in the neck by a piece of metal—I heard something hitting the windows of the club—I did not hear Burns's speech at the Carlton.

Re-examined. I saw members or the club at the windows for a

moment, but I was fighting with these people, and could not tee if they were jeering or not—it stands to common sense that they would not.

By Hyndman. I saw some milk spilt on the pavement and some person carrying off a milk yoke—I suppose he had been assaulted as he was taking milk to the club.

By Champion. There was a little horseplay in the Square—the only thing I saw thrown was a small square bit of old metal—I heard objects striking the windows behind me, but I was resisting attempts to take my property and did not notice what was thrown.

SIR EDMUND HENDERSON (By MR. THOMPSON). On 8th February I was at the head of the Metropolitan Police—I received information that a demonstration of the unemployed was to be held in Trafalgar Square on that day in the early part of the previous week from the Secretary of the London United Workmen's Committee—I do not knew that they are known as the Fair Trade League—it came to my knowledge that it was the expressed intention of the Socialists to interfere with that meeting, and to take their platforms and use them—we made inquiries; ascertained a meeting of the Socialists was to be held on the evening previous, and means were taken to ascertain if any such threats were held out, but they were not; we were given to understand that the Socialists intended to be present, and there was reason to apprehend there might be collision between the two bodies—no intention of disorder on the following day was expressed at the meeting—I detailed double the number of constables I had before on each occasion, apprehending there might be a breach of the peace, and I also made arrangements along the lines of route people attending the meeting might take—I attended the meeting myself, and it was very similar to almost every other large meeting I have attended in the last 17 years—there was a certain disposition to horseplay that I have seen at every meeting; it did not seem much more rowdy, but the opinion of other members of the force was that it was—I saw none of the defendants there, they are personally unknown to me—certain missiles that had been thrown at the Carlton Club and had fallen into the area were afterwards brought to Scotland Yard; they consisted of various objects, such as men generally carry in their pockets, old snuff-boxes, handles and blades of knives, and tobacco-boxes, and one very large stone, and it may be a few smaller ones—I did not observe the crowd going westwards; I observed it going down Whitehall and the Northumberland Avenue, and up the Strand—I took plenty of arrangements there, and, on the chance of some of them going down Pall Mall, I ordered the reserve in St. George's Barracks to go down Pall Mall, but the order was misunderstood, and they went down the Mall, and Pall Mall was left with only the police on ordinary duty—I had no reason whatever to expect an extraordinary disturbance on this occasion, except a collision between the unemployed and the Socialists in Trafalgar Square—it has always been usual for many years past for conveners of public meetings in Hyde Park and elsewhere to communicate with the police authorities, and arrangements are made—we have had no Socialists' riots or rows for 17 years—a year previously a meeting of the Socialists was called on the Thames Embankment, and no disorder resulted—there have been communications between the police and the Socialists, they asking us to assist in preserving order; a friendly understanding subsisted between us.

By Champion. I saw in the report of the meeting at the Holborn

Town Hall on 3rd February, that some threats had been made by one of the speakers of interference with the meeting on the Monday, and that the chairman said a meeting would be held at Hatton Wall on the Monday for those who desired to see practical steps taken—I sent two detectives to the Hatton Wall meeting; it is one of the weekly Sunday meetings held there—it relieved my mind to some extent that no threats of violence were held out there—the crowd arrived at the War Office at 4 o'clock—the rioting was entirely over at 10 minutes past 5—the crowd that went into Hyde Park divided into two sections, one which remained round the statue, and the other which went to Mayfair—the crowd was too dense in Trafalgar Square for me to get within earshot of the speaker—it was not a very disorderly crowd up to 4 o'clock—there was a little horseplay—not much information of the meeting to be in Hyde Park some years ago against coercion in Ireland was sent to the police.

By Hyndman. Previously you held a very large meeting at Dodd Street—I sent to you about it—all the previous meetings of this body have been orderly and well conducted—I understood the Trafalgar Square meeting was called by the London United Workmen—I made arrangements for it—I thought possibly there would be a disturbance between the two bodies—there always are a considerable number of roughs—about 20 constables stopped the rioting at the corner of Marylebone Lane—about 100 constables were in reserve in my charge—they were sent down to Buckingham Palace by mistake—they were more than ample to stop the riot if they had gone the right way—I had detectives and police on the outskirts of the crowd while the speeches were going on—they did not tell me there was any likelihood of any disturbance from what they heard—there were no police except those on ordinary duty on the route where the disturbances occurred—the notice of the meeting was issued by the United London Workmen's Committee—that has no connection with the Society to which the defendants belong—I had no notice from the defendants that they intended to hold a meeting—it came to my knowledge from the reports in the papers—he said that he had ordered an extra force apprehending a collision in the Square—I had no reason to apprehend a march westward—at the previous meeting they returned by the way they came, from the East, as far as I can judge, and we had made arrangements along that route—I had given orders for a number of men to be at Pall Mall, but had not foreseen a march towards the West, nor had anybody else—Mr. Childers was at the Home Office on 8th February for the first time on being appointed Home Secretary.

By a JUROR. We were very anxious to know whether the Socialists were going to interfere with the meeting of the unemployed, and therefore I sent two detectives there.

REV. MR. REANEY (Examined by Champion). I have known you many years in connection with this organisation—I think the first meeting I asked you to come to was at the end of 1883 to debate the question of emigration—I heard you there in my hall, and in the street at the East-end—I took the chair in my hall, and desired to have the subject fully discussed by working men—I recollect the occasion when the Union conference ministers were there; we were all impressed with your earnestness, though we did not approve of your method, we thought you were somewhat after the line of Mr. Parnell—we were seeking what would be very good for the people—we thought you were a national

party seeking some remedy for the terrible distress in London—I heard the speech by Mr. Pearce, who said that it was the practice to make the poor discontented with their lot—I do not know whether any prosecution for sedition followed that.

By Hyndman. I hare known you some years in respect of this movement—you have spoken in the open air and in public halls, and it has always been an open and perfectly fair argument—you came first with Mr. Champion to consider the condition of the poor, which has grown much worse since—your speeches were directed to an economical change, and to the poor not getting a fair share of the good things of life, and endeavouring that they should get a greater share—I am not a member of the Democratic Federation.

FRANCIS MORRELL (By Champion). I am an artist, of 4, Langham Place—I am not a Socialist—I belong to no political organisation—I was at the meeting in Trafalgar Square on 8th February—I saw Burns there—I noticed him first at the foot of the pedestal of the Nelson Column and afterwards saw him mounted on the balustrade in front of the National Gallery—I was between 40 and 50 feet from him—I heard him speak; I can't say how long—his speech was much shorter on the balustrade than before—at the beginning he looked round at the crowd and said "I am speaking to 20,000 or 30,000 people; there are many contending elements present, and I hope you will go home to your homes quietly"—several voices said "We have got no home"—in the square, near where I was standing, there was a young man who was very demonstrative—he had got a loaf, I don't know whether it represented the big loaf or the little loaf, but he threw it at the crowd, and that kind of horseplay continued for some time—there seemed to be a man being jostled, and Burns leaned forward and said "Leave that man alone; don't be cowards;" and on the left of the speaker there was a waterproof or oilskin upon which men were pouring water, and he stopped it—I could hear Burns better than anybody else, his voice was stronger, but I could not catch all he said—I was listening very intently—I did not hear him say "We must have bread or they must have lead"—his oratory did not have an exciting effect on the crowd; it rather quieted them—they were rather more noisy before it—it seemed that the whole tenor of his speech was an endeavour to convey to the Government the need of the people, by causing a big meeting and impressing on the Government the wants of the people through the newspapers—that was the idea it gave me—I am quite an independent witness.

By Champion. I heard you speak in the square, but I have no recollection of what you said—the tenor of it was not such as to frighten me—I had heard you speak before, in Regent's Park, and the tenor of your speech was the same in Trafalgar Square—there was nothing to lead me to think there was a sinister design in your mind—I heard you mention the steps you had taken to bring the matter before the Government—I cannot give the details, there was such a noise and disturbance.

By Hyndman. I saw a man speaking by Mr. Burns on the balus-trade, but I did not hear what he said, his voice was so weak—if Mr. Burns had used the words about bread and lead, I am certain I should have heard that.

Cross-examined. I cannot recall Burns's speech to mind, although I

heard it all—the general drift was to speak to the perple to organize themselves, so that they could have more power in bringing their wants before the Government—I cannot recall any particular passage, or the substance of any passage—I did not hear him say that a good rope would be thrown away, but I heard a man in the crowd repeating it—I heard something about hanging and something about the aristocracy—I heard the word "revolution" spoken once under the pedestal—there was a reference by Burns to the bakers' shops, but it was different to the way it was given in the newspapers—there were qualifications—I did not hear him say "bakers' shops," I heard him say "West-end," but I certainly did not hear what they put in the newspapers—he said something about if the Government did not act, the shops at the West-end might be sacked, giving the example of the French Government in the last century, when they did not listen; it was qualified in that way—he also said in that same sentence that people went to him to get bread, and he told them to eat grass, and three weeks afterwards his head was on the lamp-post, with grass in his mouth—Burns did not speak of the West-end, he said Hyde Park, and he asked the crowd who were in favour of going there to hold up their hands—he was acting as chairman and made a number of short speeches—he may have spoken three or four times—I have said that in my opinion no disturbance would have taken place if the crowd had remained in the square, and had not gone West—of course, they moved through the West-end streets to get to Hyde Park; and then he said if the Government resisted the demands, or did not yield to them, the shops might be or would be sacked; it was qualified in this way, that it would lead probably to trouble, unless the appeal of the people was listened to—that was received with great applause by a certain amount of the crowd—the proposition to go to Hyde Park was made later on—a good many speakers followed—my opinion is that Burns did not use the words "bread and lead"—I do not know the powers of my ears, but I think I heard everything; I could not lay my life upon it, but so far as my observation went, he did not use them at all—it was a natural platform on the wall, and on Burns's right was a youngish man with his legs astride on the balustrade—the four defendants followed one another speaking, but I won't say they had all arrived as early—when Burns was leaving the monument he held up a red flag or handkerchief sometimes.

Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON. As far as I remember there was something said about a head on a lamp-post; it was when Governments do not listen to the people in the shape of a popular movement it will often lead to trouble, and then he gave an illustration from the French revolution—I did not hear him give an illustration about a Cabinet Minister—it is not likely that such a strong phrase as "bread and lead" could have escaped my attention—I did not understand Burns to address the crowd in such a way as would lead them to march to the West End and sack the shops, or I should have followed them—Burns did refer to French history as an illustration of what came to the Government by not listening to the popular movement.

By a JUROR. I know what 60 paces means, but I moved about a great deal; at one time I was very near the column, and it was very easy to hear Burns, but as the crowd got larger it was more difficult to follow the speakers.

DARCY MORRELL (By MR. THOMPSON). I am an artist, of Langham Place—I do not belong to any organisation—on 8th February I was in Trafalgar Square, attempting to make some sketches, and noticed Boras at the foot of the Nelson monument, and afterwards on the balustrade of the National Gallery, and I followed, and was about 45 feet from him when he spoke—the crowd swayed about and I took no verbatim report—he spoke of the Fair-trade meeting as paid agitators, and said that free trade and fair trade were of no special benefit, and that the Government should be pressed to reduce the hours of labour—I fancy he mentioned eight hours a day—the crowd got very noisy, and occasionally he leant down from the wall, evidently trying to quiet them, and saying "Leave the man alone, don't be cowards," or words to that effect—I did not hear him say "We must have bread or they must have lead"—I just caught enough to hear that he was referring to the events which occurred during the French Revolution—he had a red flag about 15 inches square, like this (produced), or slightly larger—I heard Williams speak, but could not catch what he said—there was a great deal of noise, and unless a man had a tremendous voice it was impossible to hear—if a gentleman standing 60 feet off or more could take down accurately what Burns said he must have had a hearing much finer than, my own—there was a great deal of horse play—there was no sign of organisation or drilling—there were legitimate workmen and a certain number of the populace which you see in large towns, sometimes called roughs, and sometimes called the dregs of the population, and they were the persons who were causing the disturbance as far as I could tell.

By Champion. I heard your voice in Trafalgar Square—I cannot swear to what you said—it was after a quarter to four when the procession left the square—I was 15 yards more or less from Burns when he was speaking, but pushing and shoving was going on.

By Hyndman. I heard you speak; I think your last sentence was that if people did nothing for themselves the fault was theirs, and they therefore had to organise themselves, and to press on their case, and if they did so they would very rapidly get many of their just demands.

Cross-examined. I am the brother of Francis Morrell; we went together—I have been in Court while he gave his evidence—I cannot say exactly that I agree with him as to some matters of detail, because there were some moments when he was not close to me, but his evidence is correct—I cannot swear that I heard the words about the heads on the lamp-posts; but there was some reference to what had been done in the French Revolution, when the people had not been listened to—I cannot say that I heard Burns say the next time they met it would be to sack the bakers' shops in the West End of London, and that they had better die fighting titan die starving—I did not hear him say "If we give the word will you join us?"—I was engaged on my sketching, trying to get some effects, and my elbows were being jogged by the crowd—I read some statements in the papers next day, and my idea was that the speeches were represented as being stronger and more inflammatory that what I heard; and when the prosecution began, and I heard special stress put upon the words "If we don't get bread they shall have lead," I bought it my duty to come forward, as I did not hear those words—I may have lost something Burns said, but not his emphatic sentences—it would depend upon the loudness of his voice—I do not remember Hyndman

saying that he and his friends would lead if they would follow, he and 500 men—I remembered many more sentences at the time than I do now—there was a very strong impression that it was a mistake about the bread and lead, and I volunteered my evidence—I heard some man in the crowd say something like it when Burns was speaking on the balustrade, and it struck me that they might possibly have been repeating words which they heard from the balustrade—there was a speaker on the balustrade who was not Mr. Burns.

Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON. I had no communication with either of the defendants.

Thursday, 8th April.

RIGHT HON. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN , M.P. (Examined by MR. THOMPSON). On 8th February I was President of the Local Government Board—on the 9th I received a communication that a deputation desired to see me—in response to that I sent a written minute—in answer to that I received a further communication—I forget whether some resolutions were attached—some resolutions were submitted to me; I produced them at Bow Street.

By Champion. I don't think I have ever said that I was in favour of a revolution on the Land question—I have said I am in favour of a reform—I deny that I am an expert in agitation—my speeches, published by Routledge, were roughly corrected by me—I could not undertake to speak for their verbal accuracy.

By the COURT. One of the defendants yesterday professed to quote from speeches of mine, but undoubtedly the quotation was garbled and misleading, and I should like to put it right—the quotation was regarding a statement made by me which it was suggested I used as an illustration applicable to the present day; the real fact is that my reference occurred in a speech on the subject of Free Trade—I was giving an historical account of the state of things in this country before the Corn Laws were abolished—my information was derived from contemporary pamphlets and histories—I pointed out to what a state of misery sand privation the people were reduced—I then quoted an anecdote that a certain Duke of Bedford, who was reported to Lave said the people ought to have recourse to a pinch of curry-powder, since they could not find food; and I went on to say at that time the state of things was dangerous, and I referred to the case of Foulon, who was a Frenchman, who laughed at the people in their misery, and said they ought to eat grass, and he was subsequently hung up to a lamp-post with a bunch of grass in his mouth—it was purely an historical anecdote, without any reference to the present day.

By Hyndman. I think the distress is exceptional, certainly; and I may say that, in my position as President of the Local Government Board, I recommended the various local authorities to take exceptional measures in order to reduce the distress—that was after I came into office; I could not do it before.

COLONEL FRANCIS DUNCAN , M.P. (By Champion). I am the Conservative Member for the Holborn Division of Finsbury—I received a communication from the Social Democratic Association, signed by a Secretary, requesting me to attend a meeting at Hatton Wall the following evening, 22nd January—I answered that I would do so, and I did—I recognise you as present at that meeting—I did not know your name—I have not seen you since—on arriving there I saw Mr. Spensley, the Liberal

Member for Finsbury—he was asking for the Secretary, who was not present; you, if I recollect right, went on the platform and addressed the meeting in a perfectly temperate manner; you said you had sent letters to the Board of Guardians and others, but the answers had not come—I went to the Guardians and also to the Home Secretary, and forwarded the papers, there the matter stopped—after that the Mansion House Fund was started—I think it was stated at the meeting that there were large vacant spaces in the neighbourhood, upon which houses might be built, which would give employment for the moment and better dwellings afterwards—I think allusion was made to something like starvation, and that the workhouses were overcrowded—I should say that the measures proposed were to set in motion the ordinary constitutional machinery in order to get relief—I received an invitation to attend a meeting at the Holborn Town Hall on 3rd February, and I declined to do so—so far from having done nothing to get relief for the unemployed, both parties had meetings in the House of Commons, and appointed executive committees and appointed meetings with all the public bodies in London, got reports from them, and offered in every way Members of Parliament could to assist, and we have always worked with the Mansion House Fund—I cannot say that those steps were taken in consequence of our attention being directed to the distress by your committee—the sending the letters to the Home Secretary and the Local Government Board was distinctly recommended by the committee of the meeting I attended, but the distress was made known to us by the public press day after day—I was informed next day by the Guardians that steps had been taken, that they were relieving in a very generous way—the rpoter was that there was considerable distress among those who were just above paupers, which has been confirmed by inquiries we have made.

Cross-examined. There is no ground for suggesting that Members of Parliament and local bodies were indifferent to the distress and were not taking steps to relieve it; so far from that, I have seen most active steps taken both in Parliament and out—I declined to attend the meeting on 3rd February because I began to be afraid, not liking the title of the Society—I had complied with the request made to me, and thought I had done enough.

JAMES DAVEY (By Hyndman). I live at Rockingham Road, Battersea, and am a carpenter—I was at the meeting of the unemployed on 8th February—I saw Burns there, first on the Nelson monument and afterwards on the balustrade in front of the National Gallery—I was about nine feet from him—I arrived at the meeting about 12.30—I should think it was between 1 and 2 when I saw Burns on the balustrade, I can't say to half an hour—I heard him make a speech; I listened to it attentively from beginning to end—I did not hear him use the expression "If we don't get bread they will get lead"—if he had said that I certainly must have heard it—I beard him say "The beet way to get work was to bring their case before the Government," or to have some organised system of labour, or something like it—I heard Williams speak; I don't remember much that he said—Burns's speech did not appear to excite the crowd—I have heard him speak on previous occasions, this one was not more violent or different from the others—I left the Square with the section which went westward, there was a stop opposite the Carlton; there had been no disturbance up to that time—I saw

some members of the club at the window, looking out on the people, it seemed to me as if they were jeering at us, and the crowd said "They are only laughing and jeering at us"—I then noticed stones or something slung at the windows—I think it was stones, some hard substance it must be, it broke the glass—I won't swear it was stones, I did not see it—in my opinion the throwing was caused by the jeering at the windows—I saw Burns in the crowd at this time, I did not notice Williams there—I heard Burns tell the people to stop throwing stones—he got on the railings of the club and spoke, and shouted out to stop throwing stones, and he caught hold of some of them—he did that at some risk to himself, I should not like to have tried it—I afterwards saw Williams in Piccadilly—I saw him catch hold of people and tell them not to throw stones or damage property, or molest loot passengers that were coming in the opposite direction, he did that more than once, at different places down Piccadilly—when we got to Hyde Park gates about two-thirds of the people went towards Oxford Street, the rest stopped at the Achilles statue—I heard Burns speak there, I was about four or live feet from him—he said "We intend to submit to the Government the resolutions that were passed in Trafalgar Square," and he told the crowd to disperse and go home quietly—I did not hear him say" We have shown them what we have done with stones to-day, we will show them what we can do with powder and shot to-morrow"—I remember words to this effect, "We have shown them to-day by our march, our poverty and our determination"—I heard Williams speak, he counselled the people to go home peaceably and disperse, and he said he was surprised that working men should molest foot passengers and timid women, something to that effect—I was there at the break-up of the crowd; they went home, I believe, I know I did; some went one way and some another.

By Champion. I heard you speak in Trafalgar Square, I don't remember what you said—I should think the procession left the Square about 4, it took about half an hour to get from there to the park—I heard you counsel the crowd to go home quietly and disperse—I heard you say you knew very well that they couldn't stand against soldiers, something to that effect, not against the police—I did not hear the crowd dissent from what you said—the speeches took about 20 minutes—before the speaking a large portion of the crowd had gone towards Mayfair.

By Hyndman. I remained in the squire from half-past 12 till the crowd left there was a good deal of horseplay going on, not at the time Burns was speaking on the Nelson statue, but afterwards, and there was a good deal of pushing and shoving—I was about 10 feet from the pedestal then; I could see well what was going on—there was no disturbance then, it was all quiet—the crowd looked to me as if it was a body of unemployed workmen—I heard your speech, I was above then; you spoke about 10 minutes I should say—you spoke first—I don't remember what you did say, not to be sure—I have often heard you speak before—you didn't speak more violently or strongly on this occasion—I have been to large demonstrations when you have addressed thousands of men, and no riot or disturbance followed—I believe this meeting was called by the Fair-traders, not by the Social Democrats—I should think Burns left the square about 4 o'clock—I saw no clock—I saw the flag he held in his hand, it was a red rag—the crowd was going along peacefully, walking fast; I saw no stones thrown till we got to

the Carlton; it was the signs of contempt at the windows there that affected the crowd—I did not notice anything from the club but the jeering; if anything had been thrown from the club I might not have seen it—I saw things falling about, but I don't know where they came from—it could not have been gravel that the crowd threw, it was something larger than gravel—I only saw one policeman, and that was in Pall Mall, at the bottom of St. James's Street—I saw some policemen in Hyde Park—I didn't see any along Piccadilly—I should judge it was about half-past 4 o'clock when we got to Hyde Park—I saw a body of men go up the right-hand side, away from the statue—I heard you speak there—I don't remember hearing any ejaculations in the crowd while Burns was speaking, the crowd was orderly; I went home—I am a Socialist—I am not employed now, I was at that time.

Cross-examined. I have been a member of this Federation for 10 or 12 months—I attend a good many of their meetings—by Socialism I understand equal rights for all—I don't say that it means an equal share of property for all—I don't know what social rights for all are, I don't intend to go into that now—I think I have an idea what it means, it means that everybody should get a fair start—I have never spoken at any of the meetings—I cannot recall what was said, except by Burns in Trafalgar Square—I heard him talk of starting public works without the intervention of a contractor; I think that was in the resolution—I heard him tell the people not to damage the property which their labour had produced—I heard him ask those present who were in favour of going to Hyde Park to hold up their hands—I heard him say something about wasting good rope, but I couldn't understand it till I looked in the Echo at night; but I think that was an exaggeration—I know something was said about rope, but I don't know what it was—I remember hearing him say it was no use trying to get justice from such as the Duke of Westminster and his class or the capitalists, and about the men in blouses being laughed at in France, and something about decorating the lamp-post; I don't remember that it was their heads—I don't remember his saying that the Democratic League wanted to settle affairs peaceably if they could, but if they could not they would not shrink from revolution; he may have said revolution, I don't remember—something was said about the bakers' shops and the shops at the West End; I think it was, if it was necessary to call another meeting, probably it might be to sack the bakers' shops at the West End—that was it as near as I can say, I wouldn't swear to it—I think it was only the bakers' shops; he said something about having too much talk—I have heard a good many of the defendant's speeches at meetings—they were the ordinary run of speeches like those at Trafalgar Square, and at the Achilles statue—I don't remember his saying, "The next time it will not be to move resolutions, but to take the wealth from those who daily rob us of it"—I did not hear Burns say anything about bread and lead, nor did I hear anybody else say it—I heard Burns say something about probably being in prison next day—I heard the remark, "We are not strong enough at present to cope with an armed force," but I cannot swear whether it was him or not, or who said it—I heard it from one of the speakers—I did not hear him say, "When we give the signal will you rise?"—I think I should have heard it if he had said it; I was only two or three feet from him—I believe it was Champion who said they

could not stand against soldiers, and he said something to the effect, "Many of you have friends in the army; go and tell them, so that when the day comes for taking sides they will side with you"—I saw nothing thrown from the windows of the Carlton—it was not smiling that I saw at the windows, it was something like jeering, tossing up the head—it was upon that that the stones were thrown—there was a stop opposite the club, and Burns made a short speech there—it was just as he was finishing up that I noticed the people at the windows and the stones were thrown.

Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON. There was laughing as well as jeering, in a contemptuous way; they looked very scornful after the stones were thrown, not before; they looked as if they were glad to see us in the position we were, that is all I can say; I felt irritated and so was the crowd—I understand one of the objects of the Socialists is not to work more than eight hours a day, and less if you can get it, I don't mean no work at all, I believe in work.

JAMES BIGWOOD, ESQ. , M.P. I am Conservative Member for the East Division of Finsbury—on 13th January a message was brought to me at the House of Commons, that a deputation was waiting to see me; I came out of the lobby and saw Champion amongst others; he expressed himself as desirous that I should move in the House of Commons that relief works should be established at once, for the benefit of the suffering poor; I refused to do that, I stated my opinion did not coincide with it, nor that the amount of distress was so great in that particular district; I also said I did not think the House was in a temper of mind to listen with that attention which it might otherwise deserve; I said I did not think the distress was exceptional, and upon that I based my refusal to move—you brought to my notice some private investigations of your own, and you said the object of public meetings was to draw attention to the state of things—you said that in your opinion the distress was so great that the temper of the people would be dangerous, and you urged attention to these things as a matter of public safety as well as in the interests of the unemployed themselves—I might have received an invitation to attend a meeting at the Holborn Town Hall afterwards, but I don't remember it; I am under the impression that I did not receive any such notice—I was in communication with the Guardians, and their opinion somewhat coincided with my own—that was subsequent to our interview in the House of Commons—I received an invitation to sit on a Committee with other Metropolitan members to inquire into this matter.

By Hyndman. I heard Mr. Chamberlain's speech in the House of Commons on the amount of distress; he said that he found the distress was excessive, and quite exceptional amongst a certain class.

ALFRED HOARE (Examined by Champion). I am a member of the Holborn Board of Guardians—on 27th January you came with a deputation from the unemployed to the Board of Guardians and requested the Guardians to make an inquiry to test the accuracy of a report you had made as the result of an inquiry into the distress, and also to use their influence to induce the Local Boards to give as much work as possible, and I am not quite sure whether you asked the Guardians to apply for permission from the Local Government Board to give more outdoor relief—the Guardians did apply for it—I am not sure if it was your proposition—I should say you represented that there were 40 per cent, in want of employment in certain districts—the relieving officers stated when they

came before the Board that they did not consider the amount of distress exceptional, but on being pressed they said there was more illness in consequence of the low state to which the people were reduced, and one of the officers said he thought there was much distress—I think we called them up as the result of your deputation—we wrote to the Local Government Board as to relief works and outdoor relief—it might have been a week, a fortnight, or a month before we got an answer—I cannot say at all—I moved that a Committee of Guardians should be appointed to inquire into the distress, apart from the relieving officers, as the result of your deputation—we investigated not quite the Tory poorest streets, such as you had selected, and on working out the result I found about 20 per cent of able-bodied men were out of work—we opened a stone-yard, and the medical officers gave relieving orders to those whose debility was produced by want of food—I don't think the deputation had much to do with that—we did not apply to the Local Government Board for leave to grant outdoor relief till the deputation came—you were the spokesman of that deputation—the impression left on my mind was that you had given a very careful study to this social question, and had a very clear grasp of the Poor Law, and you proposed that the Guardians and Government authorities should take steps to diminish the immediate distress as a ample method of philanthropy, without regard to Socialism or any measures of that sort—the Boards of Guardians are bound hand and foot by the regulations of the Local Government Board, but that has its inspectors—I know last year you were advising the Local Government Board to give to the Boards of Guardians leave to give relief, and you were referred to us, who had no power-of action—we made representations after this deputation—I am a banker, not a Socialist—I have since discussed Socialism with you, and find it is a complicated subject, not very easy to understand.

By Hyndman. I felt the circumstances were very bad, and felt a great sympathy for the unemployed and with anything that would benefit them.

Cross-examined. We are limited as to outdoor relief—I understand it is a legal question if the Local Government Board have power to grant a relaxation, if occasion requires it—everybody on the Board of Guardians realised that they should do the best they could; they showed no want of feeling with reference to the sufferings of the people—some felt it was caused by circumstances and some by the people's own fault.

By Champion. It was pointed out that we could open labour yards and improve graveyards, and in that way employment was given—in the labour yard 10d. a day was given for breaking stones, and I moved that it should be 1s. for married men, with a little bread.

THE RIGHT HON. HUGH C. E. CHILDERS (Examined by Hyndman). I am Secretary of State for the Home Department—I believe about the 11th or 12th February I received from Mr. Gladstone's private secretary's some proposals that had been sent by you to him—I decided after advice and stated in Parliament that this prosecution would take place—in substance I stated in Parliament that the riots were caused by the Socialists, who came in numbers to Trafalgar Square—I cannot say whether I used the words "instigator "or "inciter "in the Mouse of Commons—I reported to the House on the information given to me as to those who ought to be dealt with in respect of that riot—I was in Australia thirty years ago—

I have no knowledge of relief works having been started there with advantage.

By Champion. Mr. Broadhurst is the Under-Secretary—I don't know that he was through Trafalgar Square three times on the Monday—a committee was appointed to inquire into the origin and character of the riots, and it had before it the whole of the evidence as to the conduct of the police authorities—Sir Edmund Henderson resigned after that report—to my knowledge there is no measure promoted by the Home Office before the House of Commons to relieve the distress at present existing.

By MR. THOMPSON. The report recommended that the reorganisation of the police force should be taken up, and I stated in Parliament that when the new Chief Commissioner had been appointed I should take in hand an inquiry with a view to reorganisation,; that was the result of the inquiry and the report.

By the JURY. I don't think there is a material difference between incitor and instigator—I am not sure which word I used.

HENRY WILLIAM PRIMROSE (By MR. THOMPSON). I am Mr. Gladstone's Principal Secretary—on the 12th February (four days after the occurrence) the prisoners called at the Prime Minister's official residence with a view of asking for an interview with Mr. Gladstone—I told him, and he said it was quite impossible for him to see them, but that if they had any communication to make and would put it in writing it should have his attention—they put it in writing; this is it: "We, the undersigned, having received this morning several applications to address meetings of workmen in and out of London, wish to know whether the Government have decided to commence works/' &c.;—no answer was given to that—I sent it on to the Home Office—I wrote a letter in answer to a subsequent communication.

SAMUEL BRIGHTY (By Champion). I am a member of the Holborn Board of Guardians—I remember the receipt by them, of a communication from 39, Hatton Wall, the Social Democratic Federation, on Wednesday, 20th January, referring to the distress alleged to exist in that district—no steps had been taken before that time by our Board to meet any exceptional distress—that letter was referred, on my motion, to a Committee of the Board, and on the following Wednesday a deputation waited on the Board—you were among the four or five that entered the Board room, leaving a large number outside—after you had addressed the Board and withdrawn, the Board discussed the whole question and passed three resolutions, one which Mr. Hoare has referred to, asking the local Government Board to give exceptional power to deal with able-bodied men—the second was asking the Clerkenwell district of Holborn for work to men living in the Union, and the third was to write to the Local Government Board, asking them to commence the new offices about being built somewhere in Whitehall at once, for the purpose of making work, and also to complete the arrangements for clearing away the site of the House of Correction, that artisans' dwellings might be built in the neighbourhood—the Board acceded to your moderate requests—at your request I attended a meeting of the body, it was perfectly open—our resolutions wore forwarded to the Government—I cannot tell what the Government have done in reply to our resolutions—the power of the Boards of Guardians to give relief is strictly confined under the consolidated orders of the Local Government Board, and that power can only be increased by

the Local Government Board—the only means the Local Government Board have of knowing whether exceptional distress exists are from Exports of the Boards and of their inspectors, and those have been met by the statistics of the relieving officers, showing no exceptional distress—our committee found a grave amount of distress among workmen from want of employment—I went to see many districts, and sent down many cases for relief, and had children sent to school that were in a wretched condition—we suggested that in the cases of a large number of able-bodied men who could not get relief, the doctor should give a certificate if any of the children were ill through debility, so that we could give the families coals and food—numbers of the working class were reduced to a state of no food, no coals, no blankets, and no sheets—nothing was done till the deputation came from Hatton Wall—finally the Local Government Board told us they could not grant us exceptional power of relief to able-bodied men, but that we could open a labour yard, and watchmakers, carpenters, and skilled labourers were sent to break stones at 10d. a day, with 2d. extra and bread for the married men—the Guardians were dealing with things in the ordinary way, and these things would not come to their notice—in one street I was in myself there were 35 men out of employment—a large number of men out of employment were labourers, painters, and men of all trades in fact—you asked that houses should be built on the waste lands; that the Board had no power to do—there are waste places in Clerkenwell—the committee proved there was a large amount of overcrowding—the death-rate is bad there, owing to the physical condition of the people, so that they are suffering and dying owing to want, and are crowded together.

By Hyndman. I am a working man myself, I have never known distress so bad as it is now among my class in Clerkenwell, it is altogether exceptional—no exceptional steps whatever were taken to deal with it until your application was made; I know of none being taken, I cannot say if they will be—I know the Social Democratic Federation had been in existence some years, and I have had some of its things—I am not a member of it—I fancy I have a recollection of speaking at Foresters' Hall some years ago.

FRANCIS CONNOLLY (By MR. THOMPSON). I live at Foley Street, Marylebone, and am a tailor—I am in employment now, I was not on 8th February—I then attended the meeting in Trafalgar Square—I am not a Socialist—I arrived there between 20 minutes and a quarter to three—I saw Burns on the balustrade facing the National Gallery, and went up to hear him speak—I was 15 to 20 yards from him, he was nearly at the end of his speech when I arrived; I heard him denouncing the Fair Traders in general terms; I heard him use no words about bread and lead—I ran off to see them duck a Fair Trader just as Williams began to speak, and when I came back I heard him quoting the words from Shelley—the crowd was full of mischievous fun—I left Trafalgar Square with the body that moved west—when I got opposite the Carlton there was a pause for about five or six minutes; I saw a great number of people in the windows; they were laughing at the crowd—I saw a gentleman in the window point to a man in a very ragged coat, and they all began to laugh—I saw some milk cans fall from what I took to be the Carlton, from a very great height—I was hit with some pieces of soap and boiled potatoes—I went on to Hyde Park, I was near Burns and Williams, the entire route—I saw some of the roughs in the crowd trying to loot Dare the hosier's shop; Williams pulled them

away, and prevented them as much as was possible for one man—I saw a gentleman struck several times, and Williams ran after him, and called on some of us to protect the gentleman, and we did so—I saw men with stones in their hands in Piccadilly—in Stratton Place, at the Baroness Burdett Coutts's, I think, there was a cart filled with stones—William pulled the stones out of the men's hands repeatedly through the entire route—once when the men were attacking some ladies, he shouted out "You are cowards and not men to act in such a way"—he several times told them to stop stone throwing—it was a very dangerous thing for him to do, and I think he suffered by it—when the crowd neared the gates of Hyde Park, a portion detached itself from the main body, and went up Park Lane, and the remainder went in the park gate—the crowd kept breaking away towards Oxford Street and the Marble Arch—I came up to the Achilles Statue, and was near enough to hear Burns make a speech, I was only two or three feet from him—I was there before he began—the opening of his speech was "You have shown them to-day by your procession, your poverty and your misery"—I swear positively he did not say "We have shown them to-day what we can do with stones, and we will show them at our next meeting what we can do with powder and shot," nor did he use words to that effect—when they were dispersing he told them several times to go home quietly, he kept repeating that—Williams denounced the cowardly conduct of the men in the Park, who were breaking open carriages, and assaulting ladies and gentlemen—after the speeches, those round the statue at the time went away very quietly—there were small knots of people scattered all over the roadway, as far as I could see, and as far as I could see after the meeting broke up they dispersed and went away very quietly.

By Champion. I did not hear you speak in Trafalgar Square—immediately you started speaking in Hyde Park there was an interjection from the crowd, "The soldiers are coming," and another voice said "Shoot them down"—you said "It is all very well for you to say 'Shoot them down,' but they are organised, and you are unorganised"—there was great sense in that remark—I believe there was something said about shooting the aristocracy, I cannot swear to that—I heard you denounce the crowd for their cowardly conduct in attacking people in the park—you said it was a system you were attacking, not individuals—the meeting at the Achilles statue was over at 15 minutes to 5 by the Piccadilly gates clock, I swear that positively.

By Hyndman. The working-class portion of the crowd at Trafalgar Square and Pall Mall was very orderly—I did not hear you speak—it was my impression that the attitude of the people in the Carlton Club produced some effect—I saw a knife thrown at the Carlton, no large stones were thrown at it—the crowd round the Achilles statue was very quiet indeed—I heard a great many ejaculations and interruptions from the crowd while Burns was speaking—I did not hear the phrase at all to my recollection about powder and shot, and I heard also very repeatedly ejaculations in Trafalgar Square—I repeatedly heard the ejaculation "Hang them," I ejaculated it myself as a joke—I did not think there was any prospect of setting to work to hang them then and there. I wish here was—I was out of employment then, and felt and feel very bitterly its to my situation—I heard you speak from the Achilles statue—some remark was made from the crowd about shooting them, or something of

the sort, and you said "It is no use you men talking like that; Mr. Champion, who is an artillery officer, will tell you it is no use unarmed men attacking armed men "—you said the men who looted shops and rioted were not the friends of Socialism, but their enemies—I saw several bodies go off towards Stanhope Gate before we arrived—I saw one body go towards Park Lane—I should think the speaking at the statue lasted for a quarter of an hour, and then the crowd peaceably dispersed.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I heard Burns say at Trafalgar square that those men calling themselves Fair Traders were bogus labour representatives of the working classes; I only heard the concluding part of his first speech, I remember nothing more of it—I heard him make several remarks when he was introducing the different speakers, nothing more—if he had made anything of an inflammatory speech I should have noticed it—Burns made a speech opposite the Carlton—a stop was made there simply because of the laughing and jeering in the window—I did not hear Davey examined—the jeering was the cause of the stop-page—the crowd forced Burns to stop, to make him see they were laughing at our poverty; I was one of those that caused him to stop—some gentlemen were pointing to people and to one man with a ragged coat in the crowd—I believe the milk cans fell from the top of the club—I don't suggest the gentlemen threw them; they were not thrown back at the club—I saw a knife but no stones thrown—I did not hear Hynd-man or Champion speak in Trafalgar Square—in Hyde Park directly Champion started speaking the crowd interjected "Soldiers," and some one said "Shoot them/' and Champion said "It is very well to say shoot them, but they are organised and you are disorganised"—that is all I recollect of what he said—Hyndman denounced their conduct as being cowardly in the extreme in attacking individuals as they had done, and Williams said the same—the phrase powder and shot was not used by anybody when Burns was speaking, to my recollection—I did not hear anybody say it; if Burns had said it I should have remarked it—I believe I heard something like "We will Choose the time when we are strong enough to go, not before; it is not worth while losing one life for breaking a window"—I do not recollect his saying "When we lay down our lives it will be on behalf of the hungry," nor "I hope you will go away, and when we next meet we will tell you what to do"—I heard him tell them to disperse quietly—I heard him say "Probably all the speakers here to-day will be in prison to-morrow," and "I hope so"—I did not hear him say "The more they prosecute the greater the cause of the workers will become," &c.; nor "The signal will be given if the Government will not move"—I heard something to the general effect of what has been given as Champion's speech—the words "Hang them" were ejaculated several times by a good many in Trafalgar Square—I was in rather an angry mood, and am in the same now—it was the Fair Traders I wished to hang; I called it out in a joke as much as anything else—I meant by what I said just now that I would like to hang the promoters of Fair Trade, Lord Dunraven and that gang of people, not the workmen.

Re-examined by Hyndman. I said about hanging more or less as a joke—I do not belong to the Social Democratic Federation, and am not a Socialist.

JOSEPH HENRY DUNLOP (Police Superintendent A). I was present at the Trafalgar Square meeting on the 8th February, in charge of a body of

police at the base of the Nelson Column—Burns commenced speaking on the base of the column, and I told him it was contrary to the regulations and could not be allowed; he said "If you will give me a few moments there shall be no row, and I will clear the column for you"—I permitted him to do so—he listened to everything I had to say very respectfully—several men got on the lions, and he shouted to them and reminded them that the pillar had been built with their money, and they should not damage it, and they acted on his suggestion at once and got off—the people at the base of the monument were rather turbulent; the police were driven about, and were not allowed to hear what was said—Burns seemed to have great control over them—they cheered him and he cleared the column in a very few minutes—he assisted rather than obstructed us.

By Hyndman. I have known of the Social Democratic Federation four or five years; I have had nothing to do with their meetings—I should probably have heard had they been noisy or riotous—nothing of that sort has been officially brought to my notice—after addressing the crowd Burns left the column quite peaceably—there was a great deal of swinging about in the crowd—if a reporter was in the crowd it would have been very difficult for him to take notes accurately; but if he was on the column it would be easy—I could not hear more than half a dozen words; we were driven about by the swing of the crowd—it was a very rough crowd, and a very turbulent one, they were ready for anything in my opinion—there was a dense mass of ruffianism in addition to the working-men—you had not so much to do with them as the police had—they were as likely to turn on you as on anybody, if it would have suited their purpose—I had no time for listening, I was taken up with preserving order—I was thrown down about a dozen times between the column and the end of Northumberland Avenue, and so were some of my men; the pressure was enormous; it was a big mob and very noisy—I am referring to that part where I was—I could not get to the west part of the square—there was noise all over the place—there was a great mass of ruffianism where I was—Burns assisted me to the best of his ability to keep order.

By Champion. I don't know if any of my men attend the meetings of the social Democratic Federation; there is no order forbidding their attendance.

Cross-examined. A small red flag was handed up to Burns at the Nelson Column; he called for three cheers for the Social Revolution, waved the flag, and jumped down—that was cheered, but not so much as one would have imagined—he seemed to have great control over the mob by their clearing the column directly he spoke to them—I remained about there till the evening—I did not see nor hear any of the speaking in front of the National Gallery.

Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON. The flag looked like a red pocket-handkerchief on a stick.

By Hyndman. Burns has a very fine voice and clear delivery.

WILLIAM THOMPSON STEAD . I am the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette—on 8th February I attended for journalistic purposes the meeting in Trafalgar Square—I saw a large crowd of people—I have seen a great number of large crowds—this had distinctive features, there were more

blackguards than usual; Mr. Bradlaugh's crowd was several shades more respectable; you ought to have taken care of your watch if you went into this crowd—among them were many whom I should have considered as the genuine unemployed—I saw no violence, except that one man was tipped over into one of the basins—I saw nothing approaching what Inspector Dunlop has spoken of, but I was where the meeting was, and he seems to have been near Northumberland Avenue, where the crowds converged—the fair traders came up later, and there was a good deal of squeezing there—I had no difficulty in circulation about the meeting—I arrived there about 2 o'clock, and was there for an hour—I heard all the speeches except Hyndman's, who was just beginning as I left to hear the fair traders—it was difficult to help hearing Burns speak, he has a voice like a bull; I heard every word of his first speech from the balustrade—I took no notes—he generally expressed utter lack of confidence in the governing classes, and declared that persons could not be trusted to legislate impartially if they were very deeply interested on one side of the question on which they had to legislate—I think it met with very general approval because it was obviously true, and then he went on to speak in a more warning tone, after the fashion of a man in earnest addressing a large mass of more or lees ignorant persons, and as it was his duty to do, because if you see there is great danger coming on the community unless a certain class stands out of the way, you are bound to use warning language to tell them the deluge is coming, as Noah did—he said it was the habit of the comfortable governing classes to turn a deaf ear to the cries and complaints of those oppressed all over the country, and that that was a dangerous thing, and he proceeded to illustrate that by referring to the fashion in which the starving lower classes of France had applied again and again for bread, and been met by jeers and taunts, until the heads of the jeerers were stuck on lamp-posts—that historical illustration was perfectly apposite and to the point; everybody would use it—then he referred to the political class at Westminster, and inquired how justice could be expected from them, and that they wanted charity, not justice—a small knot of believers in Hyndman as the high priest of the Social Democratic Federation called out, "Hang them," to encourage him; and then Mr. Burns said, "Hanging is too good for them, it would spoil the rope;" and then they all laughed, it was such a fantastical joke—it was only said as a relief to feeling—that was the substance of what Burns said—he never used the expression about bread and lead when I was there, and I heard the whole of his speech; it was used by none of the speakers I heard—I left about 3.10—I had heard him before near the Nelson Column—I heard no other speeches from him—I think Champion spoke next, and then Williams—I saw Hyndman get up and I left—the effect of Burns' speech on the crowd was varied according to the composition of the crowd—the believers in social democracy were before me, but those round were smoking and gossiping, and one man said to me, "We don't hold with them chaps, they go too far, but I think some good will come out of this agitation;" and that I think was the general feeling round about—I have a distinct impression, after hearing the three speeches, that most if not all of them most strongly impressed on the crowd that they were not to be guilty of any violence whatever—that was the general purport of all the speeches I heard—one of the speakers asked

all the unemployed to hold up their hands—the red flag wan a twopenny-halfpenny thing, not so good as a guard waves when he sends a train off—I think I heard everything Williams said—they all preached a sermon from the same text, and said pretty generally the same things, but the most striking thing Williams said was his quotation from Shelley—it struck me as rather a good remark, and certainly as nothing out of the way to tell the crowd they were many and the governing classes few—at the end he said the fear of God had ceased to be a power with the governing classes, and I think he specially mentioned Chamberlain, and that now he was President of the Local Government Board it was a chance to see whether he cared anything for the toiling poor; and that as the fear of God was not a power with the governing classes, the time had come to put the fear of man into their hearts—I think he meant that was the only fear they recognised—I certainly did not expect there would be any ri t after the speeches I heard, and none of my staff expected a riot as they came down at 3.30 to get an edition out—I should have been there myself if I had expected a riot—I was incredulous when I was afterwards told about the riot.

By Champion. You made a very short straightforward speech, in which you sail that ignorant people were starving and that it would not do to lock up the whole question for ever by reference to committees or something of the kind, but that you wanted immediate help and relief which you could not get, because Parliament and Government moved slowly—but that if they were sufficiently earnest about relieving distress they could pass a bill very rapidly, and you referred to the Dynamite Bill being passed in twenty-four hours—so far from being an inflammatory speech, it was merely a recapitulatory statement of what had been done—you had studied the subject because about a week before you sent a letter to me at the office of the paper—I said I could not trust evidence and should have to go into it myself or send some one to do so; it gave a return of people out of work in certain streets—I have made investigations—it was the black flag being hoisted on the 22nd that led to my investigations within three or four days after I came out of gaol.

By Hyndman. You came to me on 1st February—I have known you five or six years—you wanted an article written—I have known of your agitation in favour of the unemployed, for two or three years—I think we published at the end of 1883 or earlier, some debates at the East End on practical politics—I do not remember whether we published the manifesto which has been produced—I asked you whether you had any facts, and you sent me the record which had been taken by the Social Democratic Federation, and I upon that started the investigation which I have lately published—you only sent me the figures of those who were out of work and in work, I did not come to the conclusion that you were exaggerating it, it was a question of figures, you said there were so many per cent—we had three or four reporters in Trafalgar Square and we could have told more off—I have heard many open air meetings in the North of England, and have had a great deal of experience, the talk was not stronger than I have heard there—what I heard Burns, Williams and Champion say, did not convey the idea that they were going to bring the Day of Judgment on; on the contrary you said that you wanted the period postponed—the language was the same as I have heard Mr.

Chamberlain, Mr. Bright and other agitators use—I know that you have written many books, pamphlets and articles, I think you can put a good deal of strong language into a book—I have known you for some years as an economical writer—my experience of the meeting was that it was nothing more than I had heard many times before—it was your usual stock in trade that you have been speaking for two or three years and you never made a row, and you would not have made a row then if there had been any policemen about—you came an hour sooner and settled the fair trade audience for them—I think you have done good.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. I took the precaution to go yesterday to Trafalgar Square and step the distance, and I stood sixteen paces from the balustrade and near one of the fountains—Burns was on the balustrade so high that if I had been on the same level I should have been 15 feet in the air—I could move about by a judicious moving of my elbows, I went in and out because I was there to talk to the people, I had no difficulty in circulating among them—I only heard one speaker, Mr. Buns, his voice was like a bull, I mean a roar, and by the time he got to the end of his first speech he had roared himself out—I had no difficulty in hearing him, nobody could make a mistake about it—the next speaker was Champion and then Williams—I went away as soon as Hyndman began to speak and went to the spot where the free trade meeting was, and heard the beginning of a speech, but they talked such nonsense that I went away—I made no notes, but when I went to the office I found that no one had reported it, and therefore I wrote out the same afternoon within a quarter of an hour what I had heard—my notes are published—here is a copy of them—I did not do Burns' speech, one of my reporters did that, I did Champion's and Williams's—you may take it that this is the substance of what Champion said, and then followed Williams—this is what I wrote out the same night from memory this is a correct account, but very much condensed. (The notes were put in).

By MR. THOMPSON. I do not pledge myself to the verbal accuracy of the speech—I can report a speech from memory without notes.

By Hyndman. I think the crowd of roughs moved about in a kind of swaying way to see what they could pick up, and when they got close to the balustrade they got jammed up—I saw no horseplay—I have said that this kind of thing has been bread and meat to you for two years, by which I meant that you have done it morning, noon and night—I believe it has been a matter of impoverishment to you.

ERNEST ROSSITER (By MR. THOMPSON). I am a transfer agent, of Union Road, Newington Causeway—on 8th February, about five minutes to three, I happened to be in Trafalgar Square—I heard Burns speak from the balus-trade on the north side of the square—a great many people arrived about three o'clock and at first I was a good distance off, but I gradually got nearer to the speakers—Burns was not speaking at first, he appeared to be chairman of the meeting—I afterwards heard him speak, but could not hear all he said as there was horseplay going on, the general gist of his speech was that things were in a shocking way, people were starving, and it was the duty of the Government to provide immediate work for them, and in his opinion they ought to do all they could to impress that upon the Government—I don't remember that he gave them any counsel as to how they ought to behave themselves, but it is two months ago—I don't remember his saying "If we don't get bread they will get lead"; if he had it would

have struck me and I should have remembered it, he certainly did not say it in my hearing—I am not a Socialist, nor have I any connection with them—I have seen the defendants at public meetings, but do not know them personally—Burns seemed to be an agitator and nothing else; he appeared very earnest in the cause of the unemployed, but nothing out of the way; I say that as a perfectly independent witness—I heard some one speak who was introduced as a dock labourer; I think it was Williams—he likewise seemed very earnest in the cause of the unemployed; he spoke of the struggles of his class at the docks for work, and the great hardships that he had to put up with, and that it was the duty of the Government to give them work; I don't remember it all—I remember the crowd moving to Cockspur Street; I went with it as far as the Carlton Club—up to that point no damage had been done; there were a lot of gentlemen at each window of the club; their attitude seemed to have an exasperating influence on the crowd; I was very much struck with it—I saw people at the club laughing somewhat derisively, and it seemed to provoke the people near me, who appeared very bitter to the people at the Carlton—I have never heard such bitter remarks before as I heard on that occasion from the people standing near me—I remember the phrases they used, but I don't care to mention them because they were not pious—I saw Burns on the balustrade or wall—I didn't notice what he said because I was shoved about in the crowd, but I heard him speaking to the people, a man near me got his eye cut, and I was anxious for my own safety—I think Burns shouted to get some gentleman out of the crowd into the Carlton, he called "Take him inside; get him inside"—Burns remonstrated with several persons in the crowd, a man had something in his hand; my impression is that it was a stone, and Burns told him about it and I saw something drop from his hand—Burns appeared to be very angry with him—I saw Williams in the crowd; he appeared to be very much concerned with their attitude at the Carlton and alarmed, for they were under no control after they left the Carlton—I do not think anyone could have had any command over them—after that I saw Williams go up to several people and speak rather roughly to them about stonethrowing.

By Champion. I opposed you some time ago as I have opposed lots of hotheaded people, on Socialism—I was not much alarmed during the speeches in Trafalgar Square—you suggested that the Government ought to introduce relief work.

Cross-examined. I think Mr. Burns said something more; he introduced each speaker, but I did not hear his first speech, I heard his last speech—I was there when the meeting broke up, and heard somebody say something about going to the West End—I cannot say whether it was Burns or not—I do not remember any one saying that next time they would sack the bakers' shops in the West, and I will not try to remember—I will not undertake to say that it was not said.

HADLAND (Affirmed). I am an agnostic, and live at Grenwich Road, Islington—I am a bootmaker—I was at Trafalgar Square on February 8th, and stood just below Burns—I arrived just as he mounted the balustrade, and heard the whole of his several speeches—his first speech was denouncing the free-traders, he said that their meeting was a bogus agitation got up for the Tory party, and not in the interests of working men at all—he spoke as he has spoken at every place, in favour

of our proposal for establishing works on farms and factories—I did not bear him say "If we don't get bread they must have lead," and I heard all his speeches—I went with the crowd clown Pall Mall; they stopped opposite the Carlton Club, where the members at the window seemed to be laughing in a derisive and contemptuous manner, joking with one another as to their appearance and condition, which had a very exciting effect on the crowd—I saw something thrown at the windows, but I cannot say what—I want with the crowd to Hyde Park, and after they left the Carlton I harried to the front and passed by the side of Burns, and saw him take stones from the hands of several lads about 17 or 18—he said "Now lads, stop that stone-throwing, we shall be held responsible for it and not you," and just as we reached Hyde Park he noticed a pickpocket trying to carry on his operations, and he caught hold of him and almost strangled him, and Williams came to the front several times and interfered—I heard Burns make a speech at the Achilles statue very much to the same effect as at Trafalgar Square, that they would put the proposals before the Local Government Board next day—he never used the expression "We have shown them to-day what we can do with stones," nor did I hear him say anything about powder and shot.

By Champion. I am a member of the Social Federation, Clerkenwell branch—I was present on the previous Sunday evening—only one of the defendants was there, and that was you—I know the others very well by sight, and should have known if they were in the room—I was at the meeting on the previous Wednesday, 3rd February—you were in the chair, and asked those who wanted to see the black book steps taken, to come to the meeting on Sunday—you spoke before the ordinary lecture—you said that it was possible that the people bringing up the meeting would bring force to bear, and if so you intended to take the meeting to the other side of the Square, and have a meeting of your own—I got up and proposed that we should go there armed, so as to beat the free traders with their own weapons, but you deprecated force, as it could only do harm to the unemployed and to the cause—you spoke in Hyde Park about the soldiers and the police, but you seemed to say that force might have to be employed—you deprecated using force against the forces of the Crown, and said that argument and persuasion would teach the soldiers and the police—you said you were ashamed of those who had attacked carriages and passengers, and described them as cowards—I am a Socialist—I think people should have equal social rights; that means the reverse of the division of the property of the country, it is holding all property collectively—the property of the Post Office is held in that manner.

By the COURT. The Post Office and the telegraph wires and the Arsenal are held in that way, and the national docks and the parks.

By Champion. I understand it to mean a change in the manner of holding the property of the country—I have heard you describe that as an economical revolution—you have taken a great deal of trouble to bring the question of the unemployed before the Local Board.

By Hyndman. I have heard you deliver many addresses of an economic nature, with the object of bringing about a better state of things—I have taken considerable trouble to educate myself, and that is hard work.

Cross-examined. I am a member of the Social Democratic Federation—I think Mr. Champion is the Secretary, and Burns and Hyndman two of the Committee, I thin k—Williams in on the executive—the

meeting on the Sunday night was at the Phoenix Temperance Hall, the Clerkenwell branch, and Champion was there—I heard nothing said at Hyde Park like, "We have shown them to-day what we can do with stones"; Mr. Burns said, "You have shown you are determined men; you have shown them your poverty and distress and misery by your procession through the streets"—I took no note, but those are the exact words; I could swear to them, only I don't swear, and I cannot tell you how their walking showed their determination—I am not here to interpret what Mr. Burns said, but I should interpret it very different to what you do, because I saw him preventing people from smashing windows and picking pockets.

Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON. I was at the Holborn meeting; it was a weekly meeting called by the Clerkenwell branch, and I heard Champion invite the general meeting to come down to Hatton Wall.

By Champion. The meeting at the Holborn Town Hall was a large one, and the meeting of Sunday was the same, only that you had invited the general public to come and assist you—I was very much afraid at first that it was a bloodthirsty conspiring association, and I argued with you that it had been stated that you desired to use physical force, but I found it to be otherwise and joined you—there are several branches in London, and they hold meetings when they please.

By a JUROR. I should not have been there that afternoon if I had had any work to do—I thought I might as well go there as anywhere else.

Friday and Saturday, April 9th and 10th.

WILLIAM BOWMAN (by Champion). I am now working at my trade as a carpenter—I am a member of the Social Democratic Federation, Clerkenwell branch—I have been acting for some time as the secretary of that branch; I am fully aware of the steps that have been taken in calling attention to the distress of the unemployed in that particular district—I was present at the meeting at the Holborn Town Hall on 3rd February, where I heard the proposals for relief works, shortening the hours of labour, and other proposals, all the defendants were there—you told the workingmen present, and all who were interested on behalf of the unemployed, to come to 39, Hatton Wall on the following Monday, so that they might learn the progress made in the agitation, and the future arrangements; the meeting was called by handbills in the usual way—the Metropolitan Members of Parliament had been invited to attend, and I think were present—you read letters from some, giving their reasons for not coming—I was present at 39, Hatton Wall on 7th February; it was the custom of the branch to hold meetings every Sunday at that place, quite independent of the rest of the Federation—you are a member of the Clerlenwell branch—you spoke at the meeting of the branch, for about five minutes, with regard to the meeting on the following day—you said it had been arranged by the Federation, not to take measures for the upsetting of the other meeting, the storming of the platform or anything of the sort, which had been suggested by some individual, but leave would be asked to move an amendment to their resolutions, and if that was refused, the Federation would hold a meeting at the other side of the square, to avoid a conflict; and you asked the members to come and listen to what you had to say—some man present advised us to go armed with a good heavy stick, as the conveners of the other meeting would do so—you thought that was not advisable, because it would probably lead to violence and disorder,

which would discredit the whole thing; none of the other defendants were present at this meeting—this agitation began at oar branch on 17th January, that was the first conception of it, to collect statistics as to the number of the unemployed; I think the Walworth branch commenced a week or two after, and then the Marylebone branch—a great amount of distress existed, and still exists in my trade, more members are out of work than there have been for years past, and having a weekly allowance from the society—Socialism does not mean the division of property among the people, it means the holding of property in a collective sense, a holding by the nation on behalf of the people, and administered by the executive of the nation, that is what it means as far as I know—the division of property in the shop windows is opposed to the interests of the Socialist agitation—you and all the defendants have always advocated keeping from conflict with the armed forces of the country as long as possible—I live in a model lodging house for artizans—you proposed that such dwellings should be constructed by the local authorities.

By Hyndman. I have been connected with the Social Democratic Federation since February, 1885—I have known you connected with that body the whole of that time—I believe the other defendants were members of the body at that time—I joined the Federation simply on the ground of the principles it taught—I have been a Socialist eleven years—I have heard you speak many times—during that time we were engaged in advocating a better arrangement of society, a better form of administration for public affairs—I remember your going with a deputation to Whitehall—Burns and Williams have been pursuing the same course.

Cross-examined. We hold that all property is held in trust for the people, for the Executive to administer it for them; that there should be no private property at all, either in machinery, land, or anything else.

By MR. THOMPSON. I don't mean to say that a man could not have a pair of spectacles and a watch as his own private property, but I mean anything that pertains to the public good in the way of production, all things that minister to the wants of the community should be held as public property, all means of production on a large scale.

HON. HOWARD SPENSELEY , M.P. (By Champion). I am the Liberal M.P. for Central Finsbury—at the end of January I received a communication from the Committee of the Unemployed of the Clerkenwell branch of the Social Democratic Federation, requesting me to attend at Hatton Wall, and I did so—I believe you were in the chair; that was the first time I had seen you—there were about 40 or 50 people there—you referred to the general want of work and the distress, and the necessity of bringing the matter before the House of Commons—Colonel Duncan, who was there, addressed the meeting, I afterwards followed, and we promised to do our best to bring the matter to the attention of the Legislature—the whole thing did not occupy probably five or six minutes, and then I left with Colonel Duncan—my impression was that you were very earnest in the matter, and that you desired as far as you could to brine the question prominently before the public; you said very little, and there were no other speeches—you said you hoped it would not be made a party question, and Colonel Duncan and I referred to it in similar terms—we convened a meeting of the various Metropolitan Members, and the matters were discussed at considerable length, and various meetings have been held since, but the demonstration in Trafalgar Square caused

dissatisfaction, and so nothing was absolutely done—the matter was certainly brought before us more directly by yourself, and the effort was made—a very large amount of distress did exist, and exists at present to some extent in my particular district—I can hardly say that we took no steps to relieve until the matter was brought forward by your Association, because the Clerkenwell Vestry investigated the matter and did all they could to relieve it—subscriptions were got up and various steps were taken to relieve it before you brought the matter before us—there was an exceedingly large amount of distress among the class above the ordinary pauper class—I told you that it was an exceedingly difficult thing for a private Member to do anything in the matter unless something more was done—you endeavoured to induce me, together with the other Metropolitan Members, to stop all legislation until the matter was investigated—I told you that would be altogether out of the question and I would have nothing to do with such a procedure.

Cross-examined. I was in Trafalgar Square for two or three minutes—I saw a large crowd, but being lame I left; I saw nothing—I saw Champion a few days after the meeting—in my judgment that meeting did not help the cause of the unemployed, I think it had a contrary effect, to defeat the influence we were endeavouring to bring to bear.

BENNETT BURLEIGH (By MR. THOMPSON). I am war correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, and also do general literary work for that journal—it was my duty on the 8th of February to attend the meeting in Trafalgar Square—I saw all the defendants there, I think I arrived between two and three in the afternoon—I saw Mr. Burns there when I arrived, I got between four and five paces from him and subsequently went below and mingled with the crowd—I believe that was between two and three it might have been later—it was the usual out-door harangue to the unemployed—he spoke a great many times, he seemed to me chairman of the meeting—I was not struck by anything extraordinary or out of the way by what I heard—I heard him say nothing which I thought calculated to excite the crowd, it seemed to me a very good-natured crowd, several hundreds gathered about him and beneath him who were quiet and orderly—a portion round the fountains were somewhat disorderly between half and three-quarters of an hour before the meeting broke up—I heard it proposed to move westward—I think he said "Some one has suggested that we should march to the West End and show the people our poverty or distress"—he put it as a resolution in the usual way, and it was carried by a show of hands—I never heard him say "We must have bread or they must have lead," I hardly think it would have escaped my notice—I kept within a reasonable distance of the speaker for I did not care to go near the Nelson Column because I was wearing a tall hat and I wished to keep it—I daresay Burns spoke five or ten times.

By Hyndman. I believe I heard you speak, I should say for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, it could not have been a long time—there were a great many speakers, I should call you a rapid speaker—I think it would be rather difficult to convey your speech in four or five sentences I should say you spoke considerably over half a column—there was a good deal of horse play and pushing about on the fringe of the crowd, not immediately round the Socialist speakers but among the Fair traders in the way of knocking men's hats off, throwing pieces of plant about,

and an attempt to push people into the fountains, and I think they succeeded in some instances—I saw you the next day at the Local Government Board Office waiting for an interview with Mr. Chamberlain—Champion spoke at the meeting probably three-quarters of a column—Williams spoke at a greater length than yourself, I think you spoke more briefly than any of the others.

Cross-examined. I did not hear Burns say "We must get bread or they must get lead," I think I could undertake to say that he did not—Barns was standing on the narrow parapet with a stick and a flag or handkerchief attached—there was another man alongside of him, and I think it was that person that said it and not Burns—anyone taking a shorthand note would probably fancy the words were used by Burns when probably they were used by that man alongside of him, but I did not hear the words—I was not there for the purpose of reporting, only descriptive writing—I gave a sketchy account of what occurred—something was said about sacking the shops at the West End, but I cannot charge my memory whether Burns said it or somebody else—I heard Hyndman advise the people not to ask for charity because it was degrading—I think Williams or some one else said that the fear of God had not much effect upon the House of Commons, and I think he said they must strike the fear of man into the hearts of their oppressors, or something like that—I think Williams said something to the effect that they most have a revolution if they did not get work—I think Burns was striving by good humour to keep order, and he succeeded admirably in doing so.

By Hyndman. The crowd was very quiet and orderly—the rough element on the fringe of the crowd might have heard a word occasionally—I saw the crowd leave the Square, there was a great rush made after you—I heard a good many angry ejaculations from the crowd from time to time.

By the COURT. The speeches were of the ordinary nature of outdoor talk addressed to working men, many of whom were unemployed, and evidently from their appearances in great distress—the burden of the speeches were "Educate yourselves and make your political power felt"—I was deeply struck with the evident poverty of the people there, they looked worn and hungry—there were a great many agricultural labourers among them; for the most part they were listening quietly, not indulging in any horseplay—those who were indulging in horseplay seemed to be people from the East End, young men who had evidently come there for a lark, and were having it.

By Hyndman. I did not anticipate any riot as a natural consequence of the speeches—I did not follow you to the West End; I would have done so if I thought there had been any disturbance—I went later on.

MR. WHILE (Re-examined by MR. THOMPSON). From the speeches I heard on the 8th February in the Square I did not anticipate that there would be any riot afterwards, or any danger to life or property.

DANIEL MCNULTY . (By MR. THOMPSON.) I live in Trinity Square, south-east of London, and am a wine cooper—I am not a Socialist—on 8th February I attended this meeting in Trafalgar Square; I had nothing to do, so I thought I would go and hear what went on—I was out of employ at the time—I arrived there, I should think, between half-past 2 and a quarter to 3—Mr. Burns was standing on the parapet on the north

side of the Square when I got there; I got about 30 paces from him—I recollect him denouncing the Government for not opening up relief works and he also denounced the Fair Traders as shams—I didn't hear him say anything about bread and lead, I heard words similar to that used—the speaker that used them was referring to what impressed his memory as words used in the Irish agitation, and how they got what they wanted—I don't know exactly what he said, but I think it was, "If you ask for bread you will get lead"—I know the man who did use those words, it was a gentlemen named Sparling—I don't remember hearing the crowd repeat the words, neither of the prisoners used them—I have come here perfectly unsolicited—I read the account in the papers, and I thought some of the witnesses said things that were not true, and I thought it was not fair to the prisoners; that was mostly why I offered my services—I was in the park.

By Champion. I heard you speak in the park—I heard some one in the crowd sing out "The soldiers are coming," and some one said "Let them come, we will fight them," or something of that—you told them it was useless for them to attempt to fight soldiers and police, that they were not capable of doing so; you advised them to go quietly—if you had thought the soldiers were coming I believe you would have cleared away; I know several jumped off the statue and got away because they thought the soldiers were coming, I thought so myself—I heard one man say "Hungry men don't care what happens, we are ready for everything"—you said a few more words advising them to go home quietly.

Cross-examined. The speaker who spoke about bread and lead was referring to Ireland, that is how he used the words—I heard Burns speak in Hyde Park, he advised them to go away quietly—he said no good could come by smashing windows and assaulting ladies in their carriages, and he said it would be foolish to fight against soldiers, it would be knocking their heads against stone walls—there were other things said, but I cannot recall them—something was said about rope; Burns might have said it, it might have been somebody else—he spoke so often, and there were other speakers, one is apt to get things mixed up—Burns referred to the capitalists and railway directors and employers, and he spoke of workmen not getting their rights—I heard something said about the French Revolution, and about sacking the bakers' shops or the shops at the West End—I think Burns made reference to that—he said "The next time we meet here it will not be to talk, or move resolutions, but to sack the bakers' shops at the West End"—I don't remember hearing him say the next time they met would be to take the wealth and bread they daily rob us of—he put some resolution to the meeting and then he said "You have pledged yourself to the resolution, and when we call upon you will you respond as men?"—I don't recollect anything about powder and shot—he said "Probably all the speakers here to-day will be in prison to-morrow"—some one cried out "No, no," and he said "I hope not"—he didn't say "I hope so," he said "I hope not"—I didn't hear anything about a rising, he said it would be like knocking their heads against stone walls to meet soldiers—I heard him say "We are not strong enough to cope with armed forces"—I heard Champion say something to the effect that some of them might have friends in the Army and in the Guards, and that the Guards would be the first brought down to clear the park.

By MR. THOMPSON. When Burns was referring to the bakers' shops, it was about the same time that he spoke of the French Revolution, he referred to the starving people of Paris at the time of the Revolution, that the people asked for work, and got laughed at, and soon after the heads of those that laughed decorated the lamp posts—it was after he put the resolution that he said "Will you respond like men?"—I could not catch the words of the resolution, I am rather hard of hearing; something was said about eight hours, and artisans' dwellings, and the unemployed—I heard Burns at the Achilles statue counsel the people to keep quiet and go away quietly, and Williams also, and heard him denounce the roughs who had broken the carriages.

By Champion. What Mr. Sparkling said was, that if the people asked the ruling classes for bread they would give them lead—I am not an Irishman, but I am interested in Ireland—people have been given lead in Ireland in resisting evictions—the allusion was something similar to that—what you said was mostly denouncing those who smashed the windows, and advising the people to go home quietly.

HENRY SPARLING (By MR. THOMPSON). I am secretary to the Socialist League, and am manager of their organ "The Commonweal" that is quite a different organisation from the Social Democratic Federation—I attended the meeting on 8th February, and spoke there—I was standing beside Burns; it was some time between 2 and 3 o'clock, but I could not say exactly—I was within two yards of Burns at the very furthest end, till the end of the meeting; when I spoke I was beside him, touching him, almost arm-in-arm with him—the general impression of his speech was that he was trying to impress upon the people the absolute necessity of bringing their case before the Government, in such a way as to get relief works started, and that kind of thing—after Burns there were one or two other brief speeches, and then I spoke—I told the crowd that it was absolutely no use passing resolutions and having demonstrations, unless they really understood what they needed—I said the Irish people did not get what they wanted until they were strong enough to take it if necessary, and then they did take it—I used the old saying, that when you ask for bread you soon get lead—that was a popular adaption of the same saying current in Ireland—I heard Burns speech attentively—he did not use the phrase "bread and lead "in any of his speeches, save in one of them when he said both bread and clothes were scarce and expensive, because of the capitalists' monopoly; I am certain he did not use the word "lead "in one of his speeches, he used the word "bread "many times—"bread and lead "were shouted back by a great many of the crowd in numberless forms; it was taken up as a popular cry, it seemed to take their ear.

Cross-examined. I spoke before Mr. Burrows—Burns stood on the parapet, and as each speaker climbed up beside him he waved a flag, and called out the name, sometimes adding a few words—I said "If they were strong enough, and they could not get bread, to give lead, and they would get bread without it," what I meant was, if they were organised to take the bread if necessary, that they need not take it, it would be given, and that was caught up by the crowd, it seemed to strike them as rather a new idea—I was not reprehended by Burns or anybody for that language, but I don't think they exactly cared for the expression.

Re-examined. The effect of the words was that if they were strong

enough to take bread they would not have to exert their power and take it, it would be given them, and I used the illustration that the Irish people got what they wanted when they were strong enough to take it, without taking it.

By Champion. I was quite close to all the defendants while the speaking was going on in Trafalgar Square, and I certainly could not have missed any striking phrase.

ALFRED HICKS (By Hyndman). I am a pianoforte-maker when in work—I am not in work now—I am a member of the Social Democratic Federation—you came to my house and said you were proposing to take a census of those out of employ in Marylebone—I went from house to house and did so at your request—a public meeting was called and I invited the local Members of Parliament to be there at 4 o'clock; they did not come—I then applied to the Board of Guardians of St. Pancras, and also to the Metropolitan Board of Works—you attended the meeting of the unemployed in Camden Road two days after the meeting at the Holborn Town Hall—I have been a member of this body about 12 months, but I have been a Socialist longer—during that time you and your co-defendants have been endeavouring to carry on an agitation on behalf of those out of work—I was not at the meeting in Trafalgar Square.

CHARLES MARSON (By MR. THOMPSON). I live in East Terrace, Queens Road, Battersea—I am a modeller—on 8th February I went to Trafalgar Square about a quarter to 4 o'clock, that was near the end of the speaking—I heard a little of Burns's speech, not much—I heard a suggestion about marching to the West End, but I could not tell whether it came from him—I went with the crowd to the West End—I saw Champion in the crowd, I was close by him—I saw him assaulted by three individuals between boys and men, who bonneted him—he was walking along quietly by himself.

By Champion. I was in Hyde Park at the conclusion of the speaking; the crowd dispersed—I was there almost the last—two or three policemen then came up and said "Move on," and I did.

By Hyndman. When opposite the Carlton I saw several jeers from the gentlemen inside, and I saw some pieces of paper at the windows, also a can in its descent—where it came from I don't know—I saw no missiles thrown from the club—the jeers rather produced an impression upon me.

JAMES CONDEN (By Champion). I am a labourer in the building line—I live at 120, Tabernacle Street, E.C.—I am at present in work—I was present at the meeting at the Holborn Town Hall—I am not a Socialist—I went to Hatton Wall on the Sunday evening—there were about 50 or 60 in the room—you were there—I did not see the other three defendants there—you advised us not to have any bother with fair-traders, but Burns or Williams would move an amendment or have a meeting of their own, and possibly they might get Mr. Michael Davitt to address us—at the Sunday meeting some man advised them to take a piece of wood about two feet long in their hand, as the other party would be well prepared—you said if that was done it would cause a breach of the peace and bring them in collision with the police, and you did not want that—I was out of work at that time, but I would not break stones for the money that was given—I am married and have a family; I could not keep them or myself on 10d. a day—I applied to the Mansion

House Committee and they gave me 5s., and told me to go to the stone-yard—amongst my class of labourers there is a great deal of distress and discontent.

By Hyndman. I did not anticipate from anything I heard you say that you counselled riot, or incited to riot.

BENJAMIN ROSE (By MR. THOMPSON). I live in Denmark Park and am a joiner—I am not a member of the Federation—I attended the meeting in Trafalgar Square on 8th February—I arrived there about two—I heard Burns speak from the base of the monument and afterwards from the balustrade—I remained there till I went with the crowd to the West End—I heard all the speeches—I heard expressions from the crowd in answer to expressions by the speakers—I heard some person say "Hang them," in respect to the aristocracy, some "d—n them," and some "set fire to them"—I did not hear anything about "bread and lead" from any of the defendants—I did from Mr. Sparling.

The Jury found all the defendants

NOT GUILTY , and stated, "We are of opinion that the language of Champion and Burns was highly inflammatory and greatly to be condemned, but upon the whole of the facts before us we acquit them of any malicious intent. We wish to add that considering the circumstances and the public excitement of the moment, and after the reports made in the press of the speeches on the occasion of February 8th, the prosecution by the Grown was rightly instituted."

OLD COURT.—Monday, April 12th, 1886, and the following days.

Before Mr. Justice Wills.

Reference Number: t18860405-466

466. ADELAIDE BARTLETT (30) and GEORGE DYSON (27) were indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Edwin Bartlett. They were also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the like murder.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR CHARLES RUSSELL) with MESSRS. POLAND, R. S. WRIGHT and MOLONY Prosecuted; MR. EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C., with MESSRS. MEADE and BEAL appeared for Bartlett; and MESSRS. LOCKWOOD, Q.C., and CHARLES MATHEWS for Dyson.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL offered no evidence against DYSON, who was acquitted.

WILLIAM HENRY BROADBENT . I am a physician of 34, Seymour Street, Portman Square—I know Thomas Henry Green, physician of Charing Cross Hospital and of 74, Wimpole Street—he was taken seriously ill on the 6th of this month—I saw him first on the 7th—I have been attending him ever since—I saw him yesterday, he was confined to his bed—it would be quite impossible for him to attend here any day this week to give evidence, it would probably be a month at least before he would be able to do so—the signature to this deposition I believe to be his (This was afterwards read. See page 764.)

EDWIN BARLETT . I am a carpenter and builder of 44, Chaucer Road, Herne Hill—the deceased Thomas Edwin Bartlett was my son—he was 40 years of age on 8th October last—he was a grocer and provision dealer, and carried on business in partnership with Mr. Baxter—they had six shops, one in Barnsbury Road, Herne Hill; one "The Exchange" in Lordship Lane, Dulwich; "The Group Mart" in Lordship Lane; one at 33, Milk-wood Road, Loughboro'-Junction; and another at the corner of Chaucer

Road, the "West Hill Park Supply Stores," and the other at 17a, Herne Hill—as far as I could judge he was in a prosperous way of business—the prisoner was his wife; this is the marriage certificate (This certified the marriage of Thomas Edwin Bartlett and Adelaide de la Tremoille at the Parish Church of Croydon on 6th April, 1875)—my son was a batchelor when he married—the prisoner is described in the certificate as aged 19 and a spinster, she was about that age—I first knew her just before she was married, she came to my house with my son—I knew she had been staying with one of my sons for a short time at Kingston—the deceased first became acquainted with her there—when she was first introduced to me she was called Blanche—I was not present at the wedding—I know that she afterwards went to a school, Miss Dodd's, at Stoke Newington—she resided there and in the holidays she lived in furnished apartments with her husband—she afterwards went to a convent school in Belgium—my son used to go from time to time to see her—about the middle of 1877 she returned and resided with her husband at 2, Station Road, Herne Hill, that was one of my son's shops—on the death of my wife I went to live with them there, and I resided with them for five or six years—my son offered me a home for life on the death of my wife—all that time they lived there together as man and wife, occuping the same room and the same bed—I remember the birth of a child, I think it was two years after she came to reside there, I can't fix the date nearer than that, it was a still-born child I understood—Annie Walker attended her—Dr. Wooder was called in at last, he resided in Dulwich Road my son told me—I believe the prisoner suffered very much at the birth, she afterwards got over it and continued to live in the ordinary way with my son—they afterwards went to live at the "Exchange" in Lordship Lane, they were there about a month—I believe they lived in the same way there—I visited them once or twice—I ceased to live with them when they went there, there was no room in the house for me, so I went to live somewhere else—from there they went to live at "The Cottage," Merton Abbey, about two miles from Wimbledon—they were there about a year and nine months—I visited them there frequently and they were living together in the ordinary way as man and wife—they left there on the first of last September and went to Dover for a month, my son taking a season ticket—they returned from Dover the last day of September and I believe then went for a few days to an hotel in the Strand—in October they went to live at 85, Claverton Street, St. George's, I believe they lived there as man and wife for all I know—I believe, up to that period they lived together on affectionate terms, I know nothing to the contrary, and on the usual terms of man and wife—my son always enjoyed very strong health, he was a very hard working man—he had a doctor once, about thirteen years ago, for a slight bilious attack—Dr. Barraclough was called in, he was not laid up at all—I believe he insured his life, indeed I am sure he did—I knew what the policy was worth, I believe the date of it was in 1881—he once rather overworked himself in his business and he went a voyage—he did a little carpenter's work, he laid the floor in the house—he was away some week or a fortnight then—I used to visit at Claverton Street sometimes but I was only invited there once—up to the time of their going to Claverton Street I didn't know anything of the Reverend Mr. Dyson—I had never seen him—it was in the beginning of December last that I first heard of my son's illness—I went and

saw him, that was about the third day after he was taken ill—he complained to me of mercurial poisoning in his mouth, and then after that I went to see him—he had a bad mouth; he spoke of it in the prisoner's presence—that was on the first occasion of my finding him ill—he said the doctor said that he was suffering under mercurial poisoning—he was then in the front drawing-room, the bed-room was the back room—he was lying on a sort of chair bed, one of those iron couches—he was partially undressed—he appeared to me as if he was labouring under a narcotic, he appeared dazed—he didn't appear so sharp and fresh as he used to be—I called to see him perhaps six or seven times during his illness, I saw him three times—I cannot give the date of my second visit, I know I called on the Wednesday—the third time I saw him was when I was invited—I saw the prisoner twice—I cannot remember the dates, I didn't put it down—it was about eight or nine days I believe after the first visit, I saw her in the downstairs back room, the smoking room, she said he was too ill to see me—something was then said about verdigris poisoning—I don't remember what it was—I understood her that the doctor said there were symptoms of verdigris—she did'nt tell me who the doctor was that was attending him, it was a doctor up the street, I asked particularly who the doctor was but I was not told—during the illness she wrote to me from time to time informing me how he was, this letter (produced) is her writing and the envelope also (Read: "Dear Father, the doctor was very angry that I had permitted Edwin to see visitors last night, as it caused his head to be so bad, and he says no one is to be admitted unless he gives permission, Edwin is slightly better this morning, I will write to you every day and let you see and know how Edwin is. I can see myself how necessary it is that he should be kept calm—with love yours ADELAIDE.") This other letter is also her writing (Read; "Dear Mr. Bartlett, Edwin is up, he seems to have stood his teeth drawing very well, please do not trouble to come all this distance, it is not right to have visitors in a sick room, and I don't feel it quite right to leave Edwin so long alone while I am downstairs talking to you, when he wishes to see you I will write and let you know—yours ADELAIDE.") This is also her writing: "Dear Father, I fancy Edwin is slightly better this morning, the dysentery has left him, and he is certainly stronger, the doctor said last night that there was a slight improvement—with love, yours sincerely, ADELAIDE"—this is also her writing: "Dear Mr. Bartlett, Edwin is slightly better and is sleeping tolerably well"—this is another in her writing: "Dear Father, Edwin seems slightly better and has passed a restful night, I am expecting another doctor, so you must excuse this note, yours sincerely, ADELAIDE, December 21st, 1885"—this is also her writing: "My dear Dr. Bartlett, Edwin is not so well, he has passed a bad night, yours, ADELAIDE BARTLETT. A merry Christmas."—this is also her writing: "Dear Mr. Bartlett, Edwin will be pleased to see you on Monday evening from six to eight, he is still very weak and cannot bear visitors for long at a time—yours, ADELAIDE. Postmark, December 24th, 1885."—After that letter I went on the Monday—that was on the Monday before my son's death—I went there at half-past six in the evening—I saw the prisoner there—my son was in the front drawing-room—he was lying on the couch when I first saw him, on the same little iron bed—he was in a dressing-grown—I was with him two hours and a half—the prisoner said he was better, and he said he

was better—he said "I hope soon to be in business again and enjoy the evenings we have had before"—I used to go and see him every evening, always—I had been in the habit of seeing him at his place of business every evening with very few exceptions, I always called there, because I came down to the station, and then I called in before I went home—he seemed better and a deal stronger—he did not remain on the bed—he got up and walked about the room—I think something was said about his having worms; he said so and the prisoner did too—he said they were crawling all up him, and Mrs. Bartlett said "We call them snakes"—I believe that was the time the conversation took place—I said it was strange and my son said "a good job that she has doctored me to clear away the worms," because she knew he had worms—that was referring to his wife—nothing was said about the medicine he had been taking—there was something said about taking croton oil at one time, but whether that was the time the conversation took place I won't say—at one visit I remember their saying they had called in a physician, because I wanted to send down a physician from London—I spoke to my son and Mrs. Bartlett as well; no, it was Mrs. Bartlett, not my son—I spoke to her about it some time previous—I said we had better have a physician, as Edwin did not get any better—I said "I will send you one down from London," and she said "No, we cannot afford it"—I said "Nonsense, Adelaide, not afford it indeed"—"Well," she said, "we cannot"—I said "You had better," and she said "We cannot afford it, and he is going on very well"—I said nothing more to her then—on the Monday she told me they had had a physician, she didn't say who it was; she said her husband had had some teeth drawn out, and he said that he had had some stumps out—I left about half-past 8, or it might be nearly 9, on that Monday night, he seemed better then; he spoke about going down to Poole or Bourne-mouth, or somewhere in Devonshire—I think on the following Tuesday, that was the last time I saw him alive—I said "Good night" to him and to his wife just the same as I always have—I parted from her on the best of terms; I always did—I kissed her and shook hands with her, and wished her "Good night" as I had always done—there is a passage in this letter which says "I cannot forget or forgive the past"—there had been an unpleasantness six years ago, my youngest son had to go to America—I next received this telegram informing me of my son's death; I knew he was dying before I received it. (The telegram was: "Edwin is dead, come at once, Bartlett's. Postmark 1st January, 1886, handed in at 9.36 a.m.") I took it out of my letter box after Mr. Baxter called on me to say he was dead—I went to Claverton Street and got there I think something like half-past 12, but I cannot say, because I was dreadfully cut up at the time—I saw the prisoner in the drawing room where my son was lying dead; I hardly remember what she first said, she said "Edwin is dead"—Mr. Baxter was in the room at the time, he and I went there together—I don't think I saw Mrs. Matthews at that time—I saw my son lying on the couch, I went and kissed him and smelt his mouth; I thought he might have been poisoned with prussic acid, and I smelt it to find out, and I did not detect any smell of that kind—I did not kiss his mouth, I kissed his forehead—Dr. Leach was there, and I said "We must have a post-mortem, this cannot pass"—I believe I was admitted into the room at once when I went there—I don't think I saw anybody but Dr. Leach there; I fancy he came in afterwards, but I can't say, for

I was dreadfully cut up, seeing my son lying dead in a manner so unexpected—Dr. Leach mentioned Dr. Green and Dr. Dudley and himself for the post-mortem; Dr. Leach said there must be one and I said there must be one—Dr. Leach said "I cannot give a certificate without," and I said I must have another doctor; I did not suggest any name—Dr. Leach said "I will get you one," and I said "No, I will get one unconnected with the case or the neighbourhood"—I afterwards went with Dr. Leach and selected Dr. Cheyne, of Marylebone Place, to attend on my behalf—I went up that evening and said to the prisoner "You must have him put in the coffin"—she said "Dr. Leach has to see to that; it has nothing to do with me or you"—when I saw him in the coffin I said to the undertaker he had no business to be in that coffin, the post-mortem would have to be held first—the prisoner was saying what a generous man he was, but she said nothing more about the death—she said "What a kind-hearted man he was, he died with my arms round his feet, he always liked to hare my hand on his feet," and she showed me how she sat at the foot of the bed when he died—she said she was sitting with her arm round his feet, and she supposed she had been asleep, for she was awoke with a cramp in her arm, and she then went and called Mrs. Doggett. (Describing the position of things on the model.) The post-mortem was on the following day, the 2nd—I went there a little after 2, but I waited outside on the pavement till I saw Dr. Green come out; I then went into the house and saw the prisoner—very little was said; I saw her in the back smoking room, on the ground floor, speaking to Mrs. Matthews—I do not remember any conversation with me—I had not heard the result of the post-mortem then; we went upstairs and heard it, the prisoner was with me—we were summoned upstairs into the front room; Dr. Dudley and Dr. Leach were there—I think Mr. Baxter went up with me—one of the doctors said that they could find no cause of death in him—Dr. Dudley put his hand on my shoulder and said "He has no business lying there, a strong man like that"—at that time the prisoner had her hat on to go out, and her dressing bag was standing on the table—I wished her good-bye and kissed her—some of the doctors said that she could not remain there, and she went away, leaving her bag on the table—she had her cloak on—Mr. Wood, the solicitor, was in the room; I have known him years before, and her husband knew him years ago—some one said that I had better take charge of the room—I said "No, Mr. Wood is a solicitor, he will be the bent man to take charge of it"—I then left—I think I left one or two in the room; I think I left Dr. Leach there. (MR. WATERLOW, from the Registar's office, Somerset House, here produced the deceased's will.) I cannot swear that this is my son's writing, the signature is something like his; it is very different from what I have seen him write—the signature is very strong for his signature; to the best of my belief it is not his—I have seen it before at Somerset House—it is witnessed by H. Eustace and A. Brooke; I do not know their writing, they were two persons in my son's employ at Herne Hill, they were first and second hands there—it is written on paper and a stamp—I have some of my son's writing with his ordinary signature (Producing a letter)—this is his ordinary writing—the will does not look like his writing to me; I cannot swear to it.

HEBERT EUSTACE . I was in the employment of Baxter and Bartlett, of Herne Hill—Arthur Brooks was employed in the same business—one

afternoon about the beginning of September, Mr. Bartlett, the deceased, called us into his office, saying, "I want you to witness my signature"—I saw Mr. Bartlett sign in the corner of the paper and I signed it and witnessed his signature—I did not know then what it was, we were all three together—this is my signature—I did not hear and could not see what the paper was, it was folded up—only we three were present—Mr. Bartlett was staying at Dover at that time—we both signed it in one another's presence and in his presence, and he signed it in our presence.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. He used to come from Dover in order to see to the business of the day.

ARTHUR BROOKS . I was in the service of Baxter and Bartlett, of Herne Hill—this is my signature, I remember signing it—Mr. Bartlett also signed it and I and Eustace witnessed it—I did not know what it was when I signed it, I could not read it because the writing was turned away from me. (The will was fore read, "Herne Hill, S.E., 3rd September, 1885. I will and bequeath all my property and everything I am possessed of to my wife Adelaide for her sole use, and appoint George Dyson, B.A., Wesleyan Minister, and E. Wood, Solicitor, Gresham Street, to be my executors. Signed, Edwin Bartlett. Witnesses to my signature, Herbert Eustace and Arthur Brooks.") I have seen him often write several different hands, you could never depend on his writing being the same a second time.

EDWIN BARTLETT (Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE.) I was not present at my son's marriage with the defendant—I did not disapprove of it, I did not much approve of it, but I did not say anything to my son about it—I was not asked to the marriage because they knew I was busy—at the time of his marriage he was living at Herne Hill, and after they were married she went to a school in London for about twelve months I believe—during the holidays she would come and live with my son—she first came to live with my son between two and three years after the marriage—I really cannot say whether it was in 1877 or 1878 that I went to live with my son, it was the year my wife died, it was before I wrote the apology—I would not undertake to say that the defendant lived with my son before the beginning of 1878, it may have been June, 1878—on the death of my wife my son promised me a home for life—she died on the 28th May in either 1877 or 1878, one of those years, I think it was 1877—very soon after Mrs. Bartlett came to live with my son I had to write an apology for things I had said to her, but I knew it to be false, I knew it to be the truth what I had said at the time, but I signed it to make peace because my son begged me to do so—I did it in Mr. Wood's office—I was stopping at 38, Berkeley Square, at the time. (The apology was here read as follows. "38, Berkeley Square, London, West, 31st December, 1878. Having made statements reflecting on the character of Mrs. Adelaide Bartlett, the wife of my son Mr. Edwin Bartlett, Junr., which statements I hare discovered to be unfounded and untrue, I hereby withdraw all such statements and express my regret for having made them. I also apologise to the said Mrs. Adelaide Bartlett and to Mr. Edwin Bartlett, Junr., and acknowledge that all such statements are altogether unfounded and untrue. I authorise Mr. Edwin Bartlett, Junr., to make what use he pleases of this apology.") I signed that to make peace with my son, that was all—I Know he did make use of that apology and at her suggestion he had it printed—the suggestions that I had made against Mrs. Bartlett were also against my son Fred, and if witnesses are

wanted to prove it, they can be had even now—I lived with my son and the prisoner somewhere about five or six years—he promised to give me a home for life; but he did not keep that promise because they removed to Lordship Lane, and there was not room for me there—I had from him what money I wanted, he was the kindest of sons—I knew during his lifetime that he had insured his life, I have heard the prisoner and him talk about it—when the will was put before me just now I said to the best of my belief it was not my son's signature—I went to Somerset House with Mr. Hooper, a lawyer of Clifford's Inn, and examined the will, and I have entered a caveat against it—my son was always very strong from a child and never had an illness that I know of—some years ago he had a considerable number of teeth sawn off at the same time, he wanted a false set—I was in the house at the time it was done—I believe it was at Herne Hill they were done, I am not sure; Mr. Bullen, a dentist, did it—they were all stuck together and they could not put others in—to my knowledge no doctor had attended him up to this time in 1879—in 1881 he broke down through overwork, through laying a floor he exerted himself too much, and his doctor recommended a sea voyage, and he went to Balmoral for a holiday—when he returned he went to a physician in London, I don't know who it was—Dr. Barraclough attended him once about twelve years ago for a billious attack and gave him one bottle of medicine—I did not know of my son having exceptional ideas on married life, he used to chaff and joke about such things, that was all—I never knew him have any solid ideas about anything different to other people; he said men ought to have two wives, one to take out and one to do the work—he said that when I was living with him—it was the first time I had heard him make the remark, he said it as I heard a man say last night he should like to have forty wives—he mentioned it before his wife, I only heard him make the remark once—he was a very merry man—I did not think it a curious observation, certainly nut, it was only a passing observation; I did not write it down but I have remembered it ever since—my son never to my knowledge had a book on that subject—I never heard of Dr. Nicholl's name till I was in court and I have never seen his book—my son was not a believer in mesmerism to my knowledge—he never spoke to me about it and I never heard from him of his mesmerising anybody else—he was nothing but business, he was wrapped up in his business—I visited them at Merton—I went and saw him at Dover and spent a very happy day there; I did not hear of Mr. Dyson then, nor that my son had offered him a season ticket to Dover; I only heard Mr. Dyson's name mentioned once before the death—I saw my son on the Wednesday, the 9th December, before I heard from Mr. Baxter of my son's illness—he complained of neuralgia in his mouth—in the nineteen days between that and the 28th December I went six or seven times to Claverton Street—I have produced all the letters in my possession, which I received during that time I believe; I tore none up and have no reason to keep any back; there might have been a post card as well—the first day I saw him he appeared suffering from some narcotic, and during the whole of his illness he did not appear as bright as he had formerly been, he did not appear inclined for talking much; the last time I saw him he talked more than he did before, he appeared stronger and better—the first day I went to see him it was in the evening I believe

—he complained of his head rather then—said he had got headache but made no great comment about it—he said something about having mercurial poisoning; Mrs. Bartlett mentioned it then or on another occasion, it might be they mentioned it together then—I was first examined before the Coroner on 7th January, when all these matters were fresh in my recollection—I said I last saw him on the 28th, and that he said he was getting very much better and would be at business again—I might have said before the Coroner that December 28th was the day upon which the conversation about the mercurial poisoning took place, but it was mentioned before that—I went to see him on Saturday, I won't say I saw him—I could not give the date of every day I saw him, I did not put it down—I think I saw him on Wednesday first—Mrs. Bartlett told me she had called in a doctor up the street, but I did not ask her his name—she seemed reluctant to say much about him—on the Saturday, the second time I saw him, I had a conversation with him—he appeared worse then—I do not know whether I suggested to him or to the prisoners having another doctor; they wore both in the room at the time—he would have heard the conversation; he was half lying down on the iron bedstead with half-closed eyes; he appeared to shut up his eyes and then open them again directly, he appeared to be labouring under something—the matter about the mercury and the verdigris is the only thing I recollect being stated by him when I first saw him, I am not positive, in general conversation you do not recollect every word—I told the Coroner that he said he was suffering from dysentery—I did not mention this before because you did not ask it—I came here not to keep anything back, but to speak the truth—either the prisoner or my son mentioned about dysentery; they were both talking about it in general conversation—I do not remember that dysentery was mentioned when I first saw him—if that letter says "Dear father," I received that shortly after I saw him on the Wednesday; the letters dropped off afterwards to "Dear Mr. Bartlett"—the letters have very likely got into the wrong envelopes—I went to see him on Sunday, and was refused admission to him; I will not undertake to say I did not see him—I received this letter from Mrs. Bartlett, in which she says, "I am expecting another doctor, so you must excuse this note," after I suggested sending a physician—when I saw Mrs. Bartlett afterwards they told me the other doctor had been, but I did not ask her his name, and I do not think she told me—it was Dr. Dudley—I would not undertake to say whether I was not told—the deceased told me he suffered from sleeplessness, and that they were injecting morphia into him for it—he also told me that his teeth were troublesome and painful, and they told me he had had a number of slumps drawn—he did not tell me "he had taken gas; he complained of the pain—previous to his illness he was not subject to low spirits—I once saw him crying; that was not the last time I saw him—when I last saw him he was very much better—he did not tell me how often he had taken morphia injections, but from his conversation I thought he had taken it once before the time he was speaking of then—he said, "I have had morphia injected again"—I do not recollect his telling me that on two successive days he had had morphia injected, and that his condition was so bad that on the third day he had had it injected twice in one day—he told me he was taking sleeping draughts—he also told me he felt worms crawling

all up him, that was the feeling—he did not tell me he had passed worms, but the prisoner said he had, in his presence, and he did not contradict her—he did not tell me he felt worms crawling up his throat, I won't be sure, he might have said so—I never heard him mention that he was likely to die, never the least idea of it, he was not a dying man—he never told me that he thought no man could be worse than he was, nothing of the kind—no other members of my family, as far as I know, visited at that house—there were other members—I don't think it was the last day I saw him (the 28th) that he mentioned about worms; it might have been—I think it was said before—I believe he said Dr. Leach was giving him croton oil for the worms—he did not say it was given him to rouse his bowels to action—he did not say Dr. Leach had given him two purgative draughts or had applied galvanism to the abdomen—he said nothing about galvanism—he did not tell me that on the previous Saturday all those remedies had been tried and had failed, and that Dr. Leach had given it up in despair—it was on my second visit, I believe, that I said to Mrs. Bartlett he had better have a physician—I actually received the telegram myself announcing his death about half-past twelve, after Mr. Baxter called on me, as I was at 38, Berkeley Square and not at my shop, where the telegram was delivered—we took a Hansom's cab, and got to Claverton Street between 12 and 1—I think I made a mistake before the Coroner when I said we got there at 4 o'clock—it was on the Saturday we got there at 4, not on Friday, 1st January—I went in with Mr. Baxter and went up with him at once—I have told you all I recollect on that day—I thins it was on the Saturday, when Mr. Baxter was not there, that she placed her arm round my neck and said "My dear father, don't fret; it shall make no odds to us; I shall see you never want; it will be just the same as if Edward was alive"—I made a mistake about that before; that was on the Saturday when they called us up to see the post-mortem examination—I corrected my mistake as soon as possible at the Treasury—I gave evidence before the Coroner in January and before the Magistrate in February—I said then Mr. Baxter was following us up, but I was wrong, he was not—it was said by Mrs. Bartlett to me—I did not say anything about it to-day, because I was not asked—on the Saturday I waited outside the drawing-room till the post-mortem was over and then I went in—I waited in the smoking-room with Mrs. Bartlett something like twenty minutes before we were summoned upstairs by one of the doctors—I, Mrs. Bartlett, and Mr. Dyson then went up together—that is to the best of my recollection—I believe the doctor summoned up me, Mrs. Bartlett, and all who were waiting—I went up directly, and saw Mrs. Bartlett's bag in the front room, on the table—I don't recollect that I said before it was on the dressing table; there was no dressing-table in the front room—one of the doctors, I think, said Mrs. Bartlett must not take the bag away, and they said she must not have her cloak—I said "Yes, Adelaide may take her cloak, there is nothing in it; no pockets in it"—she said "I don't want my cloak"—I said "Yes, you can have it; I will be answerable for it"—there were no pockets in it—I might have said before the Coroner that I felt for the pockets—I cannot say who told Mrs. Bartlett to go out of the house—she was inclined to take nothing; she did not want the cloak even—she had it, and nothing else, and left the house—when I went in the first time on 1st January I went

to smell the mouth for prussic acid—I suspected poison—I believe I have told the Jury substantially all the conversations that took place during the illness—there was nothing else that took place in my son's presence which suggested to me the idea of poison.

Re-examined. It was on the Saturday after the post-mortem when we had got to the foot of the stairs that the prisoner said "I will see you never want"—the apology I signed on 31st December, 1878, had reference to Adelaide some months before running away for a week or more—Edwin and I thought she had gone with my son Fred and we were after her—Fred appeared at Claverton Street on 1st January this year, according to Mr. Doggett, and announced himself as the brother of the deceased—the prisoner was away a week or more on that occasion—she had been away on other occasions—she returned and then Fred ran away to America in the June previous to my signing this apology—Adelaide was away with him only a day or two before he went, because Fred flew directly he was found out—I had scores of letters from him in America—I sent him money to come home, and his brother was going to give him a manager's place in one of the shops—I sent him 60l. in one year (that after he went) in order that he might come home, but I have not seen him since—I sent him no money recently—I signed this apology at Mr. Wood's office; he is in Court—he was then my son's solicitor—I had recommended him to him some years before—Edwin begged me to sign the apology to make peace—when my son said something about a man having two wives some remarks passed between the prisoner and me—it was over four years ago that my son went the sea voyage to Scotland—he was a very temperate man indeed—I understood Dr. Leach had injected the morphia—I was not told what it was for, but I took it that it was to produce sleep.

EDWARD BAXTER . I live at 34, Deronda Road, Herne Hill, and was a partner with Mr. Bartlett, the deceased, for thirteen years—I knew him for over twenty years—I never knew him to be laid up ill until his last illness, with the exception of one occasion, when he had been carpentering and went away for the benefit of his health—he did not keep his bed on that occasion at all—I was not at the marriage—they lived at Station Road about five years and at the Exchange about twelve months—I had frequent opportunities of seeing them when they lived over the shop, and the terms on which they lived—as far as I knew they lived as man and wife there—we had six shops at the time of his death and the business was a prosperous one—we had made the business—the Station Road shop had been in existence about three years when I went there, but all the other shops we opened—on 8th December was the last time he was at business; he went home on that clay—on the 10th I received this letter from him. (This said that he little hoped to be at business the next day, but that he trusted to be better on Friday, so that he could mix the teas, and that if Mr. Baxter wished to see him he should call.) I am not certain if I called at Claverton Street that week, but I did the Sunday following—he appeared very ill indeed and was scarcely able to speak—he did not say what was the matter with him—he always mixed the teas with assistance—I did not do it—I and he did the tasting together—I have never found any ill-effects from tasting tea—perhaps I did not taste it to the extent he did—the following Sunday, the 20th, I called; he was better then—he said in Mrs. Bartlett's presence that he felt ill and hoped he would

very soon be better—that he was gradually improving—on the 27th I saw him; he was very much better, and on the Wednesday before his death I saw him, when he seemed quite cheerful and very much better, getting on very nicely—I stayed about two hours—Mrs. Bartlett was there during the time—it was said that they hoped the change of air at the seaside would prove beneficial and that he would be able in the course of a week or two to resume business—Bournemouth and Torquay were the two places named as to where he was going—I told him we were getting on very nicely in business—I did not see him again till after his death—this note is in Mrs. Bartlett's writing—I have put this date on (30th December) as the day I received it by post. (This requested him to send with other things, bottles of brandy, of mango chutnee, and of walnuts, and a fruit cake, and added, "I know these things are not fit for Edwin to eat, but he fancies them. You can see Edwin on Wednesday. A very happy new year!")—I brought those things to 85, Claverton Street on the Wednesday night, the 30th—I never saw Mr. Dyson when I visited at Claverton Street—on New Year's Day I received a telegram, about a quarter-past 9, at Station Road, and went to Claverton Street—I went up to the drawing-room, where I saw Mrs. Bartlett—I forget what she said to me—I fetched the father about half-past 11 from Berkeley Square, and went back with him at once to Claverton Street and upstairs with him.

Cross-examined. I don't know that Mr. Bartlett had worked particularly hard while staying at Dover—two or three times a week he would come by the boat express so as to get to Herne Hill as early as 6 o'clock in the morning, on the other days he would come by a train between 10 and 11 o'clock—he left business at that time, sometimes by the 4 o'clock and sometimes by the 8 o'clock train—he kept dogs at Herne Hill—on Friday, the 4th, previous to the 8th, he washed some of those dogs which were to be sent to a show—I did not connect that with his illness, for which I knew no cause—on the 8th he complained of feeling ill, and went away—Mrs. Bartlett wrote to me a short note nearly every morning during his illness—they were simply reports of how he was going on—I did not keep them—there was no special reason for my calling on the 13th—on the 13th I found him very ill, much depressed and low; he was scarcely able to speak—I believe they told me the doctor had been more than once a ay—he complained of sleeplessness—I understood that from Mrs. Bartlett's notes—I was told on the 20th something to the effect that the doctor was giving him sleeping draughts—on the 27th he was very much better; be told me that he could feel worms wriggling up in his throat—I did not know anything of his ideas about mesmerism or marriage—he was drawing about 300l. a year from the business—I am not aware that he had any other property.

F. H. DOGGETT. I live at No. 85, Claverton Street, with my wife, and am Registrar of Births and Deaths—that was my private address—in the early part of October the deceased and Mrs. Bartlett took two rooms communicating with folding doors, the drawing-room floor, at my house, and continued to occupy them till his death, living there as man and wife as far as I know—Mr. Dyson used to come there; I knew he was their friend—I knew Mr. Bartlett had been ill for some time—I never saw him to speak to—on 1st January, at 4.10 am., by the clock on my mantelpiece, Mrs. Bartlett came up and knocked at my

door, the second-floor front room—she said "Come down, I think Mr. Bartlett is dead"—I put on my dressing-gown and went down to her room—I saw her there—she asked me if I thought her husband was dead—he was lying on a bed in the drawing-room, on his back, with his left hand on his breast—I put my hand on the region of his heart, he was cold, and I said "Yes, he must have been dead some two or three hours"—she said "I had fallen off to sleep with my hand round his foot, and I awoke with a pain in my hand," or "arm, and found him lying on his face; I put him in the position in which you saw him, and tried to pour brandy down his throat"—she said nearly half a pint—I noticed that his eyes were closed—I asked whether she had closed his eyes; she said "Yes," his jaw was dropping—my wife then came into the room; the servant had gone for Dr. Leach—I noticed a strong smell in the room, like chloric ether—I did not smell anything else, but I saw a tray with some tumblers and a glass jug containing water, and I fancy there was a bottle on the tray containing some white powder—I saw a wine-glass on the mantel board, containing some dark fluid, about three-quarters of a wine-glass full—I smelt it—it smelt like brandy with some other drug like ether or paregoric—I put it back as I found it, on the corner of the mantel shelf nearest the bed—there was a table in the room—the only bottle I noticed was the one on the tray with the white powder; I looked round for the purpose, and I looked round the room again with Dr. Leach when he came—I saw no other bottle, either on the mantelpiece or table, or any other part of the room—Dr. Leach spoke to the prisoner and I left the room—I suggested that she should leave the room, but she remained with Dr. Leach, and they had some conversation in a corner of the room—I assisted Dr. Leach to tie the deceased's jaw up, and I put the legs straight, they were nearly cold; the left leg was slightly drawn up—Dr. Leach examined the body while I was present, and said he could see nothing to account for death—when I went into the room Mrs. Bartlett was dressed in a skirt and a loose jacket—the fire when I went in was a large one, and had evidently been tended within a short time of my going into the room—after assisting Dr. Leach I went down stairs, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards he came down, and I had some conversation with him, but Mrs. Bartlett was not present—I and my wife then went back to bed, leaving Mrs. Bartlett in the room where the body was—on the following morning about a quarter to 9 I saw her write out some telegrams—before I left the room that night I saw some Condy's fluid on a tray in a tumbler, more than half a tumbler of it—I saw no empty bottle—later in the same morning, after I got up again, the tray was brought down by the servant, and I saw an ounce phial inverted in the tumbler of Condy's fluid—there was no label on it—I handed the tumbler and bottle to Ralph, the Coroner's officer, and sealed it with my seal, and a telegram to the father was written and sent off, and one to the partner, and one to some lady at Dulwich—the bottle was like this (produced)—I afterwards heard of the post-mortem—there was nothing on the deceased eyes; he vas a short man, but rather stout—the bed is near the mantelpiece; I have been on it and tried it, and find that when lying on my back I can just reach the mantelpiece, anybody leaning on the bed could easily reach it, it would be rather more difficult sitting up—I can just reach it sitting up.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. The bed was lengthwise, longitudinally with the front wall of the room—I presumed they were man and wife when I let the rooms—I had only seen Mr. Bartlett once to speak to him, and had never been in their rooms—I was examined before the Coroner on 4th February; I couldn't say whether I mentioned the fire that day—I was recalled after my wife, and a question was put to me about the tire, and nothing else—when I went into the room I smelt something like chloric ether; that was not the smell I traced to the glass at the end of the mantelpiece—that glass was three-quarters or two-thirds full of a liquid which I took to be brandy, and when I smelt it, it was hardly the same smell which I smelt on going into the room; I think I said before the Coroner that it smelt like paregoric, and before the Magistrate I said that the glass smelt very like the odour which pervaded the room—I took it up and smelt it, and replaced it on the mantelpiece, and it remained there till Dr. Leach came; it was there while he and I were looking about the room, and it was brought down by the servant on the tray in the same condition in the morning, and I saw it by accident, with the bottle sticking out of the liquid, and I took it out with my fingers, looked it up in a cupboard, and afterwards gave it to Ralph—I thought it right that the bottle should be taken care of, but it did not occur to me to do the same with regard to the wine-glass—when Dr. Leach came and looked about the room I saw no bottle on the mantelpiece, and I do not think there was one—the mantel board made the mantelpiece longer—I had been in the room before, but not while Mr. Bartlett was there—the looking-glass being stood on the mantel board, would constitute a shelf, and come a little farther out than the looking-glass—there was a clock in the middle of the mantel board, and there were photographs, and two small vases, one on each side of the clock, and at each end of the mantel board there was a large vase—the only bottle I saw was the one on the tray, which contained some white powder, but there was a wine bottle three parts full of Condy's fluid; that was the only bottle I examined with the doctor; it was on the floor—I think the prisoner said that she felt "cramped" in her hand—she said that her husband had breathed heavily in the evening.

CAROLINE DOGGETT . I am the wife of the last witness—Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett came to lodge with us on October 3rd, and Mr. Dyson came there within the first week—when Mr. Bartlett took the rooms he said that a gentleman would dine there once a week—he did not mention the name, but Mrs. Bartlett said "It is only a clergyman"—Mr. Dyson came twice or three times a week, and sometimes more—sometimes he came as early as 9.30 a.m.; he has stayed all day—Mr. Bartlett went out at 8 or 8.30 a.m. and returned to dinner between five and six—Mr. Dyson sometimes stayed till Mr. Bartlett returned; he had lunch with Mrs. Bartlett, and sometimes they went out together—I saw him twice in a blue serge lounge coat which was kept in the house for his use, I believe—a pair of slippers were also kept for him—Mr. Bartlett became ill about the beginning of December, two or three days before Dr. Leach was called in, and from that time he kept to his room, I believe—Mr. Dyson did not always go up to her room when he called; he would see Mrs. Bartlett downstairs—on the last day of December Mr. Bartlett dined on jugged hare about 3 or 3.30—he went out in the evening to have his teeth out, and when he came back he went into his room and sat down—I have

seen him very much worse than he was then—he said that he thought the worst was over, and that he should get better—Mrs. Bartlett was there then—he told me that Dr. Leach had ordered him to go to Torquay for a change—Mrs. Bartlett said that the journey would be too far—the supper was not taken up then—Mrs. Bartlett asked me, still in his hearing if I had ever taken chloroform, I said that I had years ago—she said "Was it a nice or a pleasant feeling?"—I said "I do not think I knew much about it"—she said that Mr. Bartlett was in the habit of taking some sleeping drops; ten was a strong dose, but she should not, or did not, hesitate in giving him twelve—she told me what the drops were, but I do not remember the name—Mr. Bartlett then thanked me for his dinner, and said that he had enjoyed it, and Mrs. Bartlett said that he had eaten all that was sent up, and had so enjoyed it that he would eat three dinners a day—he said that the mornings were getting lighter, and he should get up an hour earlier next day—he had a tea supper, half-a-dozen oysters, bread and butter and cake—I don't know whether he had any chutney—after that conversation I left the room, and about four o'clock the next morning I was called into his room and saw him lying dead—I asked Mrs. Bartlett if she had given him those drops—she said "I have given him nothing"—my husband was looking round the room, and I was by the side of the bed—there was a very good fire—afterwards on the same morning I went up to ask the prisoner if she would come down in the dining room to have a little breakfast, as she had not rang for it, and then she said how strange it was that Mr. Bartlett had not long made his will—I said "Are you thinking about money?" she said that it was necessary, as her money was in the business which she had before she was married, and it was before the Married Women's Property Act—Mrs. Matthews then came in, and I went downstairs.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARK. Her breakfast had not gone up when I asked her to have some, she had not arranged for any—I understood her that the money she had before she was married, was in the business, and unless there was a will she could not have her money, because it was under the Married Women's Property Act—she did not come down and have breakfast, I left her with Mrs. Matthews in the front drawing room—I have watched in a sick room at night, and know that the fire is made up for the night and packed, but the bed was so near the fire it would have been too hot for Mr. Bartlett, and the gas is alight—if you break up a fire several hours after it has been packed, it becomes a strong fire—the fire I saw had been attended to, it had not burnt hollow at all—either fresh coal had quite lately been put on, or a well packed fire had been disturbed with the poker, there was a bright light, the coals were quite lighted—Mrs. Bartlett was reading a book, while her husband and I were talking—he had been out that day to have his tooth operated upon about two hours before, he told me it was a sound one, (I heard nothing about his taking gas, I heard from Dr. Leach he had taken nitrous oxyde), he said the worst was over and he thought ho was getting better—at the other operation he had seven taken out one day, and he said they had frozen his gums and he did not feel much pain, and two days before that he had had 13 out—he did not say it was by ether spray: that was all he said—he began saying that it was very wonderful after going through the operation he could eat some of Mrs. Bartlett's hot buttered toast, he smelt it and asked for some, that was on the occasion he had the seven out—he said the result of freezing his gums was that he did not feel any pain—on the

first operation he had 13 stumps taken out, but I did not see him then; and he said he had had his gums frozen on both occasions—on this evening before his death when he told me about having the tooth out, he did not say he had taken nitrous oxide instead of having his gums frozen—I do not remember all the conversation, it was very late; the boy brought the medicine and I had to leave the room; Mrs. Bartlett mentioned the name of the medicine, but I do not remember it—she said that 10 drops was considered a strong dose—she did not say that Dr. Leach had given a prescription for 10 drops to be given if the pain was urgent or if sleep was required, or anything of that kind.

Tuesday, April 13th.

ALICE FOULGER . I am servant to Mr. and Mrs. Doggett, of 85, Claverton Street—I remember Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett coming to live here some time in October, I waited upon them—after they came there I saw Mr. Dyson, he came the first week—he used to come about once or twice a week, and about a fortnight or three weeks before Mr. Bartlett's illness three or four times—I have known him to be there as early as 9 or hall-past, sometimes later—at that time Mr. Bartlett had gone to business—he used to go to business about 8 or half past sometimes, and usually came home between 5 and 6 in the evening; sometimes he went out again—Mr. Dyson has been there during the time Mr. Bartlett has been there, and hat stayed sometimes and dined with Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett—the usual time for dinner was between 5 and 6 o'clock—Mr. Dyson had an old coat that he used to put on, it was kept in the back drawing room, also slippers—while Mr. Dyson and Mr. Bartlett have been in the room together I have sometimes gone in—when I have gone in I have seen the window curtains pulled together and pinned—I have seen Mr. Dyson and Mrs. Bartlett sitting on the sofa together, also sitting on the floor together, Mrs. Bartlett having her head on Mr. Dyson's knee—Mr. Dyson was sitting on a low chair—I do not recollect when that was; I cannot say how long it was before Mr. Bartlett's death—I do not know what I went into the room for on that occasion, I went in in the ordinary way as a servant; I did not find the door locked—they did not do anything at all when I went in the room, they did not say anything or get up or move at all, they still sat as they were—I think that was the only occasion that I noticed anything of that kind when I went into the room—when Mr. Dyson came he would sometimes stay and have lunch with Mrs. Bartlett, and leave before Mr. Bartlett came home—the luncheon was between 12 and 1—I do not think I noticed anything else—on the day of Mr. Bartlett's death I took up the dinner—I had seen him from time to time during his illness; he had been out on that day—I took the dinner up at half-past 2 or 3, I am not sure which; it was jugged hare—Mr. Bartlett had his dinner, and afterwards had tea—he had some oysters during that day, he had them at 12 o'clock for luncheon—he had supper, of bread and butter and tea and cake—he had half a dozen oysters for supper—while Mrs. Bartlett was with him, and I was in the room, I never heard him say anything about himself during the day—his appetite appeared to be pretty good—orders were given to me for breakfast next day—with the supper the plates had been used for chutnee both by Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett—Mr. Bartlett gave me the orders for breakfast—he asked me to get him a large haddock; that was when t cleared the things away—there was tea and supper both together—it was

after the last meal; it was when I was clearing the things away—he said he should get up an hour earlier at the thoughts of having it—he sat up at the table and took his meals; I saw him in the room—he was walking round the room when he gave me the order, when I was clearing away the tea things—the last time I was in the room was 25 minutes to 11, when I last went up I took coals in—Mrs. Bartlett had spoken about it—she asked me to take the coals up for the night, and she put her finger up and told me not to go into the room again—she told me to take a basin up for the beef tea, and to put it outside on the table on the stair landing, outside the door on the first floor—she told me to take a basin up for the beef tea, and not to go into the room again; I was to put the basin outside on the table—there was a table on the landing outside—the basin I put there was empty—I think Mrs. Bartlett had Liebig's Essence, she kept it in the room—while Mr. Bartlett was ill I always took in the basin the last thing—I went to bed that night at something past 12—I slept at that time in the house—I was awoke about 4 in the morning—Mrs. Bartlett called me up, she came to my room; I got up—she asked me to go for Dr. Leach—she did not come into the room—I got up and lighted a light—she said "Alice, I want you to go for Dr. Leach, I think Mr. Bartlett is dead"—I said, "Don't say that"—she did not reply—she had on a light dress at the time—I noticed it was light in colour—she was not wearing that dress when I left her overnight—I then got up and went down—I at once left the house to go for Dr. Leach—I do not know how many minutes' walk it is—it is not very far—it is about five or ten minutes walk—I roused Dr. Leach, and told him what was the matter, and brought him back with me—Mrs. Doggett opened the door to us—I had not seen any one before I left the house to fetch Dr. Leach—it was about four o'clock—from the time that I was called and brought Dr. Leach to the house I could not say how long I was gone—I had to stand knocking for Dr. Leach some time—I do not know how long it was from the time Mrs. Bartlett came and told me to fetch Dr. Leach, that Mr. Bartlett was dead, to the time that Dr. Leach came back with me to the house—I did not notice the time when he came back—I could not swear how long it was—Dr. Leach came back and went into the room upstairs—I went, into the room about half-past five or six in the morning—I went into the front drawing-room—I saw a lot of glasses—some of them were on the table in the room—there was a tray there—I did not remove it at the time, but I did afterwards—I removed it about half-past eight or nine—there were several glasses on it—I took them downstairs into the ante or smoking-room—I left them there—I afterward washed them all except one—some were tumblers and some wineglasses—I noticed when washing them one glass had something in it; I thought it was brandy—it was about half-full, I think—I say it was brandy from the smell and colour—I washed it away—the one I did not wash was given to the Coroner's officer—it was a tumbler with a bottle turned down, containing some liquid—the bottle was turned into it, with the mouth downwards, in the tumbler—the Coroner's officer, Ralph, took charge of that—I saw Mrs. Bartlett the same morning—she gave me some letters to post—one was addressed to Mr. Dyson, and one to Mr. Wood—I posted those—it was in the morning, I think—I am not sure whether it was in the morning—I cannot say the time—I had taken no telegram—I did not see Mr. Dyson the next day—I saw Mr. Dyson on

the Saturday morning—he came to the house—Mrs. Bartlett was still there—he went up into the room where Mrs. Bartlett was—I do not know if I showed him up—Mrs. Bartlett slept in the house, in those rooms—I beard nothing of what passed between Mr. Dyson and Mr. Bartlett on the Saturday—after that Mrs. Bartlett left the house—it was on the, Saturday, while Mr. and Mrs. Doggett were out—I next saw her on the next Wednesday, 6th January—Mrs. Mathews was there then; she came back with her—Mrs. Bartlett came for some of her things.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I cannot remember when it was that I saw the curtains pinned together—I cannot say whether it was a week or month or three months before Mr. Bartlett's death—they were long white curtains that came down to the ground—they generally hung close together from top to bottom; that was their usual condition, whether pinned or not—Mr. Bartlett slept on the iron bedstead in the front room from the beginning of his illness, and after that Mrs. Bartlett would sleep on the sofa, or on a chair in the same room—she did not use the bed in the back room—she attended to him, and made beef-tea for him—the head of the iron bedstead was near the fireplace—the piano was mostly at the foot of the bed—the drawing-room had two windows—Mrs. Bartlett moved the piano from the corner of the room, against the foot of the bed, along the side—I don't know when it was moved—there was a book-case between the windows, and Mrs. Bartlett moved that to the other side of the room—there were folding-doors between the two rooms—the sofa was a heavy one, and was against the folding-doors, and kept them closed—Mrs. Bartlett in going from one room to the other would have to go out on the staircase—she often used the washing-basin in the back room quite late before settling herself for the night—I don't remember whether it was used on the night of the death—I don't know what I went up for when I found Mr. Dyson sitting on a chair, and Mrs. Bartlett with her head on his knee—I don't know whether I went to take letters or not—I could not say whether I had been rung for, or not; I believe I was—there were books on the table—Mr. Dyson was sitting in front of the fire near the table—I usually took up a supply of coals in the evening, for the night—on this evening Mrs. Bartlett told me to bring up the coals, and at the same time to bring an empty basin—I think I went out for Mr. Bartlett's breakfast before I took the coals, up—I think I took up the coals and the basin together—I think I took the coals in and left the basin outside; she told me not to take it into the room—I took the coals up first, but not the basin; I went down again for it—when I took in the coals Mr. Bartlett was in bed—it was when I was clearing away the tea that he was walking about—when I took in the coals Mrs. Bartlett told me I might put the basin on the table, and not to come in again—I should pass the basin as I went up to bed—I did put it on the table, and I found it there untouched the next morning—Mrs. Bartlett generally went out in the day for a walk—I don't know whether she had been to the dentist's that day with her husband—she had a walking dress on that evening when they were having supper, a dress that she usually went out for a walk in—when she came to call me at four in the morning she had on a light and looser dress; it was a dress that she used to go out in for a walk sometimes; I am sure of that—I jumped up as quickly as I could when she called me, and went for Dr. Leach and brought him back as quickly as I could—I did not go to bed

again after that—I took the glasses down, and Mr. Doggett saw them before anything was done with them—I helped to pack Mrs. Bartlett's boxes when she went away—I did not see any medicine chest or anything of that kind.

ANN BOULTER . I live at 1, Great Peter Street, Westminster—I am a charwoman and I am sometimes employed by an undertaker—I went to 85, Claverton Street on New Year's morning between seven and eight—I saw the dead body and washed it and laid it out, Mrs. Bartlett helped me—the legs were tied—I asked Mrs. Bartlett if he had had a fit—she asked why I asked—I said I thought he might have struggled, as his legs were tied—she said "No, poor dear, he suffered very much with his head, also his teeth for some time"—she remarked that it was curious or funny that he should make his will a day or two previous to his death—I said it was so, and asked if it was in her favour, and she said yes.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. All she said about his illness was that his head had been bad and that he had suffered very much with his teeth—I did not notice his teeth, his mouth was closed—I called Mrs. Bartlett's attention to the legs being tied together—I don't think there was any more conversation than I have told—I am sure she said the will was made a day or two previous to his death, not two or three months before—while I was there a letter came for Mr. Bartlett, Mrs. Bartlett opened it—I understood her it was from the deceased's brother, she did not say where from; she said, "Oh, this is cruel"—I asked her what was cruel—she said that the letter had just come from his brother wishing him a happy New Year, and she said how cruel it was that it should arrive while he was lying dead.

WILLIAM CLAPTON . I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, of 27, Queen Street, City—I am one of the medical officers of the British Equitable Life Assurance Company—on 15th November, 1880, I examined Thomas Edwin Bartlett for the purpose of insuring his life, these (produced) are the papers and memoranda made at the time—the insurance was effected—this is the policy, it is for 400l., the usual premium, it was a first-class life—I examined him in the ordinary way to ascertain whether it was a good life to take—he was suffering from no illness whatever—I passed him as a first-class life.

GEORGE DYSON . I am a Wesleyan minister—at the beginning of this year I was living at 18, Parkfields, Putney, where I had lived since the beginning of September—I made the acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett about twelve months previous to last January or February, they were then living at The Cottage, Merton Abbey—I was in charge of a small chapel in the High Street, Merton—they attended the services, and I called upon them as members of the congregation—they continued to attend until they left the neghbourhood—I called upon them again in June and took tea with them, and I afterwards called upon them frequently—Mr. Bartlett requested me to call oftener than I had done previously—I called on the following Wednesday and spent the evening with them—they left Merton about the end of August or beginning of September; and at that time I went to Trinity College, Dublin, to take my degree of B.A., and was away about a week; on my return Mr. Bartlett told me he would like Mrs. Bartlett to take up her studies again and requested me to take the supervision of them, and accordingly from time to time I called upon her and gave her lessons in Latin and history, and we took up geography and mathematics—besides calling upon Mrs.

Bartlett in this way, she called upon me at Wimbledon, or I should say, rather, that I took her to my apartments, with her husband's knowledge—I became on very intimate terms with both Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett—at the commencement of September they went to Dover, and were away about a month—Mr. Bartlett requested me to go down there and see them—on the first occasion I went Mr. Bartlett took me and paid the fare—on the second occasion I believe I paid my own—they appeared there to live as man and wife—while they were at Dover Mr. Bartlett wrote to me and I replied. (Letters read: "Dear George, permit me to say that I feel great pleasure in thus addressing you for the first time, to me it is a privilege to think that I am allowed to feel towards you as a brother, and I hope our friendship may ripen as time goes on without anything to mar its future brightness. Would that I could find words to express my thankfulness to you for the very beautiful loving letter you sent Adelaide to-day; it would have done anyone good to see her overflowing with joy as the read it whilst walking along the street, and afterwards as she read it to me I felt my heart going out to you. I long to tell you how proud I felt at the thought I should soon be able to clasp the hand of the man who from his heart could pen such noble thoughts. Who can help loving you. I feel that I must say to you two words, 'Thank you,' and my desire to do so is my excuse for troubling you with this. Looking towards the future with joyfulness I am yours, affectionately, EDWIN." "18, Parkfields, Putney, 23rd September, 1885. My dear Edwin,—Thank you very much for the brotherly letter you sent me yesterday. I'm sure I respond from my heart to your wish that our friendship may ripen with the lapse of time, and I do so with confidence, for I feel that our friendship is founded on a firm abiding basis, trust and esteem I have from a boy been ever longing for the confidence and trust of others. I have never been so perfectly happy as when in possession of this. It is in this respect, among many others, that you have shown yourself a true friend. You have thanked me, and now I thank you. Yet I ought to confess that I read your warm and generous letter with a kind of half fear, a fear lest you should ever be disappointed in me, and find me a far more prosy, matter-of-fact creature than you expect. Thank you, moreover, for the telegram; it was very considerate to send it. I am looking forward with much pleasure to next week. Thus far I have been able to stave oft my work, and trust to be able to keep it clear. Dear old Dover, it will ever possess a pleasant memory for me in my mind and a warm place in my heart. With very kind regards, believe me, yours affectionately, GEORGE.") Afterwards they went to live at 85, Claverton Street, and I went to live at 18, Parkfields, Putney—that was early in September—I had then a season ticket on the railway from Putney to Waterloo, which was given to me by Mr. Barrlett—my chapel at this time was at Putney; I had moved from the small one of which I first had charge, to a larger one at Putney—my name was put on the notice board outside as the minister—I do not think Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett came to that chapel—I visited from time to time at claverton Street—on my first visit there I remember a conversation with Mrs. Bartlett about her husband—I remarked how her husband seemed to throw us together, and asked how it was; I thought it remarkable—she told me that his life was not likely to be a long one, and that he knew it, and she repeated what he had told me himself—she said his

friends were not kind to her, that they did not understand her, being a foreigner, that he had confidence in me and affection for me (I am giving you the words as nearly as I can recollect them), and he wished me to be a guardian to her, he knew I should be a friend to her when he was gone—it was either then or later I asked her what was shortening his life, and she told me that he had an internal complaint, that he had had it for some years, I think she said five or six, and that she herself had been his nurse and had doctored him, and this was by his express wish, she said that he was very sensitive about this affliction, and on that account he had had no regular doctor to attend him—that is what I remember—later she told me that the disease caused him very great pain, and to soothe him she had been accustomed to use chloroform—she told me that she went for advice to Dr. Nichols, of Thorpestone Road, Earl's Court—she also said that Annie Walker came to see her occasionally, and brought her what medicine she needed—she said that on one occasion Annie Walker had brought her chloroform—I remember nothing more; I do not remember anything further being said by Mrs. Bartlett about Mr. Bartlett's illness beyond the internal complaint—nothing was said to me about his death—she said that Dr. Nichols had stated that he might die within 12 months, that would be from the time that Mrs. Bartlett was speaking to me—she did not say when Dr. Nichols had seen him last—I did not know Dr. Nichols, or that there was such a person. Q. Up to the time that this first conversation at Claverton Street took place with Mrs. Bartlett, what had been the state of his health? A. He seemed to be in good health as far as I could judge, except that he was very weary and very tired when he returned from business—he returned from business at various times, sometimes about 10 o'clock at night, at other times to dinner, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon—he appeared to me to have very severe pains in his left side; he would put up his hand quickly and press his hand there—he told me that he had suffered from dyspepsia severely, and he mentioned a severe illness he had some years previously, and said that on that occasion his wife was up for a fortnight with him and nursed him very faithfully—as far as I recollect his illness then was from dyspepsia or dysentery—during my visits to Claverton Street I continued to give lessons, instruction to Mrs. Bartlett—I used to go two or three times a week, generally about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and on one occasion I went at half-past 9 o'clock in the morning—I was not there very much—Mrs. Bartlett, Mr. Bartlett, and myself left that day to go to the St. Bernard Dog Show—my stay in the afternoon depended upon what engagements I had at my own church; I should leave about half-past 4 if I had an evening engagement, otherwise I should remain during the evening—I still continued on very intimate terms with both Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett—Mr. Bartlett's illness commenced about 10th December—I went to the house whilst he was ill; I think I saw him on the day he was laid up, and probably two or three days before—he was in bed the first time I saw him, in the drawing-room, on the small bed; Mrs. Bartlett was nursing him—I knew I was an executor to the will; I first heard that about the middle of September, Mr. Bartlett had informed me—he told me that he was suffering from dysentery; I heard also that he was suffering from worms, he told me so himself—I heard that Dr. Leach was attending him—when I saw him on Boxing Day he seemed very

prostrate, and he told me that he was suffering from (sleeplessness, and he regretted it because it kept Mrs. Bartlett from having any sleep—in Christmas week I went home to Poole—he said he was glad that I had returned, as he was afraid she was breaking down through nursing him—I was with him on that day from about 2 till 7 or 8 o'clock—he seemed very much depressed—he seemed brighter on the Saturday, and depressed on the Sunday, the 27th—on that Sunday night Mrs. Bartlett and I were going to the post-office about half-past 9, when she told me she wanted some chloroform, and that Annie Walker had bought some before—she said she wanted it to soothe her husband and give him sleep, and she asked if I could get some for her—I said I would, and I did—she said she wanted it for external application—she told me Annie Walker was gone to America, and she knew of no one else who could get it but me.

By the COURT. Did it not occur to you that there was a doctor in attendance? Oh yes—I asked her to get it through the doctor, and she told me he did not know she was skilled in drugs and medicines; and not knowing that, he would not entrust her with it—she had mentioned that she had a medicine chest, and that she understood medicine—she said the chloroform was to put him to sleep—she meant to use it sprinkled on a handkerchief for him to inhale it.

By MR. POLAND. I understood that I was to get the ordinary draught bottle—she said that it was volatile, quickly used, and that she would require about that amount—she did not state the size of the bottle, but I understood her to mean the ordinary draught bottle—I cannot recall anything further that she said about it—we returned to the house in about a quarter of an hour—she gave me money to buy the chloroform—I think it was a sovereign, but I will not be sure—I did not say anything to Mr. Bartlett about the intended purchase of chloroform—I first wrote to a medical student about the chloroform, named Theodore Styles, of Poole, and asked him if he would get me some—he lives at Bristol, at the Medical College—I got no answer and I telegraphed to him; I think he had returned to Poole, he was a friend of mine—I did not get it through him—on the Monday, the 28th, I purchased the chloroform—I first went into an oil and colour shop, mistaking it for a chemist's—then I went into Mr. Humble's, at 190, Upper Richmond Road, Putney, between nine and ten o'clock—my chapel was about 50 yards from the shop—I purchased an ounce bottle full, for which I paid 1s. or 1s. 3d.—I am not sure which—I was asked whether I wanted camphorated chloroform, and I said "No—pure chloroform"—I asked for some chloroform—I did not say any particular quantity—he asked me whether I wanted camphorated chloroform, at the same time touching his mouth as if to ask whether I wanted it for teeth—I did not answer that question, but asked another—I asked him whether it was good for taking out grease stains—he told me it was—there was a piece of leather tied over the stopper—it was labelled "Chloroform," and the bottle had the word "Poison" upon it, but I cannot say whether there was a leather tied over the stopper to keep it in, and it was labelled "Chloroform," but I can't say whether "Poison"—I think some bottles had "Poison" on, but I cannot say which—it had the chemist's usual label with his name and address on—the next shop I went to was Penrose's, at Wimbledon, that is the business of Cadman and Co., The Ridgeway, Wimbledon; Mr. Penrose is the manager; that is three miles from Mr. Humble's—I

had known Mr. Penrose about twelve months before, I should think; he was an occasional hearer at a chapel where I officiated; I knew him well—I asked him for some chloroform for taking out grease stains which I had got down at Poole—I forget whether I asked for the quantity or not; he offered me an ounce bottle first, and then when he had made that up I asked for another one, and I bought the two—I don't remember the price of them—they were probably labelled "Chloroform" and "Poison"; the chemist's usual label with his name and address was on them—I next went to Mr. Bellens, a chemist, of 36, High Street, Wimbledon; I had known him personally for eighteen months, and I knew the other chemist eighteen months; I said twelve before—Mr. Bellens was a member of my congregation; I asked him for some chloroform and gave the same reason; I bought either two ounces or an ounce and half there, I don't know which, it was in one bottle—I don't remember what it was I paid him for it—it was in a bottle like that one (produced) and had some letters sunk into the glass—the last purchase I made was about two in the middle of the day—I then took the four bottles to my house at Putney and poured all the chloroform from them into a white square medicine bottle similar to that one (produced) which I had got from my landlady—I don't remember whether I cleaned it out, probably I did—I then took the label with "chloroform" on it off the blue bottle and put it on this bottle—all the chloroform bottles were not blue, three were white ones—Mr. Bellens' bottle was blue and I took the label off that, on which was "Chloroform, Poison"; I won't be sure whether "Poison" was on it, but I think it was—I wetted the label and got it off—the four empty bottles were left at my lodgings—I then took the bottle containing the chloroform on the following Tuesday, between two and three as far as I remember, to Claverton Street, and there saw Mrs. Bartlett, and whilst we were out for a stroll on the Embankment I gave it to her, and asked her if that would do, and she said it would—I also think I told her some of it was methylated; either then or later, it must have been then I should think—she had not told me what sort to get—I gave her the change at some time, but I don't remember when—I then went back with her to Claverton Street and saw Mr. Bartlett, and remained with him until about six or seven, he was up and dressed—he seemed very weak, but seemed brightened by the fact that he had gone out for a drive, and he was still troubled with his sleeplessness—I called again on the Wednesday and saw him in bed, he appeared to be the same, I don't recollect any difference—I also saw Mr. Bartlett, and apologised to her for something she was offended at which I had said on the previous day, the Tuesday—I had advised her to get a nurse to assist her, consequent upon her telling me that the friends were saying unkind things about her, that she was not giving him full nursing attention—I don't remember that she mentioned the names of the friends when she said that I told her it would be better in the eyes of the world if she were to have a nurse with her, meaning that that would stop them, and she was offended at that, she said that I suspected or did not trust her; I told her that I did thoroughly trust her, and Mr. Bartlett overheard it—this occurred in the room after the walk—Mr. Bartlett did not hear the whole of it, he heard that exclamation and saw I was distressed with it—he was walking at out the room and he said "Oh yes, you may trust her; if

you had twelve years, experience of her as I have you would know you could trust her"—and it was in consequence of that I returned on the Wednesday, I was troubled about it—I don't think Mrs. Bartlett was in the room, Mr. Bartlett was in bed alone when I was shown into the front room, and I told him I wished to see Mrs. Bartlett, and I then apologised to her for what had taken place on the previous Tuesday—I saw her downstairs, and repudiated the idea—I told her I was distressed that she should think such a thing—that was between ten and eleven in the morning—I then left the house and did not return again that day—I went on the next day, Thursday, the 31st, in the afternoon, and saw Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett; he seemed nervous and was in great pain from his teeth and said he was expecting the doctor, and asked me to call and tell him to come, and I went to Dr. Leach but did not see him, and left a message with the servant—I returned directly to the house and saw the doctor at claverton Street, in the front room; after he was gone, Mrs. Bartlett said that the doctor said necrosis, mortification, of the jaw had set in—I left about half-past 4 to 5 o'clock, that was the last time I saw Mr. Bartlett, he was then up and getting ready to go to the dentist's, if I remember rightly—I did not go to the house on the Friday, but received a letter from Mrs. Bartlett, which I destroyed a few days after I had received it—in it I was addressed as Mr. Dyson, I think, and it said it was her grief to tell me that Mr. Bartlett had died somewhere about 2 o'clock as far as she could judge, and it requested me to call and see him on the Saturday, about the middle of the morning—I believe I was addressed inside the letter as "Dear Mr. Dyson," she used my Christian name in some letters, but I cannot swear to this particular one—I called on Saturday, the 2nd, about 11 or 12 o'clock, I think it was, and saw Mrs. Bartlett in the front room upstairs, Mr. Bartlett had then been moved into the back room—she asked me if I did not consider it was sudden, and I said it was very sudden—she then said "I was sitting; by the bedside reading, and I had my hand or arm round Edwin's foot, "and I think she said she dozed off to sleep, and woke and heard them wishing each other a Happy New Year downstairs, and then she heard her husband breathing heavily, and fell asleep again, and when she woke, through a feeling of pain in her arm, she found Mr. Bartlett turned over, and she expected that the turning over had caused this cramp in the arm; that she gave him brandy and then roused the household—she also said the doctor had ordered a post-mortem, and that it was to be held in the afternoon—I asked her what he had died from, and she said the doctor told her that he thought some small blood-vessel must have broken near the heart or on the heart, I cannot be sure which she said—I remained with her till the post-mortem in the afternoon—I, and she, and Mr. Wood the solicitor, and my executor, were downstairs during the post-mortem, and after it was over we went upstairs to hear the result; Mrs. Bartlett went up with us, and Mr. Bartlett senior was there at the latter part—we all went into the front room, and Dr. Leach communicated the result to us; he said they had conducted a very careful post-mortem examination, and had failed to discover the cause of death, and that the rooms were to be sealed and locked and handed over to the Coroner, and I heard the instructions given to seal the door—I then went between four and five o'clock with Mrs. Bartlett to Mrs. Matthews's, 98, Friern Road, East Dulwich, they are friends of Mrs. Bartlett—on the way there I asked

her if she had used the chloroform, and she said "I have not used it, I have not had occasion to use it; the bottle lies there just as you gave it me; this is a very critical time with me"—she also told me to put away from my mind the fact that she had possessed this medicine chest, and that I had given her the chloroform, and I must not worry her about it; I cannot remember what answer I made, but I told her that I should see the doctor and ask him about the post-mortem—I went into Mrs. Matthews's house, and Mrs. Bartlett introduced me to her as Mr. Dyson, and then she told Mrs. Matthews of the post-mortem; and she told me to the effect that she had come to stay with her—I do not recollect anything else occurring there—I next saw Mrs. Bartlett on Monday, the 4th, at Mrs. Matthews's, she was alone—I had that day seen Dr. Leach, and he showed me before I went to the house some notes of the post-mortem, and read them to me—I then went direct from Dr. Leach to Mrs. Bartlett, at Mrs. Matthews's, and asked her what she had done with the chloroform, and she was very angry with me and said" Oh, d—the chloroform," and stamped her foot on the ground and rose from her chair—Mrs. Matthews then came in and then retired again, and I had a further conversation with Mrs. Bartlett—when Mrs. Matthews came in she asked her what she was troubled about, but I don't remember her reply—when she had gone I told Mrs. Bartlett I had been to see Dr. Leach, and that either chlorodyne or chloroform, some drops of it, had been found in the stomach of the deceased, Mr. Bartlett—then she asked me to tell her which it was, whether chlorodyne or chloroform, and I told her I was not quite sure, that I confused the two—then I spoke to her about her husband's sickness, of which she had told me, I forget at this time exactly what I said—I asked Mrs. Bartlett again whether she had not told me, or rather I emphasised the fact to her that she had told me her husband was suffering from this internal affliction, and probably then I spoke of the fact that nothing was said about this affliction in the post-mortem, and I asked her if she did not tell me that her husband's life would be a short one—I said "You did tell me that Edwin was going to die shortly"—she said she did not—I said that I was a ruined man—Mrs. Matthews had come into the room at that time—Mrs. Bartlett said I had better leave—I don't think I said anything more—I then left, but before doing so I asked her for a bit of poetry, and she said it was at Claverton Street—it was a piece of poetry I had written about her, and which I had given to her some weeks previously; her husband read it—I saw her again on the same night at Mrs. Matthews's, and spoke to her about the chloroform—I told her I was going to make a clean breast of the affair, that I should tell everything I knew about it; I cannot say if that was on that occasion or whether it was earlier in the day that I said it; when she referred to that fact I said I would do so—I cannot tell you what she said, but the substance of it was, she told me not to say anything about the chloroform—I repeated my intention and said I was very much perplexed and alarmed, and that the best thing I could do in this matter was to tell what I knew of the matter, and of my having bought the chloroform; I do not remember what she said to that—I also returned her a watch which she said had been left to me by her husband; it was his wish that I should have that watch in memory of him when he was gone—she had given it to me on the Saturday before the post-mortem; I cannot tell you the exact words I said when I

returned it, but the substance was that I should not keep it—I also gave her the money for a cheque for 5l., which she had asked me to change; I gave her 4l.—I believe it was her husband's signature—I had received the cheque from her two or three weeks before for expenses which I had been put to when I was with them at Dover; she told me it was Mr. Bartlett's wish that I should not suffer any expenses owing to my connection with them—I cannot remember when I had given her the change for the sovereign to buy the chloroform—up to this time the four bottles were still at my lodgings—I thought you were speaking of Saturday—I had thrown them away on Wandsworth Common on the Sunday morning on my way to church at Tooting—I have pointed out to one of the officers in the case where I threw them—I threw them away as I walked along the path; I had them in my pocket, and I threw them at the side out from the road on to the Common at my left hand—with the exception of the one I took the label off, they would have labels on I presume—I threw them away just as I had taken the stuff out of them—on Tuesday the 5th I went and saw a solicitor, and he gave me some letters for Mrs. Bartlett, which I took to her at Mrs. Matthews's, but I did not see her—I did not leave the letters, I took them to her on Wednesday—they were some sorted letters, two or three dozen I should think, letters of Mr. Bartlett's which I had been sorting with Mr. Wood at his office, addressed from various people—the first time I saw the will it was in Mr. Wood's possession—when I gave her the letters Mrs. Matthews and she were going to Claverton Street; so I fetched a cab for them, and went with them to peckham Rye Station and to Claverton Street—there was sure to have been some conversation, probably about Mr. Bartlett's death, and the chloroform, I really cannot remember—I have a general impression of the different conversations I had with her, and in some cases I can give you the words—I came down to Victoria by train with them, and went to buy some cord for Mrs. Bartlett's boxes, and arranged to meet them at Dr. Leach's, and went there, and they had gone on to Claverton Street—I saw Dr. Leach, and inquired of him for Mrs. Bartlett, and Mrs. Matthews and he told me they had gone on to the house; and as I was leaving he gave me Mrs. Bartlett's keys, and told me that the Coroner had done with the rooms, and requested me to take the keys to her—I went to Claverton Street, and afterwards saw Mrs. Bartlett outside the door, and gave her the keys, and said that the doctor had asked for her, and then went with her and Mrs. Matthews to Dr. Leach—I saw Mrs. Matthews in the ante-room at Dr. Leach's—the inquest was fixed for January 7th, the following day, at Pimlico, near the Buckingham Palace Road—I attended, and Mrs. Bartlett—I was not represented then—I heard the witnesses examined, and then the inquest was adjourned to February 4th—after the inquest I went with Mrs. Bartlett to Mr. Stuart's, a confectioner's, and had some dinner—we were in a private room behind the shop, and were together there about an hour, and we talked together on the whole question—we discussed the recent events, the post-mortem, my having bought the chloroform, and so forth—she told me I was distressing myself unnecessarily, and I gave her to understand that I thought I had reasons to be alarmed, and she said if I did not incriminate myself she would not incriminate me, and I told her I was aware of my perilous position, but was

not afraid to stand by the truth as it affected me, and should persist in my intention of making a full and complete statement—I was aware that the contents of the stomach had been sent to be analysed—on Saturday the 9th I met her accidentally at Mr. Matthews's place of business, and returned with both of them to Mr. Matthews's home—we discussed the subject again—I was anxious to know what really had become of the chloroform—I told her that I was puzzled—she was indignant at me and asked me why I did not charge her outright with having given it to him—I can't tell you in a word what I said, but in effect I said I was not prepared to do such a thing as that—I believe it was on that occasion she told me she had poured the chloroform away and had thrown away the bottle out of the carriage window, as she was returning from London to Peckham Rye, on Wednesday the 6th, that is the station near the Matthews's—I made a communication to Mr. Matthews—after the 9th I saw no more of Mrs. Bartlett—I attended the adjourned inquest on February 4th, I was subpoenaed to attend, I presume I was cautioned by the Coroner; it was adjourned to the 11th—after I gave evidence that day Mrs. Bartlett was arrested, I believe—I was examined again on the 15th and for a third time on the 18th briefly, and then arrested on the charge of wilful murder, and afterwards taken before a Magistrate and committed for trial—I am twenty-eight years of age now—I have kissed Mrs. Bartlett in her husband's presence—by the rules of the Wesleyan body there is a probation of from six to seven years after entering the ministry, before you can marry—I made a mistake and said that I had two years to wait, I find it is only one, that is to say I could have been married next October or thereabouts—I lived at Thornton Road, Wimbledon, the last three weeks, not in the High Street.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. The last day I had conversation with the prisoner was the 9th, she was indignant and asked me why I did not charge her outright with having given chloroform to her husband—it was from her lips that I first heard that suggestion, she was very indignant, I have had no communication with her since—I have kissed her in her husband's presence—there was no secret between us or any secret understanding apart from her husband—I took the question to mean in regard to some secret understanding with reference to marriage and I answered it in that regard, as to marriage it was not a secret understanding—there was no impropriety of conduct between me and Mrs. Bartlett; that is to say, I kissed her, that was an impropriety, I don't defend that, it was both in and out of her husband's presence—whatever my relations with her were, they were known to her husband—I addressed him as Edwin and he spoke of her as Adelaide and of me as George—when I wrote the letter which you have, he had placed implicit trust and confidence in me, and he continued to do so to the very last hour of his life—I say there "I respond from my heart to your wish that our friendship may ripen with the lapse of time;" that was my wish, and down to the last day of his life I endeavoured to reciprocate his friendship and deserve his confidence, and I was solicitous for his welfare—I believe that every day of his illness, his wife and I were both anxious for his welfare, and trying to serve him—down to the time when I was examined on January 11th I believed I could not in any case be allowed to marry until October, 1887; I did not inquire, but I had been told so by someone who I

believe knew—I never mentioned to Mr. Bartlett the question of the time when I could be married, but to Mrs. Bartlett I may have done so—I can't swear that I then mentioned my then impression that I could not be married until October, 1887, I have no recollection of it, I should tell her the truth—the subject of marriage in general had been talked about by Mr. Bartlett—I became early aware that he had peculiar ideas of marriage—my first visit was of a pastoral character—early in our acquaintance he asked me whether I thought the teaching of the Bible was distinctly in favour of having one wife—he suggested that his idea was there might be a wife for companionship and another for service and household duties—I combated that view and told him the general tenour of the Bible was against it.

By the COURT. He explained that he thought the companion should be educated and intelligent and should be his confidante in all matters—he did not mention that they were both to be his bedfellows or refer to that at all.

By MR. CLARKE. I understood him that a man should have two wives in that full and complete sense—it struck me as a very remarkable suggestion, I put it down to oddity—he never asked me as a Christian minister if he should be allowed to live in sexual connection with two wives, he simply asked me whether the Bible admits monogamy—he never suggested it for himself—coming from him it did not strike me as unwholesome sort of talk in the family, he was a man who had some strange ideas—he made no secret of them, and recurred to them once or twice, not frequently—I do not think his wife was present—I knew of no secret from her—what he said about two wives was said tentatively to me half playfully the first time, but I have a recollection of his speaking more seriously about it on some later occasion—all through the time I knew him he has put his hand to his side and complained of some convulsive pain—I think I noticed it at Merton Abbey—when he has taken wine I have seen him put his hand to his side in that way—he did not say what it was that affected him—it has happened when his wife was there; at dinner, for instance, and he would get up from his chair, or leave off taking wine and continue his dinner, and it would pass off apparently—he told me at Dover that he was not the man he was once, and he attributed it to overwork—he used to get up at three a.m. and go to business from Dover, by the tidal train, the boat express, and I have known him come back at 10 o'clock—I spent two or three days there twice, and it was between those two visits that I wrote the letter in which I say "I am looking forward with much pleasure to next week"—I was to visit them again the next week—he was more depressed and low-spirited the last month or two that I knew him, but I did not notice it at Dover—all I recollect him saying at Dover with regard to his health was that he was not the strong man he once was—I can swear to the prisoner saying that he was low-spirited, but not to his saying that he could not live long, that is, in his presence—I cannot say that that was said at Dover, but it was said when I first went to Claverton Street—I said that he was a man of strange ideas in connection with the married state, and the terms on which people should live in married life—I do not know of books which he used to read with regard to that matter—I was on the closest terms of intimacy with him as brother to brother—I do not know that blue-covered book by sight ("Esoteric Anthropology; or, the Mysteries

of Man ")—I never law him reading it, and this is the first I have heard of or seen it—he never mentioned Dr. Nichols' name to me—he referred to marriage between me and Mrs. Bartlett after he was dead—that was about the latter end of October, at Claverton Street—I must explain he did not mention the word death—he has made statements which left me in no doubt that he contemplated Mrs. Bartlett and myself being ultimately married, and to the best of my recollection that statement was made about October—he had been finding fault with Mrs. Bartlett, not angrily, but correcting something, and I said to him "If ever she comes under my care I shall have to teach her differently," or some such words, and he smiled and said something to the effect that he had no doubt I should take good care of her—I have a clear impression of such words pasting between us—that was the first time I can recollect that it was said—I spoke of that as a thing assumed and likely to happen—it was assumed between us, I understood—there had been no previous conversation as to marriage—the conversation was that upon which Mr. Bartlett's letter to me bears—my letter was founded on the conversation at Putney, when Mr. Bartlett said he had made his will and made me executor—this is a delicate matter for me—I said there was no denying the fact that I was growing very attached to Mrs. Bartlett, and I wished to let him know it; that it was disturbing me in my work, and I asked him if it would not be better for me to discontinue my friendship with them, and he said "Why should you?" and said that I had been a benefit to her, that she liked my preaching, and that it had helped her, benefited her—he showed me one of her convent letters which she had written to him from the convent, which was a very devotional letter, and he said he should like me to endeavour to lead her back more closely to that frame of mind or disposition of heart—he said that he had confidence in me, and that he should be pleased if I would continue as friendly as I had been with them—he did not mention the future, except that he looked forward to it, and hoped that we should have some pleasant intercourse—he said as a proof of confidence in me he had selected me, with his legal adviser, to act as executor—I was telling a husband that I had become attached to his wife, and he desired the intimacy should continue—it was not then that he said that if anything happened to him, I and Mrs. Bartlett might come together, that was later, at Claverton Street—nothing more was said in September touching our future relations—I never said Mr. Bartlett used the words "If anything happens to me you two may come together"—the Coroner put it in that way, and I accepted that meaning, and do so now—I cannot remember the exact words—I regret to say I had at that time spoken to Mrs. Bartlett in regard to my feelings for her independently of Mr. Bartlett, and I told him I had—he asked me to write to her before that, when we went to Dover, and I wrote—that is the letter to which he refers in his letter to me—that letter had been read to him he said by his wife—after that I wrote letters to her from time to time—she did not at my request return them to me, that I recollect—I remember her showing me one of my letters—I was anxious to have the poetry back, because it was sentimental—the letters were affectionate, but not sentimental—I knew from Mr. Bartlett that his friends were not kind to her—I believe he told me at Merton that they did not understand her—he was accounting for the quietness of their lives, and gave that as one reason—at a later period he emphasised it—I recollect

Mrs. Bartlett telling me that he expressed a hope that I should be a friend to her when he was gone—it was at Claverton Street, when they first went there, and not in his presence—he said that if I had known her as he had, 11 or 12 years, and knew how affectionately she had nursed him, I should not have doubted her—that was in August; no, it was after my return from Dover—he came to hear me preach at Merton, and brought her with him, and it was after the service: I was troubled with indigestion, and he said that he had suffered from dyspepsia some years before, and she had nursed him during the illness—he did not say where they lived, that I remember, or what doctor attended him—he told me at Merton that his wife had one child, which died; he said nothing about it being the only time that she was pregnant—I knew from him that that was the only child she had; I only remember him mentioning it once, and that was not in her presence—I knew from Mrs. Matthews that Annie Walker attended Mrs. Bartlett in her confinement; that was said after Mr. Bartlett's death—Mrs. Bartlett did not say so to me, but she said that Annie Walker attended her husband in his sickness; I am positive about that—I cannot tell you when Annie Walker's name was first mentioned—before they went to Dover, when we were passing Merton Cemetery, Mrs. Bartlett spoke to me about this one child, but Annie Walker's name was not mentioned in reference to it—I think I may absolutely pledge myself to that, but she was very often spoken of, and Dr. Nichols was so often spoken of that I said I was interested in him—I never remember Dr. Nichols being mentioned before Mr. Bartlett—I do not think I have stated that I had no secret with Mrs. Bartlett unknown to her husband; I had a secret with her about Dr. Nichols—after they went to Claverton Street I did not tell Mr. Bartlett about Dr. Nichols, because Mrs. Bartlett said he might not like my mentioning it to him, because of his internal affection—Dr. Nichols had never seen him, he advised Mrs. Bartlett when Mr. Bartlett was worse, without seeing him—I knew his address, but I considered it would have been impertinent to suggest to Dr. Leach that he should see Dr. Nicholas as to his previous treatment—Mr. Bartlett had told me he had suffered from dysentery; I knew that before he went to Dover, but I did not know of the internal disease then—no name of disease was mentioned, but only something as to which he was sensitive—Mrs. Bartlett put it that he was sensitive on the question of his sickness—I was with him at the very beginning of his illness—I went with him and his wife to the dog show on 9th December, and he was taken ill in the course of that evening; he seemed very much worn out when he returned—throughout his sickness he was very weary, very much depressed, and suffering from sleepnessness and pain, but not before—he varied as to depression—I saw him crying, but only once that I remember—I think that was just before I went home for Christmas, on Monday, the 21st—I saw Dr. Leach in the first week of the illness; I had a conversation with him five or six days after Mr. Bartlett was taken ill—I do not know why Dr. Leach was selected—I cannot remember anything Mr. Bartlett said about being alarmed about himself; he spoke very little, and was very low-spirited—I have the impression that he thought he should not recover—I did not find him worse when I came back on Saturday, the 26th, but he said he was glad I had returned, and he was afraid his wife was breaking down in nursing him—on the next day, Sunday, the 27th, he told me of me having had worms—I went there

about 9, or 9.30 p.m., and thought he was better—it was on the Saturday that he was depressed, but it is difficult to tell you, because he contradicted himself—he asked me on Sunday whether any one could be lower than he was without passing away altogether, but he did not seem cast down in spirits, he seemed to be bearing up well against it, but thinking of himself as one actually on the edge between life and death—I did not see the doctor on Saturday, the 26th, or Sunday, the 27th—I called about 3 o'clock on the Saturday, and was there till about 5 or 6 p.m.—I spent the afternoon there—Mr. Bartlett told me on the Sunday that Dr. Leach had stayed with him several hours on the 26th, and he described to me that on that day his condition was such that he had taken two purgative draughts and a dose of croton oil, and also had been galvanised in the abdomen—he did not say he had taken santonine as well—he said they had all been of no use, and that the doctor had given it up in despair, but was going to try again in a day or two—he had been having frequent injections of morphia for his sleeplessness; he told me that even that had not given him sleep, and he has got up and walked about in he night—that was what he spoke of when he said that his wife was likely to break down under the strain of nursing him—it was quite an accident about Mrs. Bartlett and I going out together on the 27th; I came to the door and found her going out to the post, and I went there with her and then returned to the house—I understood from Mrs. Bartlett that Dr. Nichols was an American, and that was the way America was mentioned to me, but it was rather a jumble—I spoke to Mr. Bartlett about mesmerism at Merton, but I did not believe him to be a believer in it—I do not remember his telling me he did believe in it, he asked me if I did—I don't remember his suggesting to me that he had mesmerised anybody or that I had mesmerised him—I told him a story in connection with mesmerism on this occasion—I believe I introduced the subject—I did not ascertain it was a subject to which he had given attention—I never heard he believed in mesmeric influences—he did not tell me that on the 28th he stood for two hours waving his hand over his sleeping wife; I had never heard that till I heard it in evidence—my income was 100l. a year—Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett knew that, and that I was no, competent enough to bear the expenses of travelling, and Mr. Bartlett offered me the season ticket to Dover, which I declined, and he afterwards gave me one from Putney to Waterloo—I never did at any time during his life say anything to Mrs. Bartlett to suggest to her that I would marry her immediately n his death, if he should die—the understanding was known to him that at some time or other I and she might come together, but no more than that—the chloroform she spoke of to me was for the purpose of soothing her husband—she told me that in previous sicknesses Mr. Bartlett was violent, and she was in some apprehension of that state of things recurring, and it was by way of giving him sleep that she used it—at the time I got the chloroform, not the faintest idea was in my mind that it could be used for any dangerous or improper purpose—I had seen Mrs. Bartlett with Squires, medical book at Claverton Street—I have no knowledge in medical sciences, and I know very little of chloroform; I have never seen it administered, what I know was that chloroform was used for soothing and sleeping purposes, nothing more, and as far as my knowledge went I thought that a few drops on a handkerchief might be safely need—I understood that Mrs. Bartlett did not desire the chloroform to be

specifically mentioned to Mr. Bartlett, but for the affliction for which she wanted—I understood from her the paroxysms arose from that—she never asked me not to mention I had got the chloroform; I think I ought to state in justice to myself, there was a visitor there, and I could not give it to her in his presence—I cannot say if the visitor had not been there that should have given it to her in Mr. Bartlett's presence, I might or might not, she had not asked me to keep it secret—it was on the very day on which I gave her the chloroform that there was this misunderstanding between us; I suggested that she might as well have a nurse, and I knew at that time from what I heard from Mr. Bartlett that for more than a fortnight she had never had a proper night's rest; he had spoken of the probability of her breaking down, and I could see my self from her appearance and manner that she was tired and strained with the work—besides that she had told me about the friends complaining that he was not properly nursed, and taking those two thing, together I suggested that she should obtain a nurse, and she was angry at the suggestion—I also said I did not trust her, or something of that kind, but at that time not the smallest distrust of Mrs. Bartlett was in my mind—every time I had been there during Mr. Bartlett's illness I had seen her giving diligent and affectionate attention to his wants—I cannot remember that he ever suggested that a nurse would have given him better attention and cure; he never suggested one being fetched—when he heard me apologizing to Mrs. Bartlett he said "You can trust her; if you had had 12 years of experience you would have known you can trust her," and the impression that that left on my mind was that he was not only satisfied with her, but praised and desired her to continue that attention which she was giving him—from September when this understanding was set up between us Mr. Bartlett was in the habit of calling me George, and when we three were together I was spoken of as George; I called her Adelaide in his presence—at the time she told me to put away from my mind the fact that she possessed a medicine chest—I was in possession of the bottles which I had bought, and I threw them away as I went to church on the Sunday morning—I did not tell her on the Monday that I had done so, I could not say at this time why, probably because it never occurred to me to tell her—at that time I was in great anxiety and distress about my position, I was afried the effect of my having bought the chloroform might get me into trouble, so I thought I had better get rid of the bottles—I threw them away because it was the horror that seized me when I thought what get me in to trouble, so I thought I had better get rid of the bottles—I threw them away because it was the horror that seized me when I thought what might have happened—when I said I was a ruined man, it was because of the thought of what might happen to myself, I was going to say the though was in my mind at the time, possibly it was the chloroform I had bought had been the cause of Mr. Bartlett's death—it would be difficult to say when that thought first came, I think on Saturday night it grew on me—the piece of poetry was torn up when I got it—I cannot swear whether I got it on the Saturday or the Wednesday; whatever was spoken of this paper was spoken in Mrs. Matthews's presence—Mrs. Bartlett was not the only person who had advised me not to say anything about the chloroform, Mrs. Mathews had—understand me, nothing about the chloroform, not altogether, nothing about it imediately, she recommended me to await the result of the analysis, and I took her advice and did not.

Re-examined. I mentioned to Mr. Matthews on Wednesday, 6th January, that I had bought chloroform for Mrs. Bartlett, when

I was walking with him between his house and Peckham Rye station—I told him briefly the facts of the case and I said that I had my fears and that my idea was to give the facts—my fears were as to what had become of it—what use had been made of it, or rather as to what its effects had been—and it was then that Mr. Matthews advised me to wait; and really to wait my being called by the Coroner and give my evidence in due order—I had previously mentioned the chloroform to Mrs. Matthews on Wednesday as we were waiting in the ante-room at Dr. Leach's, but not to any one else—I had mentioned it to the Wesleyan minister at Poole, before I was called by the Coroner on the 11th, I had been down there, and I had also mentioned it to another minister of my own body; and I mentioned the chloroform to the Coroner on the first opportunity I had—Mr. Bartlett did not describe the particular way in which my preaching had affected Mrs. Bartlett, but thought it had benefited her.

By the COURT. I went to three different shops to get the chloroform, because I could not get as much as I wanted at one shop—I did not say at the first shop "you have given me a little bottle, I want four or five times the quantity," because I thought he would want to know what I wanted it for, and I did not wish to enter into a long explanation because I thought he would not understand that Mrs. Bartlett was skilled in the use of medicines—I said it was for taking grease spots out of cloths, because he asked me what I wanted it for—I knew that chloroform was used by amateurs, I heard of its being used for the gums, toothache for instance, and I understood it would be sold to doctors or at least to people who understood the use of it, for the other purposes for which it was wanted—I thought it was used very quickly in the way Mrs. Bartlett mentioned—I knew it was volatile, I had an idea that a very few applications would exhaust the amount—I thought the whole handkerchief would be well moistened in it—I had never heard how it was done and knew nothing of how it was done—when I took the chloroform to Mrs. Bartlett a Mr. Hackett was visiting there; and I left him there with Mr. Bartlett.

Wednesday, April 14th, 1886.

JOHN BAWTREE HUMBLE . I am a chemist, of 190, Upper Richmond Road, Putney—I know Mr. Dyson by sight—I had seen him pass my house on several occasions before the 28th December—I recollect his coming to my shop on the 28th about twelve o'clock—he asked for some chloroform—I asked him if he required camphorated chloroform for toothache, and he said no, he wanted pure chloroform—I then took up a two-drachm bottle and asked him if that would be sufficient—he said he wanted more; I next showed him a half-ounce bottle, and he said he would like more than that—I then showed him a one-ounce bottle, and he said that would do—I ultimately gave him a one-ounce bottle of methylated chloroform, which is chloroform obtained from methylated spirits—it was in a white glass bottle—I labelled it—he paid me 1s. 3d. for it—it was rather a large quantity to sell to one person at a time, without a prescription.

THOMAS SAMUEL PENROSE . I manage the business of Cadman and Company, The Ridgeway, Wimbledon—I am a chemist, and have known Mr. Dyson about eighteen months—he came to my shop on the 28th December, about twelve o'clock—I sold him two bottles of chloroform, of one-ounce each—it was methylated chloroform—he paid me 1s. 6d.—

the bottle was labelled, "Chloroform, Poison," and one of our trade libels was on it, with the address on—he took those bottles away with him.

JOSEPH RICHARD PHILLIPS BELLEN . I am assistant to my father, Joseph Bellen, a chemist, at 36, High Street, Wimbledon—I have known Mr. Dyson about eighteen months—on the 28th December he came to our shop about mid-day, and purchased some chloroform—about an ounce and a half or two ounces, I am not sure which—it was pure chloroform, and the price was 2s. an ounce—it was in a small blue bottle, with the words on it "Not to be taken" on the glass, and "Poison"; and in addition to that it had a label pasted on it, "Chloroform," and one of our ordinary trade labels with our name and address—I think there was two ounces of chloroform in it, but I cannot remember whether it was full or not—he paid me for it and took it away.

ALICE JANE SELBY MATTHEWS . I am the wife of Mr. George Frederick Matthews, living at No. 90, Friern Road, East Dulwich—I have known the prisoner for some years, intimately about three and a half years, and altogether something like five years—I knew her late husband also—when I first knew them they were living at Herne Hill, and afterwards at Lordship Lane, East Dulwich—I was in the habit of going to visit them at Lordship Lane—they afterwards went to Morton cottage, and I continued to visit them there—on one occasion my husband and I stayed a week in their house in July, 1885—they were then living together on very affectionate terms, so far as I could see, apparently as man and wife—Mr. Bartlett suffered from neuralgia when he was at the Exchange about three years ago—I do not know how long he suffered; it may have been a day or two, of a longer time; he did not lay up—at other times his health was very good—I did not see them at all in Claverton Street until Mr. Bartlett's death—on the morning of the let of January I got a telegram from Mrs. Bartlett, and I went to their house about 12 o'clock—I went upstairs with Mrs. Bartlett to the room where the body was, and she gave me an account of how the death had taken place—it was in the front room—the told me that the night previously her husband was in bed, and she sat with her arm round his feet; that she was awakened by feeling a cramp in her arm; that she did not get to sleep till after 12 o'clock; it could not have been till after 12 o'clock, because she heard the people downstairs wishing each other a happy new year; that when she was awakened by feeling the cramp in her arm she found Edwin lying on his face, and she turned him over and tried to give him brandy—she did not say whether he swallowed any of the brandy—she then roused the house and sent for the doctor—I asked her what he died from—she replied that she did not know, and that there must be a post-mortem—I do not remember anything else that either of us said about the death at that time—that was about 12 o'clock; I stayed with her all the day—we went out together in the afternoon to get some mourning, and then returned to the house with her and stayed there till about nine o'clock at night—the next day, Saturday, the 2nd of January, Mrs. Bartlett and Mr. Dyson came together to my house at Dulwich, after tea—I had never seen Mr. Dyson before—she introduced him to me on that occasion—I had heard of him before, but I cannot remember who from—in all probability it would have been in connection with the Bartletts, but I cannot say for certain—Mrs. Bartlett told me why they had come

to my house—she said the doctors were not agreed with regard to the cause of death, and that the rooms were to be sealed; and so she had come to me—she remained at my house—I do not remember anything of importance happening the next day, Sunday—Mr. Dyson did not come that day, but he came on Monday, the 4th—Mrs. Bartlett was out at the time of his arrival; it was after lunch—I do not know what o'clock it was—he stayed till she came in, and I left them alone for a few minutes—as I went back to where they were—I heard a noise in the room like someone stamping—I went in and saw Mrs. Bartlett stamping round the room—I asked what was the matter, and she did not answer for some minutes; then she said Mr. Dyson was bothering her about a piece of paper—I went out again for a few minutes, and then returned, and as I was entering the room I heard Mr. Dyson say "You did tell me that Edwin was going to die soon"—she replied "No, I did not"—then Mr. Dyson bowed his head on the piano and said "Oh! my God!"—after a bit I asked him whether he had not better go, and nothing more was said—he then went away, and as he went out said, "I am a ruined man"—I did not ask Mrs. Bartlett what he meant by that; I asked her what the paper was, and she said it was a piece of poetry—on Wednesday, the 6th, Mr. Dyson again came to my house, and he, Mrs. Bartlett and myself, went together to London—Mrs. Bartlett and I were going to London when he came, and he went with us—we left him at Victoria Station, and then went to Dr. Leach's—we found him not at home, and went on to Claverton Street—Mr. Dyson came there in the afternoon—we all three went to Dr. Leach's about three o'clock, and Mrs. Bartlett went in to Dr. Leach alone, into one room, whilst Mr. Dyson and I remained in another room—we were left alone together for over an hour, and during that hour Mr. Dyson and I had a conversation—on the Saturday in that week, the 9th, Mr. Dyson came to my house—Mrs. Bartlett had gone to town, and went to my husband's place of business to bring him home—Mr. Dyson went there also to see my husband, and they all came down together—I cannot say that Mrs. Bartlett told me what she had been seeing Dr. Leach about, but I understood she was to go and see the results of the post-mortem—there was a conversation about chloroform on Saturday, the 9th, at my house, in the evening—Mr. Dyson was in a great state, because he said he would be ruined, and he should have to leave his ministry, and so on—Mrs. Bartlett and my husband were there—I cannot remember all that was said—I know Mr. Dyson said "Supposing it should be proved"—and he hesitated and did not finish, and Mrs. Bartlett said "Do not mince matters; say I gave him chloroform, if you want to"—she said it very indignantly—Mr. Dyson made out that he would be ruined because of his position in the ministry—he said "Supposing it is proved that I bought"—or "Supposing it is proved that you gave him the chloroform and I bought it, or something like those words—on the Saturday or Monday I questioned Mrs. Bartlett with reference to what Mr. Dyson had told me whilst I had been waiting with him alone in Dr. Leach's surgery, and I asked her why she had told him all those lies—I did not tell her what Mr. Dyson had said to me, but I knew that she knew what he had told me—she replied that he had bothered her so, that he would not believe her when she told him the truth—she told me on one occasion that she had had chloroform to soothe Edwin, but that she had never used it—I cannot say she told me

where she got it from, but of course I understood—she told me that, on the Saturday or Monday, after we were at Dr. Leach's—she said she had thrown it away, that she had poured the chloroform on the rails as she came from Victoria to Peckham Rye on the 6th and had thrown the bottle away into Peckham Rye pond—we had passed Peckham Rye pond on the 6th; it was then frozen—I do not know whether it was frozen hard; there were some boys on it at one end—I do not know whether it was frozen all over or not—Mrs. Bartlett left my house on the 11th—she came to see me again soon afterwards, two or three times before the 20th—when she left me she went to Weymouth Street, Portland Place, to lodgings—I do not remember that she said anything particular to me about this matter between the 11th and the 20th—on the 20th she said she had asked Dr. Leach about giving Edwin chloroform, and that he had told her she could not possibly have given him chloroform, because it would have shown in his brain if she had given it to him by inhalation, and that if she had given it to him to drink it would have burnt his throat all down, and that his screams would have alarmed the house.

GEORGE FREDERICK MATTHEWS . I am the husband of the last witness, I have known Mrs. Bartlett about three and a half years—I visited them at Merton Abbey and stayed some time with them—Mr. Bartlett's general health was very good, so far as I know—I noticed nothing peculiar about his ideas—so far as I could judge he and his wife lived as man and wife—I saw him once during his last illness, on December 15, when he seemed very prostrated—Mrs. Bartlett told me he was suffering from slight mercurial poisoning and also from verdigris and he might possibly have got it from moving things in the warehouse as he had been hunting rate—that was the last time I saw him alive—I went to Claverton Street on January 1—I saw Mrs. Bartlett and had tea there—after tea she said that Dr. Leach said that he could not grant a certificate, and later in the evening it was said that she and Dr. Leach had come to an understanding early in the morning that there must be a post-mortem—on January 2nd she came to my house in the evening with Mr. Dyson, when my wife was there—she told me that she must have fallen asleep sitting near the foot of the bed, she had his foot under her arm, and was awakened by feeling a cramp in her arm, and found her husband lying on his face and turned him over and endeavoured to give him some brandy, and becoming alarmed she proceeded to raise the house and also sent for a doctor—she stayed at my house that night, and on Sunday, January 3rd, I asked her if it was possible that he might have got at any poison—she said she did not think he could have done so, and she did not think there were any poisons in the house—I believe she said that the doctor had told her there was a smell of chlorodyne at the post-mortem which might be accounted for by her husband having used chlorodyne—I was also told that there was a smell of garlic, and I asked her if it was possible he could have got at any arsenic—she said "No;" we had a visitor, and of course there was not much said—I saw Mr. Dyson on February 6, when I was coming home from business—I walked with him to the station and had a long conversation with him on this subject, but Mrs. Bartlett was not present—on January 7, the first day of the inquest. Mr. Dyson and Mrs. Bartlett came to my house in the evening—Mr. Dyson only stayed a few minutes, but Mrs. Bartlett

discussed the evidence which had been given—on Saturday, 9th January, Mr. Dyson came to my place of business about 11 o'clock first—I was too busy to see him, and he returned later, when I was about to leave, at two o'clock—he and Mrs. Bartlett went with me to my house that afternoon at my request—he told me in her hearing that he was ruined, so far as his prospects in the ministry were concerned—I endeavoured to combat the idea, and he explained that it was impossible for him to do otherwise than resign—that according to a system that existed with them certain superintendents of every district were responsible for the conduct of the ministers in each district, and that the slightest breath of anything against the minister would cause him to be called before what I understood to be a sort of council—he said, turning to Mrs. Bartlett, "Suppose it turns out, or suppose it should be proved to you," and then he hesitated, and she said, "Do not mince matters; say it, if you wish to say, I pave him chloroform;" he said "Well, to put it hypothetically, supposing it was discovered that you gave him chloroform and I gave it to you?" and then I cannot say his words exactly, but he made an action, as much as to say "What would be the opinion of the world? how should I come out in such a case?" and he moved his hands, so—I cannot remember that she said anything to that—he went almost immediately after that—she left my house on January 11—I saw her on January 20 at my house with my wife—she told me that Dr. Leach had said that it would be impossible for her to have given him chloroform by inhalation without it showing in the brain, and she could not have given it him as a drink because it would have burnt his throat all down and he would have roused the house with his cries.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I have been a friend of Mr. Bartlett's some years, and was in perfect confidence and intimacy with him—he never talked to me about medical matters, nor did he communicate to me his strange ideas on the subject of marriage—he never lent or showed me any books, but Mrs. Bartlett lent me Dr. Nichols's book once—it was a queer sort of book, scarcely in my line of business, and I did not read it—this is it—that was quite two years ago—Mr. Bartlett never talked to me about magnetism or mesmerism—I nave also seen "Squire's Companion" at their house at Merton Abbey.

Re-examined. She lent me this book two years ago at my house—she was a believer in the hydropathic system, and I do not know but I rather think the book was about that, and she gave it to me so that I should read something on the subject; I am not certain, because I never read the book; I know we used to have conversations on hydropathy—it was left with me, but I did not read it at all—I believe my wife returned it to her. (MR. CLARKE here read the title of the book.) If I read as far as that I should not have read any farther—now you mention Dr. Nichols, that was the reason she gave it to me, she was speaking of Dr. Nichols—I know nothing of Dr. Nichols—I never saw Mr. Bartlett with that book.

ANNIE WALKER . I am a midwife and a trained nurse—in October, 1881, I was attached to the London Association of Nurses, 62, New Bond Street, and received a letter there from Mrs. Nichols, the wife of Dr. Nichols, of Fopstone Road, Earl's Court, making an appointment—she is dead, but Dr. Nichols is, I believe, a witness here—I saw her, and in consequence of what she said I went to Station Road, Herne Hill,. saw

Mrs. Bartlett, and arranged to attend her in her approaching confinement, which occurred in November, 1881, but I was in the house attending her for four weeks before that—I attended her without a doctor—I am not certain whether I took the order from her, but I went to her husband and asked him to let me have some medicine—he asked me if her life would be all right—I said that I did not fear for her life, but I feared if she did not have help at once the child would be stillborn—he said that he would much rather I took the case through, he would much rather not have any man interfering with her, and I agreed to go on—I am not certain whether that was the day before her confinement or on the day on which she was confined at midnight—she had a very bad time, she suffered great pain—I asked Mr. Bartlett to send for a doctor to be there when the child was born, and begged him, and it was drawing pretty near at that time—I sent for a doctor at last, but the child was born before he arrived; it was stillborn—I continued to attend her for three weeks, and saw her four times after that, when she told me that she never meant to have any more children, but she did not say why—when I visited her after her confinement I saw Mr. Bartlett, and as far as I could judge they were living together as man and wife, and were on very affectionate terms—I visited them at Lordship Lane, and also at Merton Abbey—I stayed a few days with them at Merton Abbey in September, 1884, and sang on Sunday, 2nd October—she played and sang in the evening, and she said that Mr. Bartlett never appreciated enough what she did, that he did not appreciate her work; she worked very beautifully, and she said that he always thought she ought to do it better—I cannot say whether it was on that occasion, but she said, I think in his presence, "Don't you think it is a shame that Edwin has made a will that the property will come to me provided I never marry again?"—I feel sure she mentioned that more than once, but I cannot really be positive about it—all I know of Dr. Nichols is seeing his back once as he passed from one door to another in his own house; he has never seen me—I never saw him about Mr. Bartlett at all; I never had any conversation with him—I knew he was the husband of Mrs. Nichols who had written to me, and that he was the gentleman who had written this book, "The Mysteries of Man"—I never saw any one reading it, but it was lying about at the Bartletts'—I know that it was read because it was through reading it, I understood from Mrs. Bartlett, that she wrote to Mrs. Nichols—I saw no other medical book at the house, and no medicine chest—I never had any conversation with Mrs. Bartlett about chloroform; she never asked me to purchase any for her, and I never did so, nor any medicine of any kind—I have never been to America or out of England; I never spoke of going to America—I never knew anything of Mr. Dyson—I never attended Mr. Bartlett.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. No chloroform was used at Mrs. Bartlett's confinement—I have never heard chloroform mentioned when I have been there, and so far as I know she knew nothing about it—I do not know whether Mrs. Nichols attended people; she visited a lady who I attended, but they were great friends—I have read in the book that she attended people, but I don't know much about the book, I have just looked at it a little—I only know Dr. Nichols as Mrs. Nichols' husband, and the author of the book—I have looked through it; there is nothing immoral or indecent in it—I saw it there when Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett were about,

there was no concealment of it at all, it was lying about—I had seen two patients before at Mrs. Nichols' recommendation, but none since—I lived in the house six weeks before the confinement, and took my meals with Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett; she was most affectionate towards her husband, and although she expected her confinement to happen earlier than it did, she would get up very early to see that he had his breakfast at seven comfortably before he started—I gave her my photograph in my nurse's dress—her confinement was a time of great suffering, and she said that she would never have another child; I was seven weeks in the house altogether—I was very anxious about her, but did not see any reason to fear for her life; she was keeping up very well, but even after what Mr. Bartlett said, I again insisted on having a medical man—I have nursed a great many ladies; I have been 14 years a nurse—it is not an uncommon thing at all for a woman to say that she hopes never to have another child.

Re-examined. When she said that, she said nothing as to the terms on which she was living with her husband—they occupied the same bed when I was with them, and I have been into their room when I paid my visits—there was nothing exceptional between them as man and wife as far as I know—she never made any statement to me as to the terms on which they cohabited.

By the COURT. Parts of this book tell married people how to live together without having children.

THOMAS LONG NICHOLAS . I live at 32, Fopstone Road, Earl's Court—I have no degree enabling me to practice here—I was a graduate at New York in 1850—I have been in England about 25 years, mostly in London—besides myself there is no other Dr. Nichols in Fopstone Road, or in Earl's Court, that I know of—I published the work entitled "Esoteric Anthropology"—I first saw the prisoner at Westminster Police-court—I cannot remember having any conversation with her by letter or otherwise—I do not know any one of the name of Bartlett in this country—I do not know a nurse or midwife of the name of Annie Walker; I saw her here this morning, never, before to my knowledge—I never stated to any one that a person of the name of Bartlett would die within 12 months—I could not make any such statement unless I had examined the patient.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I am not registered here, my diploma was just too late to be registered—I used to live at Malvern; it was there I issued the English edition of this book; it was written about 1853, in America—I believe it has been very largely circulated all over the world—my late wife published a book called "A Woman's Work in Water Cure and Sanitary Education," that was the English reproduction of the previous work entitled "Experience in Water Cure," published in America—in 1853 I was giving lectures near New York at the American Hydropathic Institute—I was then teaching students in anatomy physiology, and hydro-therapeutics, and was assisted by Mrs. Nichols in teaching, and writing books—she wrote her own books, and did her part of the teaching for both sexes—my book called "Human Physiology the Basis of Sanitary and Social Science "was written later, at Malvern; the preface represents my intention in writing it, and the character of the book-patients in England mostly came to Mrs. Nichols—it was a large practice, involving hundred of cases—she had more practice here

than I—I did not know Miss Walker at all—she may have visited at my house, and might have seen me without my noticing her—Mrs. Nichols' practice would, in the ordinary course of things, be communicated to Miss Walker, without regard to mine; she had her own ladies who usually came to see her in a different apartment—they might come and consult her without my knowing their names or anything of the kind—sometimes persons who read my books would come to me for advice; I did not lay myself out for practice, nor wish it—I was engaged in literary work—my intention was "Not to get consultations, but, to prevent that necessity, to enable them to get health without any further care"—I wished to make my book as perfect as I could; but from time to time persons did come to me for advice, which was given, sometimes it might be on matters requiring very private consideration—I very seldom visited patients; I nave sometimes been prevailed up to see a patient, but I never held myself out as a practitioner; I always gave persons to understand what my position was; if they wanted me to see a child or a patient that I thought I could be useful to, I often would go, but that was very rare—I had some practice in America—I never kept a record of those who visited me in England—I never kept any records at all—Mrs. Nichols died in May, 1884.

Re-examined. My wife usually attended the ladies who called—she may have seen gentlemen who may have wished to speak to her, I can't say positively with regard to that—she very seldom visited any patient; if they were not able to come to her and she drove out, she might sometimes call.

THOMAS A. ROBERTS . I am a dental surgeon at 49, Charles Street, Pimlico—I was called to see Mr. Bartlett on 16th December; I went to 85, Claverton Street—I first saw Mrs. Bartlett on the landing outside the door—I asked her if her husband was in the habit of taking mercury in any form—I think she said "I don't know"—I saw the deceased and examined his mouth—I should say he was suffering from mercurial poisoning—his teeth were loose—I extracted the two upper central roots that day—I went and saw him again on the 17th with Dr. Leach, and I extracted about 11 more roots—I visited him again on the 21st, and extracted four lower incisors—I used a solution of cocaine on the gums—that is a new drug lately used; I can't say whether it is a mineral or vegetable drug—I painted his gums with it before the operation, to produce local anaesthesia, to dull the sense of pain, to make the operation more easy—I saw him again on the 26th—I should say the signs of mercurial poisoning were then lessened—I saw him again on the 81st December, he and Dr. Leach came to my house, and I extracted a tooth then, that was between 5 and 6 o'clock—Dr. Leach administered nitrous oxide gas; he was under its influence about half a minute, I should think—that was the last time I saw him—I should say his condition was much better—I noticed the condition of the gum in the region of the lower incisors; the gum had separated and raised from the central ridge of the alveolus—that is the process of boning in which the teeth are inserted—I said to Dr. Leach "I think this looks very much like necrosis setting in"—necrosis is death of the bone—it had extended between the two lower caries about an inch and a quarter, it had gone into the whole of the socket of each of the four teeth that I had extracted

before—the disease of the bone was not at all extensive, I should say it was only commencing.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. On the last day he inhaled more of the nitrous oxide gas than patients would ordinarily do—we only applied it once, it took three or four minutes I should think before it went off—I did not take the time—as a rule two minutes is quite sufficient—I noticed a fungoid growth round the necks of the teeth—there were very few teeth remaining, there were only two stumps and teeth on each side—each stump did not represent a tooth; the upper molars have three Stumps, the lower molars have two—I extracted 11 teeth and stumps on my second visit, but I cannot say how many teeth or how many stumps—there were more than two left on each side, I can't say exactly how many; I know one was left on the lower left side, and one canine on the lower right—I can't say how many were left in the upper jaw—I believe the lower teeth at the back of the jaw had all gone—I did not notice his breath at the last visit, it was extremely foul at the first and second—I noticed the fungoid growth at each visit; it was not found in the hollow spots where the teeth had previously been, it was around the necks of the teeth that still remained, on the margin of the gum, it was principally tartar I should say—it was before the last operation was performed that I said to Dr. Leach that I thought necrosis was setting in—that was said in Mr. Bartlett's presence—necrosis goes on, that is the dead part of the bone separates entirely from the healthy part, and then you can take it away; now much of the structure of the bone may be involved in that, depends on the condition of the person, the circumstances of his life, and so on; it might go on in a way which might practically cause the destruction of the jawbone, which would be a very terrible thing to contemplate.

Re-examined. I do not say that the decayed part had separated from the healthy part, it would, if allowed to go on; there is a process by paring or removing the decayed part so as might prevent the spread of the necrosis, I can't say for certain—I did not consider this a case involving any serious consequences at that time, not as to the necrosed portion of the bone—its process is to spread, leaving the rest of the gum healthy—I did not find it necessary to suggest any treatment, or to do anything in relation to it, except that I recommended the mouth to be rinsed out with Condy's fluid—I thought that was the best thing to be done—I did not attach any serious importance to this fungoid growth.

The deposition of Dr. Green was here read as follows:—"Thomas Henry Green (Sworn). I am a physician at Charing Cross Hospital—I was present at a post-mortem on the deceased, Bartlett, on the 2nd January, and the post-mortem was made under my directions—I made no notes, I dictated the notes—I did not read over the notes at the time; I have read them since—I believe the notes contain what I dictated—I noticed the oesophagus (I cannot speak positively to the condition unless I am allowed to refer to my notes)—as far as I can remember the lower part of the oesophagus was denuded of the epithelium; it had come off in little patches here and there—the stomach was removed—it was tied before removed at both ends—the contents of the stomach were put into a large glass vessel—this vessel had no stopper to it, therefore a smaller glass stoppered bottle was procured from the chemist, and the contents were transferred from the larger vessel to the smaller—I should think about half an hour elapsed before the transfer to the smaller vessel—the

contents of the stomach smelt very much like chloroform—I compared it to a mixture of chloroform and garlic—I examined the cardiac end of the stomach and the mucous membrane—I examined them by my eyes, by means of a lens, and by my finger—the mucous membrane at the cardiac end of the stomach was covered with thick tenacious mucus (I am speaking from memory)—I believe it was unnaturally red, I am not sure, a dusky red I think—the capillaries were filled with blood; there was considerable injection of the mucous membrane at this part of the stomach—in the posterior dependent aspect of the stomach there was a distinct loss of substance, I should think over a space about the size of a shilling—I examined the intestines; I do not remember if the contents were run into any receiver—the smell of the contents of the intestines was similar to the stomach, much less intense—I examined the heart; I noticed the tissue, it was perhaps a little softer than I expected it to be so shortly after death—if I remember rightly, I said that the tissue is a little softer than natural, perhaps post-mortem—it was very slight—I noticed the cavities and large vessels of the heart were much too deeply stained—the blood itself was fluid; that was not a normal condition considering the time that had elapsed from death to the post-mortem examination—I was not present when the result was announced to the family, I was obliged to leave—I concluded that death was most likely due to the contents of the stomach—I suggested before I left that it would be wise to have the contents of the stomach sealed, and that the Coroner should be communicated with." Cross-examined by MR. BEAL. My depositions taken before the Coroner I looked through hurriedly, and I signed—they were offered to be read to me by the Coroner, but he did not read them—I read the notes of the post-mortem rapidly about two hours ago I think, I have not seen them since they were dictated—I cut open deceased's stomach myself—the inflammation at the cardiac end was obviously recent—it was obviously a recent change—I don't think acute inflammation could have lasted sufficient time in this case not to be characterised as recent—when I arrived there were two large jars which I carefully examined and smelt, they were glass and quite clean—I don't remember any more—a third small stoppered bottle was sent for from the chemist—I examined it, it appeared to be perfectly new—I don't know that I exactly saw the sealing of the jars, I was engaged in something else—I cannot say I saw them labelled—the small cap was removed—the dura mater did adhere to the skull cap rather more than it ought to do—the brain was carefully examined throughout, cut up, sliced in every possible direction—I don't remember the meninges were thickened—the ventricles of the brain I did not notice anything abnormal about, I did not notice any odour about the ventricles—we examined the brain most carefully, and as far as I remember there was nothing abnormal about it—the brain was examined after the stomach—it was examined last—I examined the larynx and cut it all the way down—I believe there was nothing abnormal about it—I examined the trachea—I believe there was nothing abnormal about that—the kidneys I examined, they were quite natural—I examined the spleen, that was quite natural, and the liver, that was natural—I have no recollection of examining the bladder, I should think I did so, but I don't remember—there was nothing particular about the lungs, a little congestion belined, I fancy a post-mortem change; for all practical purposes

they were healthy; I only looked at the skin with my eye—I didn't notice ulcers about the leg—we noticed he was a healthy looking woman—I noticed no ulceration anywhere except in the stomach—the pyloric end of the stomach was inflamed—I believe the small intestines were perfectly healthy throughout—we cut them up and carefully looked at them—we weighed some of the organs—we had no scales and I saw no special reasons for doing so—I cannot remember the size and shape of the loss of substance in the dependent part of the stomach, it was about the size of a shilling, very shallow—the edges were certainly not clean cut—the loss of substance did not extend to the muscular coat—there was very marked congestion for some distance round the ulcer—all the appearances in the deceased corpse were consistent with natural disease except the appearances of the stomach—some of the appearances in the stomach I might attribute to natural disease—all the appearances of the stomach except that of the ulcer and the mucous membrane in its immediate vicinity—I do not consider those appearances due to chloroform but to some irritant, I could not say from chloroform—I inferred it from the smell—the whole of the stomach was slightly inflamed—I examined the mouth, I think we found nothing but the condition of the jaw; there was some slight necrosis—nothing in the mucous membrane of the mouth—I did not notice the teeth particularly, a good many were lost—I didn't observe an abscess—I noticed the pharynx was quite natural and the upper part of the oesophagus—he was a strong, wellnourished, healthy-looking man, powerful, well developed I should say—as far as I should observe a man capable of considerable exertion.

By MR. LICKFOLD. I cannot complain of my practice—I should imagine necrosis of the jaw is not a pleasant ailment—I expect to find it occur in a healthy person—I should not call a person suffering from necrosis in a healthy condition—I don't remember I heard Mr. Leach describe him as suffering from alarming symptoms of necrosis—poisoning by liquid chloroform is, I believe, of very rare occurrence—I have never in the course of my practice had a case of poisoning by liquid chloroform—I have never seen a case in which I suspected death to have resulted from chloroform—I don't know what chloroform is considered—I believe it may destroy life very quickly in a liquid state; I don't know, I believe so now—I have not come to that conclusion—if I had been asked I should have said it might destroy life quickly—I don't know that persons have taken four ounces and recovered—Taylor is a great authority—if I have referred to his book it must have been when a student—I have no personal knowledge whatever of poisoning by liquid chloroform, nor of the symptoms it produces—ulceration of the stomach does not commonly follow on gastritis; gastritis is ulceration of the stomach—ulceration is one of the manifestations of gastritis—ulceration of the stomach will sometimes cause perforation, and perforation sudden death—what I meant was that signs of acute inflammation might pass off—signs of acute inflammation of the stomach might pass off completely or leave only signs which could not be distinguished from a chronic process—it could not pass off after death—I quite agree with passage, Taylor on Poisons, 2nd edition, page 163, read to me—I don't know anything about the theory that chloral hydrate may be turned into chloroform by the action of the blood alkali—chloral hydrate would not have the slightest smell of chloroform—if in the stomach, I don't know—I don't remember having

heard the medical men say anything about the brain before what I have said to-day—I don't remember I said anything before the Coroner about it—I have a very clear recollection of what I conceive to be the allimportant facts of the case; of course I mean as to post-mortem appearances—the notion that there was chloroform in the system did impress me—I should not to my knowledge have expected to find something wrong in the brain in a case of poisoning by liquid chloroform—I believe the blood in chloroform poisoning is more or less altered, and does not coagulate properly, and stains the tissues, but I have no knowledge—I don't think I have spoken to Mr. Leach since the post-mortem—oh, yes, I did, when he asked me to come to the Coroner's inquiry—we certainly had no medical discussion. Re-examined. I first got a notion of chloroform as soon as we opened the stomach, after the thorax had been examined—before smelling the stomach no person had suggested to me there was chloroform—the notion came to me immediately I opened the stomach—there was no perforation of the stomach; in this case the ulceration was only superficial—the ulceration and the appearances surrounding the ulcerated parts were in my opinion due to the recent action of an irritant poison—chloroform is a very volatile liquid; it acts as a local irritant—it is used externally as a local irritant—I should not like to express any opinion as to whether any of the signs of inflammation of the stomach might have been due to an inflammation of the mucous membrane antecedent in causation to that caused by an irritant—what I mean to say is, that the signs of inflammation at the cardiac end of the stomach were to my mind so characteristic of the action of a local irritant that the slighter degrees of inflammation in other parts of the stomach might have been or not due to the irritant—I cannot distinguish, in the pyloric part, between inflammation due to the irritant and any irritation due to any preceding gastric disturbance—the inflammation was recent, certainly—the inflammation at the cardiac end was certainly recent. By MR. LICKFOLD. Chlorodyne would not have nearly so pungent a smell as I smelt in the stomach—it has a slight smell of chloroform, I believe; but what I smelt was almost as strong as a freshly-opened bottle of chloroform. The Witness further says: I desire to say that all I have said has been from my memory, and without reference to notes. Signed, HENRY GREEN.

ALFRED LEACH . I am a Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons and of the Society of Apothecaries, and a Licentiate in Midwifery, and practise at 41, Charlwood Street, Pimlico—that is less than a quarter of a mile from Claverton Street—on 10th December last I was called in to attend the deceased; the prisoner called on me; I had not known them before—I was called in the morning between 9 and 10; I arrived at 85, Claverton Street, about 11—the deceased was sitting on the sofa in the drawing room in his dressing gown—I found he was suffering from diarrhoea, some pain in the left side, foetid breath, and from signs of indigestion, sub-acute gastritis one might call it, but of course it was masked by mercurialism—I will call it mercurialism or gastritis, they are convertible terms—it was the effects of a dose of mercury or of an ordinary dose of mercury by a person with an idiosyncrasy for that drug—he had taken too much blue pill or something containing mercury—it

does not mean that he had taken mercury chronically; it means that for him he had taken too large a dose of mercury, to my mind—I cannot tell you what I prescribed for him, the character of the treatment was a curative one, it included chlorate of potash and bismuth—there are many treatments for such diseases—I have not got a copy of my prescriptions, I gave them to the Treasury, I think—the first prescription is bismuth, ammonia, and tincture of nux vomica; that may be correctly described as a stomach mixture, I can describe it in no other way—I see there is bismuth for the stomach, and nux vomica, and also sicona as a tonic—on the same day I also prescribed a lotion as a mouth wash; that was with reference to the state of the jaw; it was chlorate of potash, and lemon syrup to flavour it—I attended on the next day, the 11th, and directed that the bismuth should be suspended by a dilution of bicarbonate of soda and a mild sedative of bromide of ammonia, and also nux vomica and flavouring matter, and a compound tincture of chloroform at the end—that would contain two drops of pure chloroform; 40 minims of compound tincture would be two drops—that entire prescription would be described as a stomach and sedative prescription—I also gave him an opium pill, to procure sleep at night—on the 14th I repeated the mouth wash of chlorate of potash—I prescribed a tonic of gentian and nux vomica on the 15th—on the 18th I gave him a fairly strong purgative of Epsom salts (which was not taken), and a second prescription of bromide and bismuth, with half a drachm of chloral hydrate to two ounces of the mixture, about 15 grains a dose, to be taken at bedtime, a small quantity—on the 19th that was repeated, with morphia in it, and it was acid instead of alkaline, as his condition had improved—on the 20th the chloral hydrate was increased to 20 grains, the morphia and bromide and the rest of the prescription remaining unaltered—on the 22nd there was another mouth wash—on the 24th there was a mixture having no therapeutic action, a placebo, as he would not sleep, and I had tried fairly strong narcotics—I gave him this prescription for the imagination, telling him he was bound to sleep after taking it—on the 25th I prescribed a tonic, calculated to act as a slight stimulant to the digestive organs and to the nerves; it contained phosphate of strychnine—on the 26th began the vermifuges, the worm medicines, consisting of santonine made up with a little confection of senna, to be followed by a draught of sulphate of soda and Liebig's Extract—then on that day there was a strong purgative, which failed to act, and then at my suggestion he swallowed the draught I had prescribed for him on the 18th—he likewise had administered to him by himself for aperient purposes two small globules containing croton oil, each a fairly good dose—they were ineffectual, and I was afraid to give him any more—on the 28th the mouth wash was repeated, and an emulsified preparation of iodiform with bismuth, for the fungoid state of his jaw, was given him; that was a wash—this treatment was addressed to the soothing of the stomach, a sedative and aperient, an innocent and ordinary treatment, I hope—I found that treatment successful, and his health improved—some days after I was called in I sent Mr. Roberts, dental surgeon, to him—he only had nitrous oxide on 31st December, on previous occasions cocaine was relied on—the last prescription I gave him was that of the 28th—he was taking that of the 25th up to the time he died; I did not think it necessary to order anything but a repetition of that of the 25th—I last saw him alive about

6 o'clock on 31st December, in front of Mr. Roberta's door, 49, Charlwood Street, he had just had a tooth out—previous to having the tooth out he seemed, I think I may say, better than I had ever seen him; I cannot say his spirits were better, but they were not bad—I chiefly formed the impression that he was better because he acknowledged it, a thing he was very loth to do; he said he felt he was better—his spirits were good, but on the 25th, the day before the worms, I had seen him in exceptionally good spirits—I had frequently threatened to discontinue my attendance, and on the 30th I carried my threats into execution because the man had made up his mind to have continued medical attendance, and I was not inclined to continue—if the patient had needed it I would have attended to any amount—I did not think he continued to need it daily; to have seen him twice a week would have been enough—on the morning of 1st January, about four, Mr. Doggett's housemaid came for me—I went about half an hour later—I talked some time with the messenger to ask whether it was merely one of his notions or whether he was really ill—I asked what restoratives I could bring if he was really bad—she could only say "I know nothing about it; Mrs. Bartlett only told me he was dead"—I got alarmed, and we jumped into a Hansom's and went—when I went into the room I found Mr. Bartlett was dead—that was about 4.30 a.m.—I have here a few notes written at the moment—when I got there at 4.30 Mrs. Bartlett and Mr. Doggett were in the drawing room—I am not certain if Mrs. Doggett was there—the deceased was lying in his usual place on a camp-bedstead where I had always seen him, near the window—I made a formal examination of the body to see whether he was dead, but I saw he was directly I entered the door—I made a complete examination a few minutes later—he had on a night dress and an undervest—he was lying on his back with his arms across the abdomen, the legs a little bent, the fingers naturally closed, the surface very pallid and very cold, the eyelids nearly closed, the pupils for him very much dilated, natural for death, the mouth partly open, the tongue very white—I estimated the temperature of the body and roughly that of the room; and I tried, as accurately as I could, to estimate how long he had been dead, and I calculated he had been dead from two to three hours—after thinking it over a day or two I thought it possible he might have been dead longer, but I think now, after very careful consideration, three hours is as nearly accurate as I can give—at the time I expressed to Mr. Doggett the conclusion I had come to as to the length of time he had been dead, I am not sure if the prisoner was there—I found the chest smelt of brandy, I think it was moist, I am not sure of that—the mouth had no odour whatever, I smelt that first—the brandy was on the skin of the chest itself I am sure—I am not sure whether there was any moisture on the vest or night dress—the smell of brandy was slight; that was the only smell on the body—in the room there was that naturally close odour of a sleeping room, the odour of supper and condiments and brandy and gas—the face was pale with a natural expression; the fingers of the hands and the legs were slightly flexed—there was no appearance of any convulsive action or paroxsyms, I looked for that and saw nothing of the kind; and I looked for froth on the lips but saw none—the eyelids were nearly closed, and as the pupils were turned somewhat upwards I could not examine the pupils without drawing up the lids—I lifted the eyelids of both eyes

in order to see the pupils at all—the pupils were in the direction of the wall behind him; if he had been standing up the line of vision would have been distinctly above the horizontal—I can form no opinion as to whether his eyelids were in the state in which he died, or whether anything had been done to them—you can close them at any time before cadaveric rigidity sets in; that may happen at from a few minutes to six or eight hours, the time depending on the cause of death, the state of the body before death, and surrounding circumstances to some small extent; very slightly on the temperature of the room—I believe there is a difference in bodies immersed in water—I only speak from my reading on the subject—there was no table near the bed, the table was in the middle of the room away from the bed—the head of the bed was towards the wall on which the mantelpiece was—the fireplace projected from a part of the wall which projected also, leaving a kind of shallow alcove, and the head of the bed was in that alcove as near the mantelpiece as the alcove would allow it to be—the bed in this model is made too narrow in proportion—on the mantelpiece I observed a looking glass, a clock, some vases and a small bottle of chlorodyne, that was all—the bottle of chlorodyne was either on the mantelpiece or on a small stand on the other side of the room away from the bed—it was about an ounce bottle, about half the size of the blue chloroform bottle—on the table there was the remains of supper and some brandy, and a bottle containing some white stuff, carbonate of soda I think, nothing else of importance—there was some brandy in the bottle, I don't know how much—I feel sure I examined it, I am satisfied it contained brandy—I uncorked and smelt it, it was partly full—there was also a wineglass with some brandy in it on the table, I smelt it carefully—I don't remember if there was a "Whatnot" at the end of the room facing the mantelpiece—I looked round the room for anything of importance that would throw light on the subject, I should call bottles things of importance—I remember nothing else than what I have stated—there was a lock-up place in the room next to the fire-place, I examined that with Mr. Doggett; if it was locked the key Was there, there was nothing locked from us, we had not to ask for the key, there were no bottles in it, nothing but what was of an ordinary nature—I smelt all the glasses in the room; brandy and the smell of supper and so forth were all the things noticeable by me—the bedroom opens off the drawing-room by folding doors, I don't think I entered it—I saw a tumbler of Condy's fluid either on the corner of the mantelpiece or on the floor just below it, another bottle was standing in it—the bottle of chlorodyne was labelled chlorodyne, there was very little in it—I searched carefully to see if there was anything suspicious in the room, for there had been nothing in the previous conduct of the deceased, or in my observations of him, to suggest to me the probability of death from natural causes—I asked Mrs. Bartlett to give me any explanation or any assistance in elucidating the mystery—she said she was unable to—we then discussed several things, and then I spoke to her in a low voice that Mr. Doggett might take the hint to leave the room, and when he was gone I thought perhaps some matters of delicacy, which she did not like to mention before him, might come out, but she was unable to give me any explanation, and then it was, I think, we discussed the subject of chlorodyne—while Mr. Doggett was there I said "I cannot give a certificate, there must

be a post-mortem"—Mrs. Bartlett replied, I think, "Must there be an inquest?"—I said "There must be a post-mortem"—a little later on I said "Really, this is a case that I ought to report to the Coroner, but I have no suspicion of foul play; I will have a post-mortem made and then, if the pathological cause of death is found, a certificate will be given in due course; I will not make the post-mortem myself, I will have a pathologist"—Mrs. Bartlett said "What is he dead of?"—I replied "I do not know, I find no cause of death, it is possibly due to the rupture of some small vessel, some aneurism, something that may have been possibly overlooked in my examination, I can hardly think that the death was from syncope"—the post-mortem examination would tell whether death had been from aneurism or the rupture of a blood vessel, that is why I said a pathologist and not a medical jurist—I suggested Dr. Green, who did assist at the post-mortem; he is a noted pathologist and a man of eminence in his profession, he is physician of the Charing Cross Hospital and at Brompton—when I was attending the deceased, Dr. Dalby attended him on the 19th or 20th—on the occasion of one of my visits after talking with the patient and saying he was doing well and so and so, some conversation ensued which I think was a reference to his business, about his partner wanting him back, and Mrs. Bartlett broke in with something flattering to myself and then said "Mr. Bartlett is very contented with his treatment, but his friends have on more than one occasion requested him to let them send him a physician of their own choosing," she added "Mr. Bartlett's friends are no friends to me"—Mr. Bartlett then said "We intend in future, Doctor, to manage our own affairs and not to be interfered with by my friends and relations, I am sorry to say they are not kind to my wife"—I said "By all means have a consultation, as many as you like"—he said "No, I will not have a consultation in the ordinary sense of the term, I will not see any one they send, I will see any gentleman you choose to bring to see me once; I am "getting better than I was, I will not submit to any other treatment, but I will see some gentleman once, I do this for the protection of my wife"—either before or after that she had said, "Doctor, Mr. Bartlett's friends will accuse me of poisoning him if he does not get out soon, if he gets worse, if he does not get better"—the conversation was a general one—I have tried to pick out who said the different things—it made little effect on me; I thought it referred to the mercurialism—I called in Dr. Dalby, who saw him once, and approved of my treatment—he prescribed a fresh tonic, and a combination of the drugs that hitherto I had given him separately—I asked Mrs. Bartlett whether any time elapsed between finding her husband dead and calling her servant and Mrs. Doggett—she said that as soon as she found she could not rouse him she ran up for the servant and sent her to me—she told me she was sitting beside her husband's feet in the easy-chair, which she usually, in fact where she always slept; she had her left arm round his feet—she said she woke and heard him snoring, but that it was a peculiar kind of snore; still, as it was not unusual with him to snore, she dropped asleep again—she evidently tried to describe to me the stertorous breathing—that later on she woke up with a cramp in her arm, and saw him lying on his face in an uncomfortable position—she described that her arm was round and resting on his feet—I concluded she meant outside the bedclothes—

that she rose from her chair and went towards his head to turn him into a better position—that she was alarmed at his condition and tried to rouse him; she found him cold; she applied brandy—I don't know whether she said she poured any down his throat; I understood she rubbed some on his chest (probably that was my inference), and went up to the servant's room and sent her for me—that the servant went into the kitchen, and Mrs. Bartlett chafed at the delay, and she called Mr. Doggett—I do not think she explained how she was able to turn him round—I did not understand that the whole body was turned round, but that his shoulders and head were twisted round, and the latter buried in the pillow—on that same day we discussed all the poisons I could think of that were rapid in their action—I asked her was it possible that he could have any digitalis or any of the alkaloids in his possession, I knew he was friendly with some wholesale chemists, and she said, "No, he could have had no poison without my knowing it, he could have got no poison without my knowledge"—I asked her, "What is that chlorodyne doing here?" for I had never seen it before—"Oh," she said, "Edwin used to rinse his mouth with it at night"—I said, "Rinse his mouth! then he must have swallowed some"—she said, "No, he only rubbed his gums"—I said, "Did he not go into the bedroom at all?"—she said, "No"—I said, "If he rinsed out his mouth and spat out the chlorodyne we must find some of it in the room"—I looked under the bed into the most natural receptacle—she said, "No, I think not, he never put much into his mouth, he only rubbed his gums"—chlorodyne smells strongly, I did not perceive any smell of it—the smell of chlorodyne that has stood for some time is extremely like that of pure chloroform—it contains 1 in 8 of pure chloroform—it would depend how much he swallowed for it to cause death—drugs had a peculiar action on the man—as little as a drachm of chlorodyne has killed—I thought it might possibly be so in this case—I have quite given up that idea now, because of the result of the analysis proving the absence of the other ingredients of chlorodyne, prussic acid, and the more stable alkaloids—I am sure it was not death from chlorodyne—on that morning of 1st January I was not aware that Mrs. Bartlett was in possession of chloroform—I knew nothing of it till 26 days afterwards—it then came upon me as a surprise—on the same occasion Mrs. Bartlett asked could he have died of chloroform—I cannot fix the date of the conversation—I don't know if anything was said about chloroform on the 1st of January; I think not; but there was nothing to make the mention of chloroform more remarkable to me than digitalis—the post-mortem examination was on the 2nd January—Dr. Green was the principal—Dr. Dudley was there as a looker on—Dr. Murray and Dr. Green were also there, and I took these notes—they were as accurately taken as I could do them. (The notes of the post-mortem examination were here read.) Atheroma is the definition of one of the coats of the blood vessels; aorta is one of the large blood vessels; oesophagus is the stomach, and epithelium is its scaly lining—the hyperdenia is the end of the stomach nearest the spleen—the dura mater comes between the skull and the other membranes of the brain—that examination discloses a healthy state of all the vital organs—there is a reference here to something abnormal in the condition of the stomach—from these notes I gather that the only abnormal condition, except

that of the stomach, are fluidity of the blood, with dissolving out of the colouring matter staining the tissues, and what I should scarcely, perhaps, allude to, a certain amount of adhesion present in the dura mater—excluding the stomach and blood, there was nothing suggestive of the cause of death—the blood was acted on through the contents of the stomach—the intestines were put into a bottle, but I did not see the sealing process—nothing was locked up then, but all the bottles which had belonged to the deceased, and all bottles and jars containing results of the post-mortem, were carried by my directions into the front room by the undertaker, I think, it being understood that the front room was going to be locked—I do not know if it was locked and the key handed to Mr. Wood—the post-mortem took place in the back room, the bedroom—I noticed a very white condition of the tongue of the dead man when I first saw the corpse on 1st January; that passed off before the post-mortem—it presented itself to me as something striking, but I only learned to interpret it some days afterwards by experiments made on myself of swallowing chloroform—I took 3 1/2 drachms into my mouth, and swallowed about 20 or 30 drops, ejecting the remainder, and when I looked in the glass found my tongue was very white—that was some days after the 26th—there then came to my mind the abnormal whiteness of the dead man's tongue—this condition of my own tongue passed off in a very few hours—I have had no previous experience of the effect of chloroform taken into the stomach—I do not remember to have seen Mrs. Matthews or Mr. Dyson on 1st January, I think not—my next recollection of Dyson was on the 2nd, the day of the post-mortem—Mrs. Bartlett called on me on the 6th at my request—I had before that told her the result of the post-mortem examination when I announced it to the assembled relatives on 2nd January—I acted as the doctors' spokesman—to the best of my recollection I said, "These gentlemen wish me to state that we have very carefully examined the body of the deceased, and we are unable to discover any pathological lethal cause, that is to say, any natural or obvious cause of death; the contents of the stomach are suspicious, and we have preserved them"—that was a correct statement of the result—I had gone before that downstairs to summon the relatives, who were in the smoking-room, and in the presence of Mrs. Bartlett and the others I said the contents of the stomach had a pungent, ethereal odour, and I probably said, "Dr. Greene, or one of the doctors, suggests the smell of chloroform, but if it is it is the chlorodyne"—I was under that delusion then; that delusion has disappeared entirely since—on the 2nd no search was made in the drawers in the back room; one of the drawers was brought into the front room in the presence of all the people—Mrs. Bartlett said nothing to me about possessing chloroform till 26th January—when I announced the result of the post-mortem on the 2nd, and that there was chloroform which I thought they had mistaken for chlorodyne, she made no answer—on the 6th she called on me—I informed her I wished to be put in possession of any facts surrounding the death of the deceased which would enable me on the following day to lay some clear statement before the Coroner—the inquest was then fixed for the next day—I likewise asked her to repeat the hurried account she had given on the morning of my visit to the corpse—I am not quite sure but what she brought to me on that occasion notes of how the time had elapsed between his

return from the dentist and my appearance there at 4 o'clock—I asked her to make memoranda while the events were still fresh in her memory of how the time had passed—I think it was on this occasion she read it to me—I said I thought that they were satisfactory, but I did not take a note of them, for I did not wish to burden my mind with things that had been observed by another person, and which I thought she would like to give in evidence herself—I requested her to keep them herself; I thought she would give the evidence herself—she was not examined before the Coroner—I have some brief notes of her visits—I do not know when they were made, but they were made on the police-court paper—on 6th January I had no note of importance—I think all the conversation about the impossibility of swallowing chloroform had taken place much earlier—chloroform was mentioned on that occasion, for unfortunately I continued to harp on that subject—she reiterated the same statement that he could not have swallowed it—I saw Mrs. Bartlett several times between January 6th and 26th, on 14th and 18th twice—I had heard of the result of the analysis—on 26th I opened the conversation thus: "Mrs. Bartlett, I have some good news for you"—I knew she was much worried—"the report now is that the Government analyst is going to give in acetute of lead as the cause of death, which is nonsense, for there was no lead in the stomach; likewise the report says that he is going to return a verdict of chloroform as the cause of death, which is very improbable," I said "at any rate, either one or the other, that should set your mind at rest, but had it been one of the secret poisons given in small amounts, and which could be administered without the patient knowing it, you would have most certainly been very seriously accused of having poisoned him, by some people;" she then very much surprised me by saying, "I am afraid, doctor, it is too true; I wish anything but chloroform had been found"—naturally that led me to ask question, "Why?" "What do you mean?" or something of that sort, and she proceeded to make a long statement—I have a note of it made on 6th February—the matter is fairly clear in my recollection—she began her story with a preface containing a sketch of her married life, that being married young she had been induced to enter into a marriage compact, scarcely understanding the meaning of its terms; that the marital relations of the pair were, in deference to certain peculiar views held by her husband, to be entirely of a Platonic nature, sexual intercourse was not to occur—those terms were adhered to with one solitary exception in consequence of her fondness for children and her anxiety to become a mother; and after her confinement the former terms of a Platonic nature were resumed, she being indifferent on the matter—her husband was kind to her; they were affectionate, although on one occasion she objected to the use of the term "affectionate"—that is only a quibble in words—they each strove in every way to fulfil each other's wishes and succeeded in living upon most amicable terms—that happiness was on one occasion disturbed by her husband's father; she then entered into some family details which have slipped my memory, I mean about the conduct of her husband's father—she had consented to his living with them—the brother was not referred to—she said the father made her life miserable by his constant insults, and when she appealed to her husband to resent those insults he, in his mild way, did not act upon her suggestion with the zeal that she thought the occasion

demanded; she consequently left her husband's house and hid herself from him, I think in the house of an aunt, and only consented to return upon an ample apology being made—that was the end of it—I cannot fix when this occurred—it was the only break in their conjugal happiness—she then said, her position had not been an easy one, and might be almost called cruel, for her husband, though meaning no cruelty, put her in a difficult position—no female friends were invited to the house, or relations, but he had always liked to surround her with male acquaintances—she said "He thought me clever; he wished to make me more clever, and the more attention and admiration I gained from these male acquaintances the more delighted did he appear; their attention to me seemed to give him pleasure"—the last few months of his life his nature teemed changed—"we became acquainted with Mr. Dyson—my husband threw us together—he requested us in his presence to kiss, and he seemed to enjoy it—he had given me to Mr. Dyson"—her husband having fully effected the transfer to Mr. Dyson, I mean still in a Platonic sense, her husband suddenly developed symptoms of wishing to assume his marital rights, which he had never before claimed—she put it in as delicate a manner as she could, but the meaning was he showed a desire to have sexual intercourse—she resented this—she said "Edwin, you know you have given me to Mr. Dyson, it is not right that you should do now what during all the married years of our life you have not done," and he agreed that it was so—she said that it was a duty to her womanhood and to the man to whom she was practically affianced at his wish—as he got, better, and while I was treating him, these manifestations became very urgent, and she sought for means the more thoroughly to emphasise her appeal to him or to prevent his putting his impulses into effect—one of those means, she said, was the possessing herself of a quantity of chloroform—I had no idea till I heard it in Court how long she had had it, but she said, "the presence of chloroform in my drawer troubled my mind"—she said her object was to sprinkle some upon a handkerchief and wave it in his face every time it was necessary; thinking that thereby he would go peacefully to sleep—I told her the danger, she would run if she had put that into practice, of their both being chloroformed by the bottle spilling, and that her plan would be ineffectual—I explained "Trying to put chloroform upon your handkerchief and waving it in the face of your husband, he would have resisted, a struggle would have ensued, the bottle would have capsized and chloroformed the pair of you"—it is not the first time that chloroform has been upset in a bed, and the stopper come out—she said "I never kept a secret from Edwin, and the presence of chloroform in my drawer troubled my mind"—I put the word "my" in because I have since learned it was there, it was "In my possession," or "in my drawer," and "I was also troubled with some scruples as to whether putting my plan into practice would have been right, and on the last day of the old year, when all was quiet and the servant had left" (I am putting that in because the servant had left) "on the last night of year when he was in bed I brought the chloroform to him and gave the the bottle to him," and informed him of her intention, but she gave no details of the conversation—I asked "Was not your husband very cross with you, or alarmed, or what was his demeanour?"—she said "No, he was not cross; we talked amicably and seriously, and he turned round

on his side and pretended to go to sleep," or to sulk, or something of that kind—in answer to a question from me she told me that he had looked at the chloroform, in was in a large round bottle I believe she told me, or it was in a large bottle, labelled "Chloroform," and corked, not tied down with leather or anything of that sort, and not full; he put it up the side where he was sitting or lying, on the mantelpiece at the corner—the next thing was that she fell asleep sitting in the chair where she always slept—I may add that she had slept there ever since I had attended the patient, notwithstanding my remonstrance; she went to sleep with her arm round his foot, then woke and found him snoring, then woke again and found him dead—she had given me the same story on the morning of the death—I said "Did you look at the bottle of chloroform, was there much gone from it?"—she said "I don't know whether much was gone from it or not"—I did not ask her when she possessed herself of it—I asked her who got it for her—she did not answer, and I saw it was a question to which no answer would be given—I asked her how she got it; she said "Some one got it for me," and I asked no more questions; but later on there was no secret about it—the mantelpiece was not far from the head of the bed—I described the situation of everything I found on the mantelpiece on January 1st—there was no chloroform bottle on the mantelpiece that morning—I have described all I saw—I asked her on 26th January what she had done with the bottle on 1st January; she said that she took it from the mantelpiece and put it away in her drawer about breakfast time—that is how the word "drawer" got into my mind—I asked her where it was when I was examining the room on January 1st, concerning that I am very much confused, but she said "It was there when I was there" or "It was there when I was sent for"—I am quite clear that it was not there when I was there, because both Mr. Doggett and I searched in her presence—she could see us searching, she never left the room—I do not think I asked her on the 26th where she had left the bottle of chloroform on the 1st, for it seemed obvious to me—she volunteered no explanation, but she wanted to know what he was dead of—she told me that the bottle remained in her drawer till the Wednesday that she took her things away, the 6th; that was the day before the first inquest, when she was allowed to remove her things, and she said that she took the bottle of chloroform with her, emptied it out at the carriage window, I think she said from the train, and threw the bottle away into some water—she told me that she did that on January 6th, the day she took her things away—I did not ask why she did it, nor did she tell me—she told me when she first suspected the real cause of her husband's death, and probably she told me that day, but I quite forget what she said.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I had no knowledge of Mr. or Mrs. Bartlett's existence before December 10—as far as I know I was called in because the place where I practise faces their street—I had 20 or 21 opportunities of seeing them together—on some days I visited them twice or even thrice, and at one visit I spent several hours there, and so far as I could see and judge she was attending him with anxious affection—I could not have wished for a more devoted nurse for him; I say that emphatically—I could have wished for one with a little better memory, but that defect was supplied by her keeping a written record, which she used to pin to the mantelpiece—she tended him night and day most

affectionately—I do not remember her speaking of breaking down and being tired, but I noticed it and commented upon it in his presence—I was told that night after night during his illness she had slept sitting at the foot of his bed—she said that she slept comfortably in the chair and never went to bed—very soon after my first visit I noticed that it was telling on her and asked her on several occasions to go to bed, and she refused each time—it was obvious to me that she needed rest and was suffering in strength, and about the beginning of December I said "Now, Mrs. Bartlett, there is no excuse for your not going to bed;" she said "What is the use of my going to bed, doctor? he will walk about the room like a ghost; he will not sleep unless I sit and hold his toe"—the drollness of the expression fixed itself on my mind—when she first called me in she gave me a sketch of the case I was going to visit—I cannot remember what she said, but I said "This promises to be a a very peculiar case, I will come as soon as I can"—she did not give me a false account of his condition, or I should remember it—when I first went to see him she had preserved his motions and she continued to do so regularly, and his vomit also—his urine was sent to me to analyse more than once, but I only analysed it once, because I knew that his kidneys were sound—I paid him two visits on 10th December—this (produced) is a list of my visits, but I paid some which I never entered—on the day that I saw him twice I found great nervous prostration; his muscular system was good enough; his physical state was not seriously impaired; he suffered from something more than diarrhoea, it was menina, diarrhoea with black motions which contained indications of haemorrhage from the bowels—he complained of pain in his left side just about here (The hip), and there was a peculiar dulness on percussion which puzzled me and I could find nothing to account for it on the post-mortem—it passed off in three or four days of treatment—he told me he had been overworked in business, and I advised him to see nobody connected with business—he complained of sickness and vomited, and on the day I first saw him he had vomited and continued to vomit for about a couple of days, I think—he was in a very bad state; his condition was that of nervous exhaustion and depression, and he was evidently hypochondriacal—his breath was very foetid and his pulse poor, small, and slight—he had a blue line round the edges of his gums, which were red and spongy, and there was some small amount of salivation, an extra large now of saliva (which at once suggested to me that he had taken mercury), and I examined him carefully for signs of syphilis, but found none—I don't think I waited on that occasion till Mrs. Bartlett left the room—I think it was on the second visit I asked him the question privately—after a quarter of an hour he or Mrs. Bartlett said "Well, doctor, what is the matter with me?" and I said "Mercurial poisoning"—I said it sharply, thinking to take him unawares and make him admit it; not then, but to show him that there was no hiding any secrets from me—he said "How can that be?" I said "From taking mercury"—he said "I have not taken away"—I said "Think it over"—I did not quite accept the answer—my experience is that the answer is sometimes not to be relied on, especially when a third party is present, and when Mrs. Bartlett had left the room I asked him whether he had been taking medicines—he said "No"—it flashed through my mind that he had been in the hands of some quack or practitioner who had given him mercury for

real or supposed syphilis; but I did not distrust him after his answer—he had not had syphilis, but he had spyhiliphobia—I have made notes; this is my account—"When Mrs. Bartlett was out of the room I asked him if he could account for it, if he had not been taking medicine—he assured me that he had not, and I did not press the question, because I thought he had been in the hands of quacks for a real or supposed secret disease, and was ashamed to own it"—I said that perhaps that was so—that was the account I set down on paper—I would stand by that more than what I say vivd voce, for when I have a pen in my hand I do not make mistakes—I upon that told him to be careful not to take anything I did not prescribe while I was attending him—I was anxious that he should not.

By the COURT. I think I found out what was the origin of that condition—he attributed it (and I have no reason to doubt that he was right) to haying taken a pill of unknown strength and unknown constituents.

By MR. CLARKE. This is an accurate report: "December 11th.—This morning, or the evening of yesterday, he told me he had found a clue to the mercury. A few days previously he had taken a pill which, in a moment of abstraction, he picked out of a drawer," &c., reading the witness previous statement. The bowel and the physical symptoms began to improve from the very first, but his spirits did not improve—he continued to complain of sleeplessness—on the 12th I saw him twice—I think after my second visit I let his messenger come home with me, as the chemist's shop was closed, and I made a bromide draught for him—on Sunday, the 13th, I visited him three times, and for the first time found it necessary to inject morphia. (Referring to his notes.) I was doubtful whether it was given him for dental purposes, but evidently it was given him to procure some sleep—I had already, I have no doubt, given him some few doses of nux vomica and bromide, or I should not have resorted to morphia—it was a peculiarity in him that it made him very restless; large doses of bromide he declared were stimulants, but they are the very reverse—about the 14th the blue line round the teeth began to give way to a grey sloughing margin, and I brought in a surgeon-dentist in consultation, and his view favoured mercury and not tartar—on the 15th I visited him twice, and again in a night visit I injected morphia—at that time his sleeplessness was getting worse, not from the former cause, but I have no doubt his teeth were then getting painful—on the 16th there were two visits, and he complained of pain in his lower lip, I think—I gave him a tonic, nux vomica, gentian, and peppermint, to produce appetite, and to allay the pain and the flatulence—I do not remember pain in the tongue—the pain in the lips was caused by his teeth, and in the under surface of the tongue—on the 16th he had two teeth extracted; two central incisor groups—it was determined to extract the loose roots, and they were extracted—they were very much decayed and horrible, and loose—there was no fungoid growth at the roots on the 17th—by "horrible" I mean they were in such a bad state of decay, and the gums were still bad, and in front, near the incisor teeth, the grey slough which succeeded the blue line had sloughed off, leaving a jagged margin—as early as the 19th, when he got rid of those teeth, or roots, I began to talk to him about getting out of doors—he refused; he said it would kill him—he really was so obstinate about going out of doors, that he almost at one time made me believe that I had overlooked something serious in

him—he was so reasonable on some points that I could scarcely put it down to sheer folly—Dr. Dudley's chief advice was for him to get out—it was of no use, as he passively resisted—he told me he liked to he still and feel happy—he told me on the 18th that the family wanted to send down another doctor, and Dr. Dudley came on the 19th—Mr. Bartlett said that he was content to get an independent opinion at one visit, and left me to choose somebody to come—I chose Dr. Dudley because he lived near, and he was a hospital physician, and he seemed a most appropriate witness to call in—I have said, "During my visit Mrs. Bartlett laid 'Doctor, I have something very unpleasant to say, his relations who are never content with anything I do, want to send him a physician of their own choosing.' I answered at once, 'Well, let them send him one, I have almost done with him; he only requires an outing to be quite well, and then he ought to go to the South Coast.'" That is quite correct—it is not in my entry that I "turned to Mr. Bartlett for an explanation of that statement. He sat up in bed, and said, 'Yes, that is all true; I am sorry to say that my friends are not friends to my wife '"—it is not in my notes, but certainly he said, "My wife and I will manage our own affairs, and not trouble other people"—on the 19th I supplied a sleeping draught, chloral hydrate and hydrochlorate of morphia and syrup of red poppy; he was then pretty much as usual—I agreed with Dr. Dudley that he was suffering from sub-acute gastritis—we attributed his mental condition to his account that he had been suffering from great sleeplessness for a considerable time—on the 20th I increased the dose of chloral hydrate—on the 21st the lower incisors were removed, and the teeth were principally at fault, so that we had little left to complain of—the gums were getting sloughy round the teeth—about that time probably (I am not sure but that she said it more than once), Mrs. Bartlett told me before to husband that he would still talk about dying—I told him I would accompany him to Torquay after Christmas, and I mentioned Dr. Dalby there, because I thought it would give him confidence that he would be looked after, although he required no looking after, practically—I wanted to get him away from his wife, and send him to Torquay alone, and that was one reason why I offered to accompany him—he was practically a hysterical patient about this time, and his wife petted him too much, and what would have done him good would have been a sea trip with no one to nurse him and hold his toe, and that sort of nonsense—if he had been abandoned to take care of himself he would have been all right—he wanted dental care, but from a medical point of view he was out of hand—on the 24th I prescribed the placebo, which would do not harm nor good, except as far as he imaged it was going to and I did not tell his wife the secret of it—ten drops were to be given in wine and repeated if necessary an hour later if the pain was severe, and I think I said he must be careful not to take a third dose—up to that time he had been getting better physically—on the 23d he passed the worm, and that threw everything back again, and he was in such a condition about it that threw I put off the treatment for two days, partly to see if any more passed, and partly to let him gather up pluck and strength—he was much depressed about it, and thought certainly he had proved there was something wrong with him then—the vermifuge came two days than I had found out—the next day, I think, he told me he felt worms

wriggling up his throat, and he kept to it; I don't know if it was delusion—two or three days ago I saw a worm that did wriggle up a patient's throat, and was vomited—Mr. Bartlett may have felt it, but I think in his case it was a mistake, because I asked the doctor to search for a lumbricoid in the post-mortem, and his motions were watched from that day to the day of his death—he always described them in my presence as in his throat, not as wriggling up him—that would be the imagination of a very nervous man, upset by this having happened, but I should not be inclined to set down every man as nervous who said that, because worms might be there—I have no basis to form an opinion as to whether they could be there—his nervous and depressed condition at this time was not necessarily connected with this imagination about worms—he was in a more depressed and troubled condition after that time for a day or two—he told me an extraordinary rigmarole about his being on the night of the 26th under somebody's influence; he thought he and his wife had both been mesmerised by a friend—on going in on the next morning I said "Well, Mr. Bartlett, how have you slept?"—he said "I could not sleep; I was nervous and restless when I saw my wife asleep in the easy chair, so I got up and went and stood over her like this" (holding up his hands, he was in an excited state) "for two hours, and I felt the vital force being drawn from her to me; I felt it going into me through my finger tips, and after that I lay down and slept"—his wife said "That is a nice story, doctor, imagine him standing for two hours and doing anything"—Mrs. Bartlett ridiculed it as mere delusion on his part—I did not imagine he would stand for two hours doing anything; I was of Mrs. Bartlett's opinion on that matter.

Thursday, April 15th.

DR. LEACH (Recalled and further Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE). I did not find that the sedatives produced their expected effect on him—the same thing happened with respect to the purgatives—on the 26th I subjected him to a very severe treatment in order to open the bowels—there were two draughts and then two globules containing croton oil; those he called stimulants—the croton oil pills ought to have been very effectual and very rapid for their purpose, but he attributed to them precisely an opposite effect, he said he felt stimulated by them, that they were warm and pleasant to his stomach—I then got him hot tea and coffee to induce these remedies to act, but it did not have the desired effect, nothing had—I then applied galvanism to the abdomen, and that failed, and I practically gave it up in despair—I may mention that he was not suffering from constipation previously, it was not constipation that I was treating him for, but the vermifuge worm powder that had to be driven out of the digestive organs—he had swallowed the worm powder and I naturally had to give purgatives to clear that out—if it had remained there it would have made him very miserable, he would have seen everything green and have suffered from buzzing in the ears and all sorts of troubles which I didn't wish to subject him to—he did not have these troubles, he would have had them—I have tried the same drug upon myself, and always try to avoid letting any patient experience what I experienced on that occasion—it was carried off his bowels after two or three days, he did not suffer from constipation afterwards—I saw a motion the next morning when I called, a small one I grant, it was not satisfactory—I told him on Tuesday, the 29th, that I should not come on the Wednesday, and he

was apparently distressed at that—I don't remember what he said; it was not the first time I had threatened—the idea had always disturbed him of my not continuing to attend him, and Mrs. Bartlett said on previous occasions "You had better come, doctor, he will be anxious," or something of that sort—that was why I visited him so often as I did during some portion of the time—I heard that he had crying fits about this time, and spoke to him about them; I saw none myself—I don't remember his saying he couldn't help it when I spoke to him about it, he made some reply of a queer nature I know; it was a reply quite fitting the case—I said before the Coroner "I was told by Mrs. Bartlett on several occasions that the deceased had had one of his crying fits, and on speaking to him he said that was so; Mrs. Bartlett said 'Edwin sits in his armchair and cries an hour at a time, and when I ask him about it he says it was because he was so happy;'" if that was true I should have put it down to male hysteria; when I asked him why he cried he said he could not help it—that is most probably true, because the facts were better in my mind then; Mrs. Bartlett's reply I remember distinctly now, she said "He cries because he says he is so happy," that couldn't fail to strike me as being odd—that was said in his presence—he was not a man to discuss medical matters; he was not a talkative man—the only time that I saw him what might be called talkative was the time that he told me about his being mesmerised; then he fired up with quite unwonted eloquence—during the last two or three days of his life, on the 29th, 30th and 31st I think it was, his jaw symptoms became alarming, that pointed to necrosis of a superficial kind—I do not use the word "alarming" in its worse sense, necrosis may often be a very terrible matter indeed—there was necrosis there that might have led to considerable inconvenience as regards mastication, it might have prolonged the time during which he would have to go without false teeth, and it was the absence of teeth that led to many of his other troubles; it was a necrosis that might have caused considerable sloughing of the gums, which he then had slightly; a necrosis that might ultimately have resulted in an albuta process, that is a part of the socket, and which might be more difficult for a dentist to place a set of false teeth upon; a necrosis that might have considerably upset him—I had no great fear as to the ultimate result of this necrosis at affecting his life, but I was alarmed as to the consequences that might follow—the most common cause of necrosis is injury to the bone or periosteum, by traumatic or chemical causes—necrosis may follow traumatically from a blow, and indirectly on a fever—in a particular form it may follow on phosphorus poisoning, caries begins the process then—syphilis is the most common cause of necrosis—I have no doubt there have been a good many cases where necrosis has followed upon taking mercury even in small doses where syphilis has not been present at all—when I saw Mr. Bartlett first I told him he was suffering from mercurial poisoning; there was no necrosis then, it appeared indirectly—I take it to be that mercury is one of the causes in the chain of events that leads up to necrosis—an extra dose of some pill which contained mercury would have caused the necrosis of the jaw, or have had a serious operation in producing it—on the afternoon of the 31st I privately arranged with Mrs. Bartlett about his going to the dentist's, in order to spare him the dread of looking forward to that visit—after he left me that evening he understood that I would

come and see him on the following morning, and in the ordinary course I should have gone there on 1st January—he and his wife left me at the dentist's door and went back to Claverton Street in a Hansom—I was present when the deceased referred to the very happy life he had led, and saying that he should like to be married again—it was on the way to the dentist's—as we were approaching the corner of Denbigh Street and Charlwood Street the conversation ran upon the subject of recent marriages in the locality—Mrs. Bartlett said to me, "This morning Edwin and I, doctor, were talking about the number of our friends who are getting married, and we were saying we wished almost that we were unmarried that we might have the pleasure of marrying each other again"—I turned to the deceased and said, "That is very flattering to you, Mr. Bartlett, after so many years experience of you," and his reply was not quite clear for he was muffled up, his mouth was covered with wraps on the way to the dentist's, but he said, "Yes, we suit one another very well in our views," or "ways," I am not sure which he said, and then the conversation dropped before we arrived at the dentist's—he knew he was on the way to the dentist's to have the operation performed; I went to Claverton Street to take him to the dentist's myself, and I found that he was already dressed—the prisoner was lively and cheerful on the way, trying to keep his spirits up; she always did that—when I went there after the death Mrs. Bartlett was apparently very much distressed—directly I entered the room she said, coming up to me, "Is he really dead?" and then it was that I made the formal examination, really thinking in my mind at the time, "How can I best put it to this poor woman? how can I best really break the news to her?" and I turned round and said, "Yes, Mrs. Bartlett, I am afraid he is," or something to that effect, and then she burst out crying bitterly—when that was over we began to talk about the possible cause of death, and she said "What is he dead of, doctor?" or "What can he be dead of?" I am not sure of the words, and my answer was "I don't know"—I then asked if he could get prussic acid, that was the most rapid poison that suggested itself to my mind, and she said, "Oh no, he could have got at no poison without my knowledge"—after that I suggested digitalis and other alkaloids that he had got, anything which his friend Squires had had, or anything that he had had by him, and she negatived everything—she appeared anxious, as far as I could judge, to get at any suggestion as to the death, she seemed not only grieved but very much alarmed, very much scared, that is the impression on my mind now, of course I didn't think it then—when speaking of poisons I mentioned morphia and opium among others, and she said "There are the two opium pills even which he had had by him some time, he asked me to give him some last night, but I am very glad I did not"—I went over to the cupboard and saw the pills there—she certainly wished to have the post-mortem as quickly as possible; she chafed at the delay till next day—when I told her that Dr. Green could not come that afternoon she said "Can't he be persuaded to come, in order that he might make the post-mortem on that day?" she said "Spare no expense, get any assistance you want, we are all interested in knowing the cause of death," and it was on the strength of that permission that I telegraphed to Dr. Green to bring an assistant, any gentleman he chose—the prisoner spoke of the death as a mystery that she wanted to have cleared up; if Dr. Green had been able to come that afternoon, the post-mortem

would have taken place then—I wanted to employ Dr. Green, for I thought there might be some peculiar pathological questions involved; he is an eminent pathologist—the communication she made to me on 26th January I considered was made to me in confidence—I went before the Coroner, not thinking I should have to give that evidence, thinking the would go into the box and give it herself, and that I should never be called upon to give it; I felt utterly incompetent to give the narrative straight off without thinking it over, and I said I was so confused I did not know what to answer, but as I got out of the Court I wrote it—her words were that she gave the bottle into his hand, they talked affectionately about their relations to one another for a short time, and he seemed grieved, and turned over—I have not read my evidence before the Coroner since I gave it—my statement was written a little rapidly, if I had to write it now I should say that the prisoner said that the idea of chloroform scarcely entered into her head—I do not mean that she did not say that the idea did not flash across her mind, but that she had failed to entertain it—that evidence was given at a time much nearer the conversation than the time of which we are now speaking; that is the part of the deposition which I wrote and gave to the Coroner—the conversation took place on 26th January, and I wrote it out on 4th February, but too much stress must not be put upon any word or sentence—I ran home and wrote it out very rapidly, and did not weigh accurately every word I used—when I suggested that the deceased had swallowed chlorodyne and not chloroform the prisoner combated the idea, and pointed out that the chlorodyne he used was simply to rub the gums—she would not accept the suggestion that it was chlorodyne; she refuted it—I do not remember any one telling her after the post-mortem examination that she must not remain in the rooms—I think she said she would not remain; at all events, it was understood that she was going—she handed me her keys, and asked me to go to a drawer in the room where the corpse was lying and get her hat out—I took the key and fetched the whole drawer—she took her hat from it, and I put the drawer with its contents back in its place, looked it, and took the key back to her—she asked me to keep the keys, but I suggested that Mr. Wood, her solicitor, should take them—I afterwards accepted them and took them home—there has been some slight misunderstanding about those keys, and I wish plainly understood the circumstances under which I took them. (MR. CLARKE here read portions of the witness's evidence before the Coroner.) There is a mistake in those depositions; I think the Treasury have the exact copy—I am a little confused this morning; I am sorry I am such a bad witness—Mrs. Bartlett had, as you are aware, consulted me two or three times since her husband's death, and I had become aware of facts during those consultations which somewhat paved the way for accepting what she told me on the 28th—facts regarding herself came to me from her lips as a medical man, advising her as to herself; so that up to then her statement did not altogether surprise me; it was not altogether new—all the matters which I observed and which came to my knowledge with regard to her prepared me for it and justified me in accepting that statement as a correct one; which, if coming from any other party, would have seemed almost too extraordinary for credence—if I may be permitted, I will look through the statements and tell you as I come to them any facts which suggest themselves to my mind—"Mr. Bartlett was a man of very

strange ideas," that goes without saying; one or two of his strange ideas were those relating to matrimony—I have not heard him say anything about matrimony, but he had very strange ideas about mesmerism and vital force, and things too insignificant to make a note of, which conveyed to my mind the impression that my patient was one of the most extraordinary men I ever had to deal with, though a very pleasant and nice man—his communications about mesmerism were such that at the time I actually suspected him of insanity, and I tried to find a key to it—I never heard him allude to two wives, one for use and one for companionship; that came from her—this (produced) is the written statement I gave to the Coroner—it says, "Mr. Bartlett, the deceased, was a man of very strange ideas, which I can corroborate," but the words "which I can corroborate" were struck through with a pencil by me at the Coroner's table—their marriage relationship was not mentioned in Mr. Bartlett's presence at any time—when Mrs. Bartlett was breaking, or suffering from the strain of watching, or her husband thought so, I suggested that they should both go to bed in the back room; I don't remember Mr. Bartlett's answer, but he did not do so—he gave me no reason—the fact that he did not do so, although I suggested it, is one of the things in my mind which supported that statement—I know that he had always slept in a camp bedstead, and I have a strong impression of having heard it mentioned that they did not occupy the same bed, even before they came to Claverton Street, but the impression is so vague that I cannot say more—I have the impression that I have heard it before, and I think in his presence; it seems mixed up with him somehow—I I have no doubt the recollection of these things came to my mind as supporting the statement Mrs. Bartlett was making to me—all that I knew about the deceased and his wife passed in review before my mind at the time and enabled me to accept that statement—then follows: "Among them was that a man should have two wives, one for companionship and the other for use"—I think I should have remembered that certainly if it had been in those words—"At the age of sixteen she was selected by him in the former capacity"—I knew that she had been married very young, "as a life companion, for whom no carnal feeling should be entertained"—I observed his manner to other people and to his wife, and while she was telling me this the picture of it came back into my mind, and although I remembered signs of affection, kindness, and interest, I can say there was nothing in his demeanour to her to make me doubt that—I can believe that what I witnessed was the affection of brother and sister; I don't say it was—my mind received that impression, which to that extent supported her statement that the marriage contract was that they should live assexually as loving friends—as to that rule being observed for six years, I had heard a child was born and that her first pregnancy was after six years—while he was alive I had heard a child was born, and the first professional consultation I had with Mrs. Bartlett led to questions that certainly support this statement that her first and only pregnancy occurred about six years ago—what she communicated to me was consistent with that—in the course of consultation with her, on January 14, I learnt that she had been pregnant once, and that some years previously—that was said independently of this case or anything with regard to her husband's death—I fancy little was said on that day about her husband; it was a purely

medical consultation—"To earnest entreaties that she should become a mother," I knew she was fond of children—I had heard before how fond she was of children and dogs, she told me that in her husband's presence—"child born died at its birth," that was new—"their relations were not those of matrimony," I have explained in what sense that was new to me—"the deceased made no secret of his views on marriage," that was new to me—she told me something about the trouble he had with his aunt for having mentioned his views on matrimony in her house—"and the doctor who delivered Mrs. Bartlett was given to understand that the child was the result of a single coitus;" I did not hear the name of Dr. Woodward as that of the doctor who was called in, to my recollection; I thought it was Dr. Barraclough, that may be the name which Mr. Bartlett senior mentioned to me once—"and with few exceptions had no differences," that I am quite prepared to acknowledge—"this she did to please him," that I am quite prepared to accept, I had seen how she tried in every way to please him—some facts which I do not remember came before me of her studies—very probably I heard of her going in for examination, I do not remember certainly—"for he desired her to be very learned on all subjects;" I remember words less than looks when reading this—I remember once, the first time I saw Dyson there I think, he and she were discussing some rather remote subject, and I was interested in watching my patient, who sat and never uttered a word, but watched his wife talking with a look of admiration that fitted in with this sentence—"affected to admire her physically," that I don't know—"surrounded her with male acquaintances," that explained a good deal that had puzzled me with regard to Dyson, whom I had seen there from time to time, and who was there a good deal it occurred to me—the husband seemed quite to take it as a matter of course; he was as welcome to one as the other as far as I saw, and he spoke to me of Dyson in terms of the highest admiration and affection, so far as he would be likely to touch on the subject of affection—Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett were very proud of Dyson I knew—they had his photograph in the room—I think he remarked how very highly educated Dyson was, and they spoke in terms of great affection too—the sentence "I was cognisant" was put in to mark the beginning of absolutely new facts—from the bed on which Mr. Bartlett lay one could reach the mantelpiece or something on it without getting up, not lying down flat, but by rising on the left arm it would be easy to reach—as a rule medicine bottles were not kept on the mantelpiece, but in the bedroom—I mentioned to Mrs. Bartlett, "Why don't you keep his medicine near him?" and she said, "I like to make this room as little like an invalid's room as possible," so that there were rarely bottles on the mantelpiece—in my experience I have at no time seen a case of death by poisoning with liquid chloroform; it certainly is among the rare causes of death from poison, it has occurred—I have seen a case of what was supposed to be death by inhalation—I have administered chloroform about 200 times—it is an anxious operation—of late years the use of chloroform as an agent for producing anaesthesia has been lessened, and ether has been used instead, because it is less dangerous in most conditions, and some things incidental to chloroform are not so often found with ether, vomiting for instance—the patient usually vomits after inhaling chloroform, or even during the administration; it depends very much on the

condition of the stomach, whether food has been given previously—If I were going to administer chloroform I should give my patient no food for at least four hours before, and then only beef-tea or some liquid easily digested—if he had any indigestible substance in the stomach, such as a substantial quantity of mango chutnee, it might produce vomiting; I should not like to say it would, it is a very likely suggestion—I have never administered chloroform to an adult in sleep; and have only heard of its being done in the Pall Mall Gazette, which I do not accept as medical authority; I am not saying it could not be done—as a matter of personal experience I am not familiar with the post-mortem indications of death from inhalation of chloroform, but as a matter of general knowledge I am—it would depend on the quantity what the post-mortem appearances would be—in that case where 15 drops has killed by inhalation you would find on post-mortem examination no signs whatever to eyes or nose, because it is sudden inanition of the functions and immediate death—that would be rather from a too strong percentage of chloroform into the larynx and a disturbance of the heart's functions than the entrance of chloroform into the system—in administering chloroform you have to be very careful as to the proportion of the mixture of chloroform vapour with the air, you must not go above 4 per cent if you can help it, and if you do it is dangerous—in case of death from such a small quantity of chloroform there is no indication of it whatever, because the death is sudden—in cases where the patient has died after chloroform narcosis has been thoroughly produced, you will find the smell of chloroform in the lungs in all probability—it would depend of course on the length of time—we are dealing with a case of real inhalation of chloroform, chloroform narcosis, or in popular language, until the man is chloroformed; there would also be probably, but not necessarily, some amount of congestion of the lungs; the same as regards the brain, and in a case of death from an excessive amount of chloroform there would be fluidity of the blood and staining of the brain, and the brain itself smelling of chloroform—in fact in the three instances I have noticed you will find very nearly the same effects as you would find in a case of poisoning by liquid chloroform, except that there would be more to be seen about the lungs—the effect on the brain would be the same in death by swallowing or inhalation, but there might be more congestion, but there would not be the same effect on the lungs—I think the smell of the brain would be the same—there need not necessarily be anything peculiar about the heart when a man has died from inhaling or swallowing chloroform, but as a matter of fact you generally find those who have died from inhalation have died from fatty degeneration of the heart—if he had died from asphyxia through an overdose of chloroform by inhalation you would find the right side of the heart engorged with blood and the lungs too—suppose a person to have been chloroformed, and shortly after, without recovering, to die, you would find the same post-mortem indications—there would not necessarily be engorgement, unless the death were from asphyxia—I don't know about the urine—I did not make the post-mortem, I was taking my observations from the skilled pathologist.

Re-examined. There was nothing in the notes dictated to me by Dr. Greene to lead me to the conclusion at the time that death had taken place from chloroform, and there was nothing in the post-mortem examination itself up to that time or since to lead to that conclusion, only

suggestive of it—the smell in the stomach was suggestive of it—the post-mortem appearances of the different parts of the body would be of small importance, except as regards the smell—the fluidity of the blood, the staining of the tissues, all agree with chloroform poisoning, as with many other poisonings—I exclude the stomach—the appearance of the brain was so slight it is waste of time to allude to it—it is my own opinion that the effect on the brain would be the same from swallowing or inhaling chloroform—I have had no personal experience of death from swallowing liquid chloroform—I have made no actual experiments with animals or persons to ascertain whether my opinion is correct or not—until this case I had read of death from liquid chloroform, but it is rare—I have since studied the subject, and read up cases from back numbers of the Lancet—vomiting, if chloroform is inhaled, is a very common thing, and generally arises from its being administered too soon after a meal, but that is not the only cause—four hours after will do if the meal consists of a chloroform breakfast, beef-tea or a light breakfast—in cases of an ordinary meal it would depend on what the meal was, and on the digestion of the patient—beef-tea, and then the administration four hours afterwards, would be the right way, and that would be calculated to avoid vomiting—as a rule, where large quantities of liquid chloroform are taken, it seems to produce vomiting—I remember a case where a lady walked down Sloane Street swallowing four ounces, and she vomited afterwards—I cannot call to mind reading any other oases—I should think two ounces would be enough to cause vomiting, but I am only guessing now—I should say the smallest fatal dose for an adult would be six drachms—I have heard Dr. Stevenson in evidence say that chloroform could be given by inhalation to a person asleep, and I accept fully anything he says—I see no difficulty as to that being done with skill—my own opinion is that it is difficult, but that it could be done; it would require skill—it would be inhaled in the ordinary way—the prisoner first consulted me as a medical man on 14th January, and it was then, I think, she told me she had only been pregnant once—it was on a previous occasion she said she was very fond of children—when she consulted me on 14th January she alluded incidentally to her sexual relations as a wife with her husband—it was on the general subject of sexual intercourse and her internal conditions that she consulted me, and then I learnt she had been pregnant once—I presume she said she had not been pregnant since—I don't remember anything more—on the 26th she said what I have already told you—I have certainly put all that is important before the Court—I heard nothing about his married life from Mr. Bartlett—I cannot describe what I mean by saying they were like brother and sister—their conversation going to the dentist's on the 31st of their happy married life and about being married again, was in no way inconsistent with it—I observed the affectionate terms they were on—I am prepared to say I had observed there was nothing sexual—there is more than their not going to bed in the back room when I suggested it; there was the general bearing of the parties—I am unable to express more than I have said; I have seen no other people of whom I have fancied the same thing—I should say it is a very unusual thing in married life, and I don't "say it struck me at the time it was so—I have merely admitted that from what I remember of their relations one to another, it is quite possible there may have been nothing sexual in the relations I witnessed—I have

heard of things very much like a man sleeping year after year in the same bed with his wife, and nothing occurring between them—I understood he was a great deal away from his wife on business—he was away in the daytime, and I assume he was away sometimes at nights—I am talking of the deceased—I wish I could put before your mind the picture I have in mine—no one thing comes before my mind more prominently than another—I can only sum it up by saying that their general bearing to one another was assexual—I have observed the effect of mesmerism sometimes—I cannot say I have made a study of it; I do not know that vital force is supposed to go out from one person to another—I have read no books on mesmerism; I have looked at Depotes on mesmerism, I know what mesmerists suppose themselves able to do—I have not read Braid on magnetism—I believe odic force is supposed to go from one person to another without contact in the act of mesmerism—it was not a symptom of insanity, this man supposing the force proceeded from his wife to him; I don't say he was insane—I should at one time—I suspected him of insanity, chiefly on mesmeric grounds, there were two mesmeric incidents—these notes were made on the 9th February—"February 9th, 1886. Memo of conversation with Mr. Bartlett deceased, and Mrs. Bartlett, held about 10 p.m., most probably on the 26th December, 1885. Having occasion to sit some hours with my patient we conversed, and by accident the word 'mesmerism' was mentioned. Deceased became all alert at once and asked me if I could mesmerise. I told him I had never tried, and did not mean to, giving as my reason my opinion that no medical man should seek to become a mesmerise. But he again asked me to make the experiment on him, and I declined. He said 'Do you understand much about 'mesmerism'? I told him that I had frequently watched the effects of skilled mesmerists, and had applied scientific tests, and was interested enough in it to give some study to the psychological problems involved. He said 'Can you tell me whether I am under mesmeric control' (I think he used some such word) 'at the present moment?' Smiling, I said 'Do you think you are?' He answered 'Yes, I do,' and proceeded to explain: 'Last summer a friend who could mesmerize visited us, and I asked him on several occasions to mesmerise me, but he always refused. Now, why do you think he refused?' I told Mr. Bartlett I could not guess. 'Well,' said Mr. Bartlett, 'I think he must have done it then or on some subsequent occasion.' Then Mrs. Bartlett broke in, 'Oh Edwin, how absurd you are. He does get such strange ideas into his head nowadays, doctor.' He continued without interrogation, 'I think he mesmerised me through my wife, is that a possibility?' I said I did not know, but that the subject was very amusing, would he tell me some more about it, especially the symptons that led him to a so extraordinary belief? With some pressing I got this reply, 'Well, I am doing such absurd things, things against my common sense, in fact both my wife and I are doing so.' 'What kind of absurd things are you both doing?' I asked. His only reply was that they were doing things that were unusual and contrary to common sense. During this conversation he had emerged from his usual reserve and was speaking with an unaccustomed vigour and excitement and I was growing anxious about his night's rest, but thinking I had perhaps to do with one of the phases of insanity, and was on the point of getting a key to his peculiar nervous temperament, I decided to push my enquiry.

'Mr. Bartlett,' I said, 'if my brother medicos were to hear us they would think Mrs. Bartlett the only sane person among us three; but I do not depise ideas because they are contrary to my everyday experience. Pray tell me more about yours, especially about the nature of the things your mysterious friend makes you do.' Here Mrs. Bartlett interposed remarks calculated to turn the conversation. She said it was all ridiculous nonsense he was talking. But persisting in trying to find my key, I obtained her permission to continue the conversation 'au grand serieux'! 'Do you ever hear voices telling you to do this or that, Mr. Bartlett?' 'Oh no,' he said, and I regarded his reply as one of considerable importance. 'Do you ever converse with your magician when he is not near you?' Again he said decidedly 'No,' giving his reply in a manner to relieve my mind, in a medical sense, of some anxiety. But he persisted that he was under a mesmeric influence and asked if I knew of no method for discovering the truth of the matter, and I promised him that if he would fully describe to me his feelings and the grounds for his suppositions I, in return, would consult a very high authority in mesmeric phenomena concerning the case. I said 'How long did the influence last, I mean how long did you continue to do strange things?' He replied' I am still doing them.' I said' But what are they?' He answered, hesitating. 'Well, perhaps I should not be here if it were not for the influence' (I think he used the word). 'Where would you be?' He said, 'Elsewhere, perhaps at the sea-side, perhaps abroad.' Then a suspicion flashed across my mind, and I said, 'Does your mesmeric friend control you in your city purchases? Make you spend your money differently to your ordinary notions? Has he ever implanted you with a fixed idea to sign any cheque, or draft, or endorse anything?' To all these questions he replied in a manner to indicate that I was very wide of the mark, and persisted that he only felt impelled to do 'queer things,' saying 'I am acting in a way different to what I should do if I were not mesmerised, and that is all.' Then the idea struck me that he might really be in terror of somebody who had acquired ascendency over him, so I asked, 'Do you feel a sinking or depression when you hear him coming, or do you shudder when he approaches?' 'No, not at all, I like him.' Then, despairing of making head or tail out of my patient's mental condition, I put my last query. 'Do you feel positive that your supposed friend is really a friend and not trying to work out his own ends through hit influence with you—mesmeric or otherwise?' He said he was sure this was not the case. I appealed to Mrs. Bartlett for her opinion and she said: 'Edwin and he are the best of friends and he is a true friend to both of us.' I repeated the question to her in private and received the same reply. As a sequel to keep faith with my patient I put the case at his request to a distinguished student of things mystical and asked the latter if he believed it to be within the bounds of infinite possibility that any dominant idea could be made obscess a man in Mr. Bartlett's state, and if not, how could I best conjure him into his right senses again. At a subsequent visit I assured Mr. Bartlett that his delusions had been very carefully thought over, and that they were delusions I proved to him in argument. He was convinced then, and a few days later assured me that he was thoroughly of my opinion. I may add that I remember these events so accurately by reason of my being permitted to discuss them

at the time with my occult acquaintance."—I know some people out of the asylums think they are very much under the influence of others—some mesmerists claim to be able to influence people, although they are miles away, that is a common belief among them—when I was first called in to Claverton Street I thought Mr. and Mrs. Bartlett had been recently married—all this petting, &c., would lead to that conclusion—I did not at that time suppose there was anything like brother and sister in their acquaintance, but going back now in my recollection to that day on which I thought they were recently married, I still do not hesitate to say that after all it is quite possible that was an assexual relation—I saw them remain on the same terms the whole time I visited them—besides the mesmerism Mr. Bartlett had the delusion of a worm in his throat, I can call no other to mind—he had no hallucinations—hallucination is a deception of the senses and delusion, one of the intellect—hallucination is the case of a man seeing a ghost or a man that has delirium tremens—there was no danger from the necrosis that I could see—I did not alarm my patient in any way about that necrosis.

By the COURT. I said to Mrs. Bartlett that evidently under that fungoid growth necrosis was setting in, and we must have dental advice about it at once, because it was spreading to the canine tooth, and that was taken out the last day he went—I told her he must have a tooth out if the dentist advised it, because she had rather wished him to have no more teeth out—danger to his life was not ever in question—I said nothing about what necrosis might end in, the word "alarming" has given rise to some misunderstanding—I never in all my conversations with her encouraged the idea that he could not recover; on the contrary, I always said it was nonsense for him to say he would not—I should think I saw Dyson there perhaps three times—it struck me that he was on very intimate terms there, and that they spoke a good deal of him when he was absent—I heard an individual frequently mentioned as Georgius Rex, and I have reason to know that was how they alluded to him—when he and I were present he was addressed as Mr. Dyson—I never heard him called by either of them by his Christian name in his presence, and he never called either of them by theirs—when I went into the room on 1st January I noticed the fire was not a large one, my recollection of it was that it would not have influenced the temperature of the room to any extent—there were ashes and cinders, and it may have been piled on each side of it, and a large piece on the top—there was nothing that called my special attention to it.

By the JURY. I am not sure whether if chloroform had been in the glass I should have detected it, I did not detect any—I think brandy dissolves very little chloroform; had there been a large quantity I should have seen it, though I am not quite sure whether I should have smelt it, I have such an objection to the smell of brandy—I don't know what a fire looks like when it is freshly made up—it did not strike me that this fire had been freshly stirred—chloroform passing over mucous membrane leaves very little trace, and I don't think if it had been poured down his throat there would have been signs afterwards, there would be no inflammation—if it were spilt on the face and left some time it would blister, it may produce a little soreness of the epithelium, I cannot say how long it would last, but a chloroform blister is a difficult thing to raise, you would have to leave the chloroform for some time in contact with the skin—it is a common way of administering chloroform to put a handkerchief in a

glass and sprinkle chloroform on it, but spilling chloroform from the glass on to the chin would not produce a sore, it would have to be repeatedly spilt—people who administer chloroform smear their lips and cheeks with grease, I do myself to save any chafing which might produce a sore, but I have never seen it; I use it in a subjective sense—if chloroform is put on the chin and not covered up it leaves a certain mark, which you can see in a certain light—I could perceive it in a certain light, it is not obvious, you have to look for it, I don't know how soon it goes out, I have made an experiment on myself, but I forgot to see, the end of it; if chloroform is kept confined and kept touching the skin it would make a bad blister.

By the JURY. I saw a small bottle inverted in the tumbler—I did not examine that bottle or smell it—I was accustomed to see a small tumbler of Condy's fluid there, and I took it, to be that, it always stood by his side—I thought the bottle had contained the draught had on the 18th, the bottle had no label—chloroform poured into the mouth would make the gums feel very painful—if left there for some time it would certainly leave a trace, a blister or a sore, the same condition, that was found in the stomach; I did not find any trace—the mouth was examined and there was no trace, but the post-mortem will tell you more accurately than I can.

JOHN GARDNER DUDLEY . My address is 71, Belgrave Road—I am a registered medical practioner—I am a Doctor of Medicine of the University of Cambridge, and Member of the College of Physicians, London—I was called in to see Mr. Bartlett at Claverton Street on 19th December; Mr. Leach called me in, and in conjunction with him I examined Mr. Bartlett—I was there with him about 25 or 30 minutes—Dr. Leach communicated to me what Mr. Bartlett was suffering from, and then I found out for myself what his ailments were—I saw the condition of the gums, they were spongy and inflamed—I did not notice any line on the gums or on the margin—he had a very depressed appearance, he seemed wanting in energy—he was lying in an easy posture, apparently free from pain—he told me he required rest; he had been overworked mentally and bodily—that he was very sleepless, and had not slept well for a considerable time, and scarcely at all the last few nights—I examined him to find out whether he was suffering from any disease—I could find no sign of disease whatever, the organs all seemed quite healthy—I told him my opinion that he was a sound man; he made no reply—I told him he ought to sit up and go out for a walk or a drive daily—I prescribed for him a sedative and a tonic—there if nothing else that I think it necessary to say with regard to my examination of him—I only saw him on that one occasion—Mrs. Bartlett was present throughout the interview, and replied to several questions I put to her; she took part in the conversation—I asked her some questions; they were, I think, with regard to his previous health and his habits—the answers were all favourable; the habits were temperate, and the general health had been previously good—I heard afterwards of his death, and on 2nd January I attended the post-mortem—there was no natural cause, from the appearance of the various organs, to account for death—in the stomach there was an erosion, a part where the mucous membrane was destroyed, in the most dependent part of the stomach; the portion that was lowest near the spinal column, the lowest part when a person is lying down—that would

be occasioned by some noxious agent remaining in contact with it, an irritant; liquid chloroform would very likely account for it—the blood was very fluid; if death had been caused by chloroform that would cause the blood to be fluid—I smelt the stomach itself when it was opened; it smelt very strongly of chloroform, or a combination of chloroform and garlic—the whole contents of the stomach were placed in a clean glass-stoppered bottle in my presence, and sealed with my seal—I smelt the intestines; they had the same smell, but in a less degree—the contents of the intestines were pat into another jar and sealed; the stomach itself was put into another jar and sealed up—both were put into separate bottles—there was a fourth bottle with some chutnee; the chutnee was found in the room; some was placed in a bottle which was found at the post-mortem—that was put into a bottle and sealed, so that it might be examined as well—I do not believe the jars were numbered, I have no recollection that they were—after they had been sealed up these four were put in the front room; the post-mortem was made in the back room—after the post-mortem it was arranged that Dr. Leach should announce the result of it to Mrs. Bartlett; we deputed that he should do so, as he was present—Mr. Bartlett senior, the father, was present at the time, and Mr. Wood, the solicitor, and Mr. Dyson—the announcement was made in the front room—it was to the effect that we found no natural cause of death, but that there were suspicious appearances in the stomach, and with regard to the appearance of the stomach itself, and that it would be necessary to make the Coroner acquainted with the fact—I do not remember that there was anything said to that by any one.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. When I went to see Mr. Bartlett on the 19th he presented a depressed mental appearance—he seemed disinclined to change his posture, or even to raise his eyelids—he looked at me through half-closed lids—he told me he had been overworked mentally and bodily, and that for some time he had suffered from sleeplessness—his wife seemed very nervous and anxious about him; she seemed very attentive to him—I was an absolute stranger to them both.

MONTAGUE MURRAY . I hold the degree of M D. of London; I am also assistant physician at Charing Cross Hospital—on the 2nd of January last I attended at the post-mortem examination at 85, Claverton Street, with Dr. Green, on the body of Mr. Bartlett—Mr. Leach, Mr. Cheyne, and Dr. Dudley were also present—we began about half-past two—I did the operative part—Dr. Green watched the operations and dictated the notes, and Dr. Leach took them down—I checked to some extent the operations as they were described; if there was any doubt we discussed it as we went on—the general condition of the body was exceedingly well nourished—the heart was the first thing we came to; the size was normal, and was healthy; the muscular tissue was perhaps a trifle flabby; the lining membrane was deeply stained, and the blood in the heart was fluid; those conditions were abnormal, considering the length of time which had elapsed since the death—the fluid condition of the blood, and the excessive staining of the lining membrane, were not quite what one would have expected from health—I did not discover anything in the condition of the organs of the body to account for the death, except so far as the contents of the stomach were concerned—apart from the contents and the condition of the stomach there was nothing whatever in the state of the organs to account for death—I took out the stomach and the intestines

—I heard Dr. Dudley's evidence just now; I concur in his account of the way in which the proceedings took place—I noticed with regard to the contents of the stomach that there was a small amount, about an ounce, of a dark brown fluid, with a few small lumps of solid matter in it, and it smelt very strongly of chloroform—the intestines also slightly smelt of chloroform; the smell was much more disguised because other things were mixed with it—I noticed what has been described as the dependent part of the stomach; there was an inflammatory blush over the whole of the cardiac end of the stomach, in the end described as the most dependent part, in area about an inch and a half in diameter—the mucous membrane was rather softer than the other parts, and a little roughened and irregular—it is difficult to give the exact size of the patch because it had faded off, it had no exact margin—the inch and a half in diameter was in the dependent part of the stomach, the part lowest down when a person is lying on his back—the appearance there showed that there was an inflammatory blush, and the mucous membrane was roughened, slightly softened, land a little worn away, thinned—that condition of things suggested the action of a mild irritant poison—where death results from causes other than poison that would not be a natural place to expect ulceration or inflammatory condition of that kind—when ulceration occurs it usually occurs near the other end of the stomach, and at the upper rather than at the lower part, but not invariably so—probably that would be the part of the stomach through which its fluid contents would naturally gravitate if a person were tying on his back—if a man were lying on his face I should not expect it would gravitate to the same part—that kind of inflammation of the tissues could not take place after death had occurred; the inflammatory blush must have taken place while life continued—I should not be certain about the thinning of the portion of the tissue—the other must have been produced while in life I think—at the place I have mentioned, at the most dependent part, the mucous membrane was a little softer than natural; it could have been stripped off with the finger more easily—I think those signs taken together must have happened before death, but I am not prepared to say that any one of the others could not have been—leaving out the inflammatory blush, the softening and slight thinning, I do not think they were post-mortem, but I do not feel quite sure—I think they were more likely ante-mortem than post-mortem—supposing the appearances I saw were the result of swallowing chloroform, I am not able to form any opinion what period of time must have elapsed between the swallowing and the death, and to give time for these appearances to be caused—an hour certainly would be time enough; I could not give the limit of the smallest time—I mean an hour between the swallowing and the death would be sufficient to produce the condition of the stomach—I mean an hour of life after swallowing—I cannot tell how much less it would be—I saw the stomach as late as last night; Dr. Stevenson showed it to me—I think I have nothing to add as the result of what I saw last night—I examined the gullet last night; the lower part of the gullet was in the same condition as the neighbouring part of the stomach; the part of the gullet next the stomach—that had an inflammatory blush just in the same way, and was a little roughened, I suppose the lower three inches or so of the gullet—that portion which comes nearer to the stomach, it adjoins on to it, opens into it—at the post-mortem I examined the lower jaw and found a patch

where it was becoming necrosed—there was not anything serious or dangerous about that.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I made the examination of the gullet and jaw at the post-mortem, and I saw them together again last night—all that indicated was that the irritant, whatever it was, had been taken through the gullet—speaking of the redness, that would show that at the time the liquid passed down the throat the body might have been erect—I should say it would show after it was taken for the greater portion of the time that life lasted, it was in that position—there are, I believe, extraordinary varieties with regard to the cause of death by liquid chloroform, both as to the quantity producing death, and also as to the survival after the dose, but I have no special knowledge myself upon that subject.

By the JURY. Supposing the deceased was insensible, the administration of chloroform would have to be done very gradually to pour it down the throat—it would take some little time to do it—you could not do it suddenly if the person was insensible—different methods might be employed; there might be a tube employed, but I could not say the time it would take—if the person was insensible a portion might be poured down gradually—it would necessarily leave some mark on the tongue; it need not last so long as 2 or 3 minutes—I do not think it would leave more marks in that way than if a person took it up and drank it up quickly—it must depend in some degree on the insensibility as to how long the operation must necessarily take of pouring down anything which would be a fatal dose of chloroform—I could not say definitely how long it would take—it would not be more than two or three minutes.

By MR. CLARKE. I have no knowledge of such a case ever happening of liquid chloroform being poured down the throat of an insensible person—I have never heard of such a case.

By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. If the insensibility was profound there would be no difficulty, that I can see, in pouring it down the throat—I know of no physical difficulty in doing it if the person down whose throat it was sought to pour it was in a state of insensibility.

By the COURT. Swallowing is rather a muscular action; they would have to take some mechanical means to get it down, because the parts would collapse—there would have to be a tube—supposing there was a tube, the greater part would remain in the mouth, and some might trickle down inside the gullet—insensibility would prevent the swallowing—there might be an insensibility so profound that the person operated upon might swallow without resistance, and yet so little profound that the muscular action would not be paralysed—the touch of the liquid would excite the involuntary act of swallowing; it would apply to such a case as that, and to such a condition as that.

By MR. CLARKE. The test by which a medical man would be able to ascertain that the particular stage had been reached where reflex action of the muscles continued, but yet that there was insensibility which would prevent the burning, and so on, would be by the presence of reflex in other parts—he would test it by touching the eye, and there would be a closure of the eyelid; that would show that reflexes were present—he would separate the eyelids, and just touch the conjunctiva, the white membrane of the eye; then the lids would immediately contract, supposing reflex was not carried any further—if, on touching, the eyelids contracted, he would then know that there was some reflex action

existing which might render the act of swallowing instinctive—he would know there was insensibility to pain by the reflex of the muscles, and by the abolition of the reflex—I mean sufficient abolition to perform an operation—the medical man would judge there was insensibility to pain from the laxity of the limbs, also from the relaxation of the muscles, and from the abolition of the reflex action—it would depend to some extent upon the nature of the operation whether the physician intending to do anything to the patient which would involve pain, and with the view to which the insensibility was to be produced, he would not do it until he found the reflex action had stopped—in some operations more profound insensibility has to be produced than in others—there are some cases in which chloroform is used in which it is not desired to produce complete anesthesia—there are some cases where it is desired to use it to deaden the pain; it is not desired to obtain a condition of absolute insensibility—in the class of cases in which it is not desired to produce complete anesthesia, only to deaden the pain, the physician has to exercise his own judgment as to whether the moment has come in which there is sufficient insensibility to produce anesthesia, yet not the entire abolition of the reflex action—some reflexes disappear before others; they do not all disappear at the same time—supposing anesthesia to be carried to the extent of destroying the sense of pain, the reflex action may then entirely disappear—it is a question one is familiar with, the loss of certain reflexes—one judges practically by this conjunctive reflex—one knows practically if that is gone the patient will not feel pain, and you judge also by the muscular relaxation—the physician judges by that test—I am not prepared to say that at that moment there is no reflex which can be obtained, I am not prepared to give an opinion.

By the COURT. In operations where chloroform is administered it is sometimes necessary to give brandy or something of that sort whilst the operation is going on, but it is not given by the mouth easily under that condition; by injection it is.

JOHN RALPH . I am an officer in the Metropolitan Police Force—I am the Coroner's officer—on the 4th January the Coroner who held the inquest was Mr. Braxton Hicks, and in consequence of what he told me I went to No. 85, Claverton Street—I went there about half-past 9 at night—I went into the front room and found there four glass vessels—they were covered over with brown paper and string tied round them, and they were sealed—the seals were the initials of Dr. Dudley: J. G. D.—I took possession, at the same time, of 36 medicine bottles—some of them were in the front room; they were not corked—I corked them and sealed them up—I then placed the four glass vessels and the medicine bottles in two separate hampers and took them to the mortuary, that is, 20, Millbank Street—I there placed them in a large safe under cover in the back yard—there was no lock to the place—I put a tape across it and sealed it up—I sealed up the place where I had put these hampers—on the 9th January I went there and found the tape in the same condition—on the 11th I took the things away—on the 9th I had been to Claverton Street—I took with me a glass jar into the ante-room—Mr. Doggett, jun., who has been examined, gave me a tumbler—it appeared to contain Condy's Fluid—there was a small glass bottle; it was inverted in the tumbler, open, without any cork in it, with the mouth downwards—as I was moving it into the glass jar I took with

me it broke, and the whole of the glass and the contents and the broken tumbler and its contents went into the glass jar—then it was fastened up and sealed with Mr. Doggett's seal, and I took it to the mortuary and put it with the other things—the little bottle that was inverted remained in the glass jar with the contents of the tumbler and the broken pieces—it was a little tumbler like that (produced)—I fastened up the mortuary again, and on the 11th I took all the things to Dr. Stevenson, at Guy's Hospital—he gave me a receipt for the things—that is the receipt (produced): "Received the following articles: sealed paper package"—I did not see the contents of it at that time; indeed, I have not seen it since—it was sent to me by Dr. Leach—I got that from Dr. Leach on the 9th—I put the whole into a glass jar—the sealed bottle containing a tumbler with the broken pieces were put in the same bottle as the Condy's Fluid—I gave them to Dr. Stevenson personally, and he gave me that receipt—it is described there as a sealed bottle of Condy's Fluid; that was a separate bottle—I took that out of the front room at Claverton Street—after I had given these things to Dr. Stevenson I went in the afternoon to Claverton Street again—I met Inspector Marshall there by appointment—Mrs. Bartlett was not in the first-floor front room—Mr. wood, the solicitor, was there—I searched seven boxes; they were in the front room, on the floor—in one of the boxes I found two glass bottles—this was on Monday, the 11th—one was like a scent-bottle, with a silver top on one of them—there seemed to be some white powder in it—the other bottle was smaller—I also found in another box a small wooden box containing white powder—I sealed these three things up and handed them to Dr. Stevenson, on Saturday, the 17th—there was a tin box in the front room—Dr. Stevenson had these two bottles and the box on Saturday, the 11th—the tin box was in the front room; that contained a man's suit of light clothing—I examined these clothes, and in the right-hand trousers pocket I found about four or five French letters, I mean things that are popularly called French letters—I did not take possession of them—I left the clothes in the box and the things in the pocket—I also found in one of the boxes the letter that has been produced here, addressed "Dear Edwin," and signed "George"—I suppose it was in Mrs. Bartlett's box; they were all there together—I examined all the things; there were some gentleman's clothes and some lady's clothes mixed in the boxes—I saw also on the table in the front room this "Squire's Companion"—I know the book: that is the same (produced)—it was in the same state in which it is now—it is" Companion to the British Pharmacopoeia, "comparing the strength of various preparations, and so on—I did not go with Inspector Marshall to Wandsworth Common.

DR. DUDLEY (Re-examined). The contents of the stomach were put into a bottle, of which we could find no cork; it was an open, unstoppered bottle—that remained in the bottle about half an hour—I then got another bottle from the chemist's; it was properly stoppered with a glass stopper—I transferred the contents from the unstoppered open bottle into the other one—chloroform is very volatile.

DR. THOMAS STEVENSON . I am a doctor of medicine and practice as a consulting physician—I am also Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at Guy's, and one of the analysts usually employed by the Home Office—I recollect receiving from the last witness, Ralph, a number of bottles and packages, which he has described with substantial correctness—

there were eight packages on the 11th January, and on the 16th January there was one sealed packet containing three enclosures, of what I received on the 11th—No. 1 was a paper package, containing the lower jaw of an adult, with the tongue and the soft parts adjacent to the tongue and jaw—No. 2 was a glass jar containing a thick semi-fluid mass, measuring about a quarter of a pint, the contents of the small bowel—No. 3 was a jar containing a human stomach, that of an adult—No. 4 was a bottle containing mango relish—No. 5 was a four-ounce glass-stoppered bottle containing half an ounce or a tablespoonful of thick fluid, apparently the contents of a stomach—the three important ones are: No. 2, the contents of the smaller bowel; No. 3, the stomach; and No. 5, the bottle containing the half-ounce or tablespoonful of semi-fluid matter; No. 6 was a glass jar, sealed, containing some Condy's Fluid, and a 1 1/2 oz. medicine bottle; No. 7 was a brandy bottle, sealed, containing some fluid; No. 8, a hamper, sealed, containing altogether some 36 bottles of various kinds used for medicinal purposes—on the 16th I received one packet, containing a small toilet Box, which contained toilet powder and a pepper-castor; No. 3 contained some Santo nine, a medicine given for worms; I commenced my analysis on the 12th January; I began by opening the stoppered bottle, No. 5, which contained a tablespoonful or half an ounce of thick semi-fluid matter, which came from the stomach—the characteristic smell of the contents was that of chloroform, very strong—there was also a slight garlicky odor, the cause of which was the mango relish—although I opened it then with a view to beginning my analysis, I did not in fact begin it until the 13th—I smelt it, and then I stopped—it was slightly acid—I proceeded to test its component parts by analysis, and in the result I found the presence of chloroform, of which I estimated the quantity, which was 11 1/4 grains—I produce here the same quantity, which I have cleared and placed in a tube (producing same)—11 1/4 grains are equivalent to between 8 and 9 minims—that represented approximately 5 per cent, of the weight of the entire quantity that I analyzed, about a twentieth part; there was also a very small trace of alcohol in it, and I tested it for the possible trace of all the poisons that suggested themselves to me, prosaic acid, morphia, &c.—I found no other trace of any alkaloid—it contained no chloral—if the system be made alkaline chloral decomposes in the stomach by the usual carbonate of soda; it will become chloroformed—my analysis extended over several days—the next thing in order that I took was No. 2, the contents of the smaller bowel, about a quarter of a pint—the bottle was only loosely stoppered; it had been tightened by by means of brown paper—chloroform is a very volatile substance, and if a vessel in which it is contained either by itself or in combination with any other substance is not hermetically sealed, it would gradually evaporate—the result of my examination of No. 2 was that I found traces of chloroform—there was three-tenths of a grain—I also tested the chutnee; I found that was free from any poisonous matter—No. 3 contained the stomach of an adult—I could not perceive any special smell of bolero form from that—the stomach had already been cut open—it was in a good state of preservation—it was inflamed—the cardiac or first end of the stomach next the gullet, the center of the patch of inflammation, showed over an area of about 1 1/2 inches in diameter more intense inflammation; the epitherial or lining membrane was

detached and softened, giving a certain amount of roughness to the inner surface of the stomach—that appearance of inflammation extended to the gullet; round the patch of inflammation of which I have spoken the redness extended to a patch almost as large as my two hands, and so reached about three inches into the gullet—the inflammation was acute and recent, that is to say, it had commenced to run its course within a few hours of death—the position of the patch in the stomach was about the part to which liquid would flow when a person was lying on his back—it was the usual spot at which it is found after a person has swallowed irritant poison; that might have been occasioned by swallowing chloroform; I found no other probable cause for it—the presence of chloroform was an adequate cause, and no other cause existed so far as I could ascertain—I tested the contents of the stomach for the purpose of tracing every poison that could suggest itself to me, and found none—I found some trace of copper and lead in the gums—the gum was in No. 1—I found a small piece of necrosis—it is usual to find traces of copper in a healthy subject—there was not much copper and lead found—from one half of the gum and the whole of the son parts approximately the amount of copper and lead together was not more than one-eighth of a grain, which I do not think is a matter of any consequence worth dwelling upon—the presence of traces of lead and copper in the system is accounted for by the fact that breads and a vast number of vegetables, contain traces of copper, and through the using of copper utensils, and having articles of copper about the person—a piece of brass, the handling of brass or metals of various metallic alloys, these would find their way into the system so as to show traces; but the traces of lead and copper are, I think, mostly through the small quantity thereof taken in the food occasionally—lead is less commonly found than copper—it is a well-known substance, from leaden pipes containing drinking water, and things of that kind—they were only minute traces that I found, and I attribute no importance to them—they would not account for the death of a person—No. 6 was Condy's fluid—I found nothing in that—No. 7 was a broken tumbler and a jar—I found in the tumbler a little sulphate of magnesia, Epsom salts—the hamper contained 36 bottles—there were poisons, but only in medicinal doses—chloroform is not cumulative—in ordinary doses it will disappear from the system very quickly—the result of the analysis was the presence of chloroform in the contents of the stomach and the intestines—I did not analyze the stomach itself for chloroform, nor the blood, I had none—the deceased must have swallowed a large dose of chloroform, enough to produce serious inflammation of the stomach; and such a quantity would, I believe, be sufficient to cause death—I found nothing to suggest any other cause of death than chloroform—if chloroform is swallowed it sometimes produces a state of intoxication, but not always—it then produces insensibility, stertorous breathing, or loud snoring breathing, muscular relaxation, paralysis, and death—the immediate effect is paralysis of the heart—it passes into the blood, and thence into every organ of the system—it produces fluidity of the blood after death, which remains fluid for a long time—if the contents of the stomach were put into an open jar, and remained some time before being put into a stoppered bottle, the chloroform would evaporate, but some would remain—the quantity would be diminished, but some might settle down

to the bottom and be unobserved—I tested that, and found that they lost their smell very greatly in an hour, by exposure—the deceased died on January 1st, and the post-mortem was on the 2nd at 2 p.m., and my analysis began on the 13th—there would not have been an evaporation from the bottle in the interim, but there might be a disappearance of chloroform from the stomach while the body was lying before the post-mortem, what we call diffusion, but none from the closely stoppered bottle; I mean wherever the air was kept out—I do not think there would be any indication in the brain of chloroform swallowed, there might or might not be—I have frequently examined bodies where there has been no obvious smell of chloroform in the brain and no unusual appearance in the heart, and found nothing to indicate that death had occurred from chloroform, but these were cases of death from inhalation, not taken internally—even if from inhalation I should not necessarily expect to find it in the brain; my observation is that oftener than not you find nothing in the brain to indicate the cause of death, I mean short of analysis of the brain—I have analyzed and found traces, in cases of inhalation—it is difficult to say whether it passes more rapidly into the blood by inhalation than by swallowing; inhalation is the most rapid means of introducing gaseous poisons into the blood, but it would get there by other means—if swallowed I should expect to find it in the brain by analysis, but no obvious odor, there might or might not be—if a person accidentally took a dose of chloroform sufficient to cause death, being at the time in the possession of sensibility and faculties, he would at once perceive the peculiar character of the liquid he had swallowed; it would produce pain and a hot fiery taste—I do not think he could take a fatal dose of chloroform and suppose he was taking some innocent thing, it has not the taste of any article of food or drink—I have swallowed it, and I have had it in my mouth several times; it is very hot and very sweet and burning—you can put liquids down the throat of a person who is moderately under the influence of inhaled chloroform—assuming the liquid is in some such ordinary medicine bottle as this (produced) there would be no insuperable difficulty in putting it down the throat of a person in a state of insensibility—I have put liquid down the throat of a person while I have been chloroforming them by passing it to the back of their throat with a tea spoon—there would be no difficulty if a man was lying on his back with his mouth open—assuming that it could be put into his mouth, its presence there would occasion the act of swallowing, up to a certain point of insensibility—what we understand by reflexes would not be swallowing; that means that such a stimulant as chloroform at the back part would not excite muscular action, because the nervous centers which are concerned in swallowing would be paralyzed beyond a certain point; in other words, swallowing might be effected up to the point of paralysis—I tried the effect of chloroform in my mouth; it had a hot, burning, sweet sensation, quite transient, and after I ejected it it passed away, leaving a little numbness on my tongue, but not sufficient to prevent my going about my usual avocations, and there was a blush, a little redness, which passed off quickly—since the hearing before the Magistrate I have repeated an experiment which I had made before on a rabbit, to see whether chloroform passed into the Wood from the stomach—I introduced into its stomach by means of a

tube, a quarter of a fluid ounce, or two teaspoonfuls of chloroform; the animal was upwards of two hours in a dying condition, and at the end of three hours it was nearly dead, but the blood was still circulating; I cut its throat, collected the blood which flowed, analysed it, and found that it contained traces of chloroform; you never get more than traces in the blood, but it was quite obvious—I also extracted the stomach, upon which the effect was acute inflammation, the mucous membrane softened and partly removed, so as to give it a roughened appearance, and blood was effused into its coats, and chloroform was obviously present in the stomach also—the animal rolled about at first as if intoxicated—I have seen one person under the influence of chloroform swallowed—the effect is chiefly sickness, pain, and the patient is very much alarmed—the case was many years ago, and I do not remember that it produced absolute insensibility; that was not a fatal dose—when swallowed, vomiting is a frequent accompaniment, but not always—I have seen a great number of persons under the influence of chloroform through inhalation—it is possible to produce insensibility by inhalation during sleep—I have never done it, but I know many instances in which it has been done, and I have no doubt whatever that it can be done if a person is soundly asleep, giving it with a bottle or handkerchief—the appearances in the stomach which I attribute to the action of chloroform must have been produced before death, the action is a vital action—these appearances might be produced in an hour or longer—I showed the bottle containing contents of the stomach to Dr. Tidy, and a small quantity which remained, and I showed Dr. Murray the stomach—if in the attempt to put chloroform down the throat of a person in a state of insensibility or partial torpor, any of it fell on the chin, breast, or throat, there might be indications of it, but it is unusual for momentary contact to produce any visible effect; there might be a temporary redness, which would pass away, as in the case which I was illustrating on myself.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I have for many years given my attention to subjects of this class, and have had large experience in the administration of chloroform at Guy's Hospital; I have also studied the results of the experience of other doctors—I have edited "The Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, by Dr. Alfred Swain Taylor," who is well known as one of the greatest authorities in that branch of medical science—I edited, reproduced, and corrected it, and I believe I called it the leading journal on the subject—it is fairly complete, I think—the last edition under my editorship appeared in 1883—chloroform has possibly been used in this country as an anesthetics for almost 40 years—Dr. Morphy used it in 1847, and from the very first its characteristics have been the subject of great interest to the medical profession; and as to inhalation, its effects have been carefully studied and recorded, but as to swallowing it, I don't think attention has been drawn to it much till last July—it is recognized as an important agent in medical science, and there is a good deal of literature about its application, but chiefly by inhalation—I cannot refer you to any recorded case of murder by the administration of liquid chloroform, and I know of none—I am aware that there have been many murders by prussic acid, strychnine, and poisons of that class—the use of chloroform has been somewhat given up of late years, ether being substituted for it—chloroform will produce insensibility, but the time of insensibility and the amount, vary a good deal, but they have

some relation to each other—we sometimes find that a very small dose inhaled proves suddenly fatal, while a very large dose taken into the stomach does not produce death—I think this book is taken almost entirely, textually, from previous editions of Dr. Taylor's book—I don't think I added any fresh question—though published in 1883 I cannot say whether any case since 1870 is quoted—I think there has been only one fatal case of swallowing chloroform in this country recorded within the last twenty years, but I know of one not recorded which happened in the practice of a gentleman in this Court; that was a case of accident—I know of one death besides that in this country from swallowing chloroform by accident within the last twenty years; I cannot call to mind any others—there is in this Medical Record of July 11, an American publication, a table giving a record of known cases of swallowing chloroform up to July, 1885; I have since added some half-dozen—I think about 17 out of the 56 given in that list were fatal; about 31 per cent, of all the cases blown to me were fatal, 20 cases out of 65—this list is a collection of the cases occurring in different countries reported in books—I have verified some of them, and found them very fairly correct—in case 3 two mouthfuls were taken, death in 36 hours; case 4, a child of four years of age took from 1 to 2 dr., dead in three hours; case 7, 6 oz., dead in four hours; case 10, 1 1/2 oz., dead in 20 hours; case 13, a wineglassful, that would be about 2 1/2 oz., dead in eight days; case 15, a man of 20, who tried to disembowel himself and shot himself in the chest, and so on; case 16, 1 1/2 oz., dead in 23 1/2 hours; case 23, 1 oz., dead in 12 hours, and that has a note that that was a case of supposed chloroform poisoning, where the Coroner's Jury were unable to come to a decision as to the immediate cause of death; case 24, 5 to 9 dr., dead in eight days; case 25, 2 oz., "Seen in one hour; a few minutes before his death in three minutes estimated time he could with difficulty be roused from stupor into which he was sinking, he indicated severe pain in his stomach, in five minutes lying still breathing stertorously"—case 27,2 oz., dead in 9 hours; case 29, 90 grammes, that is rather over 2 oz., dead in 29 1/2 hours; case 39, 1 oz., 60 hours; case 43, 1 1/2 oz., 26 1/2 hours; case 48, 50 to 60 grammes, a little over 1 1/2 oz., 31 hours; "Seen in 4 hours, artificial respiration"—that indicates that there is a very great uncertainty as to what the action will be when chloroform is swallowed—it would make a great difference in the length of life in these cases, whether means of restoration were attempted, many of them were treated unsuccessfully; the treatment although unsuccessful would prolong life—some of the cases lived a long time and died from acute inflammation of the stomach and not by the direct effect of chloroform by producing paralysis of the heart—I have only had experience of one case of chloroform swallowing, that was probably 25 years ago—that was not a fatal case—swallowing brings a local irritant to act on the stomach—after inhalation you will not always observe the great fluidity of the blood, and one thing that follows that, and that is the post-mortem staining of the lining membrane of the heart—I don't think the condition of the internal coats of the stomach which I saw would be dependent on his condition previous to death, I mean the post-morten or pathological appearances—I don't think those appearances would be more obvious following on the taking of liquid chloroform by a man who had been recently suffering from acute or

sub-acute gastritis, if he had recovered from his sub-acute gastritis—if there were actual gastritis at the time he took it, it would be effected by the local irritant—excepting the stomach and blood, the effect from swallowing and inhalation would not be always the same in post-mortem examination, because the appearances after inhalation are very variable, there is often nothing unless you know the history of the case to lead you to suppose death occurred from chloroform—some appearances have been frequently observed where death has followed from inhalation; one would look for any indications, and with greater care for these that had been frequently observed—in cases of inhaling chloroform death takes place very suddenly, sometimes not from chloroform being by inhalation taken into the system, but from some action on the heart which is not quite determined; a patient may die in a few minutes after a few whiffs occasionally—you would not always expect to find distinct odour in the ventricles of the brain where chloroform has been inhaled just a short time before death; it has been observed—I am speaking from my own observations, and from these it is not one of the most prominent symptoms—I know Guy and Fender's book, it is one of substantial authority, and I should attach importance to any statement made in such a book (MR. CLARKE read the passage from Guy and Ferrier, page 150)—I presume that means in cases of asphyxia from chloroform—asphyxia generally arises from giving too much chloroform, and there you would expect to find the smell more prominent than when the patient died from a small quantity—I should certainly look for the odour in the cerebral ventricles if I were looking to find any post-mortem indications of chloroform having been inhaled. Q. Is engorgement of the right side of the heart a post-mortem appearance which you would expect to find after the patient had died after inhaling chloroform?—A. If death had occurred from asphyxia, and the heart were paralysed on the right side, it would not necessarily be engorged—if the patient were in a state of asphyxia and died from engorgement of the heart you would find possibly the right side of the heart engorged—if the patient were brought to the verge of asphyxia, a state of insensibility by the administration of chloroform, and then death suddenly, or almost suddenly, took place, from whatever cause, you would expect to find that engorgement of the right side of the heart; in all asphyxiated conditions you would expect to find it—I have made no special study of that engorgement of the right side of the heart—I dare say I have examined 34 cases. Q. And you found in 27 cases engorgement of the heart?—A. Probably you have got something I have written. Q. Yes, I have Taylor's book on poisons. A. It is a very well-known book, I had nothing to do with writing it—Dr. Snow is a great authority on chloroform—there may occasionally be intense inflammation of the air passages where there has been inhalation of chloroform (I have not myself observed that condition)—I think intense inflammation of the air passages is certainly not the ordinary result after death from inhalation—I don't agree with the passage in Guy and Ferrier (at page 544) with regard to that, for if that were the case, the patient would generally have acute bronchitis after it (MR. CLARKE read the passage from Guy and Ferrier)—I don't agree with that, as regards chloroform—I admit their authority; I don't admit that statement—I have come to a different judgment—the inhalation of chloroform affects the urine, so that if boiled with a solution of copper it reduces

the copper and turns the solution red—I had none of the urine sent to me for analysis—I have spoken of the possibility of administering chloroform to adults during sleep—I have not done it myself; I was speaking of records cases of adults the attempts to administer chloroform by inhalation during sleep does not almost invariably wake the man—in the longest number of experiments made by one individual, Dolbo, he found that three woke up to one that was chloroformed—I think Quinby and Elliott experimented on four and succeeded in chloroforming them all—Quinby was the American—and Hussey, the Coroner for Oxford, I think, did it 36 years ago—I know Winter Blyth's book on Poisons—reference to Dolbo is in the "Annals d' Hygiene, 1878" (MR. CLARKE translated this passage, which was to the effect that certain precautions were necessary to administer chloroform to sleeping persons, namely, a pure spirit, great skill; but that little children may be awakened from slumber by the irritation which the chloroform produces in the air passages; that it is certain that chloroform administered to sleeping persons may facilitate crime, but that the experts all declare it is not easy to render a person sleeping a victim. MR. CLARKE also read a passage from Winter Blyth—Wharton and Stillsby is an American work with which I am acquainted—I don't remember in that book a list of experiments with regard to endeavouring to give chloroform to sleeping persons; probably there would be one. (MR. CLARKE read a passage from Wharton and Stills by, at page 393, to the effect that chloroform very often produced resistance, producing irritation, sometimes a depressing feeling; vomiting from the stomach with a feeling of nausea when vomiting almost always followed, but sometimes did not; that he had experimented with chloroform on six sleeping persons, who had all resisted more or less; that one woke up and remarked, "You are trying to give me something;" that it required more chloroform to produce death in a recumbent than in an upright position, and that one man could not administer chloroform to another)—I know Quinby and others have experimented to try and settle the question, and Dolbo's experiments were taken up in consequence, I know—the most recent one Quinby refers to is a trial in 1871—it is a paper by Quinby, who I believe to be a person of repute, in the "Boston Medical Journal," June 17, 1880—another English autherity, who suggests the possibility of administering chloroform to a sleeping man without waking him, is Hussey, in the "Medical Times," July, 1880; he is a perfectly reliable person, and said chloroform was administered to a sleeping person in his presence at Oxford Infirmary, as far back as 1850—I have not got the record of the case with me; I think it was a young man of 16 or 17; I will try and procure it for to-morrow—I think the matter is mentioned in Woodman and Tidy's book. (MR. CLARKE read an extract, at page 525, to the effect that insensibility from chloroform vapor was only slowly induced, and that it would be difficult to administer it to persons forcibly against their will, but that it might be administered to persons asleep without much difficulty ("Lancet," October 5, 1872, page 514, and October 12, 1872,page 549), and that that seemed the only possible condition under which it could be conveniently used for improper purposes, unless considerable force were employed to prevent the person struggling. (MR. CLARKE also stated that he had looked at the numbers of the "Lancet" quoted and found they referred entirely to children)—I remember the name of Dr. Whitmarsh, of Hounslow. (MR. CLARKE read an extract from a note by Dr. Dobson, of Clifton, to the effect that the only precaution he found necessary in administering chloroform to children during

sleep to prevent than waking was to hold the inhaler at a distance from the child's face)—the possibility of administering chloroform during sleep is mentioned in Taylor's "Poisons," and it refers to Dolbo, the "Annals d'Hygiene"—I think the symptoms produced by swallowing chloroform pretty well correspond with these that follow inhalation. Q. You get symptoms of unconsciousness and paralysis intensified? A. I speak of symptoms that follow on swallowing chloroform; there is then inflammation of the stomach, but the general symptoms are not very greatly different—you must not believe all the cases in Taylor's "Jurisprudence," some of them are not on very good autherity—I have modified some of that chapter, from what has since come to my knowledge—absorption, when chloroform is taken into the stomach, is less rapid than when taken into the lungs—I should take it the symptoms would take longer to develop themselves, but when they do so they are very pronounced—the results of swallowing chloroform vary immensely in different cases—in inhalation there are four stages. (MR. CLARKE here read a passage from "Taylor on Poisons," page 649)—during the first stage, when the patient becomes excited, the passing of a quantity of chloroform over the lips and tongue and down the throat would cause severe pain and would be resented and would rouse the patient to resistance—I don't agree that that state of excitement would be necessary if a person were asleep—Dolbo, from his experience, says that three out of four persons awoke—the American autherity attempted it with six persons, who all awoke. Q. Then I have taken the case given by Dr. Tidy of the children being dealt with while asleep in the hospital, and I have read you the letter in which Dr. Dobson practically agrees with Dolbo? A. He says he avoided excitement by giving it during sleep—supposing the first stage of excitement to occur, if you put the liquid in the mouth the pain of administering the poison would be felt, and would be resented, and that would awake a person up—in the second stage he talks incoherently and sensibility is diminished, he is intoxicated but still capable of feeling pain, though to a less extent—in the third stage he is unconscious, but the muscles are rigid; in administering chloroform by inhalation at that third stage there is very often a good dual of rigidity in the limbs generally, so that at that stage it would probably require force to open the mouth; and in the fourth stage, when that rigidity passes away, the muscles become completely relaxed and the patient is perfectly insensible, ready for operation, and at that stage there is no capacity for swallowing at all—a patient on the operating table will continue to swallow when completely anesthetized—it is altogether a question of degree when the patient will cease to swallow—any liquid put at the back of the throat the patient will continue to swallow, he will swallow his own saliva for some time, by muscular action—when blood flows into the back of the throat it is swallowed, unless he is under chloroform very profoundly, when he ceases to swallow and becomes suffocated—there are cases of inhalation where the patient ceases to swallow—one of the dangers where an operation is performed and blood gets to the back of the throat is that blood will get into the air passages—he may get into such a state that he cannot swallow—there is a particular point in the process of chloroforming at which the patient will be able to swallow, although he is sufficiently under the influence of chloroform not to suffer from the pain. Q. Will you tell me how you yourself ascertained when

that time had arrived? A. I should not like to pour liquid down the throat if the reflex of the eye had been abolished—I would not like to commit myself to say there would ever be a point at which the reflex would ever be abolished—that is taken as the practical test, and it is the test that the doctor applies to ascertain if the sensation of pain has gone—a doctor assumes that until that reflex action is over pain is felt. Q. Suppose you had to deal with a sleeping man, and it was your object to get down his throat without his knowing it a liquid the administration of which to the lips and throat would cause great pain, do not you agree it would be a very difficult and delicate operation? A. I think it would be an operation which would often fail and might often succeed—I should look on it as a delicate operation because I should be afraid of pouring it down the windpipe—that is only one of the dangers I contemplate; if it got into the windpipe there would possibly not be a spasmodic action of the muscles; when there is insensibility, or partial insensibility, rejection of liquid by the windpipe would be probably less active than when the patient was awake—if the patient got into such a state of insensibility as not to reject it, probably some of it might go down his windpipe and burn that; if it did so I should expect to find traces after death, unless the patient lives for some hours—a great many post-mortem appearances are changed if the patient lives for some hours, not only by the chloroform disappearing, but other changes incidental to a post-mortem condition—if the post-mortem examination had been performed as Mrs. Bartlett wished it to be, on the very day on which death took place, there would have been still better opportunity of determining the, cause of death.

Friday and Saturday, April 16th and 11 th.

DR. STEVENSON (Re-examined by MR. CLARKE). I have the authority this morning which I promised yesterday to get, but the officer of the Court has locked up my bag, and so I cannot produce it at this moment—I remember perfectly well its contents, I read it last night.

Re-examined. Chloroform is very volatile—assuming it to have been taken into the mouth, and so to have gone down into the stomach, I would not expect to find necessarily any smell of it in the mouth—if the mouth were open the smell might disappear even within half an hour—I should expect that the effect of a dose of chloroform swallowed and taken into the stomach would be greater upon a person taking it if that person were rendered insensible or partially insensible by inhalation first, in the direction of causing paralysis of the action of the heart for instance—it would be a very delicate operation setting chloroform into the stomach of a person who was lying back and insensible or partially insensible; it would require to be delicately done in order to prevent its getting into the windpipe instead of the throat; with a person unskilled in the anatomy of the part some would be very likely to get down the windpipe instead of down the gullet—as a consequence of having taken chloroform the post-mortem appearances are sometimes these of asphyxia—chloroform would cause death in one way by producing asphyxia, and thus paralyzing the muscles of respiration, or else by paralyzing the muscles of the heart—the post-mortem symptoms are not quite the same in the two cases, but one thing with asphyxia need not be necessary, that there should be paralysis of the muscles of respiration; it really is suffocation—if the particular form which the mischief takes is suffocation.

I would expect to see on the post-mortem the signs of suffocation, and if the mischief results from paralysis of the heart I would not expect to see signs of suffocation—it sometimes happens that when persons are voluntarily drinking any liquid some of it may get down the windpipe or approach the windpipe, but that is a rare incident—I admit that, as Mr. Dolbean says, it is possible to render a person who sleeps sufficiently insensible by chloroform for that person to become the subject of a criminal attempt, and in certain cases the production of insensibility would be comparatively easily effected—there may be found traces of chloroform in the urine of a person who has died from an overdose; it would not be visible to the eye, and it is a little undetermined whether it is due to the presence of chloroform itself or to the chloroform producing some other substance in the urine—I had no portion of the urine furnished to me for analysis—the appearance of the urine would not suggest any change.

By the JURY. In one stage of chloroformism the jaws are rigid, or partially so, but the stages are purely arbitrary—an unskilled person must, generally speaking, take some little time to administer a sufficient quantity of chloroform down the throat to cause death; he must do it gradually for fear of choking, but in some cases I do not think it would be very difficult to do it quickly, it simply depends upon the act of swallowing—the chances are that some portion of the chloroform would remain in the mouth for a short time if the person were unable to swallow; it would be likely to remain at the back of the throat—it would then show some signs of its having been there in the gums or throat, in the (same way as it would if it lay in the intestines—if he were able to swallow easily it would be effected almost momentarily, in the same way as water—if a person could not swallow quickly it would remain at the upper part of the windpipe, and upon the post-mortem I should expect to find the effects of contact there, irritation or inflammation, but if taken suddenly I should not expect to find such traces.

By the COURT. In giving chloroform by inhalation, at a certain period and before the patient is altogether unconscious, there is often considerable general muscular rigidity; the arms would In rigid, and the patient would grind the teeth or clench the jaw—I have never seen chloroform administered during sleep; I should not expect the result to be the same—the period of rigidity may be a few seconds or a minute; if the patient is insensible it speedily passes off—I should think that in a case where there is unusual difficulty in putting a patient under the influence of nitrous oxide there would be the same difficulty in effectually administering chloroform; the difficulty in the one case would lead me to expect a difficulty in the other, but that is a pure matter of inference, I cannot say much about it, but generally speaking if a person is insensible to one anesthetic he would be likely to be less sensible to another.

CHARLES MEYMOTT TIDY , B.M. I am Master in Surgery, Professor of Chemistry and Forensic Medicine at the London Hospital, and one of the official analysts to the Home Office—I am one of the authors of "Woodman and Tidy's Forensic Medicine and Toxicology," quoted yesterday by Mr. Clarke—I have had considerable experience in matters of this description, and have of my own knowledge known of a death from taking liquid chloroform—that was in 1863—it was referred to me by

Dr. Lancaster, who was Coroner at the time—so far as we could judge, the fatal dose was 1 1/2 ounces, but I am bound to say that the details are not very clear, for the case was one of suicide, but the fact of chloroform being taken was beyond all question—an ordinary sherry glass will hold 2 or 2 1/2 ounces—measured by the tablespoon marked on a drop-glass a table-spoon is half an ounce—this (produced) is a one ounce bottle—in death from taking chloroform I should expect to find traces of it in the stomach, and some of the actual chloroform, and in that case it was obtained with great ease, but the total quantity was not determined; there was no necessity to do so—I am referring to the case in 1863, which I saw with Dr. Woodman, but that was a case of recovery—there were considerable inflammatory symptoms in the stomach at the part which the chloroform would come in contact with—I have no note, but no doubt if the chloroform was sufficiently long in contact with the esophagus or gullet it would affect it, but if the contact with the tissues was of very short duration, I am of opinion that no abnormal appearances would be apparent—I put a teaspoonful of pure chloroform in my mouth, and held it there for five or six seconds, and then spat it out, and simply washed my mouth out with a little water, and there was a slight redness produced, but it certainly did not last longer than a few minutes, although a certain numbness continued for nearly an hour, and therefore the effect of chloroform upon animal tissues I am dear will be greatly dependent on the length of contact—when liquid chloroform is taken into the stomach it passes into the blood; its diffusibility is very great, and if taken in sufficient quantity to cause death I should expect to find traces of it in the intestines, if a sufficient period had elapsed between taking it and the death, but not so much as of its passage through the membranes—in a death so caused I should expect to find on a post-mortem examination fluidity of the blood—on Saturday, the 20th March, Dr. Stephenson showed me some of the contents of the stomach, bottle No. 5—his description of the smell as overpoweringly strong of chloroform is exactly as I should describe it myself on that date—there can be no shadow of a doubt about it—if chloroform was inhaled and then taken in a liquid state I think it would have greater effect than if taken by a person who had not previously inhaled it, but that is matter of opinion; I have no experiment to show, and I cannot put it much higher than speculation—I think it is quite consistent with facts that there should be no smell of chloroform in the mouth two or three hours after taking liquid chloroform—it is very volatile indeed, and if the mouth was open after death that would sufficiently account for it—as to the skin, if chloroform was spilt on the face and not covered, I should not expect to find any marks left—I dropped some on my hand last night, and there is no sign left—there was a slight redness produced at the time, but it was very transient, and I cannot now determine where it was, though I found the spot half an hour afterwards; but it may leave very definite marks—if you drop chloroform on your skin, and place a pad over it, it will produce a burn—in giving chloroform by inhalation I have noticed a rigidity of the jaw, and I have heard of and seen cases where there has been none, but it usually occurs, and it is for a very variable period—partial insensibility can be produced by the inhalation of chloroform during sleep, and then at a certain stage liquid chloroform could be administered—I should like to state what I have done in the case of a boy between 15 and 16, who had dislocation of his arm; it

was necessary to give him chloroform in order to reduce it; he went to sleep; we administered chloroform to him while he was asleep with great ease, and it is right that I should say that I have tried it in two cases since—one was I think a satisfactory case; the person was fairly well asleep, and in the other case the man was not very well asleep, dozing, and it is right to say I failed in both cases—in the case I had in my own experience it was an adult man—I have got a note in 1867, but there is a difficulty between 1863 and 1869—the 1863 case was Dr. Lancaster's; an adult.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I succeeded in the case of the boy, and failed in the other, as the person was not in a good sleep—these are the only experiments I have had the opportunity of making—in the case of the boy, where chloroform was administered, the surgeon was there who was going to reduce it, and I administered it—I have had very long experience of chloroform—the 1863 case was a suicide, and so it was not necessary to make detailed notes; the Jury wanted the analysis to be made to detect the chloroform, and I did not go very fully into it—the great majority of cases reported are cases of suicide—two were by swallowing chloroform—the majority of cases of inhalation are exceptional—of course there might be positive evidence in a case, but apart from the evidence of facts, the enormous probability of evidence would be in favour of suicide, I should say—with regard to rigidity, it may last only for a very short time, a few seconds; and it may last longer—I should not like to say it would last four or five minutes—the symptoms from the inhalation of chloroform are very variable indeed—a person may be chloroformed in two minutes, or it may take a considerable time, while the quantity required to induce the effects varies also—it is not a question of time only, but of quantity—in administering chloroform we are guided by the appearance of the patient with regard to the quantity to be administered—it is the real difficulty in administering chloroform that you cannot lay down any law which applies to everybody; and therefore in all the stages we must exercise a careful judgment; and that is the reason that there are professors of chloroform who devote themselves to the practice.

By the COURT. It goes further; sometimes persons whom you would not expect, die suddenly under chloroform, and in some cases even where a careful examination has been made, and no signs of heart disease discovered; and the converse is sometimes the case, when you think it prim facie very dangerous, the person will take any quantity; so that it is singularly uncertain; and no doubt that is why ether has been so largely substituted lately, because all authorities have found it more certain in its action, although it has its disadvantages—I know the case perfectly well which I read to Mr. Clarke; I rather think it was a case of suicide—there is considerable uncertainty about the action of swallowed chloroform; it depends largely upon whether the person vomits or not—I am only judging from the subjects I have read—I think I have read everything there is, as far as I can find it—there is very much less known about swallowing chloroform than about chloroform inhaled.

By a JURY. If you were to drop chloroform on the delicate parts of the mouth, it would be likely to show marks there, though you would not see them on the skin of the hand.

By the