CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
SIXTH SESSION, HELD APRIL 4TH, 1892.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, April 4th, 1892, and following days.
BEFORE the RIGHT HON. DAVID EVANS, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir HENRY HAWKINS , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir JAMES CLARKE LAWRENCE , Bart., and Sir POLYDORE DE KEYSER , Knt., Aldermen of the said City; Sir CHARLES HALL , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; STUART KNILL , Esq., JOSEPH RENALS, Esq., WALTER HENRY WILKINS , Esq., HORATIO, DAVID DAVIES , Esq., JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Esq., and JAMES THOMSON RITCHIE , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said city; and Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q.C., D.C.L., Common Serjeant of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CLARENCE RICHARD HALSE, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
EVANS, MAYOR. SIXTH SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners 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 4th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
396. GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD was indicted for unlawfully writing and publishing a libel of and concerning Samuel George Flaxman, to which a justification was pleaded and a replication put in.
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted and MR. KERSHAW Defended.
The JURY being unable to agree, were discharged without returning any verdict, and the case was postponed. (See Monday, the llth.)
397. HENRY LAWS , Unlawfully intimidating Walter Henry Daws, with a view to compel him to abstain from doing an act which he had a legal right to do, namely, to work as a bookbinder for James Truscott and another.
MR. MUIR Prosecuted
WALTER HENRY DAWS . I am a bookbinder—I have been employed at Messrs. James Truscott and Sons, wholesale stationers, Suffolk Lane, since 15th February last, when there was a strike at their place—I am a non-union man—going to my work I passed down Bush Lane into Cannon Street—during the fortnight preceding 17th March I very often met Laws a few minutes past eight—he called me a b——rat, and a b——s—, and other epithets—on 19th March he told me I had no right to go to work where I was, and. he said he would get a b——rope and hang me if he could, if I did go to work on that morning—he used other epithets; and I am sure that if I had not got out of his way I should have received violence from him—he said if I took out a summons against him he would give me a b——good hiding—he put up his fist and was going to drive me one, and I got out of his way—if that conduct had continued I should have had to abstain from going to my employment through his violence.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I am positive you said this
WILLIAM WILSON . I am a bookbinder—I have been employed at Messrs. James Truscott and Sons since the strike began—I am a nonunion man—for about three weeks before 20th March I had been going to my work in the morning through Cannon Street—I had met the prisoner Laws in Bush Lane—he used abusive language to me, and—said, "You b——y rat!"—he said nothing else, but passed on—that has happened on three separate occasions—one morning he pushed right up against me—I had had no quarrel with him.
Cross-examined by the prisoner, I said nothing to you—I did not say, "I apologise. "
JOHN EDWARD STRONG . I am manager to James Truscott and Sons, wholesale stationers and printers, Suffolk Lane—in January last the prisoner was employed by us as a bookbinder—at the end of January a strike began, and all our men left our employment, including the prisoner—Daws was one of the men taken on after the strike—before 19th March the strike had been settled, as far as our firm was concerned—the strike was pretty general.
The prisoner; in his defence, said that all he said to the prosecutor on 19th March was, You b——y rat
GUILTY of intimidation.
MR. MUIR said that Messrs. Truscott had only brought the charge from a desire to protect their workmen.— Discharged on recognisances.
400. WILLIAM HARRIS (19) , to robbery with violence on Harry Clark, and stealing a gold chain from him. There were other indictments against the prisoner for assaulting Kate Watson with intent to rob her, and for occasioning John Watson actual bodily harm.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Six Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday, April 4th, 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
402. CHARLES GEORGE** (50) , to uttering counterfeit coin, after a conviction of a like offence on 10th January, 1887, in the name of George Drink water.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Five years' Penal Servitude.
404. WILLIAM LORRIMER (28) , to two indictments for stealing, while employed in the Post Office, two letters, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. And
405. JOHN VERNON WALKER (24) , to forging and uttering a request for the payment of £65; also a receipt for £65, with intent to defraud,— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
DAVIS SIMCOSKI (Interpreted). I live at 33, Bood Street, Brick Lane—the prisoner bought some oranges of me, value twopence, and gave me a shilling, I gave him tenpence change, and he left—I did not like the appearance of the coin, and bit it; it bent, and I went after him, and said, "Give me my money back, because the shilling is not good"—he pushed me away, and said—"Go on, go on"—two constables approached, and the prisoner gave me the tenpence and the oranges, and asked me to give him the shilling back, which I did—it was lighter than usual shillings, and when I bit it it was soft; my teeth sank into it, and it bent easily—he was, my first customer that day, and I had. not received any other shilling.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I do not know the man who was with you.
CHARLES SMITH (135 H). I saw the last witness running after the prisoner in Spelman Street, Mile End—I saw the prisoner walking fast about sixty yards off the prosecutor, who was running after him, and got to him about a yard before me, and seized him, and said, "This is a bad shilling"—I was with Hancock—the prisoner took the shilling out of the prosecutor's hand, and said, "Go on, you silly old b——, it is all right" and put it into his left trousers pocket—I took three oranges out of his jacket-pocket and gave them to the prosecutor, with a sixpence and fourpence—I said, "Let me look at that bad shilling you have got"—he said, "I have not got one; it was a jubilee sixpence I gave him,"pulling out two sixpences and saying, "That is the sixpence I gave him, and he says it is a bad one"—I said, "I know it is not; I saw the shilling; we are two police officers, and I arrest you for passing bad money"—he put his hand in his left pocket, took something out, passed it to his right hand, and threw it into his mouth—I caught hold of his handkerchief at the back; he struggled violently for about a minute; I tried to get the shilling out of his mouth and said., "You had better spit it out"—he said, "You won't find any bad money on me if you search me for a thousand years"—at the station he said, "This is the sixpence I gave you; I never had any bad money about me"—I searched him at the station, and found a half-crown and five sixpenny pieces, all good, and three shillings and threepence-halfpenny in copper.
By the JURY. I saw the shilling which the prosecutor gave him back, but not distinctly; I could see that it was a shilling; I did not see that it was bent or bitten—the prisoner was in the cell from that afternoon till nine next morning, and then he went to the Police-court; we watched him twenty-three hours, and no money has been found—I tried to take it from his mouth at the station, and put a bunch of keys into his mouth.
HENRY HANCOCK (385 H). I was with Smith on 16th March—the prosecutor brought a coin and said, "Bad shilling"—the prisoner took it from his hand and said, "You silly old b——, you don't know what you are doing; it is a jubilee sixpence," and put it into his left trousers pocket, and gave the oranges back, and handed him a sixpence and fourpence—Smith went up and asked to look at the shilling; the prisoner said, "It was a jubilee sixpence,"taking two sixpences from his pocket, one of which was a jubilee one, and said, "This is the coin I gave
him"—I said, "Let me have a look at it"—he said, "It was a sixpence; I have not got a shilling; who are you that you want to see it?"—I said, "We are two police-officers"—we were in plain clothes—he put his hand into his left trousers pocket, took it out, placed two shillings in his right hand, and threw them into his mouth—I caught hold of his arms while the other officer performed at his throat.
By the JURY. I am sure they were shillings he threw into his mouth—he produced two jubilee sixpences—I was close to him, and swear they were two shillings; I never saw them again—I kept observation on him.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector to Her Majesty's Mint—the teeth sinking into a coin is a test that it is bad, and it would be light—whether a bad coin can be chewed up depends on the strength of the jaws and the state of the teeth—I have not known cases where coin has been swallowed and nothing more heard of it; but on one occasion it took three weeks to percolate through—I am told that there is a place called the cul de sac, where if anything lodges it remains there.
Prisoner's defence: I bought two pennyworth of oranges of the prosecutor, and gave him a jubilee sixpence, which he afterwards returned to me; if I had swallowed any coins they would have been found, as I was watched. The policeman said, "I will make it hot for you. "I said, "Why should you make it hot for me?" There is no proof that I ever had a bad shilling about me.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. RICHARDS Prosecuted.
RUSSELL GEORGE GREEN . I am an auxiliary postman in the employ of the post-office at Kilburn—on Saturday night, March 12th, I brought a bag of letters to Belsize office, Kilburn—the mail contractor, Parfitt, drove up at 12.45—I saw. Potter, a postman, take a bag of letters to put into the cart—Parfitt left for a moment to go to the back of the house—a second bag was then sealed, and I took it out, and the cart and mailbag had gone—I went in search of it and spoke to a constable—I was away about three minutes—I afterwards saw the prisoner in custody at Edgware, and saw the horse and cart there—a constable had charge of the letter-bag.
ROBERT PARFITT . I am employed to convey the mails from Kilburn to the North-Western district—on this Saturday night I went there, and went into the office; they called me, and I went out, and the horse and cart had gone—I saw them again, at 3.30 a.m., at West Hampstead Police-station—they are worth £20, and there were three rugs and a whip—the headpiece had been taken off the cart; it had "Robert Parfitt"on it, and on the plate was "Robert Parfitt, 6, Pembroke Mews, Kilburn"
then noticed a mail-bag in the road—I did not see it drop—I picked it up and took it to Kilburn, and met Green.
GEORGE COLLINS (240 S). On 12th March, about one a.m., I was on duty in the High Road, Kilburn; I received information from another constable of the loss of the mail-cart and bag—I jumped on a cab and got permission to ride—we put the fare out at Cricklewood, and drove on to Edgware, about six miles—we received information, and turned round, and met the prisoner driving a horse and cart—we drove up alongside of him and shouted to him to stop, but he drove much quicker—the cab turned round and drove quickly after him and overtook him—I jumped out of the cab, ran alongside, and seized the horse's head, but the prisoner flogged it with the whip—he was sitting on the seat—that was about two a.m., at the commencement of Edgware, six or seven miles from Kilburn sorting office—I asked where he was going—he said, "Home"—I asked his address—he said, "10, West Hampstead Parade"; there is no such place, but there is West Hampstead pavement—he was going away from Hampstead—Jennings came up and assisted me—the name of Robert Parfitt was painted on the cart, but the address had been torn off.
Cross-examined. You did not pull the horse up at once when I asked you.
Re-examined. I pursued him about 600 yards in the cab after I came up to him, and I called out a dozen times to him to stop; he did not stop till I pulled him up by the bridle, and he struck the horse after I got hold of him.
ALFRED JENNINGS (151 S). On Saturday morning, about 1.50, I was near the Baldfaced Stag, Edgware, about six miles from Kilburn, and saw Collins and the prisoner—the horse's head was in the direction of Edgware, not of Hampstead—I told the prisoner I should take him in custody for stealing a horse and cart containing a bag of mails—he said, "I bought it of a man outside the Black Lion, for £10"—the Black Lion is five and three-quarter miles from Kilburn—I asked him who the man was—he said, 'I do not know him, he was a stranger to me"—when the charge was read over he said, "I bought it of a man for £10 outside the Cock public-house"—he was sober.
Prisoner's defence: I never told him anything about the Cock or the Black Lion; I bought it at the Windmill public-house.
GUILTY . He was further charged with a conviction on 17th September, 1878,
in the name of William Sayers.
ROBERT HUMPHREYS . I am a Warder of Pentonville prison—I produce a certificate. (Read: Central Criminal Court, 16th September, 1878—William Sayers, convicted of stealing a mare, after a previous conviction.—Sentence, Twelve Year's Penal Servitnde.)—I was present, the prisoner is the man; I have known him since 1878—he was tried before your Lordship.
Cross-examined. I was present when an officer from Northampton proved ten years against you—you were discharged in 1890, and I saw you near Charing Cross, and went and refreshed my memory about you at Scotland Yard—I produce your photograph.
EDGAB WELLUM (Police Sergeant). Since the prisoner's liberation in 1890, he reported himself at our station as Sayers—I have no doubt he is the man—I saw him within three or four days of his liberation from
prison, and have had him under observation ever since—I did not see him for twelve Years, but he reported himself as Sayers.
Dr. Gilbert stated that the prisoner was of weak intellect, but not insane.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. TheCOURT commended the zeal and activity of the two police officers.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, April 5th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
409. ALFRED DALE (15), and THOMAS CANE (15) , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of John Burroughs and to having been before convicted of felony.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Ten Days, and Three Years in a Reformatory.
EWLIN PLEADED NOT GUILTY to this indictment, and MR. MUIR, for the prosecution, offered no evidence 'against him on that charge. Previous convictions were proved against him. EWLIN— Nine Months' Hard Labour. FIRTH— Three Months' Hard Labour. And
411. JOHN LEE (61) to burglariously entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Walter Haws, and afterwards burglariously breaking out of the same.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Three Months' Hard Labour.
JOHN ROBERT MARTIN . I am booking-clerk at the Paddington Station of the Great Western Railway—on 2nd March, about 4.30 p.m., I was on duty at the third-class booking office—the prisoner came to the window and asked for a ticket to Birmingham—I supplied him with one; in payment he tendered this note of the Bank of Engraving for £5—I asked him how he became possessed of it—he said, "Is it bad? I have been done; I had it from a man outside"—I called constable Rabley and gave him in charge.
Cross-examined. I was rather busy at the time—it was near half-past four—a Birmingham train goes at a quarter to five, the train previous to that was at 3.30—there is one at half-past one—there was a crowd waiting at the ticket office—the half-past three train is not an express, the one at a quarter to five is, it does not stop between London and Oxford—the prisoner presented the note open, the right side up—I saw immediately that it was a bad note—he did not attempt to run away, I was shut in my office; he waited till I came round—I think he appeared rather surprised at the note being bad—he waited as an ordinary passenger—he did not attempt to leave the window.
JOHN RABLEY . I am a constable of the Great Western Railway at Paddington—on 1st March I was called to take the prisoner in charge; this note was handed to me by the last witness—I asked the prisoner how he came into possession of it—he said he was sitting on a seat with two gentlemen; one of them said he was going to Birmingham, and one
said to the other, "Will you trust me some money for this note;"which he did, and the man went away for a while, and came back and asked the prisoner whether he would trust him with some money, and he trusted him with £2 for this piece of paper, and then he never returned—that was all he said.
Cross-examined. I did not know at that time that he had a box in the train that went to Birmingham—I afterwards discovered it; it went to Birmingham, and was brought back.
WILLIAM ROWDEN . I am chief clerk in the office of Mr. Hart, the superintendent at Paddington—on 1st March, about 4.35, the prisoner was brought into the office—Mr. Hart asked him who he was—he said his name was Thomas Beecher Knight, that he was a musician, and lived at 14, St. George's Square, Maidstone—I believe that was a correct address—Mr. Hart asked him how he became possessed of the note—he said it was given him by two men with whom he had been drinking at a public-house, who had robbed him of all his money by the confidence trick, £2 10s. in gold, and some silver—he was detained in the office about ten minutes—he said one of the men promised to accompany him to Birmingham, that he had been with them on the platform, but he afterwards lost sight of them, and when he was unable to find them he thought he had been robbed, and he thought there would be no harm in trying to change the note to get his ticket, as he had the money to pay for it, and he then produced two sovereigns from his waistcoat pocket, and offered to pay for the ticket; the third-class fare would be 9s. 5d., I believe.
Cross-examined. I did not write this down as he said it—I did not take any note of it—it was said in answer to questions, a little bit at a time—I had no difficulty in extracting the story from him, or to know what he meant; I was not the person who questioned him; I am repeating it from memory—he did not say the public-house was the Fountains Abbey; he did not say he had missed the 1.30 train—I don't remember his saying that he had been waiting on the platform for a considerable time; he may have said so—I think he said he had come from Maidstone that morning—he did not say that the down train was late—he said he was in a public-house with the men—he tried to describe how the confidence trick was carried out—he did not use the term "confidence trick, "his description was that of the confidence trick, but after saying he had given the men all his money he could go no further—he said he had been done of all his money—he was so confused, he appeared to be bewildered—he was agitated at finding himself in this position; he could not properly describe the trick—he said after the men had disappeared he tried to search for them—I don't remember his saying that he had asked a constable if he had seen them, I know now that he did—he did not say that the men had told him to turn his back to show that he trusted them, and when he turned round they had disappeared—Mr. Hart asked him three or four times to describe how it was done, and he could not get beyond three or four words; be appeared to know clearly what he was doing.
Re-examined. I listened carefully to what was said—Rabley did not question him before me—I was not examined before the Magistrate the day after this occurred, not till the remand, a week after.
I was called into Mr. Hart's office, where I found the prisoner detained—I told him I was a police-officer, and I took him into custody on this charge—he said, "I have got into the hands of some confidence trick men, and one of them gave me the note; I told the guard of the train, and we both looked up and down to see if we could see them, but could not, and I then said I have been done"—I took him to the station, where he was charged—he made no further reply—I searched him, and round £2 in gold, 2s. in silver, and three halfpence in bronze.
Cross-examined. I had heard that he had produced the two sovereigns before—he said he had a box in the train which had gone down to Birmingham—I afterwards got the box and searched it; I found in it simply his clothing, a bag, and some musical instruments; nothing of the sort of these notes—I did not notice whether the box was labelled—I have made inquiries at Maidstone as to the prisoner's character—he gave his correct address; he bears a highly respectable character there—I further ascertained that he is a pensioner, invalided from India in 1888, and he gets 8d. a day for life—I found in his box this discharge from the army—it shows that he had the Burmah medal, and had been eight years and fifty-five days in the army, and was discharged as being found medically unfit for further service; most of his time was spent in India; his father is a most respectable man—I know the Fountains Abbey public-house in Stanley Street, at the corner of Praed Street and Cambridge Place; it is about 600 yards from Paddington station—there are a number of streets about there—there is a constable on fixed point duty just outside Paddington station—F 62 was on that duty that day—the Magistrate admitted the prisoner to bail on his own recognizance—he has surrendered to-day.
Witnesses for the Defence.
MARY ELIZABETH PISTELL . I am barmaid at the Fountains Abbey public-house, at the corner of Cambridge Place and Praed Street—I remember seeing the prisoner there on the afternoon of 1st March, about four o'clock; two men were with him; they looked like gentlemen; I should not know them again—they wore tall hats—one was an elderly man, the other was about thirty or thirty-five—I did not notice whether one was carrying a mackintosh—I served them with drink—the two men were talking apart from the prisoner—they went out and came back again—I was serving at more bars than one—I did not notice anything in the shape of a pocket-book passed from one to the other—about a week afterwards the prisoner called on me, and asked whether I remembered the incident—I told him what I have stated.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was perfectly sober, and knew what he was doing.
WALTER GREEN (62 F). On 1st March, between four and five, I was on fixed point duty outside Paddington Station—a man came up and made inquiries of me with reference to two men—I do not recognise the prisoner as the man—he asked me if I had seen two gentlemen there with macintoshes on their arm—he seemed very flurried.
Cross-examined. As he was leaving me he said, "My God, I have been done!" and with that he rushed away towards the railway station, and I saw no more of him—I should say this was about four o'clock.
The Superintendent of the Maidstone Police deposed to the prisoner's good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. POLEY Prosecuted.
SEVERIN SENG . I am a watchmaker, of 60, Salisbury Street, Lisson Grove—on Saturday, 5th March, about half-past eleven, I was in Maida Yale—two men came up to me and knocked me down—I have identified the prisoner as one of the men—I could see nothing at the time, because they knocked me down instantly, and knelt on the top of me, and tore my clothes to get at my pocket, and held something in front of my face and kicked me—I halloaed out at first, but could not after they covered my mouth—they took nothing from me; I had nothing—I did not get up, I was picked up—I was hurt; I was black and blue on one side, where they kicked me—one of the men ran away, a witness who came to help me ran after him, and he ran into a policeman's hands; I did not see that; I was exhausted and almost senseless—the prisoner is the man the policeman brought back—I was not the worse for drink.
By the COURT. I know the prisoner is one of the men who attacked me twice; I got away from them the first time; but they followed me again and knocked me down, and when the policeman brought him round I said he was one of them that attacked me first.
FREDERICK MORRIS . I am a leatherseller, of 27, Ariel Road, West Hampstead—on the night of 5th March I was in Maida vale about a quarter to twelve—I heard a cry on the opposite side of the road—it sounded like a cry from someone with a hand over his mouth—I immediately crossed the road, and saw two men get up from the ground, leaving an old man on the ground—I followed the men; they commenced to run, I also ran, shouting "Stop thief!" and followed them till they were stopped about twenty yards down by 108 X—I did not lose sight of them—I am sure the prisoner is one of the men.
HENRY BURTON (108 X). On 5th March, about a quarter to twelve, I was on duty in Carleton Vale—my' attention was attracted by shouts—I saw the prisoner and another man running out of Maida Vale towards me—as soon as they saw me they rushed across the road—I ran across and caught the prisoner—the other man escaped—the prisoner said, "you have made a mistake; it is not me"—Morris came up at the same time—he said, "Bring them back; they have knocked an old man down in Maida Vale"—I took him back to where I saw the prosecutor, and he said, "That man and another man knocked me down twice and tried to rob me"—I took him to the station, and he was charged—he said nothing in my presence—Mr. Morris was not above twenty yards behind the men.
MARTIN WALSH (Inspector X). On 5th March the prisoner was brought to the station, charged with being concerned with another man for asssulting and attempting to rob Severin Seng—I read it to him—he replied, "Yes, sir; that is quite right, sir"
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I never said such a thing.
Prisoner's Defence. I was coming from my work at East Finchley, and we stopped by a constable. I know nothing at all about this case.
GUILTY**— Four Months' Hard Labour ,
MR. LEVER Prosecuted.
ELLEN COOK . I am the wife of Michael Cook, a gas stoker, at Notting Dale—on Saturday evening, 12th March, between seven and eight, I went into the Kenilworth public-house—I saw there the prisoner and his wife and brother—when I came out the three followed me to the top of the mews and there the prisoner took my shawl off of me and said they would have a good drink out of it—his brother said, "Don't do it"but the wife put him up to do it—they knocked me about—one of them hit me in the mouth, I can't say which, because there was a crowd round me; there was a mark on my mouth, but it has gone—I had a hard struggle with them to keep my shawl, but they got it, and ran away—I fell on the ground, and when I got up they were gone.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I locked up your wife first, but she cried to me and said she had three children to look after, and I let her off—I told my husband about it, and he put it into the sergeant's hands.
ROBERT MARKHAM (Police Sergeant). I arrested the prisoner on Monday the afternoon of the 14th—I found him detained at Notting Dale Station—he said, "I hear you have been looking after me"—I said, "yes; you will be charged with assaulting Ellen Cook, and stealing a shawl from her on Saturday night"—he said, "I know nothing about it; I never touched her"—the first I. heard of this robbery was on the Sunday evening—about half-past eight on that evening I saw the prisoner coming from the direction of the shop of Mr. Hedinger, the pawnbroker where the shawl was pawned; as he passed he said, "Goodnight, Markham"—I had known him before.
ROBERT ALEXANDER JACKSON I am a divisional surgeon—on Monday, the 14th, I examined the prosecutrix; she had been knocked about: she had bruises on her right side, right thigh, and right arm, and on the left side of the face, there was an abrasion of the skin there, if knocked down by a blow on the pavement, it would probably account for the injuries; it must have been a violent blow.
ROBERT NEWTON . I am a labourer, of 19, Kenilworth Street, Notting Hill—on the Saturday evening I was in the neighbourhood of the Kenilworth public-house—I saw a bit of a disturbance—I walked by—I did not see the prosecutrix or the prisoner that I could swear to; it was dark—I dont recollect saying before the Magistrate that I saw the prosecutrix on the ground—I don't recollect telling the policeman so—he came to me when I was drunk, and said "Do you know the man?" and I said "No"—I know him by sight.
FREDERICK ALLEN . I am assistant to Charles Hedinger, pawnbroker, of 125, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill—this shawl was pawned at our shop on Saturday night, 12th March, between eight and nine—I took it in the name on the ticket is John Smith—I believe it was the prisoner who pawned it.
Cross-examined. I could not swear to you, but I believe it.
Prisoner's Defence I am quite innocent. I heard my wife was in custody, and went to the station.
— NOT GUILTY .
MR. GREENFIELD Prosecuted, and MR. BESLEY Defended
HENRY SMITH (29 N K.) Ada Cobley gave the prisoner into my custody on 9th March at the Agricultural Hall, and I took him to the Police-station—there, in answer to the charge, he said, "I was under the impression that my first wife was dead at the time I married this woman".
Cross-examined. I had no warrant—I simply told him it was a case of bigamy—Ada Cobley stopped him outside the Agricultural Hall, and I was called—a solicitor's clerk or solicitor with me told me he had all the particulars—they said they had been to the Magistrate to apply for a warrant, and were told no warrant was required.
CHARLES GREENHAM . I live at Burnham Road, Romford Road, Ilford, and am a greengrocer—I was present at Ilford parish church on 14th March, 1872, when the prisoner was married—I knew the wife—this is the certificate I signed I believe. (This was a certificate of marriage at the Ilford parish church on 14th March, 1872, of James Webb to Sarah Ward, of Hounslow).
Cross-examined. I had known the prisoner before that; he had last been at work at a baker's at Hounslow—the lady he married was rather elderly but well got up as to face and figure, and looked all right—I was told she had induced him to desert her own daughter, to whom he was engaged—she was about 52, and he was under 21—she eloped with him—I provided the wedding breakfast—I don't know that the populace at Hounslow burnt the old lady's effigy—the prisoner left her at the end of three or four months—I don't believe they have seen one another since—she went back to her maiden name, Ada Ward, and lived with her daughters until her death on 21st January, 1890—she was buried in the name of Ada Ward.
Re-examined. I don't think they lived happily together—the daughters went away.
Cross-examined. I am the prisoner's sister—I was sixteen or seventeen years old when this marriage took place—the prisoner had been living at Hounslow—he left the old lady about three months after his marriage, and went home to his father at Enfield—he was then under twenty-one—no member of our family saw his wife after that time—I only saw her at the wedding—for many years we believed she was dead; my brother told me she was dead—I do not know when that was—I did not know of the second marriage—my father is alive; he has always lived at Enfield—anyone of the Ward party could have found out all about him.
Re-examined. It was years ago that the prisoner told me he thought his first wife was dead; it was a long time before January, 1890—I have heard that she died in January; 1890—I have not seen the certificate of her burial.
ELIZABETH WARD . I live at 10, Rose Cottages, Hounslow, and am single—I was not present at the prisoner's marriage in 1872 to my mother—I did not see them together after the marriage—I left the house at once, and never saw the prisoner again—I attended my mother up to the date of her death at 4, Medea Cottages, on 21st January, 1890—soon
after the marriage in 1872 they separated—my mother had interest of trust money—my mother left the prisoner because he ill-treated her; he sold up her home, and went away with the money she had in the house—she was buried in the name of Sarah Ward, at her request; she never took the prisoner's name after the marriage, on account of his ill-treatment.
Cross-examined. She died very near where she had lived—before her marriage with the prisoner she lived with her daughters—after the marriage she left him and came back to Isleworth, and resumed her life with her daughters in the name of Ward—she never took the name of Webb after about November, 1872—after she had resumed the name of Ward no communication of any kind, as far as I know, passed between her and the prisoner.
Cross-examined. No communication that I know of passed through other people.
ADA COBLEY . I live at 91, Central Street, St. Luke's, and am the prosecutrix—on 25th August, 1878, I was married to the prisoner at Stoke Newington parish church; this is the certificate of our marriage—we lived for some time together after the marriage, on and off; there were four intervals during which we separated—last autumn I took divorce proceedings against him, and while those proceedings were pending I ascertained that the prisoner had been married before—I then went to a magistrate and asked for a warrant; I did not get it—the prisoner was afterwards taken in Upper Street, Islington—we were walking there, and saw him, and called a policeman and gave him into custody.
Cross-examined. Mr. Coot, the solicitor's clerk, and my brother-in-law were with me when the prisoner was given into custody—it was not from the prisoner that I learnt his wife was alive when he married me—I never heard it until Mr. Coot had been employed about the divorce proceedings—I applied to Mr. Coot in February this year, just before the citation and petition—I was anxious to get rid of the prisoner; I could not live with him, he so ill-treated me—I ceased to cohabit with him on 11th November last; I did not see him after that—I had separated from him before that because he had ill-treated me—what Mr. Coot put down was spitting in the face and slapping the face principally—he was never kind to me—perhaps he was not disagreeable all the time, but the greater part of the time he was—he never told me he had no idea but that his marriage with me was not perfectly valid—he wrote from the House of Detention after he was in custody offering to remarry me now that his first wife was dead, and saying that he always thought she was dead before 1878.
Re-examined. In addition to ill-treatment, adultery was charged in the petition—the prisoner always represented himself to me as a single man—there were three children of my marriage with him.
WILLIAM PAKEHAM . I am a baker, of Oxford House, Whitton Road, Hounslow—I have known the prisoner since 1870—I knew his first wife—he was originally engaged to be married to one of the daughters—after the marriage I saw the prisoner back at Hounslow—about six years after the separation (I could not tell the date; it was getting towards the autumn of the year) the prisoner called at my shop and shook hands, and said, "Governor, how do you do?"—I said, "What is your game?"
—he said, "I have come to see if I can get the old woman to agree to have a separation, as I want to marry another girl"—I said, "The law is not made for such fools as you to get a separation when you like to ask for it; whether she is agreeable or not you will not get it"—I was living near Mrs. Ward's daughters at that time; Mrs. Ward was living at Isleworth, two or three miles off, at the time.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was in my employment before he came of age, and for about one and a half year—after he married Mrs. Ward he did not return to my service—some little time after their marriage they went to live at Ilford—Mrs. Ward returned to Isleworth and lived in apartments about eight months after the marriage—I did not see her for some time; she came to live with her daughters in one of my houses, and I saw her—I saw her in her bedroom a few years before she died—I think she kept her bedroom for some two or three years before she died; she was not about at all—between the time of his leaving my service in 1872 and the autumn of 1878 I have seen the old lady sitting at the windows as I passed half a dozen times—about five weeks last Saturday I was first asked to carry my memory back to the conversation in 1878—I did not go before the Magistrate—Mr. Coot's clerk put questions to me in the first place; the prosecutrix called on me about five weeks ago to know about the Ward family, and I then stated the conversation of 1878—a young man, a friend of hers, who was with her wrote it down—afterwards I went to Mr. Coot's office, and it was written down again—I think the Queen's Jubilee was about three years ago; I may be a year out—this conversation occurred about 1878; I should say it was something like ten years or more before Jubilee year; I don't think it was over ten years—I should not like to say it was over fifteen years.
Re-examined. I am certain as to the correctness of the conversation—to my knowledge Mrs. Ward died two years ago last January, in 1890.
JANE BURT . I live at 15, Oberlin Road, Marsh Gate, Richmond—Mrs. Ward lodged with me—sixteen or seventeen years ago (I cannot remember the date) the prisoner called and asked for his wife—I do not think he saw her, he opened the door and walked in and asked for his wife, and she refused to see him, and called out and asked not to allow him upstairs; he said he had a right to be where his wife was—I sent for the police, but they, declined to interfere between husband and wife; after that he left the house—I did not see him afterwards, I saw his brother.
Cross-examined. I was not examined before the Magistrate—Mrs. Ward had been lodging with me alone for about two years, not with her daughters—I am not very accurate about dates—I think the Queen's Jubilee was about two years ago, I have not thought about it—Mr. Coot's clerk asked me to come as a witness.
Re-examined. I am quite sure of what the prisoner said to me—Mrs. Ward had been living in my house about two years when the prisoner came—I do not know when she died, she had left me—I did not take up the message to her privately; she called out to me that it washer husband, not to allow him upstairs.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, April 5th, 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
417. WILLIAM STORER (35) , to stealing a watch and chain, the goods of Frederick Henry; also to stealing three brushes and a button-hook, the goods of Marie Scott, after conviction of felony at Edinburgh on November 3rd, 1890.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Eighteen Month's Hard Labour
418. JOHN HEARN (32) , to stealing a watch and a piece of chain from the person of James Paterson, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on 5th January, 1885. (His brother promised to send him to America.)— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Nine Months' Hard Labour.
419. JOHN SERJEANT , to unlawfully attempting to kill and murder himself. (He had made six attempts to destroy himself, and Dr. Gilbert stated that he was of a very low type of intellect, but not insane.)— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Judgment respited. And
420. GEORGETTE JACOB (18) , to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child. (Her aunt undertook to send her to her parents in France, and produced a letter from the father of the child, promising to marry her.)— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Three Days' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. SIMMONS and HEDDER Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
WILLIAM DELMAR CAVENDISH . I live at 33, Great Coram Street—on 20th March, about 12.30 a.m., I was going home up Drury Lane and heard a shuffling of feet behind me; I was seized by my coat collar and thrown violently to the ground on my back, and the prisoner knelt on my chest, put his hand in my right trousers pocket, and took out a purse containing about 15s.; a man with him said, "Have you been right through him, Bill?"—the prisoner got up and they both ran away down a turning which I am told is Goldsmith Street—I got up; I was a bit shaken—I saw two constables, who advised me to go to Bow Street Station, which I did, and gave a full description of the prisoner—on the Monday I identified the prisoner from about a dozen men.
Cross-examined. The robbery did not take much more than a minute—this was on Sunday morning a few yards from Goldsmith Street, about fifty yards from Holborn—that part of Drury Lane is not well lighted, and the shops were closed—I had had some supper at Harris's in the Strand; I left there about 10.30 and then had one glass of stout nearly opposite Somerset House; I stopped there talking till a little before 11, but did not go into any other house—I was perfectly sober—I had not seen either of the men before—I gave a full description to Inspector Tilsley; he took it down in writing in a book, and next day Detective Collins came to me for full particulars—I went with him to Bow Street on the Thursday, and picked the prisoner out from twelve other men—Collins was not there then—I touched the prisoner, and said, "That is the man"—he said nothing—he was taken away and charged—he said nothing to me, but he denied to Tilsley that he was the man—besides the man who knocked me down and the man who knelt on me there were two others, but they did not join in the attack.
Re-examined. I have not the slightest doubt that the prisoner is the man who knelt on me and took my purse.
FREDERICK COLLINS (Detective E), I received information on the Sunday and a description, and on Thursday, the 24th, about 11.45 a.m., I was in Drury Lane, and saw the prisoner come out of Goldsmith Buildings, and told him I arrested him for being concerned with another man in a robbery with violence on Saturday night—he said, "I think you have made a mistake"—I took him to the station-house, and fetched Cavendish, who identified him among other men without any hesitation—he was charged, and said, "lam innocent; I can prove where I was on Saturday night; I was out with my young woman, and left her at the corner of Queen Street about 12.30; I went up Drury Lane and home"—Cavendish had given a most minute description of him—next morning, while he was waiting to go before the Magistrate, he said, "Mr. Collins, I want to speak to you"—I cautioned him—he said, "I want you to go and see my mother; she can tell you who the two men were; she told me when I went upstairs that there had been a robbery"
Cross-examined. I got the description on Sunday from the description-book; it is not here, and I saw the prosecutor on the Monday—I have been in the police eight years—it would be wrong to say that I was not in the room when Cavendish pointed the prisoner out—I did not tell the Magistrate that the prisoner said he was satisfied with the men among whom he was placed—I was in the same room with the prisoner and Cavendish, and in such a position that Cavendish could have seen me, and so was the Inspector—there were fair men and dark men—when the prisoner was picked out he said, "I am innocent"—he was then put into the dock, and said, "lam innocent; I can prove where I was on Saturday night; I left my young woman at Drury Lane and went home; I know nothing of this"
Re-examined. The prisoner did not express any dissatisfaction before the Magistrate as to the nature of the men he was placed among.
GEORGE Low (553 E). I assisted' Collins in taking the prisoner, who I have known about eighteen months.
Witnesses for the Defence.
ELLEN DONOVAN . I live at 28, Goldsmith Buildings, Drury Lane, and am a water-cress seller—the prisoner is my brother—I heard, on a Thursday evening, that he was locked up—on the Saturday before that he came home about 12.25, and I saw him on the second floor landing; his room is on that floor, and mine on the third floor—I was going to see my mother and met him; he said, "Good-night," and I went up to my room and put my little brother to bed—I opened the window and saw two men run down Goldsmith Street—I knew them by sight and by name—one of them said, "It's all right"—they went through to the bottom—I told my mother next morning—after I met my brother, I beard him go into his room and turn his key inside; it was after that that I looked out and saw the two men.
Cross-examined. My brother and I live at No. 28, and my mother at No. 17, which is the nearest to Drury Lane—I came in after twelve o'clock—the baby was undressed at my mother's, and I took her upstairs and put her to bed—it was 12.30, or a little later, when I looked out at the window—it would take anybody two or three minutes to go from my mother's to Drury Lane; you have only to go down two flights of stairs.
RICHARD PONSON . I am part owner of Goldsmith Buildings, and live at No. 4—I gave evidence at Bow Street—I heard of the prisoner being locked up, and on the Saturday before that, about 12.30, I was going to put the gas out, and saw the prisoner on the three steps which are the entrance to the buildings—he could get from there to his mother's room—I wished him good-night—I did not see his sister.
KATE COLLINS . I live at 10, V Block, Peabody Buildings, Drury Lane—the prisoner is my young man—I heard that he was locked upon the previous Saturday evening I saw him first about 8 o'clock, and was with him till 12.20, when I left him at the gate; he was then going towards Goldsmith Street—I saw him again next day at dinner-time at Drury Lane.
Cross-examined. I left him in Great Wild Street—we had been at a public-house in Drury Lane—the public-houses closed at 12 o'clock.
Re-examined. I left him at, 12.25—it is not unusual for persons in that neighbourhood to pass the evening in public-houses.
LAURENCE DONOVAN . I am a hagler in the winter—I live at 28, Goldsmith Buildings, Drury Lane—I was in London on this Saturday, but went to Lincoln on Sunday morning—when I came home I heard of the prisoner. being locked up—I saw him going upstairs on Saturday evening, and saw Cook going into Goldsmith Buildings, and afterwards saw two men run by.
Cross-examined. That was between 12.20 and 12.30—the prisoner is my brother-in-law—I had been spending the evening in Clare Market playing at dominoes in a public-house—I was not perfectly sober; I was a little bit rocky—I am clear that I saw the two men run by a minute and a half or two minutes after I saw the prisoner go upstairs.
JAMES MCCARTHY . I am a greengrocer, of 18, Drury Lane—on this Saturday night I was shutting up my shop, and saw a lot of men standing outside a public-house, but I did not see the prisoner at all—I saw a man knocked down and someone kneeling on him, but I did not interfere, because I had plenty of money in my pocket—the prisoner is not the person who was kneeling on the man.
Cross-examined. The assault was committed at twelve o'clock—I close at twelve on Saturday nights—I cannot say who the men were.
Re-examined. The prisoner was not one of them, because I know him—I pledge my oath he was not one.
NOT GUTLTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, April 6th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
422. CHARLES BACON (26), WILLIAM HERBERT REED (15), SAMUEL HUTCHINGS (17), and FREDERICK CHARLES WESSENDORFF , breaking and entering the warehouse of Robert Howell, and stealing fifty yards of cashmere and fifty reels of silk.
BACON PLEADED GUILTY .
JAMES CHARLES BEASLEY . I am a traveller in the employment of Burnell and Co., silk agents, 5, Falcon Square—Mr. Howell occupies a warehouse on the first floor immediately under ours—on 15th March, about half-past five, as I was going downstairs I saw Mr. Howell's boy
locking up his door—I went out, and returned in about a quarter of an hour—before I reached the premises I saw some one leaving with this parcel on his shoulder—I am not able to say who that person was because the parcel was on his shoulder, which hid his face from me—went upstairs, and on the stairs I saw Bacon; at the same time I saw Mr. Howell's door open—I had some conversation with Bacon—he ran away—I followed him—he was eventually stopped, and brought back and I gave him into custody.
Cross-examined by MR. ST. GERANS. I was just at the bottom of the stairs leading to Mr. Howell's premises when I saw the prisoner leaving with the parcel.
THOMAS BRAKE (City Policeman). I am a plain clothes patrol—on the morning of 15th March, about half-past ten, I was outside an ice cream shop in Maidenhead Court—I saw Bacon, Reed, and Hutchings there—I kept observation on them for some time—they went to various streets in the City—they also went into several warehouses, but I did not get close to them, I could not see what they did, they had nothing when they went in or came out—they returned to the ice-shop about twelve, and remained there till about three—Hutchings in the meantime came out and went away by himself; Bacon and Reed went out and returned to the shop a little after five; they had nothing with them then—I left the shop at a quarter-past five—just before six I heard something, and went to Moor Lane Police-station a few minutes after six, I there saw Bacon in custody—I immediately returned to the ice shop with Cook, and saw Reed and Hutchings together—I said to Reed, "I am a police officer; what is your name?"—he said, "Reed"—I then asked Hutchings his name—he replied, "My name is Hutchings"—I said, "Where do you work?"—they both said, "Nowhere"—I said to Reed, "There is a man in custody at Moor Lane Police-station charged with breaking and entering a wareroom close by; I shall take you to the station and charge you with being concerned with him"—neither, of them made any reply—I directed Cook to take Hutchings, and I took Reed to the station—on the way he said, "What I have done I have been led into by another man"—when I got to the station I placed him in the dock by the side of Bacon—Hutchings then said, "If you will come with me I will go and get the stuff"—I went with him in company with Sergeant Lythal and Cook to Middle Street, Cloth Fair—Hutchings knocked at the door of No. 4, and this parcel was handed to him; I did not see who handed it to him, I saw the hand, but not the face—Hutchings merely knocked at the door, and waited about two seconds, and the parcel was brought to him—I was not near enough to hear what was said—I think the door was opened about half way—after the door was closed I went to the door and knocked: it was opened by Wessendorff; I said, "I am a police officer; you have just given this parcel to this lad, "pointing to Hutchings, who was close to me at the time—Wessendorff said, "Me, no"—I said to Hutchings, "Who handed you this parcel?" he pointed to Wessendorff, who then said, "Yes, he gave it to me to mind for him about half. an-hour ago"—he was then taken to the station and charged with receiving it with Hutchings—No. 4 is a private house—his wife is living there—at the station I said to Hutchings, "Where did you receive the parcel?—he said, "At the door of the warehouse in Falcon Street"—that is close to Falcon Square—he said, "I did not go inside myself"—
he said nothing further—Reed was in the dock at this time; he could hear what was said; he made no reply.
Cross-examined by MR. ST. GERANS. I watched Bacon and Reed altogether three hours on Tuesday, and the three a little while on Monday—I thought their conduct suspicious; they were spending a great deal of time in the ice shop—it is a custom in the street to put a card in the window, "A Boy Wanted"—I understood to whom Reed referred when he said he had been led into it by another man; it was not Bacon—I have made inquiries about Reed—I find he has occupied several respectable situations.
Cross-examined by MR. CRISPE. I was about a dozen yards from Wessendorff's door; it was opened from the inside; it might have been fully opened—Hutchings knocked in the ordinary way; he gave no signal—when he and Reed were confronted with Wessendorff at the station Reed said, "I don't know the man; he had nothing to do with it; he only had the parcel to mind, and he had no idea it was stolen"—he has been out on bail; his master, Mr. McGregor, became bail for him—he had been with him about six years—I went to his house and saw his mother; he lives with her; she offered to let me go over the house—I have seen him once or twice' while he has been out on bail, and spoken to him; he told me he had known Hutchings some time; they are neighbours—he said this was the first time he had taken a parcel to mind.
REED, HUTCHINGS, and WESSENDORFF— NOT GUILTY .
BACON PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction for burglary— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. KYD Prosecuted.
JAMES MARSHALL . I live at 168, Cornwall Road, Notting Hill, and am a boot machinist—on 20th March, before going to bed, I locked up my house and fastened all the windows, and locked and bolted the door and turned the gas off at the meter—I went to bed about half-past twelve—I came down next morning about eight o'clock—I found the gas alight in the front kitchen, the kitchen door leading to the area open, a cash-box turned upside down and open on the table, the inside of it was taken out—the night before that cash-box was locked in a bureau in the kitchen—I found that a square of glass in a back room window leading into the basement had been taken out and laid on the ground; it was large enough for a person to get through without undoing the window—the glass had been cracked previously—in the cash-box there had been about £7, the money of a club—I also missed from a drawer a canvas bag with £12 10s. in gold and silver; and a gold watch and two gold signet rings—at the foot of the bureau on the floor I picked up a piece of tobacco that had evidently been chewed—in the garden at the back of the house I noticed in my fowls' run, which is not covered at the top, but is wired at the sides, footprints and prints of something round; they were too large to be made by an ordinary wooden leg; but I came to the conclusion that they were made by some one who had a
deformed foot or a wooden leg; they were perfectly round holes, the size of a tumbler at the top—there were several such marks; there was a boot mark close to one—the person must have come over the wall into the fowls' run, walked along that, got over the wire on to a seat just outside it—I traced the footmarks from the wall to that seat—the window is about six yards from the seat—there were no marks from the seat to the window, because it is very hard ground—we traced the footmarks over the adjoining garden and two other gardens, and saw wire that had been broken, where someone had come through—a few days afterwards a constable brought the prisoner to my house and compared the marks with the prisoner's wooden leg; the leg fitted the marks; it stood up in them—the constable covered the marks up to keep them clear and distinct.
Cross-examined by the prisoner, I measured the height of the wall this morning; it is between six and seven feet—the other walls before you get to my place are about three feet high.
JAMES DOWNEY (228 F). On 25th March I was in plain clothes, and about a quarter to eight p.m. I met the prisoner in Oxford Street—I told him I was a police officer, and should take him into custody for being concerned with two other men, in custody, in breaking and entering 168, Cornwall Road, on 20th March—he said, "I suppose I must accompany you to the station. Do I look like a burglar?"—on the way to the station he said, "Who are the other men? Is one Skedgel?"—I said, "Yes"—he was one of those in custody—he said, "Who is the other?—I said I did not know—he said, "Is he tall or short?"—I said I did not know—the same evening I went to 168, Cornwall Road, with the prísoner and the Inspector—the prisoner voluntarily took off his wooden leg and handed it to the inspector—we compared the footmarks with it; they corresponded exactly—the leg exactly fitted in the marks, which were about one inch deep—on the way back to the station the prisoner said, "What time did it happen?".—I said I did not know—he said, "I can prove I was in bed at a quarter to one"—the bottom of the leg was wood; it was not shod.
Cross-examined. I did not tell you I had caught Skedgel and the other man at Lincoln.
JAMES NEWMAN (Inspector X). On 20th March I was called to 168, Cornwall Road, about nine a.m.—I found a pane of glass had been re' moved from a window in the basement at the rear of the house—in the kitchen I found the bureau open, and one of the drawers pulled out, and a quid of tobacco—in the fowls' run I found marks, apparently made by a wooden leg or a deformed foot—I traced the marks across three gardens to a high wall at the entrance of Elgin Mews—on the 25th I went with the prisoner and the constable to the yard, and compared the marks with the prisoner's wooden stump which he wears on his left foot; it exactly corresponds with the holes—I took a mould of the marks by running plaster of paris into the holes—the prisoner said tome, "There are several other holes; they are made by the heel of a boot;"they did not look as if they were; they were round holes, and there was no indication of any other part of the boot—some part of the ground in the fowls' run was soft, and there was a very distinct impression; there was a mark of the right boot, and then a hole; there was nothing like the
impression of a sole of a boot attached to the hole, and in my opinion it could not have been made by the heel of a boot.
Cross-examined. There were several marks of boots over the fowl's run; I should think another party had been there; a boot, apparently worn on the right foot, appeared to accompany the holes.
JOHN PENN (63 F). On 20th March I was on duty in Blenheim Crescent, Notting Hill, and about 12.50 a.m. I saw the prisoner about 150 yards from Cornwall Road, proceeding in the direction of Portobello Road with another man—about 1.10 I saw him again in the same crescent near Portobello Road—I saw him again at twenty minutes to two in the Cornwall Road.
Cross-examined. You appeared to be under the influence of drink; I cannot say whether or not you were drunk.
Cross-examined. I gave Neal a key of my father's desk for the purpose of robbing him; I went with Neal and Skedgel on the Friday, with the intention of robbing my father—I have been discharged from several situations for drunkenness, not for dishonesty—I have not asked people to go and rob my father; Neal and Skedgel asked me to go, and I went.
By the' COURT. The two men pressed ms to go—I was frightened when they pressed me; I said I would not go, but afterwards I said I would, because they called me a coward.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he knew nothing of how the marks came in the garden, and asserted that it would be easy to make them for the purpose of getting someone else into trouble.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. DRUMMOND Prosecuted.
EDWARD SMITH (336 J). On Sunday morning, 27th March, about twenty minutes past two, I was in Green Street, Bethnal Green, and noticed the prisoner and two other men coming one way and one going the other; they met about fifty yards from me, and the person nearest to the man going along by himself struck him on the side of the face and knocked him into the gutter, and all three set upon him—the one who had knocked him down held him down, and the other two rifled his pockets—I could recognise two, the one I caught and one of those who got away—I saw the prisoner rifling the man's pockets—I ran up, and when I got within five yards the one holding him down said, "Look out, here's a copper," and they ran up Smart Street—the prisoner tried to throw me over him, but I held him down till I got my breath, and then picked him up and brought him back to the prosecutor, who was kind of senseless—I said, "Are you going to charge this man?"—he said, "Yes"—the prisoner had on the hat which was owned by the prosecutor—I took the prisoner to the station; when charged he said he did not know the man, he had never seen him in his life before; he said he had been set about by three men, and that he had got in the scuffle before this happened, and that he was coming along at the time this affair happened, but there were only three persons with him at the time this happened—I asked him
why lie ran away, and he said he did not wish to get into trouble—he might have had a couple of glasses, but he was not drunk.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You fell down in Moss Street, 100 or 120 yards from Green Street—you had no hat at the station; it fell off when you threw yourself in front of me, and was lying there when I went hack again—this is the prosecutor's hat—the prosecutor was 120 or 130 yards off when I picked up the hat—it could not have rolled from him to where I found it—it took about a quarter of an hour to walk from Green Street to Bethnal Green Station, about ten minutes to make the charge out against you, and about a quarter of an hour for me to walk back; but the hat was lying in a very bye-street, through which I have only seen one person pass in the morning before six o'clock—I saw the prosecutor's hat on your head when you Were running—I did not charge you at the station with stealing it, because I did not know it was his hat till he came to the station and identified it—then I told the Magistrate about it—he altered the charge to highway robbery—I saw you rifling the prosecutor's pockets—I did not see you strike any blow.
By the COURT. At the Police-court the prisoner said, "Is that my hat?"—I said, "No; it is the prosecutor's hat"—he said, "It is my hat, why don't you give me it?"—I asked him afterwards if he could identify his hat, and he said it was a hat with a blue lining—this hat never had a lining, because of this coat-of-arms on it—he first claimed this, and afterwards said it had been taken up in mistake—I have made no mistake about this hat having rolled off his head when he fell in front of me.
Re-examined. I saw no other hat—Green Street is a busy thoroughfare, in a not very respectable locality, and a hat would be picked up there—the prosecutor was knocked senseless with the first blow—I have no doubt that the prisoner was one of the three men; there was no one. else in the street.
JAMES AGENBAUM . I live at 43, Preston Street, Green Street—on 27th March, about two a.m., I was coming along Green Street, when three men seized on me at the corner of a turning and knocked me down, and put their hands over my mouth and eyes, and felt down this side pocket and halfway down this one—I had seven shillings and ninepence in my pocket; I did not lose it—this is my hat which I was wearing on that night—I was the worse for drink.
Cross-examined. The men did not shove me down in passing; they rushed from the corner—I could not tell if you rifled my pockets or struck me; there were three of you, and you put your hands over my face, and I could not tell one from the other—the inspector asked me if you were one, and I said it was all the three of you—I told him I had not lost any money—I did not see my hat on the ground; I was too excited to look for it—after the charge was booked at the station I came back with the constable, and found this hat by the turning where you tried to rough the copper over—I did not see my hat when I saw you in custody—the constable was struggling with the prisoner about fourteen feet away from me; a little longer distance than the length of this Court—I saw no hat till I came back with the constable, and then I saw this, and said it was mine.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I know nothing of the
prosecutor and the men who did take advantage of him; I never saw them before. "
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had an altercation with three men, and that two of them followed him, and pushed the prosecutor down, and that he (the prisoner) thought he had better get away.
He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony at this Court in September, 1881, in the name of Thomas Nash.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
EDWARD SMITH and GEORGE SMITH PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. DRUMMOND Prosecuted.
REUBEN RUBENSTEIN . I live at 12, Brick Lane, Spitalfields—at nearly 12.30 a.m. on 29th March I was called down, and I found my window broken, and cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco lying on the pavement—the shutters were down—I had shut up the shutters before going up to bed—this box of cigars is mine—I had cigars like these in my shop that night.
JOHN LONSDALE . I live at 10, Brick Lane—about 12.20 a.m. on 29th March I was in Brick Lane, and I saw the prisoner lifting down Mr. Rubenstein's shutters—two men who were with him were looking about, going away and then coming back again; they spoke to him, and then they went on to the other side—I went to the corner of the court to look for a policeman, when Mrs. Rubenstein came out and shouted "Police!" and the men ran away—the prisoner had some cigar-boxes like this under his arm—I had been to the Drury Lane Theatre that night.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. The policeman saw you running, and ran after you.
SAMUEL LONSDALE . I am the brother of the last witness, and was with him in Brick Lane on this night—I saw Mrs. Rubenstein, and I saw the prisoner running with some boxes of cigars under his arm, and a policeman running after him—I did not see whether the policeman caught him.
Cross-examined. I saw somebody running with you when you ran down Wentworth Street—the policeman did not call me aside when I went into the Police-station.
JOHN DAVIS (295 H). I was on duty on this night, after twelve, in Brick Lane—I heard glass smash; I went to the spot and saw three men; Goulton was taking the stuff out from the shop and handing it to the two Smiths—I went towards them, and when I was a few yards off I heard one of them say, "Look out!"—they all ran away across Brick Lane and down Wentworth Street—I followed Goulton, whom I caught and brought back—I told him I wanted him; he said, "All right, I will come back with you"—he came back—he said, "I don't know anything about that job"—when I got him back a few yards to Brick Lane he struggled and got away—I was tripped up by a woman—the prisoner was rearrested by Roper.
and another constable came up, and we took him to the station—a key was found on him—he said nothing when charged.
Cross-examined. I saw you all three together running down Wentworth Street about 12.15.
Cross-examined. I saw Smith running down Wentworth Street, but did not see you—I saw you in their company at 11.15, all standing together in Brick Lane.
By the COURT. I have no doubt about him; I know them all three by sight well—I have no doubt they were together at 11.15.
—He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in January, 1890, in the name of Alfred Clark— Eight Months' Hard Labour.
EDWARD SMITH** and GEORGE SMITH** also PLEADED GUILTY to convictions of felony. EDWARD SMITH— Three Years' Penal Servitude. GEORGE SMITH— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. PASSMORE Prosecuted.
JOHN ROBINSON (Constable West India Docks). About 11.15 on 29th March I was on duty at the Black wall entrance to the West India Dock when the prisoner came on to Black wall Bridge, waited two or three seconds, and threw herself over the bridge into the lock—with the assistance of some gatemen she was got out and given over to the Metropolitan Police—she had been drinking—I think she knew what she was about—she was taken to the station and charged—she said she would do the same directly she got out—at the Police-court she said she would do it again as soon as she got free.
By the COURT. She was in drink when she made the statement at the Police-station.
HENRY COPEMAN (601 K). On the night of 29th March I was called by Robinson, and I took the prisoner to the station—she was charged; she said if she was let out the next morning she would go and do it again—I believe she had been drinking—she knew perfectly well what she was doing and saying—she attempted to commit suicide on 9th January last, in the same dock—on that occasion she was discharged—her mother promised to look after her—the prisoner then said she would not do it again.
The prisoner, in her defence, stated that last time she wanted to go into a Home, but that her mother took her home, where she knew she could not be happy; for although her mother and father were kind to her, her brothers and sisters were not, and threw into her face what she had been; that on this occasion she was in drink, and did not know what she had done.
GUILTY . The JURY expressed a hope that something might be done for the prisoner.— Discharged on recognisances.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, April 6th, 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
JOSEPH— Six Months Hard Labour. OSCAR— To enter into recognisances to come up for judgment when callea upon. And
MR. KYD Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended. ALEXANDER MCMULLEN. In December last I was a detective officer of Scotland Yard—on December 11th, about 12.30 p.m., I was in Mornington Road, in plain clothes, and saw the prisoner standing outside the garden-gate of No. 66—I crossed over to the opposite side to one of the front gardens, and kept observation on him—he left the gate and walked to Park Street, and then came back into Mornington Road again; then to Park Street and Albany Street on to the Canal Bridge, where he opened his coat—I stopped him and said, "What are you loitering about here for at this time of morning?"—he said, "Loitering; what do you mean?" and drew this jemmy from his inside coat pocket, and raised it to strike me; I caught his wrist with my left hand and blew my whistle, and Ainger came up—he then said, "I will go quietly now you have come"—we took him to the station, and I charged him—he said he was a horse dealer, and that the jemmy was a shoe-horn which he used to pull the shoes off the horses' feet, and this knife, which was found on him, was for cutting horses' tails—this rope was found on him, which he said was for leading a horse, and the bag was for carrying a I saddle in; also this box of matches, they are not silent ones—he was taken before a Magistrate the same day, remanded for a week, and bailed—he did not surrender on the 18th, and the recognisances were estreated—I arrested him at Ipswich this month—he was detained there by the police.
Cross-examined. The officer who came up was in uniform—there were only two of us—I will not swear whether I told him at first that I was an officer; it was my duty to do so—he gave me a correct address; it was not at the house of a constable, but he had been a constable some years before—the key I found on him was the latch-key of that house.
ARTHUR AINGER (333 S). On September 11th I was on duty at the York and Albany Bridge, Regent's Park, and heard a whistle—I crossed, and saw the prisoner holding a jemmy in his hand, and I saw McMullen seize it—I went up to them—the prisoner said, "Now you have come I will go quietly"—I took him in custody.
Cross-examined. He went very quietly to the station.
THOMAS BANNISTER (Police Sergeant S). This jemmy is an instrument such as is used by burglars; this knife is such as is used to put between the window-shutters to push back the catch, and that is the way it gets worn—this rope is put round the window-bars to prize the shutter-bars to enable them to get through.
Cross-examined. I have seen table-knives worn at the top and back in this way, and they often get them ground—I believe the prisoner gave a correct address, but he absconded from his bail—burglars do not always have quieter matches than these; they are not silent matches, there are no silent matches.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FOSTER Prosecuted.
JAMES COBB (119 G). On 8th March, about 3.30 a.m., I was in Red lion Street, Clerkenwell, and saw the prisoners—Wilson was carrying a sack—I asked what he had got—he said he did not know—I said I must see what it was—he put it on the pavement; I examined it and found two boxes of cigars, a mirror, and other articles—I looked at him and said, "What have you in your breast pocket?"—he said, "I picked that up by the side of it"—he gave his address 15, Red Lion Street—I took him to the station—he said he picked them up in Farringdon Street, just by the Eagle public-house—the other man walked away.
Cross-examined by Merrett. I asked Wilson whether you were with him when he picked them up, but he made no answer—I could not take two; I kept Wilson in tow; he said nothing about you—you did not stay till I went away.
WILLIAM COOPER (Police Sergeant G). I took Merrett at St. George's Barracks; he was in the Light Infantry at the time—he said he knew nothing about it; he was there, but he was not in the job—he afterwards said he could prove where he was on the morning of the 8th.
Cross-examined by Merrett You said that at the Police-station; but at the Police-court you said you met Wilson in the Farringdon Road.
HARRY FREDERICK MARLOW . I am a glass blower of 5, Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell—on 8th March I came home at 12.45 and went to bed—my workshop was fastened up—at eight a.m. one of my apprentices told me something, and I went down and found the door broken open—I missed a looking-glass, about three dozen thermometers, two boxes of cigars, three dozen thermometer tubes, an album, and other articles, and a certificate of my birth—I value them at £5 or £6.
THOMAS RICE . I am night porter at a common lodging-house in clerkenwell—on 8th March, about three a.m., I was in the kitchen, and the two prisoners came in and asked me for a bed—I told them I had none—Merrett asked me to take a bag off them—I said, "No; take it somewhere else where you are going"—a few minutes afterwards I went to the door to call a man, and a constable was there; that was about 3.35—Merrett tried to give me something, but what it was I do not know—I went to call a man, and when I came back a policeman let me in, and at about 6 45 Merrett came, and I told him to get out as quick as he could—he said I was a nice one not to take the stuff of him so as to clear himself.
Cross-examined by Merrett. You knocked at the door, and asked whether I would take a bag—I said, "No; take it somewhere else"—you had a bag in your hand, and tried to put something in my pocket.
The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Wilson says: "I found the bag in Baker's Row. "Merrett says: "I met Wilson in Farringdon Road; he told me had picked up a bag, and went to the door of the lodging-house, and the policeman came up and took Wilson."Wilson produced a written defence, stating that he had been walking the streets for three nights, and picked up the bag about 3.15 a.m., opposite the Eagle; that he then met Merrett, and the constable came up and asked what
he had got, and he said he did not know. Merrett, in his defence, said that he walked about all night because he had nowhere to go; that he met Wilson, who said he had picked up a bag, and the constable came up and asked what was in the bag, and Wilson said he did not know, but he would have a look, and pulled the glasses out of his pocket, and gave them to the constable, stating that Merrelt was not with him when he picked them up, upon which he went away, and on the Monday enlisted as a soldier.
MERRETT** then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on January 6,1890. WILSON— Six Months' Hard Labour. MERRETT— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, April 7th, 1892.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins,
MESSRS. F. FULTON and ELDRIDGE Prosecuted, and MR. HILL Defended.
GRACE RUSSELL . I am a housemaid in the family of Mr. Hensman, of Harrow; the prisoner is his wife—the family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Hensman, a little boy named Harry Le Brun, aged nine, myself, and another servant—on the 26th February the prisoner went to bed at seven in the evening, she had a bad headache—Mr. Hensman came home between ten and eleven—next morning the prisoner got up about seven—I took her up some hot water to wash, and went down—when I went up again she had got the boy out of bed, and asked me to help drew him; we put on his white shirt, his best trousers, and flannels underneath—she told me to get his best clothes, because she was going to take him out—they went down to breakfast-as she was going down she called out to me to get her dress and brush—I went back to the same room and got her dress out of the wardrobe, and went down into the kitchen to brush it; it was very damp, and I went into the breakfastroom to ask her if I should dry it, and found the door was locked; I knocked at the door, and was going away, hen she opened it and I went in—I saw that she was looking very pale—I saw the child lying flat on the floor with his head against the table—my mistress looking at me said, I "This comes of not speaking the truth; mind you always speak the truth," and then she said, "Run and tell Mr. Hensman I want him"—I went upstairs to him, he was in bed; I told him mistress wanted him; he came down at once—mistress was in the breakfast-room, the door was a little way open—Mr. Hensman spoke to her, and told me to run for a doctor immediately—I went, and came back with Dr. Goddard and my master in a cab; he had gone for a doctor as well—as we returned my mistress was coming out at the gate—Mr. Hensman had put a towel round her throat; she was holding her hands up to her throat.
Cross-examined. I had been seventeen months in the service—during that time she had been very kind to the child and very fond of him—when she opened the door to me she appeared calm, but was very pale—she looked very peculiar about the eyes that morning; so much SO, it attracted my attention.
of Mr. Hensman—on arriving there I found the prisoner, about ten feet from the gate, dressed, in her slippers, and a shawl over her head—I endeavoured to induce her to return, but finding that she would not, I went into the house to see if I could render assistance to the boy—a communication had been made to me before I got there—I went in at the back door, and at once went to the breakfast-room; I there found the boy lying on the floor with his throat cat, quite dead—the body was lying near the window, his head near the window, his feet under the table—there were two distinct pools of blood; one near the feet, the other by the head—the wound in the throat was the cause of death—I found this knife on the table; it is an old carver, used as a bread-knife; it was covered with wet blood—seeing that I could be of no assistance, I locked the door and went in search of the prisoner—I found her in an unoccupied house, about 85 yards from her own home—I asked her to return with me—she at first declined to do so unless accompanied by a female; she said she thought somebody would kill her—I went outside and procured the. help of Mrs. Philpot, a woman outside—I did not examine her neck minutely, I just looked at it and covered it up immediately; I found a wound on the neck two inches long; there was no severe bleeding then; no large vessels had been severed—she was conveyed to her own house and put to bed—she said she had never been cruel before, she had that morning—I had not said anything to her about what I had seen in the breakfast-room—I had occasion to attend the prisoner professionally since December, 1890, from time to time for slight ailments—on the 26th February, the day preceding this occurrence, she called to see me at my surgery and had a conversation with me; it was of such a nature that I kept this memorandum of it—at half-past three p.m. she was shown into the surgery with her little boy—she said at once, "I wish to speak to you privately," so I took her into a dressing-room—she then said, "Have you ever heard that I am mad?"—I said, "No; why, does anyone accuse you of being mad?"—she said, "Oh, yes; people are saying that I am insane; but you don't think so, do you?"—not thinking so then, I replied in the negative—I had no reason at that time to believe so—she said, "It is no reason because my father committed suicide, and my mother in an asylum, that I must be mad too; is it?"—I replied, "No"I then endeavoured to get her to name authorities for her statement that she was insane; but this was evaded—she was a good deal troubled in her mind, but was not outwardly much affected, from the fact that a former servant of hers, two or three years ago, had stolen a sovereign, she referred to that incidentally, and seemed troubled about it—I said that was a long time ago, and not worth while bothering about—she went on to speak about people libelling her and charging her with being a drunkard; and she inquired whether I did not think it was a dreadful accusation to make against anybody—that, I think, terminated the interview; it lasted about a quarter of an hour—I asked her to send her husband to me; that was in consequence of the impression left on my mind at the close of the interview; I wanted to see him as soon as possible—I formed the opinion, from that interview, that she was commencing to be of unsound mind—her husband did not come that evening, and I did not see her again till the next day.
Cross-examined. It was because I thought her conversation was. so
strange that I asked to see her husband; he came next morning—I think I told him his wife was a little off her head the day before, or words to that effect, and that she appeared strange—at that moment she was certainly not sane.
JOSEPH COOPER (Inspector X). On 27th February I accompanied Dr. Goddard to the prisoner's house—I went into the breakfast-room and saw the dead body of the little boy and this knife—I then went to the prisoner's bedroom; I said I was sorry to see her so ill, and I asked her if she wished to say anything to me in reference to the case—she said, "I am desirous of making a statement to show my reasons for taking the life of my boy, my idolised child, whose life I have taken in a moment of desperation, thinking that his sanity was being questioned; and fearing he would be torn away from me and put in an asylum, and perhaps ill-treated, was more than I could bear, and I hope my heavenly Father will forgive me for what I have done; I think that is all I have to say"—I asked her if she had been having any words with her husband—she said, "I and my husband have had no words at all; I got up first and went down stairs to have breakfast with my little boy, who did not know I was going to kill him, as I did it in a moment of frenzy; he was nine years old on 11th September last; I have always been of a very high-strung and nervous temperament, and particularly sensitive. "
PHILIP FRANCIS GILBERT . I am medical officer of H. M. prison at Holloway—the prisoner has been under my observation almost every day since 9th March, when she came there—I knew that she was charged with murder, and I had the depositions sent to me, which I perused—I was of opinion, and am still, that she is of unsound mind, and could not appreciate the nature and quality of the act she was doing.
GUILTY of the act, but insane at the time.— Ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
He PLEADED GUILTY to the Second Count.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
NEW COURT.—Thursday, April 7th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. SANDS Prosecuted, and MR. LEVER Defended.
ROBERT ALLEN BAILEY REYNOLDS . I live at the Shrubbery, Barking, Essex—on Saturday, September 12th, 1891, I was a passenger from Fenchurch Street to George Lane, near Woodford—I had a brown leather Gladstone-bag, about twenty-two inches long, with a strap and a brass lock, with my initials—I also had a portmanteau, which arrived
safely—the bag contained a coat and vest, a sponge and bag, a nailbrush, a dressing-case, and some iron dumb—bells covered with leather; most of the clothes were marked with my name in full, and so was the sponge-bag—I gave the bag to a porter, but did not see him put it into the train—when I got to George Lane Station my bag was not to be found—these things (produced) are mine; this sponge-bag is marked with my name in full; this handkerchief is marked with my initials, and this coat and waistcoat—the total value of what I lost is £20 3s. 6d., and the value of what I have found is about £3.
Cross-examined. No attempt has been made to alter any of the initials.
ALFRED MOORE . I am a porter at Fenchurch Street Station—on a Saturday last September Mr. Reynolds gave me a bag and portmanteau—the train was going to George Lane at 6.8; it would stop at Stepney—I labelled them for George Lane, and put them into the break van—I know Stepney Station; I have been there twenty-three years; the train would stop very near the head of the stairs where people go in and out.
Cross-examined. It was a fast train—I am not certain whether it would stop at Stratford and Leytonstone—there is always a porter to take the tickets opposite the exit of Stepney Station.
JOHN MAY . I am a guard on the Great Eastern Bail way, and keep a train book, giving an account of what time the trains start and when they stop—on Saturday, September 12th, I was the rear guard of the 6.3 train; I was in charge of the luggage van—we stopped at Stepney at 6.10, and my van stopped rather beyond the staircase—I had to get out there and help people, and shut the doors, leaving the van door open, and no one with it—my back was turned to it—Stepney is a small station, and there is not a large staff of servants—a number of passengers get out there, and there would be more on a Saturday afternoon.
Cross-examined. The 6.3 stopped at Stratford and Leyton—anyone taking a bag would have to pass along the Stepney platform, and there was a porter to take the tickets—I did not notice the prisoner about the platform.
Re-examined, There were a number of people getting in and out—it is not the porter's duty to stop anyone who shows his ticket.
EMILY BURLING . I am the wife of Frederick Burling, of 3, Prince's Place, North Street, Limehouse—in August and September I was living at 13, Kirk's Place, Limehouse, which is near Stepney Station in August and September last the prisoner and his wife lodged with me; they lodged there in August and September for about six weeks, and left at the end of September or the beginning of October—he used to go out about 9.10 and come home between seven and eight—he did not tell me what he was—a man named Rymel used to come to see him—my little girl's birthday is September 15th of and on the Saturday before that the prisoner and Mr. Rymel came home with a young man who was carrying a bag, the prisoner was very tight; he took a brown bag from the lad and gave him some money—the bag stopped there two or three days—I did not see it in his room; I did not go in—next day I heard something about a reward; I spoke to Mrs. Onslow about it, but not to the prisoner; she went upstairs; it was after nine a.m.—I did not see the bag tilt the evening, when Rymel and the prisoner came, and Rymel said, "Fetch my bag down"; the little girl brought it down, and Rymel put it on a chair, and afterwards left the house with it—the prisoner
remained in the house a fortnight or three weeks after that—I next saw Rymel in Osborne's public-house; he took a public-house after that.
Cross-examined. I only knew Rymel by his coming backwards and forwards to the prisoner; I know nothing against him—the prisoner moved into my house from the house which he kept, he was only with me two months; he now keeps the Three Mariners—he has a wife and ten children; nine of them lived at my house—he did not complain to me that things were missing from his rooms, or that he locked up his rooms to prevent it—my husband comes home at all hours from five o'clock to eleven—I was first spoken to about this, last Thursday fortnight; I have no doubt it was September 12th, because it was the Saturday before my little girl's birthday, and I told the constable so—I first heard of the £5 reward on the following Monday or Tuesday—it was a very large bag, the boy could scarcely carry it—that was between six and seven p.m.; it was getting dark—there was a lamp, but I cannot say whether it was lighted—I am certain the bag was brown—this bag (a black one) is the one Mrs. Onslow goes to market with; it was bigger than this, like a portmanteau, with a handle in the middle.
Re-examined. He had two rooms at four shillings and sixpence a week; the whole of the nine children lived there—there is no foundation for saying that I or anyone took things from his room, nor has he ever charged me with it.
EMILY BURLING , the younger. I am Mrs. Burling's niece—I was living with her last September—Mr. and Mrs. Onslow had rooms there, and a Mr. Rymel used to come to see them—on the Saturday before my little cousin's birthday, Rymel and the prisoner came between six and seven p.m.; they had a lad with them with a bag, which they took upstairs—Rymel afterwards went out by himself, and the prisoner went out with his wife about a quarter of an hour after the bag was brought; each had a parcel—I went up to their room and saw a brown leather bag open and half full of clothes—I saw a pair of iron dumb—bells in the house, covered with white washleather, and some scented soap, and a toothbrush like this (produced)—I never saw any scented soap in the room before the bag came—I used to go into the room sometimes, but I never saw the dumb—bells there before—I went up after they went out, because one of the children called me—they took the bag out on the Monday or Tuesday night—I had heard about a reward, but I had not spoken about it to the prisoner—Rymel was a respectable gentleman, with bushy whiskers.
Cross-examined. I do not know whether Rymel was a general dealer—the bag was under the window; there was no attempt at concealing it.
HENRY GOLDSWORTHY . I am assistant to Mr. Ashbridge, a pawnbroker, at 508, Commercial Road, Ratcliff—I produce a duplicate for this coat and waistcoat (produced), pawned for eleven shillings on 12th September, in the evening, in the name of John Webb, 10, Belgrave Street—I gave them up to the police—I cannot identify the prisoner; it was the last pledge taken in, and we leave off at 9.30.
Cross-examined. There are a good many people about Limehouse who sell odds and ends of clothing; they job about, selling things to sailors—I do not know Rymel—there was nothing extraordinary in the coat; we have plenty of seafaring customers who wear very good clothes.
Inspector Steward to search the prisoner's premises, the Three Mariners, and in a box in a sitting-room behind the bar I found a gentleman's white handkerchief, with the initials "R. A. B. R."—I went upstairs and found this sponge-bag and brushes, with the name on the bag.—I met the prisoner that afternoon in Arbour Square, and said, "Onslow, I am a police officer; I have received information that in September last you stole a Gladstone-bag from the railway, and you pawned a coat and waistcoat at Mr. Ashbridge's which were in it; I hate searched your house this morning, and found this sponge, and bag, and brushes"—he said, "I know nothing about the charge; I bought the things of Mr. Charles Rymel; this is a conspiracy"—I took him to the station—he said, "Have you seen Mr. Rymel? Don't forget I had the brushes at Woolwich"—he did not tell me where Rymel lived—it is common knowledge that Rymel is dead—I know Mrs. Burling's house; it is within a mile of Stepney Station, and about the same from the pawnbroker's.
Cross-examined. I did not go or send to Victoria Park Hospital—Rymel died in the Union on the 15th, and I arrested the prisoner on the 18th—he was not coming to give himself up; I sent an officer to call him out of the public-house; he referred me to the dead man.
Re-examined. I have identified Rymel as the man who died in the Union on March 15th; a man had a summons to appear at the inquest.
The prisoner's brother gave him a good character.
GUILTY — Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted, and MR. FORREST FULTON Defended, The prisoners received good characters.
— NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, April 7M, 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
436. WILLIAM BREESE (34) , Unlawfully conspiring with Max Brenner and others to give a false character, so that he should receive a good character, and that thereby George Tully and others should be induced to employ him as barman.
MESSRS. BODKIN and TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted.
Cross-examined. I went to the house about a dozen times in the two years I should think—before last November I had not been there for nearly twelve months, as near as I can recollect.
By the JURY. I received no consideration for lending my name.
Cross-examined. I did not find you dishonest during the time you were in my house—I don't remember you saying you were going back to Mr. Morley, your late employer—I did not see you drunk—I could not say how much short the stock was—we employed five people, including you, behind the bar—stock is taken once a month—I never saw you after you left.
Re-examined. The other four people had not been in our employment
for very long—the stock had been found all right at the previous stocktaking in October, and in September it was correct—we reckon that the stock ought to come out at 45 per cent, of the profits, and it only came out in November at a little over 30.
By the JURY. We had good characters with the other four assistants; two of them, barmaids, are there now; the barmen I cannot answer for—I have left there myself, and I cannot say how the stocktaking came out in January or December—I can only speak as to the deficiency in stock from what Mr. Watts told me—it is a full-priced house, with no jug or bottle trade—forty-five is about the highest percentage we can reckon—I cannot say what the returns were per month.
Cross-examined. I said at the Police-court that it was you who gave me the character, but by mistake the name Brenner was put on the depositions—I saw you once; and there was an interval of perhaps two months before I saw you again in the Police-court—I saw Brenner at the Police-court for the first time; he does not resemble you, he is an elderly man.
Re-examined. I gave evidence on 17th February and then on 24th; I was recalled to put right the mistake that had been made between Breese and Brenner; I had called Mr. Child's attention to it in the interval—I have not the slightest doubt Breese is the man I saw on 12th December, and who said he was Mr. Morley.
By the Prisoner. I heard Diprose swear last Session that you were not the man who gave the reference.
Cross-examined. I had a hint from my daughter about your dishonesty—I told you you were too old—I gave you a sovereign.
By the JURY. The prisoner did not tell me whether he had been in any other employment since he had left Mr. Morley—he said he had left Morley a month or six weeks before through illness.
Cross-examined. I dont know if there was any bed for you; you went into the club—room, and sat on a chair, I believe—eight o'clock in the evening is rest time, but you were the worse for liquor—I told you you were drunk—I don't know if you went to bed that night—there was a bed-room.
Re-examined I told him he was not fit for duty, and said he had better go to bed—I said, "You are drunk; go upstairs and have a rest, and try and see if you can behave yourself better when you come down again"—he was drunk again on Monday, and I sent him to bed then.
By the Prisoner. You were expected to get up at 1.30 a.m., and go to bed at eight a.m., and get up at one p.m. and go to bed at eight p.m.—you would have gone to bed in the ordinary course at those times—I believe you told my wife you were not going into the line again when you left me—I believe you told her you were subject to epileptic fits.
By the JURY. He said he had been away from Morley's a fortnight—
he did not tell me he had had any other employment during that fortnight.
FREDERICK EMMERSON repeated in substance his former evidence (see page 602), and added: I saw Brenner and his wife and daughter serving; I never saw any barman—so far as I know no barmen or cellarmen were employed there—hardly any business was done; in fact, Brenner complained to me about the trade; he said he was obliged to give some references, he could not get a living out of the house.
Cross-examined. I never saw you at work there—I was introduced to Brenner at the same time as you were introduced to him—I am not a professional thief—I did not rob the Mason's Arms and get six months—I have been charged with stealing meat when under the influence of drink; I got fourteen days—you were not present when Morley offered to give me a reference; nor when something was said about stuff.
By the JURY. Western introduced me and the prisoner to Brenner at the same time, the last week in October—he said he was taking Bréese there to get a reference, and I walked with them—I did not go to get a situation; I was in employment at the time; I am not in employment now.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (Detective Sergeant, Scotland Yard). I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest, and I arrested him at 54, George Street, Blackfriars, on 9th February—I read the warrant to him; he said, "Yes; I have worked for Morley, and worked very hard, too; I did not think I was doing any harm when I gave him as a reference at other places where I have been employed"—I took him to the Police-station; he was charged, and made no reply—I had been to the house for about nine months prior to the prisoners arrest, to keep observation on Brenner—I never saw Bréese, Diprose, or any one else employed as barman there—I have known the prisoner for the last five years, and should have seen him if he had been employed there as barman—Brenner attended to the business.
Cross-examined. I have known you as manager of a beer-house in Lambeth Walk—you were at the Fountain, St. George's Road, Southwark, for nine or ten months.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had worked for Brenner, whom he knew as Morley, and that he had not received any false character; he denied giving a character to Diprose.
GUILTY of conspiring to obtain situations by false pretences.— Four Months' Imprisonment.
437. WILLIAM CHARLES DIPROSE (25) , Unlawfully conspiring with Max Brenner and others to give a false character, so that he should receive a good character, and that thereby William Bishop and others might be induced to employ him as barman.
MESSRS. BODKIN and TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted.
shorthand writer; he assented, and added: I asked him where he had been living—he said, "At Mr. Morley's, the Old Cheshire Cheese, Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell"—I asked him how long he had been living there—he said, "About nine months, as barman"—I asked his reason for leaving—he said through illness; suffering from an abscess under his arm—when he came to me I told him my rule was I never allowed my barmen to have money while in the bar; that their pockets were to be empty when they were serving—that is rather a common rule—he made no reply—his manner of going to work aroused my suspicion—each time he went to the till he seemed to cast his eyes round to see if anyone was watching him, to see if he put the money in the till—I kept strict watch over him, and told my wife something—she and the head barman were in the bar when I was out.
Cross-examined. You borrowed two shillings of me to go and see a doctor on the Saturday; you were taken ill on Friday; you told me that the doctor told you you had influenza very bad, and inflammation of the kidneys, and on the Sunday you went to Brenner's place; you produced a doctor's certificate to me—I did not read it, because I did not believe a word you said—I knew you were ill because you saw the detective in my place; I only complained to you of intoxication—no wages were due when you left.
Re-examined. I noticed he was intoxicated perhaps a fortnight after he was in my place—I could not sack him at once, or say anything to him, because my wife was ill—it was in the evening I saw he was drunk during the time he should have been behind the bar—I cannot say he was unable to go about his duties—I kept him till his illness prevented him stopping with me any longer.
The evidence given by Frederick Emmerson and John Nolan in the previous case was read to them by the shorthand writer to which they assented.
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (the evidence of this witness in the previous case was read by the shorthand writer. He assented and added): On the evening of 9th January I arrested Diprose in Bear Yard, Lincoln's Inn Fields—I told him I was a police officer, and read the warrant to him—he said, "I have done some odd jobs for Mr. Morley, cleaned his windows, waited on the club—room; he has given me 1s., sometimes half-a-crown. I was in the public-house part of the bar at the Cheshire Cheese when Mr. Remy came for my reference. I did not know that Mr. Morley gave me a reference as being a barman in his employ. I am a fishmonger"—I took him to the Police-station—he made no reply to the charge—I have never seen him at the Old Cheshire Cheese acting as barman.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he did not rely on the public line for his living, but went to it in his spare time; that he had done odd jobs and cellar work for Brenner, and asked him to speak for him; that he had been about fifteen years with licensed victuallers as barman and cellarman, and was never caught acting dishonestly.
GUILTY of conspiring to obtain situations by false character.— Two Months' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Friday, April 8th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder,
MR. GILL Prosecuted.
ALFRED HENRY TILSLEY . I am corresponding clerk in Lloyd's Bank, St. James's Street—on 15th April last this telegram arrived, purporting to come from W. West: in consequence of that I sent a cheque-book containing thirty cheques, numbers 12,181 to 12,210, to Ossington Street, and caused inquiries to be made there, in consequence of which I wrote to Mr. Dalton at Eton, and received this post-card in reply. (Inspector Conquest here proved serving a notice on the prisoner to produce cheque 12,204 and all letters and documents in the case.)—on 11th September, 1891, a cheque for £5 was presented at the bank, signed William West—I made this copy of it—we have a customer named Augustus Wm. West, and the signature was a very fair copy of his—we put "Signature differs"on it, and wrote to Mr. Dalton again, and in reply received this letter, signed Walter Ballard—I sent a copy of it—to Mr. West—the number of the first cheque was 12,304, one of the numbers in the cheque-book—this other cheque, 12,209, was presented on January 6th. (For £5, signed Percy B. Hall.)—there is no such customer—I received this letter, signed Walter Rolland—it is not in reply to any letter of mine—I had been instructed to make inquiries.
HANNAH WRIGHT . I am in service at Great Brington, Northampton—three years ago I was a fellow-servant of the prisoner—I have lent him money when he was out of a situation—in September last I was out of a situation, and wrote a letter to him, asking him to lend me 10s.—I posted it—I was then living at 19, Polsonby Terrace—I got no reply for two or three weeks, and then the prisoner came to see me and threw down a cheque for £5 on the table, and said would I change it for him—he said that £4 18s. was for board wages, and asked me to get my landlady to change it, as he had just returned from Scotland, and only got my letter the night before—I got it cashed at the butcher's, and gave him the money, and he lent me 10s., which I have repaid him since—Mr. Carter afterwards brought the cheque back dishonoured; my. niece, Mrs. Gandy, was present; I saw the names of West and Ballard on it—I then wrote to the prisoner, and told him the cheque had been dishonoured, and unless he sent the money there would be detectives down—I have destroyed his letter, but he promised to send it; I wrote again, and he sent me £3, and said he would send the rest in October, which he did—he has told me that he can write two or three different hands; I have seen him write; I cannot say who this post-card was written by, but this letter (No. 6) is more like his writing—I returned the cheque to him when he sent me the last £2. ANNIE GANDY. I am the wife of James Gandy, of 19, Ponsonby Terrace,
Pimlico, the same house as the last witness; I am her niece—I remember the prisoner coming there last September; he asked her if she could lend him 10s., and offered her a cheque for £5—he said he had got £4 18s. of it for board wages—it was afterwards sent back to Mrs. Wright—it had "Walter Ballard"on the back, and "W. West "at the bottom—before the cheque was sent back I wrote some letters to the prisoner and posted them—I said if he did not send the money for the cheques it would be put into the hands of the detectives; he afterwards sent the £2, and the cheque was sent back to him.
AUGUSTUS WILLIAM WEST . I am an architect, of 3, Grosvenor Street, and keep an account at Lloyd's Bank—this telegram is not in my writing, nor was it sent by my authority; I never saw it till I was at the Policecourt—my usual signature then was "Wm. West"—I do not know the prisoner, and never drew a cheque in his favour—I know nothing of Ossington Street—Mr. George Hill occupies a shop below my office, and I have given him cheques to cash.
GEORGE HILL . I am a poulterer, and up to September last carried on business at 3, Grosvenor Street, under Mr. West's office—I have cashed cheques to oblige him—the prisoner was keeping company with my niece, and he occasionally visited at my house—I generally paid Mr. West's cheques in the same day; but I may have kept one in my desk, which was not always locked—the prisoner has never been in my counting-house to my knowledge; but he may have gone there without my knowing it.
ARTHUR KAYS . I am a clerk in the cashier's office of the Army and Navy Stores—this cheque (No. 5) was presented to me on January 4th, in payment for goods; the total of the bill was £1 13s. 10d.—a ticket was produced, with a number which belonged to a ticket-holder, Percy B. Hall—I do not remember who presented the cheque—I handed the person the change—some of the goods were taken, and some were sent to Mr. Hall, who sent them back—I paid the cheque into the London and Westminster Bank, and it was returned, marked "No account"—the goods were fresh provisions—we cashed the cheque because Mr. Hali had a deposit account.
EDWIN SIDNEY ALLEN . I am a clerk in the cashier's office of the Army and Navy Stores—on 4th January this cheque was presented to me, and I refused to cash it in consequence of instructions, as the purchase only amounted to a few shillings.
PERCY BERNARD HALL . I lived last year at 33, Elverslade Place, Queen's Gate—the prisoner was in my employ as temporary servant for three or four weeks at the end of March and the beginning of April, 1890—I am a member of the Army and Navy Stores, and receive parcels from there which, I think, have a notification outside where they come from—I did not sign this cheque (No. 5) nor was it signed by my authority—I have no account at Lloyd's—I generally sign like this; but not with the name of Percy not quite straight.
GEORGE URBEN . I am an inquiry agent to the Civil Service Co-operative Society, 28, Haymarket—the prisoner was formerly a clerk there, and cashier part of the time—I have seen him write, and know his writing—this original telegram is his writing, and I should say that the endorsement, Frank Seymour, is also his—I do not know whose writing
the body of the cheque is—the name of the payee, Frank Seymour, is very similar.
JOHN CONQUEST (Police Inspector). On 12th March I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest, and on 14th March I went to Eton College, where I found him—I told him I was a Police-officer, and read the warrant to him for forging and uttering an order for a cheque-book on Lloyd's Bank—he said, "very well; I know I have nothing to fear"—on the journey to London, by train, he said, "How am I to know it was a cheque-book; it was addressed to this Mr. West, who I met in a restaurant, and sent it on to him in Sackville Street, Dublin"—I said, "Have you heard from him since-?"—he said, "No; this cheque was given to me for a present of £5; I have written to West twice and have had no answer"—I searched his room, but found nothing relating to the charge.
By the COURT. I have not made inquiries in Dublin; I left it to the bank authorities.
—He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of forgery at this Court on 10th September, 1883.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. HUMPHREYS Prosecuted, and MR. FILLAN Defended.
JAMES KENYON . I am a clerk in the Associates Office of the High Court—I was present at a trial on February 23rd of the action of Clark v. Levine—I swore the prisoner, who was the plaintiff, and he was examined and cross-examined—the Court adjourned to the 24th, when Counsel made a statement on Clark's behalf, and he submitted to judgment—the Court ordered this document (produced) to be impounded, and I have had it in my possession ever since—it was handed to the plaintiff, and I heard him swear that it was his landlord's signature.
Cross-examined. Mr. Kemp, Q.C., was for the defendant, and cross-examined the plaintiff very severely indeed, and he was very much confused; he kept the Court waiting sometimes, and said he did not understand.
ERNEST WILSON . I am a shorthand writer—on 23rd February I took notes of the cross-examination of George Clark in an action in which he was the plaintiff—I produce my original notes and a correct transcript. (This was partially read, and among other things the prisoner swore that a receipt for rent, up to Michaelmas, 1890, was in the writing of his landlord, Mr. Hedges, and that he got it from Mr. Hedges himself.)
Cross-examined. The prisoner swore that the first he heard of Mr. Levine was a circular which he received, which he produced, and it was read—I have not got a copy of it—he said that in consequence of that he wrote a letter saying that he should like to borrow £100, and that Mr. Levine's son called next day, calling himself Mr. Lewis, and he then said that he thought he could do with only £50, but would not on any account give a bill of sale, and Mr. Lewis said it would only be a simple agreement, there would be no bill of sale, and told him to come to London next day and bring, his receipt for rent and his fire policy—he was cross-examined at very great length, and said that he sat down at
a table and wrote something at Mr. Levine's dictation, that it was a dark room, and that when he signed the bill of sale there was no inventory and no seal, and Mr. Levine read it to him as being only a simple agreement—the inventory said four bedrooms, and he swore there were only three bedrooms in his house, and that young Levine never went upstairs, and could not have taken the inventory, and that a great many things were put into it which he never had in his possession—he also swore that Mr. Levine never took out a pencil while he was there.
Re-examined. He was asked—Q. "Did you know what instalments you were to pay monthly?—A. Something like £5 monthly—Q. When you found you had to pay twelve monthly instalments did you not say, 'That is more than I agreed to pay'?—A. Yes"—on the next day his counsel retired from the case, and the Judge ordered the document to be impounded.
LEWIS NATHAN LEVINE . I am the son of Solomon Levine, of 47, Portsdown Road, Maida Hill—last year I was living at 44, Bedford Place, Russell Square—I manage my father's business of a moneylender—on February 1, 1891, I received this letter. (From the prisoner¡ applying for a loan.)—I answered it, and went down to Panels Farm, North Morton, and there saw the prisoner—I told him I had come down in consequence of his application for a loan of £100—he said that since writing he had modified his request, and he only wanted £50, as he had some money come into his hands—I asked what security he could deposit—he said he had only his live and dead stock, furniture, etc., which was worth £900—I told him that could only be done by a bill of sale—he did not object to that—I submitted to him the printed form for my expenses, twelve shillings, that was for inspecting the security he offered, and told him I should require proof that there were no arrears of rent—he said, "My rent is paid up to Michaelmas, 1890," and went into the adjoining room and produced this receipt for rent to Michaelmas—I proceeded to take an inventory for the bill of sale, and went over the whole house, except one bedroom at the top—he went with me—I made a rough inventory, and he saw me making it—an arrangement was made for him to come up next day to execute the bill of sale—he came to the office next day, and my father was there—he took out of his pocket the fire insurance policy, and this rent receipt, and showed them to my father—I required him to sign this form of application. (Stating that the rent was paid up to Michaelmas, and that there were no arrears of rent, and proposing to pay the principal and interest in twelve monthly payments.)—he wrote that himself, and executed this bill of sale at the same interview—these are the original notes I made—my father wrote an open cheque for £50, and gave it to him—he did not object to making the bill of sale—he agreed to it at the farm—he seemed to understand what he was doing; he read it, and said he was perfectly satisfied—we do not lend money where the rent is not paid, because there would be no security; the landlord could come in first—we afterwards got a letter from some solicitors saying that the bill of sale was procured by fraud, and on 20th March Clark brought an action against my father—I heard him examined and cross-examined, and remember the details of it—these (produced) are the original notes I took on the spot.
Cross-examined. He swore in Court that I defrauded him by making
him sign a bill of sale, pretending all the time that it was a simple agreement at 5 per centre also swore that I never went upstairs, and never took out a pencil all the time I was there-that was false—I was there two or three hours—I do not remember his swearing that I was only there an hour—I may have sent him this circular—it is one of ours—we generally enclose a directed envelope with them—my father is the money-lender, and I send them out on his behalf—my father registered the title of the company, I believe, at Stationers Hall—the circular says, "Moderate interest"; it was 60 per cent, in this case—where securities are deposited, of course, the interest is much less—there are no fees—I took nothing out of the £50, nor did he give me anything after he got the £50 the 12s. was paid on February 4 when he arrived at the office—the total he paid was £2 12s. 6d., which included the whole of the travelling expenses and the stamp and registration of the bill of sale, the difference was for my loss of time taking the inventory—I do not call that fees—he did not tell me that his great object was to prevent any local exposure, or that he had once had a bill of sale which nearly ruined him, and that he would not have one on account of it being registered—he brought the receipt with the fire insurance policy next day, but he showed it to me when I was down there—I thought it was the receipt of Mr. Hedges, the landlord, and was perfectly satisfied; the forgery did not come out till he persecuted me, and then it came out on tai own evidence—I did not know anything about the landlord's position in life—the prisoner did not say, "I rent the farm, and my father and grandfather had it before me,"nothing of the sort, he has sworn falsely, and persecuted me cruelly—I registered the bill of sale within a week, I am bound to—I never received a letter from the prisoner saying: Sir,—I find you have turned our transaction into a bill of sale by fraud, and I have instructed my solicitor to take proceedings against you"; your counsel said so—the solicitor sent us a letter—the prisoner swore that he posted the letter at the pillar-box at North Morton—he called on us with Mr. Slade, his solicitor—I cannot fix the date; it was at the end of February—I will not swear whether it was within three days of February 13th—he offered us the £50 then and there, and we would not take it—we asked a reasonable amount for interest, and told him w, should take half the interest, which would give us £8—we did not want the £50; we said, "Keep it"—I do not think I said in Mr. Slade's presence, "You have made your bargain; you must stick to it"—we said "We are no more entitled to call on you for the money than you are to come here and offer us the money after giving us all the trouble"—Mr. Slade refused to take proceedings, and the second solicitor who took it up saw the fault; I can only say I have been ruined through you client—an action was brought against my father, and while it was going on he kept up the instalments till he paid us £30; he then missed paying he two next instalments, and eventually we put in an execution and realised £44—when we went down to take possession we found the place securely barricaded, and we were kept outside fifty-eight days, and the whole amount went in expenses; there were fifty-eight days possession men—I made out this account (produced)—there was also the rent of a stable for the goods to be stored in—I paid that; I have the receipts at home—three or four men were employed, but no Pugilists—I was committed by the Magistrate for taking possession contrary to law by
the perjury of your client—I was tried by a jury and found guilty—no punishment or fine was inflicted on me—I was bound over in my own recognisances to come up for judgment, but not to pay the costs of the prosecution.
Re-examined. I was with my father at the time he registered our office—I paid for the registration of the bill of sale, and obtained money from the defendant for that purpose—that was part of the £2 2s.—he has given three bills of sale—I believed this was a genuine receipt for rent.
JOHN KIRBY HEDGES . I live at Wallingford Castle, near Wallingford, and am a J. P. for Berkshire—the prisoner occupied some 50 acres of mine, and paid me £60 rent—on February 1, 1891, he owed me about £300—it is not true that he paid me rent up to Michaelmas, 1890—this receipt is not my writing, nor did I authorise anybody to sign my signature to it—my agent, Mr. Curtis, receives my rents for me, but he does not give receipts—I never received the rent on December 24, 1890—I first saw the receipt at Bow Street.
Cross-examined. The prisoner succeeded his father on one of my farms fourteen or fifteen years ago, who was there twenty years—I do not know whether his grandfather was there before that—I have been one of his landlords many years—I could have distrained at any time, and I did distrain last August—I did not take any proceedings for the arrears for three years before that.
WILLIAM GEORGE CURTIS . I am managing clerk at the Wallingford Bank; I also collect Mr. Hedges's rents—I have received the prisoner's rent twice, on November 12th, 1881, and on September 30th, 1890, when I received £30—I sign my own name "For J. Kirby Hedges"—I do not know anything of this receipt.
SOLOMON LEVINE . I am a money-lender, and now live in Maida Vale—my son manages my business—on February 4th, 1891, the prisoner came to me, and I wrote him this cheque for £50—he asked me to leave it open—I was the defendant in the action of Clark v, Levine, brought by the prisoner on February 23rd and 24th, 1892—this writ was served on me—Clark showed me this receipt, which I believed to be from Mr. Kirby Hedges, and believing it to be genuine I parted with my money—I would not have parted with it if I had known that he had not paid his landlord.
ARTHUR HAILSTONE (Detective E). I arrested the prisoner on a warrant—I received him from the custody of the Wallingford police on 18th March—I read the warrant to him—he said, "Levine has done this, because I got him committed for illegally entering my house; I am an innocent man. "
Cross-examined. The warrant was for forging and uttering this receipt.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY.—Recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of the agricultural depression and the temptation.— Six Months' Hard labour.
THIRD COURT.—Friday, April 8th, 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. JONES Prosecuted, and MR. GRAIN Defended.
JOHN WORTHAM . I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Department of the High Court of Justice—I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Thomas Stephens—the debtor's own petition was filed on 22nd October, and on the same day a receiving order was made—on 24th October Mr. Viney was appointed special manager—a statement of affairs was sworn on 31st October, and filed on 2nd November—the liabilities were £20,533 4s. 1d., and the assets £9,586 16s. 6d.; cash in hand, £56 7s. 3d.—the first meeting, on 18th November, was adjourned to 9th December—on 4th December Mr. Charles Brand Wright, of King Street, Cheapside, was appointed trustee, and on 10th December the defendant was adjudicated bankrupt—on 8th and 27th January the bankrupt was examined, and the examinations are on the file.
Cross-examined. In list "I"of debts due to the estate, T. Stephens, of 91, Minders Lane, Melbourne, is put down for £478 10s. 6d. as a good debt—all these sheets are signed by the bankrupt—the meeting of 21st October was private, and no record of it is on this file.
GEORGE BLAGRAVE SNELL . I am senior official shorthand writer to the Bankruptcy Court—I attended an examination of the prisoner on 27th January, took shorthand notes, and transcribed them—this is the full transcript. (Some of the questions and answers were then read.)
Cross-examined. I did not take the other examination, I was away ill—it would be taken by the other, official shorthand writer. (Other questions and answers were here read.)
ARTHUR BLUNT . I am a clerk to the London Chartered Bank of Australia, 2, Old Broad Street—we have done business with the prisoner—on 28th October, 1891, this cheque was sent to him, addressed to Thomas Stephens and Co., 282, St. James's Road, Old Kent Road, with a letter, of which this is a copy. (The letter stated that having received telegraphic advice from their Melbourne branch that his drafts on Thomas Stephens had been paid, they had now the pleasure to hand him £270 1s. 7d., the balance of the proceeds of the drafts)—the cheque enclosed with that letter was afterwards returned to us endorsed "Thomas Stephens and Co.," and crossed with the stamp of the London and County Bank.
ALFRED ERNEST GRIFFIN . I live at Moncrieff Road, Peckham, and am now managing a manufacturing business—I was employed by the prisoner as his cashier and bookkeeper till the trustee was appointed—I endorsed this cheque for £270 1s. 7d. in the prisoner's office, St. James's Road; it may have been a few days after the date it bears—the prisoner gave me the cheque, with directions to endorse it—I had been in the habit previously of endorsing his cheques—after endorsing it I gave it back to him—on 28th October a special manager had been appointed, and was in possession of the premises—neither he nor his clerk was there when I was asked to endorse the cheque; no one was present but the prisoner and myself—I did not open the letter containing the cheque; both cheque and letter were handed to me, and I handed them back to the bankrupt—there is no regular letter-box on the premises, there is only a hole in the door, and letters fall through on to the mat—the prisoner occasionally
slept on the premises, and there was no sleeping accommodation for anyone else—the special manager's clerk used to leave the premises after the day's business was over, at six or seven, returning next morning—the letters that came in his absence were placed on a desk in his office for him to see.
Cross-examined. I have been seventeen years with the prisoner, and up to the time of the failure I was bookkeeper and manager, and was in the habit of endorsing cheques as part of the business—there was nothing singular in his asking me to endorse this cheque—I have endorsed thousands—it was a very large business, about 500 hands were employed—a few years ago the turn-over would be £60,000—it was a shirt and collar and underclothing manufactory, at St. James's Road, Old Kent Rood—I did not directly prepare the sheets that formed the statement of affairs, but the trustee came to me for information; I imparted all the information and explanation—the debt of £473 10s. 6d. is down among the available good assets, and that would be taken from the ledger—when the trustee came to take the accounts the ledger was handed to him so that he could inspect everything for himself, and he could see the £473 10s. 6d. to the debit of Stephens, of Melbourne, who is the prisoner's son—there is another son in England, who has absconded, and cannot be found—I saw the cheque in his possession with other cheques which he was taking to pay into the bank—I did not see him pay it in—the special manager was appointed at the meeting of creditors called by the prisoner—I know the prisoner expected to pay substantial compensation so as to avoid bankruptcy, and take over the business again if he could—I think the amount put down as assets would be substantially the amount that will be realised, and that would mean 10s. in the £—during all the time I was with him he was always looked on as a highly respectable and honourable trader—he has ten or eleven children living, and six or seven are little ones still on his hands.
CHARLES BRAND WEIGHT . I am an accountant, of King Street, Cheapside, and trustee of the bankrupt's estate—I did not find out from him until I had found it out from other sources, about December 20th, that he had received this cheque—I did not see the letter that accompanied it till I taxed him with it—the money for it has been given to me this morning—he did not account for the proceeds of the cheque in his statement of affairs—his son, who used to carry on business in Love Lane, has left the country; he did not inform me that he had the cheque; he left the country before I discovered it—I assisted the bankrupt to make out his statement of affairs—I questioned him about them; he gave no information about this cheque—in the statement of affairs in "I"it appears that the balance of certain bills unpaid and running is due from the London Chartered Bank of Australia—the prisoner had received half of the value of two bills from the London Chartered Bank of Australia, leaving a balance of £265 10s. 1d., to which rebate of interest £5 7s. 10d. was added, making £270 17s. 11d., less 16s. 4d. for telegraphing, £270 1s. 7d.—on October 23rd Mr. Viney was appointed special manager, and I was appointed to assist the prisoner in getting out his statement of affairs—if on evening of 28th or morning of 29th he had received a cheque, he ought to have disclosed it to me or to the special manager—the morning before this statement of affairs was sworn,
October 31st, I went through it with him—he must have received the cheque at that time.
Cross-examined. The way this was entered in the ledger and in the statement of affairs led us eventually to inquire what had become of it—I was told the public examination was about 27th January—no offer was made of this £270; it was suggested that it might be paid to me—recently it has been suggested to me that he was quite willing to hand back to me, as trustee, the £270—this morning it has been tendered, and I have it in my pocket now.
Re-examined. This cheque for £270 1s. 7d. was the second instalment for goods that had been sent, the balance; and, therefore, when the bankrupt had this £270 he had all the money for his goods, and there was not £470 due to him, because he had had the money—we charge the bankrupt with having misappropriated £270 1s. 7d., that is all—he did not disclose the fact that he had received this money.
By the JURY. £200 is still due to Stephens, irrespective of this cheque—I am suing for it in Melbourne—beyond these amounts, and irrespective of them, there is a further amount of £100—there is other money due by Stephens and Son, of Melbourne—I have sent out a power of attorney to recover it—it is not a portion of this £473, but for other bills—the Board of Trade and the Court directed a prosecution in this case.
CHARLES CUBITT . I am a clerk to Messrs. Collinson and Viney, accountants, of 99, Cheapside—Mr. Viney was appointed special manager of the estate and interim receiver—I was placed in charge of the business and premises by him—on 23rd and 24th I remained at the premises all day—I was not able to sleep there, and left when the business hours were over—I was never shown this cheque or the letter containing it—letters which came while I was not there were put through a slit in the door, and some of them were put on the table or desk in the office in the morning for me—this cheque and letter were never put there.
ALFRED ERNEST GRIFFIN (Re-examined by MR. GRAIN.) When the statement of affairs was made out this sum of £473 10s. 6d. was the total amount due by Stephens, of Melbourne, to his father, and of that £270 1s. 7d. has been paid, leaving £203 standing due from Stephens of Melbourne to Stephens of London.
By MR. JONES. The prisoner's son did not draw bills and send them to the prisoner for goods that he had sent; a man would not send bills over for acceptance for goods he had himself had—the London Chartered Bank paid a sum previous to this. £270, and £270 is the balance; but the previous amount paid has nothing to do with this balance.
By MR. GRAIN. When you ship goods abroad you make out an invoice, get a bill of lading and a document of title, and go to the bank here and draw on account to the order of the bank, and then the bank, having advanced one-half or two-thirds against the invoice, sends the document of title and the invoice over to the other side, and the parties there have to deal with the bank there and take it up before they can get the goods out of the ship—there were many transactions between father and son, and in October last year the state of the account was that the son owed the father £473, out of which he remitted £270, leaving the balance.
and County Bank, Lombard Street—on 8th December, 1891, this cheque was paid in at that office to the credit of A. W. Stephens and Co., of Love Lane—he is the prisoner's son, and has an account at that bank—on the following day a cheque was drawn by A. W. Stephens for £270, and the money drawn out—A. W. Stephens has gone; I don't know if the father is responsible for this.
The prisoner received an excellent character.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Friday, Saturday, and Monday, April 8th, 9th, and 11th, 1892.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MESSRS. C.F. GILL, A. GILL, and SOULSBY Prosecuted; MR. ELDRIDGE. appeared for Peach; and MR. MURPHY, Q.C., with MESSRS. SCARLETT and MORESBY, for Selwyn.
PAUL EUGENE HENRI (Interpreted). I am a clerk to George Dunlop and Co., of 38, Avenue del'Opera, Paris, agents for the Marine Insurance Co.—I produce an insurance order from Mr. Raphael of January 11th for bonds, amounting to 216,000 francs, from Paris to London; also a copy of the receipt given to Mr. Raphael, and the original policy.
CHARLES PORCHE (Interpreted). I am a clerk to E. M. Raphael, of 35, Rue de Chateaudun, Paris—on January 11th, 1890, we sent a parcel of bonds to Messrs. Bristow, of London, amounting to 216,000 francs—we insured the parcel with Messrs. Dunlop and Co.—I produce the receipts—I packed the bonds myself in the packets, put a tape round, and sealed them—amongst the bonds so packed were 425 Turkish Priority bonds of £20 each, and twenty-five shares on the National Bank of Mexico—the number of one of the Turkish bonds was 336887—I gave the numbers of the bonds at the Police-court on January 19th—the numbers on the two pages of this paper (produced) are correct—the parcels I packed were given to two of our employés to take to the railway station; they were entered in this receipt book by the railway company—we advised Messrs. Bristow of the sending of the bonds the same day they were sent off.
Cross-examined by MR. SCARLETT. The whole of the bonds were in one parcel.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. The bonds were payable to "bearer"
ANTOINE POMBEI . I am the deputy-chief of the financial department of the Northern Railway of France, in Paris; I have charge of valuable parcels received for transmission—I produce a book containing a receipt for two valuable parcels received from Messrs. Raphael; they were sent by the 10.10 from Paris—I have the receipt for them in this book, in the handwriting of M. Harker, my chief—I also produce a receipt in what is called the "coronet de traction,"with the signature of the guard of the train—if the packets had not been securely fastened up the railway guard would have refused to give me a receipt for them—I produce the waybill and the duplicate—I heard of the loss of the bonds
the next morning—the train which we call 37 starts from Paris at 10.10 at night, for Calais.
Crow-examined by MR. SCARLETT. Six valuable parcels were dispatched from Paris to Calais by that train—four for London, two for Lille.
FREDERICK CARPENTIER (Interpreted). I am in the employ of the Chemin de Fer du Nord, at Boulogne—at 5.20 a.m. on 12th January, 1890,1 was at the Boulogne Station when the 10.10 from Paris arrived—I received from the guard of that train a basket containing, according to the declaration, four packets of value for London; it was put in the consignment room, under the charge of the proper person, till one in the afternoon—I then took it on a trolly to the quay in the presence of M. Dupois, the brigadier of the Custom-house, and by the order of the Custom-house authorities I opened the basket, and found it contained four valuable parcels—I took the largest one on board the Mary Beatrice, and put it inside the safe which was to receive it, in the presence of the second officer of the ship—I then went up after the other three parcels, and brought them down, and saw them put in the safe by the second officer, and Dubois dosed the safe in my presence, and it was locked with two keys.
Cross-examined by MR. SCARLETT. Four parcels was all I expected to receive by that train; the declaration was only for four—they call it the Calais train, but it stops at Boulogne; Calais is its final destination—I carried the parcels from the railway station until they were put in the safe on the ship—I did not drop one of them on the road—the four parcels were enclosed in the safe when I left—I was called as a witness at an inquiry in France in January.
ERNEST DUBOIS . I am employed by Flageolet and Co., forwarding agents at Boulogne—in January, 1890, I was in the employ of the South-Eastern Bail way Company there—I remember the last witness bringing down to the Mary Beatrice the large value parcel and afterwards three smaller ones; those four parcels were put in the safe of the Mary Beatrice in my presence—I locked the safe and went away—the safe is on deck—there was another steamer coming in at the time.
FREDERICK DOWNES . I am a porter in the employ of the South-Eastern Railway Company at Folkestone—I remember the arrival of the Mary Beatrice on 12th January, 1890, about four in the afternoon; the iron safe was taken ashore by a steam crane—I conveyed the safe from the quay to the baggage-room—I was present when it was opened by Mr. Ledger, who is dead—it only contained two parcels.
JOSEPH HENRY FIELD BLAND . I am chief-clerk to Messrs. Bristow, Stock and Share Brokers, of 27, Austin Friars—on 13th January, 1890, we had notice from Mr. Raphael, of Paris, to us, of the dispatch of 8,500 Turkish Priority bonds and 25 Mexican bonds—on the 14th we gave notice of their non-arrival to the Marine Insurance Company.
HENRY GRANT RAMSHAY MAUGHAN . I am Secretary of the Marine Insurance Company, of Old Broad Street—we have an agency, amongst others, with George Dunlop, of Paris—this prosecution is instituted by my company—part of our business is the insuring of valuable parcels from Paris to London, and from London to Pans—on 14th January, 1890, we received notice of the robbery of these bonds—I inquired very fully into the matter, and put it into the hands of the City Police—the loss of these bonds was extensively advertised, with a full description of their numbers; and we sent a copy to every member of the London
Stock Exchange; I produce a list of the notices issued in connection with the matter—£1,000 reward was offered; and the Ottoman Board authorised the suspension of the bonds—the advertisements and notices were continued up to June and July in all the leading papers, and abroad also—the notice also alludes to the intention of the Ottoman Council of Administration to convert the bonds from five to four per cent.—the final date for that was fixed for July—after that date the 5 per cent. bonds would cease to be quoted in the official list; the bonds would have to be bought in at par, or converted into stock; all interest ceased from July 13th—during all that time I should think it would be impossible to sell the bonds in the open market—they would have on them the March coupons of 1890—they are half-yearly coupons—in November, 1891, I received information as to the presentation of some of these coupons at the Imperial Ottoman Bank—I afterwards went and made inquiry at the Union Bank in Argyll Place, and from what I learnt there the matter was placed in the hands of Inspector Abberline, and from that time he has had the conduct of the matter, and as the result of those inquiries this prosecution was instituted—I swore an information—£8,500 worth of the bonds have been traced, and a large number are in the possession of the police—we have possession of 2,000, which were at Vienna—our company have paid the £8,400.
Cross-examined by MR. SCARLETT. Mr. Scears has not had his money; we paid Messrs. Bristow for the bonds—we sent one of these bills to every member of the Stock Exchange, and they were very largely distributed over the metropolis by the police, not only at police-stations, but to bankers and money agents, and all persons likely to have such dealings—I don't think Mr. Scears would receive a bill—the head office of the Union Bank would certainly have one—I do not think Mr. Scears is a financial agent, he is a gentleman living on his means—before the two last examinations at the Police-court I went to Eastbourne with Inspector Abberline, with no one else—I went there to see Miss Beeby; I know the servant girl—I did not go for the purpose of seeing witnesses; I went to see Miss Beeby; I did see the servant—I went because the Magistrate said he thought we ought to bring Miss Beeby up to the Court—I think it was three or four days before the last examination, on the Thursday, that I went down—I was about five or ten minutes with the servant; I was not with her alone, Abberline was with me; he was only there while I was.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRED. I think the coupons were dated March 13th, 1890—I have nothing to do with the payment of coupons—lam not the banker—I do not know whether they would be paid six months afterwards; I can only have an opinion—about twenty of these bonds were at Vienna, representing £2,000; they are here now.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL FILEY . I am superintendent of the coupon department of the London agency of the Imperial Ottoman Bank—on 10th March, 1890, we received instructions from the Council of Administration of the Ottoman Debt, in consequence of which all bonds and coupons of the Five per Cent. Loan were examined on presentation—in November, 1891, some coupons of the bonds reported as stolen were presented by the Union Bank—notice was given to the Union Bank that they were stopped, and we reported the matter to the Marine Insurance Company—they were coupons of September, 1891.
Cross-examined by MR. SCARLETT. Notice of the conversion of the loan was advertised in all the London daily papers; not to private individuals unless they applied for it—the date in the prospectus up to which persons were to send in claims to have the stock converted was 22nd May, 1890, but the prospectus itself was dated 10th May, so that they had between the 10th and 22nd to convert—they could not send in their stock for conversion after that, we should pay it off; they could get their £100 up to 12th July; many people did apply after that date and got their £100.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I do not think that hundreds of thousands of stock were paid after that date—no bonds were paid after that; they were stopped—I do not know which of the bonds were at Vienna—the dates of these coupons were March 13th and September 13th—the year 1890 would appear on the coupons—we should pay overdue coupons, if we had instructions to do so; we should pay them without instructions, for five months—that course of business would be known to the Union Bank—I have not any books here by which I could tell which bonds have been paid; I can only say that No. 24617 has not been paid at the London agency.
GEORGE WILLIS SCEARS . I live at 104, Regent Street—I am of no occupation—I have private means, and my wife has also—I have known Peach for a good many years—I have had business transactions with him, and have seen him from time to time before July, 1891—he owed me £160—he had owed me that for several years—in May, 1891, he came to me alone—about three months before that he had brought the other prisoner to me to get an advance of £400 on some Paris and Orleans bonds—he said he knew me, that he had seen me in the stalls at some theatre; he claimed a sort of acquaintance with me—I had not seen him or been at the theatre—Peach introduced him, but I am not absolutely sure of the name that he gave—I think it was Graham—I did not entertain the proposition of lending the money—about July 15th I received this letter from Peach. (This was dated July 14th 91, from the Primrose Club 4, Park Place, Richmond, and stated that Mr. Archibald Melville wished to barrow £4,000 on some bonds, that he was going to be married to a lady in America, and that he, Peach, could manage part of the loan and would pay Mr. Scears £100 which he owed him.)—I replied to that letter, inviting him to call—I received this card, stating he would call before eleven the next day—Peach called and saw me—I asked him who the bonds belonged to, and why he came to me—he explained that he wanted the money for a limited time for Mr. Melville, and gave reasons which I thought sufficient for him trying to borrow from a private source on the deposit of bonds; the reasons were that Mr. Melville was about to marry a lady, a Miss Kelly, the daughter of an American banker, and the money was wanted to pay a deposit upon an estate that Peach was to find for him—he said that Mr. Melville was a rich man—I suggested that he should get the money from his banker or solicitor—he replied that they wanted such large cover, and that no money-lender would advance him anything under 30 per cent.—I suggested that he had better sell the bonds—he replied that they were wanted to be put into settlement—I did not learn what the stock was—he showed me a book, The Investors' Gazette—I don't know the date; he held the book in a peculiar way, and covered the date, and only showed me the name of the bond and the quotation—this (produced) is a copy of The Investors' Gazette for that
month, dated June 30, 1891—the bonds he pointed out to me were five per cent, bonds, quoted at 82 or 84—I obtained this copy some time after, and found that the stock had been converted at that date from 5 to 4 per cent.—he took the paper that he showed me away with him—I quite believed the statement he made to me, and agreed to lend him £1,000 on twenty of these bonds for a year, but it was specially mentioned that the bonds were to be redeemed in January—that was part of the agreement, interest to be paid at 10 per cent., to be deducted, from the loan—I was to deduct £10 from the £160 that he owed me—he said he was to have £30 or 30 guineas out of the transaction—he said he would report to Melville what had taken place, and went away—on the 24tn I received this telegram: "Agreed terms of contract; will bring securities to your house to complete three o'clock, Melville, Merivale House, Wilmington Gardens, Eastbourne"—that was followed by this letter, of the same date. (This was from Peach from same place, stating that he had explained everything to Melville, who agreed, and had executed the contract.)—on the 25th July I received this telegram from Eastbourne: "Sent Peach; must have money this evening.—Melville"—on that same Saturday evening Peach called on me and produced this document: "Merivale House,—I hereby authorise you to to pay over to Mr. F. P. Peach £890 in cash in exchange for my Turkisn Priority bonds for £100 each, and his acquittance shall be a good and sufficient discharge for the same, Melville"—in consequence of its being Saturday, and after banking hours, it was not carried out till Monday—on that same evening I received this telegram from Melville: "Will come three o'clock Monday.—Melville"—on Monday, the 27th, Peach came about two, alone—he produced twenty Turkish Priority bonds, and also this agreement. (This was an agreement between the witness and Melville, transferring the bonds and coupons on payment of £100.)—this was executed by Melville, witnessed by Hunter and Peach—on that occasion Peach again spoke of the marriage, he said it would take place early in the spring—I went with him to the Union Bank in Argyll Place, and there counted the bonds, and got from the bank £890 in eight £100 notes and nine £10 notes, which I handed to Peach, and he gave me this receipt: "Received of Mr. Scears £888 15s., being amount of balance due to Melville on £1,000 loan"—25s. was for the stamp that was put on—I have the original—I placed the bonds in a box in the bank and left them with the manager—on 31st July I received this document: "Primrose Club. Dear fir. Scears,—I am leaving for Weymouth to-morrow for ten days, and write to remind you to stamp document; Melville was quite satisfied, and has left all in my hands; I need scarcely add any of your business you entrust me with shall be carried out in the best way; Parkside, Richmond Road will always find me"—the next I heard about this matter was on the 28th August, when I received this letter: "Parkside, Chisholm Road, Richmond Road, Surrey,—I have been asked to find premises suitable for some Americans; do you happen to know anyone in Regent Street? the £1,000 loan will be paid early in January; I have arranged with Melville that the interest due in September shall not be disturbed; this gives you an extra cover as security in case the bonds fall"—in consequence of that suggestion of not removing the coupons, my suspicions wore aroused, and, wanting some money, I took the bonds from the box and handed them to the manager in September—
I received a communication from the manager in November, and, after that saw Inspector Abberline, I communicated, to him all the particulars, and at his instance I attended at Marlborough Street Police-court, and was a party to swearing the information.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I have known Peach twelve or thirteen years—during that time I had many transactions with him—he has let houses for me at Hadley, near Barnet—I had bought other bonds through him or lent money upon them—I had no difficulty with regard to them—I bought a bond of him for £200, payable to bearer; that was a Baltimore and Ohio bond, an American railway bond; that bond was all right, I gave him the full market price for it—I bought a Great Indian Peninsula debenture stock, they were two bonds for £360, and there was one debenture—I don't think he was acting for me throughout all the bond transactions; no, he could not have been—I know he was acting for somebody else, because he produced his principals, on three occasions I think; one was a lady, and one was a man who had something to do with a partnership affair for him; the other was a man I did not know; I took the bonds up from his principal—those were the three occasions—he was really an estate agent's clerk when I first knew him; he afterwards developed into what they call a financial agent at the West End—I have no occupation; I am not a financial agent—these were friendly transactions almost—I have an income—on November 9th Peach sent me a cablegram from New York in a letter he had received; it was in relation to some property that he had asked me to look out for him—I hardly know now what it was—I did not look out for any property—I told him he might go and inquire in Regent Street—I don't know the fact that he wanted premises, I doubted it—he told me he did—when I took these bonds they had the September coupons on them, not the March coupons, I never had them—my suspicions were aroused about the bonds when he sent me the letter of August 28th—I had my doubts about itit was a large sum—I did not think much of it; it would not have troubled me very much, it was my own money; I felt that he would redeem them at the time by some means or other—in October I raised a loan of £1,200 on the bonds—that was from the Union Bank—that was after I became suspicious—a mortgage deed was not executed, they were merely deposited; I signed nothing in relation to them—the loan was raised at the end of October; it was completed on 2nd November, before other bonds were deposited, a day or two before I and my wife went to the bank; she generally goes with me on any matter of business like that; not always, very seldom; she goes if a large amount of money passes—she was interested in the loans—I drew the cheque, and she signed it—it is her account—she would not lose, she would have been recouped by me—it was quite a private arrangement between us—I had an interview with Peach on 27th July; there was some conversation, but I cannot remember the nature of it—it is possible that the name of Mr. Peter Higginson was mentioned; I can't say that I remember it—on 19th September the manager of the bank and I did not go over the bonds together; I merely took them out of the box and gave them to him—the paper Peach showed me was the Investors' Gazette; it was not the Investors' Manual of 1st July, 1891—it was the same as this. (This was said to he the Investors' Manual of 1st June, 1891)—Mrs. Scears was present at the interview of 27th July—I think Peach had a letter in his hand which
he said was from Melville—he might have held it as though he was looking at it; I can't say that I remember it.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. I have not large transactions in bonds and securities of this sort; these are not the first bargains I have had to deal with—I have not had a good many—I never lent money to anyone but Peach—perhaps I have bought £20,000 worth of securities, and perhaps as much for my wife; I watch the prices of securities—I occasionally read financial papers—if I see any things go down it is not pleasant reading, and I avoid them—one is interested in them, to see the rise and fall of securities—after the letter of 28th August I entertained suspicions; I thought it strange that he should tell me not to touch the coupons; it was only a vague idea that there was something not right about the bonds—I did not convey my suspicions to the manager when I asked him to lend money on them; I knew the manager would not lose anything by the transaction if I did—I could not define my idea of the thing—I did not think the bonds were stolen, but something like not rightly come by—when the manager saw the bonds I did not look at them—he knew where they came from—as I trusted Peach so he trusted me—he handed them to the coupon clerk—there was nothing about them to excite his suspicion or mine—I felt that my advance was secured by the bonds—I did not ask any questions about the lady who was about to be married—I had seen Melville once before; I am not certain of the name he was introduced as, but I think it was Graham.
Re-examined. There were other securities in the box that I took these from—these were the last securities that I had placed in the box—there was no memorandum of deposit.
GEORGE JOSEPH KENNETT . I am employed at the Union Bank in Argyll Place—Mrs. Scears kept an account there—on 30th October last year the manager handed me twenty Turkish Priority bonds, representing £2,000 value—I have a list of them—I cut off the September coupons from them, and sent them to the Imperial Ottoman Bank—I then learnt that they had been stopped, and that the bonds had been converted—I had prepared a form of advance to Mrs. Scears upon them—when she came to sign the form I gave her certain information, and she handed me other securities.
WILLIAM LITTLE JOHN OGILVY . I am a cashier at the Argyll Place branch of the Union Bank—on 27th July, 1891, I cashed a cheque of Mrs. Scears for £890—I paid it in eight £100 notes and eight £10 notes and £10 in gold—I have the numbers of the notes, copied from the book.
JOSEPH LOWDER HUNTER . I am a solicitor, of 86, Terminus Road, Eastbourne—I attested the signature of A. H. Melville on an agreement—to the best of my knowledge, Selwyn is the man—Peach was present when Melville executed it—Peach came into the office and said Mr. Melville was a gentleman staying in Eastbourne, and asked me to attest a deed which he wished to execute—I said, "Certainly"—I saw Melville, and asked him if he had read through the deed and understood it—he said, "Yes"—subsequently I received this letter of 3rd February, 1892, purporting to be signed Walter Selwyn—I received it after I had given evidence against Peach, and before Selwyn was in custody.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. There was nothing out of the ordi
nary way in a gentleman coming in to sign this deed—there was nothing to call my attention to the man who came—when I gave evidence at the Police-court that he was a big man, nearly six feet high, that was my impression at the time—after seeing Melville, that is not my present impression, and thinking over the matter I do not remember that he was any taller than Peach; in fact, I have no particular recollection of seeing them standing—Melville sat somewhere at the back of me, and perhaps I did not see his face more than three or four times—I have said that he was fairly tall, Counsel suggested six feet, and I said that was my view at that time—I say now that he is not six feet—my impression was that he had a dark moustache and no beard—before I was examined before the Magistrate the detective had shown me a photograph among many others—he did not ask me if that was like the Melville I had seen—he laid about ten or twelve photographs in front of me, and said, "Do you see the man there who executed the deed?" or words to that effect—I looked at them carefully—the one I selected was the man that in my opinion had executed the deed—I don't think I spoke with great diffidence—they were laid before me to select the man, and I said, "That is the man," and I threw it out—I said before the Magistrate, to the best of my belief he was the man, but I could not swear to it, and I would not do so now—I am not prepared to swear he is the man—his hat was off, he might have entered with it on, but I do not recollect his sitting with it on—I cannot say whether he was bald.
Re-examined. He was about ten minutes in the room—when I was shown some photographs Selwyn was not in custody—he was not present when I was asked to describe him—my impression was he had a dark moustache; I see it is light now—I do not think he said more than half a dozen words—I have no recollection of his voice.
SARAH BEEBY . I am a boarding-house keeper, of Merivale Road, Eastbourne—two gentlemen named Peach and Melville stayed there; Melville from July 22nd to 25th, and Peach on 23rd or 24th, one night—the Tuesday after Melville left I got this letter, dated July 27th, from Hotel Victoria—Melville occupied No. 1 room on the ground floor—I recognise Peach—Margaret Shilling was then my servant—Mr. Walker Morris also stayed in the house—I remember Peach being charged with robbery, or something I did not understand—after the charge Selwyn came and stopped at my place, giving the name of Retlaw Newles—he gave me the references (produced). (The Marquis of Donegal and Honourable Curzon)—he stayed from the 1st to 7th or 8th of January—after he left I received this letter. (January 11th, 1892, signed Retlaw Newles, and stating that he could not join her family circle for above a week, as he was going to Honfleur, but he had requested Lord Donegal to give her private information as to his history)—I also received this letter of 23rd February. (Signed Walter Selwyn, stating that he had a photograph of Peach, that she must know that he was not Archibald Herbert Melville, and he was sorry he had not told her everything, and thought the "vindictive"Abberline would have dropped his name out of the case when he wrote that he had stayed at her house. "Would to God I had stayed longer at Eastbourne; I was sent to the wrong solicitor, Mr. Walter Birt."While waiting there he told a dark young man his name was Newles, and, if not mistaken, when asked the man said his name was Hunter; but he had now heard that the witness to the deed to Melville was not a solicitor but a clerk; would
she write to "E. Selwyn,"Park Hill, Richmond, as Hunter might be tampered with by Abberline. Weston had ruined him, having lent Weston £5,000 and spent over him £20,000, and being mixed up in a charge with him they were both sent to prison. Lord Donegal introduced Peach to him some two years ago; and Peach victimised Melville, who had seven children dependent on him; that "I have never harmed you or Hunter, and had never seen you before I came in January, and I do think it a cruel thing to swear to my photo. Your unhappy mistake and Mr. Hunter's is making a wreck of two homes. I am leaving to-night for Paris")—on 28th March I recognised him as Retlaw Newles—I knew his name was Selwyn then—his moustache was not dressed in the same style, and his expression was different—his moustache was different in colour, and instead of down it was across—it was lighter—his eyebrows were lighter—I do not know Melville—I am sure Selwyn is Retlaw Newles.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. A great many people stay with us who I do not remember—Peach was only there one night—I said at the Police-court I could not be sure he was the man.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. I did not see Melville much from 22nd to 25th July—he dined at the same table with other guests—I saw more of him in January—I spent the evenings in the drawing-rooms—I had a rubber of whist with him to pass the time—he did not come into the drawing-room in the summer—there was plenty of outdoor amusement.
MARGARET SHILLING . I am a servant of Miss Beeby at Merivale Road, Eastbourne—I remember in July last year a Mr. Morris stopping—Melville and Peach were there—Melville occupied No. I room—Selwyn came as Retlaw Newles in January—I had seen him in July as Melville—I recognised him when I saw him—I have not seen Peach since—I should not know him.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. There was nothing to attract my attention in July to Melville—one other gentleman was there—we have had twenty in the house together—I saw a photograph before I came to town—when asked to pick Melville out in the yard I said I could not see him—I did not mention to Miss Beeby when Newles come in January that I recognised him as Melville—Miss Beeby asked me about it after the police had the matter in hand.
Re-examined. I saw an inspector of police before I gave evidence—I cannot say when I spoke to Miss Beeby—it was before I saw the police inspector—the one other gentleman staying at the house in July was Mr. Morris—I did not mention to Miss Beeby that I recognised Melville, because I thought she knew.
WALTER JAMES MORRIS . I live at Amhurst Park, Stamford Hill—I was stopping at Merivale Road, Eastbourne, in July of last year—Melville was stopping there—I am not certain about Peach—I identified Melville on 28th March, that man on the right.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. I am on the Stock Exchange, with a stock broker, as clerk—Melville's hair is darker now—his moustache is about the same—I heard of this case about a month before I was examined—I saw reports in the newspapers, but did not take much interest in them, just scanned them through—I went to the Police-court, but could not get in—I was not examined—I picked Melville out last Monday week, 1 think, at the Court—a detective was with me, not
Abberline—he did not nudge me as I went up—I swear that; no hint at all—the other men were dressed in the ordinary way—I did not see a photograph—I did not say to the Police-sergeant Waine that he was a rather short, fair man—I do not remember his taking me by the arm—I do not think he did—he said, "You go up and touch any man you think you know"—I do not remember his saying, "Don't you see him now. "
Re-examined. There is no ground for suggesting the man was indicated to me—I was two or three days with him at Merivale Road—I am clear there were only two others in the house—as far as I renumber, Selwyn is the man, but I won't swear to him.
CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a clerk-in the Accountant's Bank Note Department of the Bank of England—I produce eight £10 notes, Nos. 34926 to 33, dated 21st January, 1891; eight £100 notes, Nos. 96279 to 84, of 2nd August, 1890; and Nos. 208 and 209, of 16th February, 1891—Nos. 96279 to 84 were issued on 23rd July, 1891, to the Regent Street branch of the Union Bank—they were received back; Nos. 96279 and 81 on 29th July from the London and Westminster Bank, not endorsed; 96280 from the London and County Bank on 29th July, endorsed, "Change, C. King," and "A. A. George Pemberton Page,"in pencil, below it; 96282, 29th July, paid in by Barclay, Bevan, and Co., endorsed "A. H. Melville"; 96283, by Messrs. Drummond on 30th July, endorsed "D. Vernon, 4, Park Place, St. James's," "Smart," and what appears to be "W. O. N.,"in different writing; 96284, on 29th July by the Union. Bank, bearing a stamp of Charles Reinhart, and "28th July, 1890, 14, Celeman Street, London"; 208, on 31st July by the Capital and Counties Bank, and the same stamp effacement; 209, on 25th August by the London and County Bank, endorsed in ink, "E. F. E. Line, Park House, Belsize Park"; the £10 note, 34927, is endorsed, "King, 14, Elm Grove,"the "Grove"has been punched out in the cancelling, and it has the P. O. stamp, "Hammersmith Broadway, 28th July"—the £10 notes came in between 29th July and 1st August.
GEORGE WILLIS WAIN . I am manager to Messrs. Deacon and Co., of 37, King's Road, Brighton, wine merchants—in August, 1891, Mr. Kotchie, a customer, introduced the prisoner Selwyn as Captain Selwyn—on 22nd August Selwyn asked me to cash a £100 note—I gave it to Mr. Baker in the King's Road, asking him to change it, and he left with the note—Kotchie is an elderly man of 60 or 62, and about 5ft. 6in., with sunken cheeks and a long moustache, greyish, withered-looking face, and delicate looking—I next saw Selwyn on 25th, the Tuesday following the Saturday.
WILLIAM TUBSALL BAKES . I carry on a milliner's business at 13, King's Road, Brighton—I remember Mr. Wain coming to me with Captain Selwyn on August 24th—I was asked to change a £100 note—I put it on one of the forms of the London and County Bank and sent for the cash—on getting the cash I gave it to Captain Selwyn—I recognise him as the prisoner Selwyn.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. There was nothing particular about Captain Selwyn to attract my attention—I heard no further of the matter till the end of the year—I could not tell if the endorsement was on the note—I did not put it on—I do not know the writing.
Re-examined. I have no doubt of Selwyn's identity.
HENRY SPONG . I am assistant to Mr. George Attenborough, of 72, Strand—I know Peach—3 remember his bringing me a £100 note about 28th July—he asked me to cash it—we had not the cash at the moment—I sent to Mr. King, a few doors off, for it—a lad went to the bank and brought the money back.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I have known Peach upwards of two years—I have never known anything against him—he is honest, as far as I know—he did not say the note was not for himself, or I should not have changed it.
Re-examined. I only knew him as a customer—I did not know of his passing in any other name—I saw him frequently—he pledged things and redeemed them.
GEORGE CHARLES KING . I am manager to Mr. A. George, of 78, Strand, pawnbroker and jeweller—we keep an account at the London and County Bank, Covent Garden branch—this note, 96280, for £100, was brought to me from Mr. Spong to change—I wrote on it, "Please change.—George C. King. "
REGES GLEISALL . I am with Messrs. Birt and Co., money changers and foreign bankers, of Cornhill—on 28th July I changed these two £100 notes, 96279 and 96281, into French money for a person I do not know, who brought them to my place—I wrote at his dictation on one of the notes the address, the name was written in my presence by the person tendering the notes—I gave him 5,000 francs in notes and £1 7s. 6d. cash.
FRANK FULLAGER . I am one of the firm of Reinhart and Co., foreign bankers, 14, Coventry Street—on 27th July, 1891, I cashed these two £100 notes, Nos. 209 and 96284, into French money—I do not know the person who brought them, it was about six p.m.
JAMES CHARLES WALDRON . I am with Mr. Edmund Smart, foreign banker, 9, Wardour Street—on 28th July, 1891, I changed this £100 note, 96283—at the dictation of the person who brought it I wrote on the back, "D. Vernon, 4, Park Place, St. James's Street"—I wrote "Edmund Smart,"that is my employer's signature, underneath—I do not know what is underneath that.
GEORGE MILTON . I am manager to Mr. Vaughan, pawnbroker, of 39, Strand—I changed this note 96282, and paid it into our bank on 27th or 28th July—three or four persons came in with it, recommended by a neighbour, Mr. Harris, a tailor.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. I fix the date by our bankers—I have nothing to show the date except our books, which are at home, but our bankers insert the date for us; it was paid the following morning into Ransome Bouverie, Barclay Bevans—I do not know anything of the mark on the back.
Re-examined. It was too late to pay it in the same evening.
know the prisoners—on 28th July, Peach was indebted to me a little over £100—he sent me this £10 note (34927) in a registered letter—I cashed it, I think, the same morning—it has my endorsement—I learned Peach was in custody on 23rd December—Selwyn called on me that day—that was the first time I had seen him—he said he was a friend of Peach—he gave the name of Selwyn—he asked me to interest myself in the matter of each, and go and see Mrs. Peach, and also see Peach at Holloway—I am of no occupation—he said Peach had been taken to Holloway on some charge of fraud; he did not exactly give the particulars—he asked me to do it in a friendly way—he said it would not be altogether convenient for him to go, because there was a committal out against him on some other charge which he did not give me any details of—I asked him what it was; I really cannot remember what he said; something connected with a bill, I think—he was going to bring, money later on for me to take to Mrs. Peach—I knew she was living at Richmond, Park Side, Chisholm Road—I did not know where he lived—I do not think I asked—I think I had been to Park Side—I am sure I had—I do not think I can tell when—I think I had been there on two or three occasions—I should not like to put a date to it; I really could not say the last time—I do not think I had been for some months previous to this matter—six, at least—I think I might say six—it is not a point I should like to be certain upon—there is nothing to put it on my mind; about the summer; I do not think I could put it nearer—I did not go very often; about the early part of the summer—about the latter end of May, or the beginning of June—I had no idea, where Selwyn lived—our interview took place at Hammersmith—I knew the Richmond address quite well—it was the early part of the afternoon when Selwyn came; about one, or a little earlier—I did not go to see Peach that afternoon—Selwyn called again about 6.30 p.m.,—I went to see Mrs. Peach that evening—not before I saw Selwyn—he gave me £15 to give to her; one £5 note and one £10 note—he also gave me £2 10s. for my expenses—I told him I did not want so much, but he gave it to me—I do not think my expenses came to quite that—that is the term he applied—he gave me this envelope with the address—I wrote on it, "Received £5 note C. N. 15496, and one £10 note H. S. A. 53700 for Mrs. Peach, Park Side, Chisholm Road, Richmond, A. C. K"—I did not notice any other address—the pencil writing at the back is Selwyn's—now I have looked at it I remember seeing it; I saw him write it—that was written on the second occasion. (This was: "Mr. Arthur Newton, solicitor, think his address is Marlborough Street")—I did not give him any receipt for the money; he did not ask for one—I afterwards saw Peach at Holloway—after that Selwyn called again on about 26th December, in the evening, at. my house; he wanted to know how Peach was, and what he had said as to the charge, and when I had seen him—he was with me about ten or fifteen minutes—I could not tell him anything very clearly as to what Peach had said about the charge, because I could not gather it—I gathered the charge had something to do with the robbery of bonds—I was not able to tell him anything very definite from Peach—it is a long time ago—I had never been at Holloway before—I told Peach I had taken the money to Mrs. Peach—I have not taken a. note of the day I went to Holloway—it was not the same afternoon—the first occasion
Peach said, "All right," and that he wanted me to have £2 more, not added to my expenses; I looked upon that as being off the amount he owed me—he said a charge had been brought against him of robbery of bonds, of which he was innocent—this has come fresh upon my memory—I believe I am waking up from forgetfulness—my memory was not better when I saw Selwyn—I had nothing more to tell him—I am positive now there was nothing more said—that was the last time I saw Selwyn—I saw him on three occasions on two days—I communicated with the police on January 6th—I wrote to Inspector Abberline.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I was not aware Peach was going in the name of Harcourt—I do not remember his having a difficulty in a club, nor bankruptcy proceedings against him—I have heard he is interested in a reversion—I have advanced him money on several occasions—his debt to me was a little over £100; I have not the exact amount.
By the COURT. The pencil writing was jotted down by Selwyn in my presence—he suggested Mr. Newton as a solicitor—the idea at that time was that it was to arrange for the defence—he suggested I should go to Mr. Newton that evening; after that we came to the conclusion that the solicitor already acting for Peach would do just as well.
THOMAS GIRDLER . I am managing clerk to Mr. Chancellor, house agent, 1, King Street, Richmond—in November, 1889, I had the selling of 2, Park Hill, Richmond—I saw the prisoner Selwyn about it—the lease was sold to Mrs. Emily Selwyn for £480—I think the term was about sixty years.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. The purchase was by Mrs. Selwyn—the deposit was paid by her cheque—I did not see the balance.
FREDERICK BERNARD SENIOR . I am a solicitor, and am Town Clerk of Richmond—I acted in the sale of the house belonging to Miss Plummer, No. 2, Park Hill; that is very near Park Side; they are parallel streets—I identify Selwyn as the husband of the lady who was purchasing the house—I have a leasehold interest in Park Side, Chisholm Road; that house was let for me through Mr. Blake to a Mr. Henry Harcourt—I did not see the tenant till after he was in possession—on one occasion Mr. Harcourt came to me to pay his rent; it was Peach.
JOHN SERJEANT BLAKE . I carry on business as Gascoigne and Blake, house agents, Richmond—I knew Peach by the name of Henry Harcourt—I had the letting of the house, Park Side, Chisholm Road—Peach applied to me in the name of Harcourt to take it, and gave me as a reference Mr. Walter Selwyn, of Park Hill—I communicated with him, and got this letter (Read): "10th March, 1891, Park Hill, Queen's Road, Richmond. Gentlemen,—In reply to your letter of this date, I am acquainted with Mr. Henry Harcourt, and recommend him as fully able to pay the rental named, and would be glad to accept him as a tenant of any of my houses if I had anything to suit him in Richmond.—Yours faithfully, SELWYN. "—this is Harcourt's letter, taking the house, written on my paper in my office. (This was dated 6th March, from 44, Markham Square, agreeing to take the house at an annual rent of £36.)
he remained there three quarters, and then left without notice, but the tenancy still continued—the house was empty for about six months; I then re-let it—he paid his rent on 10th March.
JOHN HAWKINS FORD . I am chief clerk at the Richmond branch of the London and County Bank—I know Selwyn as Walter Selwyn—on 4th June, 1887, a joint account was opened with us in the name of Walter and Emily Selwyn—that continued until 26th July the same year, when it was closed—on 7th November, 1889, an account was opened in the name of Emily Selwyn—we were applied to by the Knightsbridge branch as a reference, and on 28th October, 1890,1 received this authority, signed W. Selwyn for Emily Selwyn, for the sale of some stock—I saw Selwyn sign it.
JAMES MONTAGUE . I am chief clerk at the Knightsbridge branch of the London and County Bank—on 24th September, 1860, a Mr. Melville called on me with this letter of introduction—it was the prisoner Selwyn. (Read): "September 4th, 1890. Park Hill House, Richmond. Captain Selwyn recommends the bearer, Mr. Percy Melville, his brother-in-law, to the manager of the London and County Knightsbridge, to open a banking account. Mr. Melville has resided for some years in India, and is about to buy a house near the Knightsbridge Branch."—I notice a difference in his appearance, his hair, moustache, and eyebrows were black—he brought with him a cheque for £1,000 on the Richmond branch, drawn by Emily Selwyn—I com municated with the Richmond branch on the subject of the letter and cheque, and as a result opened the account in the name of Percy Melville, and he operated on that account—in April, 1891, he deposited some French rentes, and borrowed money on them—he afterwards instructed me to sell some; his account was overdrawn pending the sale—he afterwards deposited further French securities, and having had them valued, I save him a credit of about £2,764—the first lot being sold realised £1,126, and the second lot £1,637—those were French rentes—all the securities deposited were French bonds—he offered further securities, which were not accepted—a few days after the sale I got some information about the securities being stopped—we them all. (Two letters of Selwyn's were then put in, and the following passage in one of them was read: "I know that they were not in the official list of stock bonds, published in Paris at the time I bought them, as it has been a rule of mine for years not to deal in this class of security without first sending for the 'Bulletin des Opposition.'")—that letter was written in my presence on 9th December—I saw Selwyn write it on the bank paper, but with the address, "44, Markham Square"—this other letter of 7th December was not written in my presence—the sale was four or fire days previous to that letter—I received this letter or 23rd February, 1892. (This was signed Melville, and stated that for some time he should be residing in France.)—this cheque for £48, dated 3rd March, 1892, payable to W. Cooper, was the last cheque presented on that account.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. This is the first time I have teen asked about the colour of the prisoner's moustache—I first saw the difference when I saw him at Marlborough Street Police-station, after he had been arrested—I had seen him at least six times; the latest
was in December, 1891; his hair, moustache, and eyebrows were then quite black; he had no whiskers, I think.
JOHN CLANDERY VERRALL . I am a Turkish accountant—I know Selwyn—I had some transaction with him, resulting in a correspondence—I produce the letter written to me by him; it related to a ring—at that time he had a very dark moustache, very much curled up; that was in March, 1890—he did not settle my account, and he referred me to his agent, P. Pemberton, Esq., 29, Agate Road; that was in October—I never saw Pemberton.
Cross-examined. October, 1890, was the latest time I saw him—there was nothing particular to call my attention to his moustache at that time, only it was the same as Lord Randolph Churchill's, very much curled.
FREDERICK GEORGE ABBERLINE . I was for many years in the police force—I have lately retired, in my thirtieth year of service; I was then chief inspector—in January, 1890, I received information of the robbery of a parcel of bonds on board the Mary Beatrice—I saw it circulated in the ordinary way; I was not specially employed then—in the course of my experience I have acquired a knowledge of dealing with foreign bonds and the persons employed in dealing with them—in March, 1891, I went to Calais, and kept observation on the steamers arriving and departing there—I took Sergeant Lowe with me, as he spoke French fluently—on the morning of the 9th April I saw four men I knew leave the mail steamer Breeze, arriving from Dover at a quarter to one a.m.; they left separately—one was named Powell, another Sinclair, and the two others, Red Bob and Shrimps—I was in communication with the French police, and arrangements had been made—I indicated those men to the French police, and they were arrested—at the Police-station at Calais a cloak-room ticket was handed to me by one of the French officers in the presence of Powell—this (produced) is the remains of it; it was in a pulp; the officer forced Powell, and made him spit it out—this is dated 24th March, 1891, relating to a hatbox left at the Victoria Station of the London, Chatham, and Dover line—this cloak-room ticket was also handed to me, dated 8th April, some keys were taken from Sinclair and handed to me; one of them I found to be a master key fitting all the safes on board the London, Chatham, and Dover mail boats—the Breeze was one of those boats—the other two keys were keys of Chubb's padlocks used on the steamers—the safes are placed in a square wooden box on the deck, and the outer box is padlocked—I afterwards tested one of them in the outer box of the Wave, and it fitted; the other fitted the outer box of another steamer—from Sinclair a wax impression was taken of the padlock belonging to the Breeze, the boat they had left—a piece of wax was also taken from Bed Bob, but he destroyed the marks on it; it was impossible to identify it—the four men were detained—I afterwards went to Dover, and there obtained the parcel that was referred to in the Dover cloak-room ticket; it was a bag containing a dummy parcel in brown paper, an exact imitation of a parcel of bonds, in an oilcloth cover, with a plain label ready to be addressed—I found three parcels, exact imitations of parcels of bonds, which might be used for replacing any parcels of bonds that were taken—I went to Victoria Station with the other ticket, and got the hat-box, in the lining of which I found a
sealed packet, and there were some old shirts in the box—the sealed packet contained sixty-two coupons, which had been cut from the bonds contained in the stolen parcel of bonds for March, 1890—the whole of those coupons related to twenty of the bonds deposited with Mr. Scears—the four men that were taken in custody at Calais were detained until August, and were then expelled from France—on 4th September, 1891, I went to the cloak-room at Cannon Street, and there examined a Gladstone bag, which had been deposited there some months prior, and in that I found twenty Turkish Priority bonds for £100 each and twenty Mexican bank shares and five £20 Turkish—I produce them—there were also twenty-three loose coupons relating to the same stolen bonds—I gave instructions to the railway company, and on 8th October I received a communication from them—the bag was left there, but I took the contents—in consequence of the communication I received I kept observation on the South-Eastern Railway office in Piccadilly Circus; the day previous to that I received a telegram, and went to the Café Monico, and there saw the man Powell in conversation with a man called Kotchie, a man aged about sixty, and 5ft. 6in. in height; a Polish Jew, thin, with hollow cheeks, a haggard expression, and grey moustache; that was the description given by Mr. Wain—on the 9th I was in the receiving office in Piccadilly, and while there I saw Kotchie come in; about four I saw a woman outside speaking to him—they waited about there, walking backwards and forwards, and about six o'clock the woman came into the office; she went up to the clerk; I could not see what she had got—she. went out, and in going out I saw her communicate with Kotchie; he banded her something, which he took from his waistcoat pocket; she came into the office again—I saw her pay money, 14s. and something, and this Gladstone bag was handed to her; it was the bag I had seen at Cannon Street, out of which I had taken the bonds—she then rejoined Kotchie, and they got into a cab and drove away together; I did not follow them—I afterwards ascertained where they were going to, and afterwards went to the place, 4, Portland Terrace, St. John's Wood, where I found Kotchie and the woman living—I interviewed them—up to this point I had been acting on my own account in my capacity of police-inspector, with the knowledge of the Marine Insurance Company—on the 2nd November I got information as to the presentation of some of the coupons; the secretary called at our office, and as the result I was put in communication with Mr. Scears—I inquired into the matter, and in conjunction with Mr. Scears and Mr. Maugham, I swore an information, and obtained a warrant for the arrest of both the prisoners—on the 21st December I met the prisoner Peach in Glasshouse Street, Regent Street, about eleven in the morning; Sergeant Lowe was with me—I said, "I am an inspector of police, and this is a brother officer; I hold a warrant for your arrest for obtaining from Mr. Scears £890 on some stolen bonds"—he said, "I am perfectly innocent"—we went to the Vine Street Station, close by, and I read the warrant to him—he remarked, "I hall be able to explain it more fully; I believe Mr. Melville is in Scotland, shooting, and will return in January; I have known him since 1886. I met him some time ago, and he asked me to raise a loan on these bonds; he said he had bonds to the value of £4,800, and I obtained the loan from Mr. Scears on twenty £100 bonds. I afterwards met Mr.
Melville in October at the Primrose Club, and he asked me to take charge of the remainder of the bonds, and I did so, he also asked me to sell them in January, and then redeem those in the possession of Mr. Scears"—I said, "As a police officer I cannot ask you anything, but as you refer to the missing bonds, I may tell you the owners are very anxious about them, as they form the remaining portion of £8,400 which were stolen"—he said they were in perfectly safe keeping, and would be produced after he had consulted his solicitor—on 22nd December I went to Richmond, and saw Peach's wife—she appeared to be very ill, as well as in great poverty—I gave her ten shillings—she said she had no bread in the house—on 29th December the question of these bonds was mentioned before the Magistrate, who made some statement, in consequence of which I spoke to Mr. Cooper, the solicitor appearing for Peach—I went with Mr. Cooper to the house of Mrs. Peach, and had some conversation with her—she seemed then to be in a very much better position than when I had seen her last—I went with her upstairs; there was a bedstead in the centre of the room—she pushed it on one side, and moved a piece of carpet from the centre of the room, and indicated a board there, which I lifted up, and took from the hole in the floor a parcel containing twenty-three £100 Turkish Priority bonds, which had formed part of the stolen parcel that I was looking for—I found some letters in another part of the house, which I produce. (These were put in, and referred, to as showing communication between the prisoners, and were used for the purpose of comparison of handwriting)—during this time I was looking for Selwyn—he was arrested on 2nd March—I had observation kept on a house in Harewood Square, Marylebone, and Selwyn was brought out of that house and put into a cab—Sergeant Lowe told him who I was, and I said I would follow to the station in another cab—Selwyn said, "There is plenty of room; pray come in here"—on the way in the cab he said he was at Peach's house the night following his arrest; he said, "If I had known there were any bonds there you may take your oath they would not have been found"—he said, "I have been through the depositions the night before last"—nothing was said about the account opened in the name of Percy Melville—I was not present when he wrote a cheque—I do not know Graham.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. He said, "When I wrote this letter I intended to surrender, but was advised to the contrary"—it was after that that he spoke of the bonds—he did not say that if any bonds of his had been there he would have taken care to remove them—he said that if the solicitor at Eastbourne could identify them he hoped it would be a fair identification, and he wished to be brought face to face with Mr. Hunter, of Eastbourne—I do not know Kotchie by any other name—hisk real name is not Powell; they are two distinct people—I have known John Powell many years—Kotchie has not been arrested.
Cross-examined by MR. ELDRIDGE. I went through these letters; one refers to a club—there is a very long letter there—I do not suggest that the letters put in are all; there are a quantity—a good many of them are not connected with this inquiry—I found sixty-two coupons of the missing bonds at the station, dated March, 1890—I went to Peach's house—I may have told his wife on the first occasion that I was a friend of his, because she was so ill I was afraid to tell her who I was—I went down with Mr. Cooper—I had not seen any letter which the prisoner wrote to
his wife, but I have since I went down to Mr. Cooper by arrangement to receive the bonds; they were found under a board which I removed—I saw no sign of gas-fittings; it was in the middle of the room—I went over the house, but did not see that sort of thing in two other rooms.
RICHARD LOWE (Detective Sergeant). I have acted with Inspector Abberline in this matter—I was with him at Selwyn's arrest at Harewood Square—he opened the door to us and I said, "Mr. Melville, I believe?" he said, "No, my name is Walter Selwyn"—I said we were police officers, and read the warrant to him—he said, "So help me God I am innocent; how did you know I was here? I know who sent you"—he said he had come to town as a witness in Mr. Peach's case—he said something about calling at Peach's house on the night of his arrest in the name of Frank Daldren—I found at the house a number of documents which I produce; also some black cosmetic, and a comb for applying it to the moustache.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. He told me he went by the name of Daldren.
GEORGE SMITH ENGLAND . I am an expert in handwriting—I was examined at the Police-court, as also was Mr. Netherclift, who is since dead—I had all the documents in Selwyn's writing handed to me, and the letters in the name of Retlaw and Hughes, the letter to Mr. Hunter, the documents produced by Mr. Montagu, the signature, A. H. Melville, to the agreement in Mr. Scears' case, document 4, purporting to be the authority of Peach to receive money from Scears, and the signature of Melville on a bank-note—comparing the signature of Melville to the agreement with Selwyn's admitted writing, I say that it is Selwyn's disguised writing, and the same as the signature of Melville on the £100 note—I recognise a similarity between that writing and the writing of the document produced by Mr. Montagu through the letter "J,"which is the connecting link—I believe the letter addressed to Miss Beeby, in the name of Walter Selwyn, is Selwyn's genuine writing—the letters in the name of Retlaw and Hughes are both in the same writing—I am prepared to point out the peculiarities on which I base my opinion.
Cross-examined by MR. MURPHY. The disguised signatures of Selwyn are the signatures on the letter "J,"that on No. 8, that on the £100 note, and that on No. 6—the whole of letter "J"is in a disguised writing, that is to say, it is not like Selwyn's writing, but being an expert I am able to say that it is his.
By the COURT. I believe it to be the same writing, in the writer's usual hand.
SELWYN was further charged with a previous conviction at this Court on 27th February, 1888, in the name of Edwin Fairchild, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY; another conviction was proved against him.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. PEACH— Fourteen Months' Hard Labour.
The COURT highly commended the skill and ability displayed by Inspector Abberline in the case.
NEW COURT.—Saturday, April 9th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
442. LEWIS LYONS, For a libel in Hebrew in The Jewish Trade Unionist, concerning Charles Tarling and others.The libel was a newspaper article, headed "Tarling and Bagg"charging them with underpaying their workpeople, and driving the men to beggary and thieving, and the women to prostitution, and giving anecdotes of alleged cases of ill-treatment.—Signed, LEWIS LYONS.
MR. KEMP, Q.C., Prosecuted, and MR. THOMPSON Defended.
JOHN JONES . I am clerk to Messrs. Lewis and Churchman, solicitors, of Chancery Lane—I produce an order of Mr. Baron Pollock—on March 3rd I saw the defendant at Judges' Chambers—he produced document A, which is attached to the depositions—I produced the libel in question, written in Hebrew or Yiddish, to the defendant—I think he called it Hebrew—I produce a translation of it—I placed them before the defendant—he asked me to let him have them, and looked at both—he can speak a little English—he said, "How is it I have not had a translation of this? This is what I wrote, and this is my signature. "(MR. THOMPSON stated that he did not dispute the facts, but was prepared to justify if the case was adjourned.)—this is a copy of a letter written by our firm to the prisoner on March 20th. (This stated that in reply to his statement before the Magistrate he intended to call witnesses, they thought it right to inform him as he was not legally represented that it would be necessary for him to file a plea of justification at the Central Criminal Court, and that they had supplied him with a copy of the libel and a translation ten days ago.
The prisoner's reply to the above was put in, stating that the translation was incorrect.)—on 30th March we wrote an answer, of which this is a copy. (Stating that the translation was correct, and pointing out to the prisoner that he had admitted being the author of the libel. THE COURT declined to adjourn the case, and MR. KEMP submitted that the case was now proved, but on MR. THOMPSON'S request consented to put the prosecutor into the box)—Mr. Tarling is our client, he is the senior partner in the firm of Tarling, Beaumont and Co., mentioned in the libel—there is no other firm of that name to my knowledge.
CHARLES TARLING . I am a member of the London County Council—the prisoner was formerly in my service—I dismissed him, and he applied to me several times since to take him into my service again, and so late as last August, but I did not do so—this libel appeared eight days before the polling day for the London County Council—we employ two hundred! hands in our factory, and a large number outside—a considerable number of them are Polish and Russian Jews—they speak a Hebrew which is called Yiddish—I am on good terms with my workpeople—the statements in the libel are absolutely false—the Inspector came and inspected our books, and considered that our payments were above the average—there is no other firm of that name—there are 1,500 Jewish voters in that district, and I believe they all understand Hebrew.
Cross-examined. It is absolately false that the prisoner left our service on account of the low wages; he left because his practices were not consistent with honesty—he has taken part in agitating against the sweating system for a number of years—he was a witness, I believe, before the Sweating Committee—I do not read Yiddish, but I am daily in communication with people who do—it is not the fact that since this article appeared my business has increased—we are making a large number of soldiers' kersey jackets—I believe the average price we pay for unlined ones is 2s. 2d.—it is absolutely untrue that we are only paying 1s. 2d. and 1s. 2 1/2 d.—we may have paid under 2s. for a certain cloth, but not for these (produced)—we pay from 2s. 9d. to 4s. 9d. for making
tweed morning coats—it all depends upon the style—I do not recognise this log—it may take 23 1/2 hours to make a morning coat by hand, out our work is done by machinery, even to the pressing and the button holes—one hand might make one in two or three hours, and another in three or four hours, but I cannot tell you how long, because everything is done by sub—division of labour—I should lay it would take six hours to make a tweed morning coat, for which we pay 2s. 9d. if one person did the whole of it—we have never employed any grinners to my knowledge—out of a contract for 6,000 soldiers coats 1,000 may have been rejected, which is the case in all contracts—there are three conveniences on each floor; I have not heard the medical officer say there ought to be twenty—no complaints have been made about them by the workpeople—I have never seen women waiting for a convenience while men were there—there are no sub—contracts; I am opposed to them, and if I heard of it I should immediately order it to desist—such girls as only earn Ave shillings a week are apprentices, all of them under sixteen—most girls pay a premium to learn the business, but we do not charge a premium, we take them in and give them five shillings a week—I complain of the whole of this article; it is a libel from beginning to end; it is a monstrous libel to say that the girls are so badly paid that they become prostitutes—I also complain of this, that two of the workmen did a large amount of work and never sot a farthing for it, and one man being paid fifteen shillings for five days' work—that is untrue; I have investigated the whole thing—I consider the first sentence libellous, and not wild words signifying nothing—I felt great indignation when I read it, and my work girls came to me and begged me to take action in the matter, and Mr. Montagu, M. P., went into the matter with me—I never heard of a meeting of my workpeople at Mr. Lyon's office, nor was there a meeting in my own firm, to my knowledge, but it could have happened—it is the first I have heard of a meeting to express dissatisfaction—Mr. Gibbs is my manager.
Re-examined. It was to the shop where "many awful and terrible scenes are represented as occurring "that the prisoner asked to return so late as August last—the workpeople who came to me and suggested these proceedings are the people represented as living in slavery.
— GUILTY .— Six Months' Imprisonment.
THIRD COURT.—Saturday, April 9th 1892.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. A. GILL and GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted, and MISSES. GEOGHEGAN and BIRON Defended.
RICHARD BASDEN . I am a foreman at the Indian Stores Depot in Belvidere Road—on 16th June last I received a number of oases, including this one, which weighed 66lb.—I afterwards saw it put on board the
lighter Putney, of which Nicholls was in charge—they were given to him, and, when loaded, were in good order and intact.
WILLIAM WARNER . I live at 9, Ettrich Street, South Bromley, and am a watchman in the service of Phillips and Groves, lightermen, and owners of the Putney, which came alongside the Astrea in the Albert Docks about 12th of June—I do not remember the day, but I know it was towards the end of the week—she was then in Nicholls' charge—I saw the goods taken out of her and put on board the ship—this was the list I received from Nicholls—this box, 2,871, went on board the Astrea—I am not sure whether it was on the Saturday or Monday—the lighter did not begin unloading till the Saturday, and she finished on the Monday.
Cross-examined. The lighter came alongside on 12th June in the daytime; I think before noon, but I am not sure—I am sure she did not begin to unload that day—on the Saturday I was on the barge tallying part of the stuff out—I don't know if the cargo of the barge was unbroken on the Saturday—goods were being taken on board from other lighters—the lighter was under the bow of the ship fast to the quay—I do not tally the goods in; I tallied some stones.
Re-examined. I am quite clear that the unloading of the Putney was not begun until the Saturday, and it took the Saturday and part of the Monday.
WILLIAM JAMES WEBB repeated in substance his evidence on the previous occasion, and added: I am not certain when the Putney came alongside the Astrea; I believe it was on the 12th—it finished discharging at eight a.m. on the Monday—I initialed the list as the goods were delivered—the Putney was discharging on the Saturday and Monday morning—as far as I remember she came alongside on the Friday; I had nothing to do with her till the Saturday morning—I don't remember what time this case was put on board—Doherty was the mate.
Cross-examined. I was present at the trial of Ashton, Humphries, and Clarke; I was not in court all the time—Gaiety, the donkey-engine man, Hargreaves, and John Egan attended there as witnesses for the prosecution; I have not seen any of them here to-day.
JAMES ALEXANDER HAMILTON . I live at 10, Suffolk Street, Poplar, and am a stevedore in the service of Mr. Charlton, the master stevedore, in the loading of the Astrea in June—the lading began on 8th June, and finished on the 17th at three a.m.—the prisoner and Ashton were employed on board—the ship has four holds—the prisoner was working in No. 2 hold on the Saturday and Monday, 13th and 15th June, and Ashton worked in the same hold—I received Government stores on board—I superintended the full lading of the ship, and the putting of the Government stores into Nos. 2 and 3 holds; the goods for Kurrachee were put into No. 3, and those for Bombay into No 2 hold mostly—I believe these stamps were consigned to Bombay, and in the ordinary way would go into No. 2 hold—the prisoner started work at No. 2 hold at seven on Monday morning, and finished at ten on Monday night—on Saturday he worked at No. 2 hold from seven a.m. to five p.m.—Ashton was there from seven to five on Monday; he might have gone away to get a drop of beer; we do not take notice of that if he is away for half an hour—he went away at five and did not come back—I believe he might have been away in the afternoon to get beer—it would not be
possible to break open that case in No. 2 hold without the other labourers in the hold seeing it done—as well as the prisoner and Ashton other men were working in No. 2 hold.
Cross-examined. I am a foreman stevedore—I tell the men under me the different holds for them to work in—I have a book with the list of the gangs—six or eight men would be employed in No. 2 hold on the Saturday and Monday, 19th and 15th—there were Ashton, Morris, Jones, Hunt, Wood, Bright, Seward, and Chapman working in that hold on the Saturday and Monday, part of the time—Chapman is the name the prisoner was called by—if this box had been broken open I should think all those eight men must have seen it—Morris, Jones, Hunt and Wood were only working on board that boat—I have not, to the best of my knowledge, seen them since—they have not been arrested or brought up in connection with this matter to my knowledge—I was examined when Ashton, Clarke, and Humphries were tried—I believe Ashton was not working on Saturday in No. 4 hold till 8a. m, and then in No. 2—he was in Nos. 1 and 2 on Saturday—this book tells me the holds in which the men are working—it is not correct that on Monday, 15th, Ashton was working in No. 1 hold from 7 till 11 a.m.; it would be in this book if he had—Harris was in the barge slinging the goods; Webster was in the gangway on the ship's deck, Greenhead was driving the winch; those three men would not be in the hold, they were part of the same gang—the twelfth man would be in the barge—there were two sidemen, Ashton and Morris, who each had charge of one side, and were in authority over the others—it was their duty if they saw anything wrong with the cargo to report it at once to myself or the chief officer of the ship.
Re-examined. If anyone saw anything wrong it would be his duty to report it—all the eight men would be working at the same time in No. 2 hold on the Monday—they were working in Nos. 1 and 4 on the Monday.
ALFRED GEORGE ASHTON . I am undergoing a sentence of penal servitude at Wormwood Scrubbs prison in reference to a robbery of stamps from the Astrea in the Royal Albert Docks—I was convicted in December—last June I was acting as a stevedore's labourer on the Astrea in the Docks—I began work there on the 8th June—I superintended the general lading—the Putney came alongside on Friday, 12th June—on the Saturday, 13th, I was working at No. 1 hold; that was the day I was convicted for—I worked "on that day from 7a.m. till 5 p.m. at No. 1 hold, and at no other hold that day—on the Monday I started at No. 1 again at 7 a.m. and worked till 10.30a. m, I would not be certain to a minute—we put the hatches on No. 1, and moved to No. 2 hold at "eleven o'clock, and worked till five o'clock—I was away from half-past three till twenty minutes past four for some beer, while they were shifting barges—I remember this wooden case coming from the Putney—I handled the whole of the cases; the Putney had between 2,000 and 3,000 stones and cases for Bombay; there was no bulkhead, it was all dear—the things for Kurrachee were at the fore and after ends—I handled this case as it came down the hold, I took all the oases out of the sling and put them down myself, about a quarter to three on the afternoon of the Monday—every case that came down in that sling was in good condition—when I came back about twenty minutes past four, and went into
the hold, three men were working at my side and four at the other—I had charge of the port side and three men; there were the prisoner, whom we called Dutchy, Hunt, and another man, whose name I don't know—all the men in the gang were strangers to me except Morris, who had charge of the other side—I left all the men there when I went away for some beer, and I left the prisoner in charge of the port side while I went—when I got back, I looked round to see if everything was all right, and down amongst the casks of cement for Kurrachee, I saw some stamps lying—I picked them up and said, "Where the devil have these come from?"—the prisoner was there—I asked him, "Where the devil have these come from?"—he said, "I have opened a case"—I asked him who gave him permission to open a ease, and he laughed—I said, "And what good are these foreign things?"—he said, "Oh, I know where to sell them; I can make money of them"—I said, "Why, you have torn them all to pieces too; you are trying to get me into a row to leave the things about, if the mate comes down or the governor for to see them"—he said, "No, I am going to shift them directly"—I did nothing more, but I unbuttoned my shirt and-put all I could pick up inside betwixt my shirt and flannel—they were in parts of sheets; they had been torn to get them out from the case, from beneath the tinfoil—it would take a good half-hour to get them out—I went on deck and challenged Gaiety, the donkey-engine man—I called Gaiety down the forecastle, because I suspected he had been keeping watch, and I gave all the stamps to him except half a sheet and nine single stamps, which I found when I got home sticking to my flannel—I washed, and had tea, and changed my clothes, and went to the Liverpool Arms public-house, which is a long way from the Astrea, but just across the street, forty yards, from my house, to have a glass of beer—I there saw three of the crew of the Astrea—I took the stamps out of my pocket to show them the reason I had left off work, and Hargreaves took them out of my hand—I had no other of those stamps besides those I have spoken of—afterwards I saw some more at the Liverpool; on the Thursday, I think it was, I could not say the date—Robert Ashton fetched those from his house—he lived in the same street, but is no relation of mine—he was here in December to give evidence, but was not called—he fetched about twentyfive sheets—I was present when they were sold. (MR. GEOGHEGAN objected to this transaction being gone into, as no connection was proved between Robert Ashton, who had since died, and the prisoner, and the prisoner could not be held responsible for what had taken place in the public-house. MR. GILL contended that it was admissible, as showing what had become of the stolen property.
The COMMON SERJEANT held that the evidence did not bear on this case)—next morning, Friday, 19th, between six and seven, the prisoner asked me what I did with tie stamps I took up—I made no answer, but I said, "What did you do with the lot you had?"—he said, "Oh, I soon sold mine; a woman came with a pony and trap from Poplar and fetched them from the house"—he asked me why I did not come back after tea; I gave him no answer—he said, "I shared them all out to the men; we might have done that case if you had liked"—I said when he told me that, "I would not come back for £1,000, because there is sure to be a row about that case; mark me there will; I have worked twenty years in the dock and I have never had anything interfered
with before"—he said no more that morning—I met him afterwards from time to time, and he always brought it up, and said he should like more like them, he should make money out of them—I said, "You must have made £100 or £200 out of that," and he laughed—he did not mention at the time the woman's name who he said took them; he said she lived over the bridge at Poplar—I was arrested on 14th September—after I had been in Holloway over a month or five weeks I sent for the prisoner over a dozen times before he came, and before that he had sent Mr. Shaman's clerk to me after the first hearing at Bow Street—I appeared before the Magistrate on the day after my arrest—I was not represented by a solicitor then, but on the following week at the remand, on the 22nd September,! was represented by Mr. Sharman at Bow Street—I had not seen him before he appeared at the Court, but his clerk had come to Holloway Prison before that—Mr. Sharman represented me until the end of the trial—he was sent to me; he said the prisoner sent him, and Morris and Hunt sent him—I did not pay a farthing for the costs of my defence; I had nothing to pay with—after about a month, after I sent for him, the prisoner came to me at Holloway—I asked him what he was going to do; I said, "Am I going to stop all the while in prison like this? You know I am charged with stealing those stamps on the 13th, and you know they did not come in until the 15th"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "This is a nice pickle you have got me into; I told you there would be a nice row over this, and I have got to suffer for it"—he said, "You will be all right; you will get off; we have got a counsellor"—I said, "Mind, I want you there, Morris, Hunt, Webster; I want Robert Ashton, William Simmonds, James Willingham, as witnesses for me on the trial, and you see they are there; if you will promise me that I will keep quiet till then"—I asked that they would come and tell the truth to prove the stamps came in on the 15th, as I was charged with stealing them on the 13th—there were two charges; one was giving them to the firemen, and the other breaking open the case and stealing them—he said he would see that everything was right—he said Mr. Sharman had got the brief written out, and paid the counsel, and everything would be all right—he did not come before the trial—I saw Elizabeth McEwan, my niece, before the trial, but not the prisoner—I was tried in December—Robert Ashton was the only one of those witnesses there; he was not called—Mr. Sharman never called a witness—I was convicted, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude—in the interval of about two months between my conviction and sentence I sent for the prisoner by my niece—the prisoner came to see me at Holloway early in February—I asked him why he was not at the trial—I got onto him something cruel; I said, "What is this going to be?"—he said, "I don't know; I don't know what to do"—I said, "Well, I shall soon know, if you don't know"—I said, "I sent my niece to you, and I told her to tell you that if you did not come to me I would soon send some one to find you"—I told him my niece had told me that he had told her that if I rounded on him he should round on the lot—this was after my conviction and before I was sentenced—the prisoner said, "I don't know what to do; I don't know whatever to do; I shall have to put up with it if you do"—'I said, "Is there another man in England that would screen you the way I have done, to stop in prison all this while? I shall lose two
clubs, be turned out of them, that I have been paying into for twenty years, and out of the Middlesex Volunteers, and I think that is quite hard enough for me to put up with"—I told him all about the evidence not being called at the trial; he said he had been sent away to Tilbury out of the road, and I found that he had—I said, "You have been sent out of the way"—he did not say anything—I said, "Mr. Sharman never called a witness, not one at all; it looked as if Mr. Sharman took the money to sell me; in fact, he has sold me like a bullock at Smithfield; he was not acting for me; all he was trying to do was to get me convicted to cloak you; I shall give you one more chance; that is come to the Court and openly confess and throw yourself there and tell what was done"—he said, "Well, I will see"—he asked me if I had heard about Mother Burton—I said, "That woman at Poplar?"he said, "Yes"—I said, "I read of it in the newspaper; is that the woman who bought your stamps?"—he said, "Yes; somebody put Detective Richard on to her"—that was all he said.
Cross-examined. I have never gone by the name of Long Alf nor the Spouter; I don't know that I am a spouter—I don't know if Hamilton calls me "Long Alf"—I have been in the habit of speaking at my own club—in February, when I was sentenced, I made a statement, not a very long one—I protested that I was perfectly innocent; I was innocent except what I had confessed to Richards—if my witnesses had been called the Jury who found me guilty would have come to a wrong conclusion, because the stamps were not taken in till the 15th; but if I had been on that Jury I should have returned the same verdict—Gaiety, Hargreaves, Egan were called as witnesses against me; they committed perjury against me; and the ship's clerk, Mr. Webb, as well—Webb was a stranger to me, and I did not know him before the trial at all—I don't see what reason Hamilton had to have a spite against me—he would not swear whether this case came in on the Saturday or Monday—I don't see any reason why he should commit perjury—I was not in No. 2 hold on the Saturday—Monday was not the first time we went into the hold, because we started on the Monday before, and worked until the Thursday—on the Saturday, 13th, I was in No. 4 hold till 8 a.m., and then in No. 1, and on the Monday I was in No. 1, and then in No. 2—Hargreaves swore at my trial that on the Saturday evening, 13th, he saw me at the Liverpool Arms in Canning Town, and that I gave him ten or eleven 2-anna stamps—I cannot swear to the exact words he used then. (MR. GILL objected to the witness being asked as to what another witness had said upon another occasion in Court. After hearing MR. GEOGHEGAN, and consulting MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS, the COMMON SERJEANT ruled that such evidence was not admissible unless the witness had some opportunity of contradicting the statement at the time it was made; in this case the witness was represented by Counsel, who cross-examined the various witnesses.)—I knew Malpas, a shipping clerk; he said he was a greengrocer—he was managing the business for his wife's sister's two children—I knew him as a shipping clerk—he reckons he sells tomatoes—the half-sheet and nine stamps I took away might come to ninety-nine stamps—Hargreaves took the nine single ones—the ninety I gave to Robert Osborne to give to Malpas because I had spoken to Malpas before—I gave them to Osborne because he was going by where he lived—I asked Malpas if
he understood foreign stamps—I did not understand them—he said, "Yes; let me see them," and I said I would let him see them—Osborne was not one of the witnesses I wanted at the trial—I gave them to Osborne to deliver to Malpas, who was to look at them—I asked him if he knew what foreign stamps were—half of Malpas's evidence was perjury—I never asked Malpas to lend me half-a-crown on those stamps—it is not true that I told Malpas I could not pay him 4d., or that I called him outside and gave him about 120 stamps wrapped up in a piece of newspaper, or that I asked him if he would lend me half-acrown on them till I got work; it is a lie—Malpas gave the stamps back to me—he did not say, "I don't think these are all right"—I did not say, "Oh, yes, they are all right, Fred; I would not take you in; they are all right"—he did not say, "I don't think they are; my wife is kicking up a bother about them; you take them back again, and I will not have anything to do with them; what good are they to me?"—I did not tell Malpas that I got the stamps through their being sent to me as remittances from India—if Malpas said that he was telling a lie, and he knew it—Egan, Hargreaves, Gaiety, and Webb were liars, Malpas was half a liar, and Mr. Sharman was selling his client—I do not know why Malpas should commit perjury; Webb would do it for the brokers, because the barge came alongside on the 12th, and was not touched on the 15th—Gaiety, Hargreaves, and Egan committed perjury because they bad made a mistake and could not alter it; they altered it once, and could not do so a second time—the eight men in that gang can come here and say that case came in on the 15th—I make this statement in the interest of justice; it is the truth, and I should have made it before only that Clarke and Humphries begged so hard of me not to round—Humphries was the cause of me and Clarke doing it—Humphries and Clarke were guilty—I own I took the stamps and gave them to the donkey-man, but if you can fetch me a man out of that gang who saw me take the stamps out of the case, or who can swear that the prisoner did not do it, I will give in.
Re-examined. One thing in Hargreaves' evidence that is untrue is about my saying that I could give him plenty to make double the money of—it was on the 15th that Hargreaves took the stamps out of my hand, not the 13th; the stamps never came into the ship till the 15th, Monday, and I was not in the Liverpool Arms on Saturday, the 13th—when Gaiety said I gave him stamps on the 13th, it was wrong, it was on 15th; that is what it means when I say he committed perjury—I was charged with breaking the case and stealing the stamps on the 13th—I picked them up on the 15th, and took them on deck and gave them to one of the servants—I thought Gaiety was looking, and he told me not to make a song about them and he would burn them—I wanted to call witnesses to prove that they did not come on board till the 15th, and I thought I ought to have been acquitted on that ground; as I was charged on the wrong day, an his Lordship said to the Jury that if they found the stamps were take in on the 15th they must acquit the prisoners—I sent some of the stolen stamps to Malpas, asking him if he understood what foreign stamps were.
ELIZA ASHTON . I am the wife of the last witness, and live at Burnham Street, Canning Town—I did not know the prisoner before my husband's arrest—the day after my husband's arrest the prisoner came to my house,
and said he was sorry to hear that Alf. had been looked up, and that he had been to a solicitor to engage him for the defence, that he was going to see Ashton at Holloway Prison on the following morning, and that he had promised to meet the solicitor at six o'clock at Canning Town Station; he asked me if I would go and meet him at the same time; I said, "Yes"—next day a man I do not know brought me ten shillings—I went to Canning Town Station that evening; I saw the prisoner, who said the solicitor had not come yet, but he was waiting for him—then Mr. Strickland came, and we went into a public-house facing the station, and I said I had had ten shillings given to me—while we sat there another workman gave me a paper and nine shillings more—I added 1s. to make a sovereign, and that I gave to Mr. Strickland—I asked the prisoner how much he thought it would be, as I had no more money and no means of getting any—he said, "No, only that, because I have given my I O U for the amount"—he said he thought it would be about £4, as far as they knew at present—I did not see the prisoner for a week after that—I had seen my husband in between—when I saw the prisoner again I told him I had told my husband that somebody was paying for his defence, but that I did not know his name—he said, "Tell him Chapman, Dutchy, he will know that better"—I had not heard his name on previous occasions—I once took a message to my husband from the prisoner, and in return I told him that Ashton wanted to see him particularly in Holloway Prison—I saw the prisoner after he had been to Holloway—he told me he had seen my husband—he did not tell me what passed—I afterwards went to the prisoner's house and told him Ashton wanted to see him very particularly—the prisoner said, "Very well, I will go and see him"—that was before the trial—the prisoner said he had sent him in dinner and paid for breakfast for him the next morning at Holloway—I was ill for awhile, and could not see my husband—after his conviction the prisoner said. "The most Ashton will get will be twelve or eighteen months"—I found no money towards my husband's defence—the prisoner only said that if he had been placed as Ashton was then, in prison, he knew Ashton would do the same for him.
Cross-examined. I have had occasion to go to a solicitor on account of my husband's treatment of me, and I have employed Mr. Sharman—I paid him the money to prosecute my husband, but he did not appear; it was three or four years ago—the prisoner said he would pay for Ashton's defence; not that he would see to it.
Re-examined. I have no ill-feeling towards Mr. Sharman—my husband and I parted, and he paid the money, and did not wait for Mr. Sharman to appear; he knew whom I had engaged—I had before that got the order for 6s. a week—the matter came before the Magistrate last November twelvemonth, and the order was made—Ashton paid the money when he was in work—he was not arrested and brought before the Magistrate for not paying it to me; he went of his own free will—I went to Mr. Sharman before that—he had nothing to do with it; the Magistrate allowed me 6s. a week; my husband got into arrears and I went to Mr. Sharman.
ELIZABETH MCEWAN . I was in service at the High Street, North Woolwich—I am the niece of Alfred Ashton—the last time I went to see him when he was in Holloway Prison, after his conviction and before he was sentenced, in consequence of what he said I went to the prisoner
and told him I had been to see my uncle that day, and he had sent a message to him that if he did not come to see him he would round on him—the prisoner's answer was that it would do him no good considering where he was, and he told me he had only just come from Mr. Sharman, and that he would do all in his power for my uncle.
Cross-examined. Mr. Malpas, a greengrocer, is here to-day.
CHARLES RICHARDS (Police Inspector). I was present at the conviction of Ashton, Charles, and Humphries at this Court last December—after that, I saw Ashton, and he made a statement, in consequence of which I arrested the prisoner at 42, Leys Road, West Ham, on 12th March—he answered the door when I knocked—I said, "Chapman, we are police officers, and are going to take you into custody for being concerned with Ashton and others in stealing, on"14th June last, 240 Indian stamps from the ss. Astrea"—he replied, "I know nothing about the matter; why did not you take me before? What makes you take me now?"—I said, "Ashton has made a statement in which he says that you stole the stamps"—he said, "It's a lie; why did not Ashton tell you that before?"—turning to his wife he said, "I shall have to go with Mr. Richards"—he went on to say, "I was working on the ship with him, but I don't know who broke the case of stamps open. Ashton sent for me to go to him to Holloway Prison, and I went up there twice and saw him, and he wanted me and some of the others to go to the Court and swear, the stamps were not put on board until Monday, but I said I would not commit perjury"—I searched him, and a box of papers which he handed me—I found two envelopes; one addressed to Mr. Sharman, 35, Broadway, Stratford, and the other to Mr. A. French, 42, Leys Road, Custom House—with reference to the first he said, "I collect rents in this district for him; and French is my wife's father"—while walking along the street he pointed to a man and said, "Why don't you arrest him? he was working with me in the hold at the time"—I said, "What is his name?"—he said, "I cannot think for the moment, but I will tell you directly"—he afterwards said, "Oh, that man's name is Jones; you can find him outside the dock-gates any morning. The day these stamps were stolen Ashton went away about two o'clock, and left me and the others to do the work; I was in charge. He did not come back till a quarter to five. When he came back I saw the stamps kicking about all over the hold, and Ashton said, 'Look at these b——stamps!' I replied, 'Oh. excuse me being rude, f—the stamps!' If Ashton had listened to me and others' he would not be where he is now"—he made no reply to the charge at the station—it was nearly two months after the trial that any steps were taken to arrest the prisoner—Hargreaves. Gaiety, and Egan are firemen and sailors, and went to sea immediately after the last trial; I have traced some of them, but they are not expected back here for some months yet—Mrs. Burton, of Poplar, has been convicted—I executed a search warrant on her premises on 21st January in consequence of information from India received on 14th August—that was not information from Ashton.
Cross-examined. I received information from India in August, and waited till January before searching—I returned from India in October—I have been connected with Scotland Yard for sixteen and a half years—
I have heard of subscriptions being made up for the defence of a comrade unjustly accused—Ashton made his first statement to me on 8th January before he was sentenced—he did not then mention the prisoner's name—Malpas is here to-day subpœnaed by the prosecution—Ashton had to be kept waiting his trial for three or four months until I could bring Hargreaves, Egan, and Gaiety back from India—I took the trouble to go to India and bring them back that they should be witnesses against him—I left on 28th August and returned on 15th October—he was arrested on 15th September, and tried in December—the man Jones, whom the prisoner pointed out in the street, is not here to-day, nor is Hunt, nor Morris, nor "Wood, nor Seward, nor Bright—I have seen one of those people—I took no statement from him; I asked him certain questions—I heard that another of them went to Scotland Yard, where Sergeant Bradshaw saw him—that was, perhaps, two or three weeks before the trial—those two were not called before the Magistrate; they are not here—Mrs. Burton is in prison; she could be brought here under an order from the Home Secretary—I searched her house—I produce no article relating to this charge except the two envelopes I have mentioned.
Re-examined. I was making inquiries during the delay from August to 7th January.
The COMMON SERJEANT stated that, although a prisoner could be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, yet it would not be safe to do so, and that in this case he could see no corroboration of the convict's evidence. MR. GEOGHEGAN pointed out that, according to the Q. v. Neal, the wife's evidence was no corroboration of her husband's.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Monday, April 11th, 1892.
Before Mr. Recorder.
He received a good character.
— Eight Months' Hard Labour.
There were two other indictments against the prisoner for forgery, upon which no evidence was offered.
445. GEORGE FERDINAND VON WEISSENFELD was indicted for unlawfully writing and publishing a libel of and concerning Samuel George Flaxman, to which a justification was pleaded, and a replication put in (see page 623).
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted, and MR. HODSON Defended.
SAMUEL GEORGE FLAXMAN . I am managing clerk and cashier to Mr. C. T. Birchall, solicitor, of 5, Mark Lane—I have been in that service about fourteen years—in the early part of 1890 Mr. Birchall was solicitor for Mr. Hendry in an action brought by him against the defendant to recover an amount for machinery made by order of the defendant—that action was tried before Mr. Justice Charles on the 7th and 8th of November, 1890—Mr. Davis, his present solicitor, was his solicitor in that
action, and Mr. Ellis J. Davis his counsel—it resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, Mr. Hendry, for £124, and the taxed costs came to £97—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution—on 13th November the defendant called on me at the office—prior to that I had made inquiries about his financial position—I was not alone in the outer office—I saw him alone in the inner office—I said, "Permit me, Mr. Springmuhl"—Springmuhl was the name I knew him by; that was the name under which the machinery was made for him, and under which we sued him—the first action was brought in the name of Springmuhl, and then he entered appearance to that in the name of You Weissenfeld—I said, "Permit me to point out, before you make any statement, that you are legally represented, and that it is contrary to professional etiquette that I should hear what you have to say without your solicitor; let me see your solicitor, and any terms you have to offer let them come through him"—he said, "I have just come from my solicitor, and I have his approval"—I said, "If you say that that alters the case; what do you offer?"—he said, "£ 100; I am to have the machinery; half the balance to be paid on 1st March, and the balance on 1st April"—I said, "I could not advise Mr. Hendry to do that, to part with £150 worth of machinery for £100"—he said, "If you don't take this you will get nothing; I have not £100 myself, but some friends of mine would Day it if they could get the machine"—I replied, "I have no doubt they would be pleased to take it at that price"—he said, "I have not anything myself; I have got a bill of sale on my furniture, so I am secured"—I said, "I know that; I found that out some time back, and it is all the more reason why I should advise Mr. Hendy that he has security for the due payment of the balance"—I told him that I had instructions to take proceedings in bankrupcy, that I was in the act of preparing the papers as he came into the office—the papers were before me, and I was preparing them—I did not point them out to him, because we were in the inner room at the time—I said, "I cannot,"or" will not take the responsibility of refusing your offer myself, and with a view of saving time I will write to Mr. Hendry to see Mr. Birchall, my principal, at his private house the first thing in the morning, and in the meantime I shall complete the papers in bankruptcy;"as I told him if the offer was accepted I would let him know—I said I should not hold out any hopes of its being accepted—it was only in the event of Mr. Hendry accepting his offer that I should write to him—that ended the interview—I have told the Jury all that took place—there is no truth in the suggestion that I said to the defendant that if he gave me a £10 note I would induce Hendry to accept a small amount in settlement; it is absolutely untrue—I communicated with Mr. Hendry, and received certain instructions from him—I mentioned to Mr. Birchall the defendant's call—on 27th November notice of appeal in the action was given; no notice had been given when he called—on 8th December the defendant's solicitors were told that bankruptcy proceedings would be taken, and on the 12th the petition was filed—the matter was adjourned till 1st January, and then till the 15th, and on the 19th I ascertained that the prisoner had gone before another Registrar, Mr. Registrar Hazlitt, on his own petition—I then went before the Registrar, and got his petition made the petition of Mr. Hendry—the prisoner in his own petition had omitted the name of Springmuhl on which he
had got credit, and had gone by the name of Weissenfeld—on 1st January, I think, the Registrar agreed for adjournment till the 15th, provided two sufficient sureties were given to secure to Hendry any sum of money that should be found due to him—two such names were given to me—it was my duty to make inquiries as to their solvency, and I was not satisfied, and reported the matter to the Registrar—the prisoner and his advisers were very angry—the Registrar did not blame me, but said I had done my duty, and did not accept the sureties—the appeal from Mr. Justice Charles's judgment in the High Court was dismissed; on 4th March, I think, that was—there was an appeal from Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed against the prisoner on 25th March—in every legal proceeding taken by the prisoner he has always been defeated, and Mr. Hendry's representatives have been successful—on 10th February Mr. Burchall showed me these documents—the letter and envelope addressed to Mr. Burchall are in the prisoner's writing—the document containing the libel is printed. (The libel was put in and read; it stated that when he, the prisoner, went to Messrs. Burchall and Wood's and offered to pay the invoice price and taxed costs on delivery of the machine the prosecutor said that if Von Weissenfeld would pay him privately £10, he would induce their client to accept a small sum in settlement, but otherwise they would at once take proceedings in bankruptcy against him.)—Mr. Burchall showed me those—I communicated with Mr. Waddy, and showed him the correspondence and the libel—he was our counsel in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—in consequence of the advice he gave me, the first criminal proceedings I took against the prisoner were on 28th February, 1891, when I swore an information, and a summons for libel was granted—I could not serve that summons; the prisoner had disappeared—the bankruptcy proceedings were adjourned till a warrant was issued for him in the Court of Bankruptcy in July, 1891,1 think, but we did not see anything of him till January this year; he did not surrender to pass his public examination in bankruptcy, and the warrant was not served on him till then—we were unable to find him during the whole of 1891—then, in January, 1892, an application was made that the warrant should be suspended that he might give evidence, and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams suspended it, and he came and gave evidence—Mr. Justice Charles refused to stay execution, and it was my duty, as clerk to the plaintiff's solicitor, to inquire what goods could be realised—I found the prisoner had a bill of sale and practically no assets—it was my duty to take action against him at the instance of Mr. Hendry; if he had satisfied the Registrar that he was solvent, the bankruptcy proceedings would have been stopped; the Registrar adjourned it on the last occasion for four days for him to bring money into court, and then he filed his own petition the next day—he says in the libel that he at once appealed against the judgment, but he did not appeal till the 27th—I heard the prisoner give evidence on the last occasion, when the Jury disagreed; he then said he offered £100 and the balance in two bills, at one or two, and two or three months; in the libel he said that he offered to pay the invoice price and the taxed costs on the delivery of the machine.
Cross-examined. My client, in addition to his judgment and taxed costs, still has the machine; an allowance was made for it in Mr. Justice
Charles's judgment—the prisoner has had opportunities to have it, but he never has had it—I do not think that we commenced these bankruptcy proceedings against him after he had commenced his appeal—the file of bankruptcy proceedings is here—the notice of appeal was served on 27th November—we could not serve that notice, we had to get substituted service; we could not find the prisoner; he was denied to us at his house—we filed the bankruptcy petition on 12th December—we knew then that he was appealing from Mr. Justice Charles's decision, and in the face of that we proceeded in bankruptcy, because we did not feel it was a bond fide appeal, and we notified him to that effect—Mr. Justice Charles's judgment was not varied by the Court of Appeal; it' was an absolute dismissal—he did not after that ask us to hand up the machine, or complain of our keeping the machine and having judgment at the same time—the evidence in the action was that the prisoner used the machine and approved of it; Mr. Justice Charles found that—the conversation which resulted in the alleged libel might have lasted five, ten, or fifteen minutes; I cannot say—I did not say that my client was a "pig-headed Scotchman"—there is not a word of truth in the suggestion that I said I thought he was pig-headed; that he would not accede to the terms which the prisoner proposed to me, but that if he made me a present of £101 might be able to induce Hendry to accept the offer—the prisoner was abroad for some time—he said at the Bankruptcy Court that he had been abroad partly on business and partly to have an operation performed on his eye; he also said we could all go to the devil—on one adjournment he wrote to the Registrar that we could all go to the devil—he said he was going to San Francisco—we believe he had an operation performed on his eye years ago, and I don't think he went to have another—after the libel was published, in commenting on it I might have said Mr. Hendry was pig-headed.
Re-examined. This machinery was made for a patent taken out by the prisoner, and was useless except for that purpose—Mr. Hendry dare not sell it—Mr. Justice Charles treated it according to its value as old iron, and allowed £20, as its value, out of a judgment for £144—when that went to the Court of Appeal our side was not called on to argue, but the appeal was dismissed—the Master of the Bolls asked us whether we would deliver the machine on the money being paid, and we said, "Decidedly"; and that was added as an addenda to the order, but was no part of the order—the money has not been paid for the machinery—we were not going to give a machine to a man with a bill of sale on his furniture without having the money down; if we did agree to it Mr. Hendry would not do it, and perhaps an action would be brought against us.
CHARLES PULLARD BURCHALL . I was the solicitor in the action of Hendry against Von Weissenfeld—I have heard Mr. Flaxman's statement, and as far as my own personal knowledge goes I concur in every word of his evidence—he has been fourteen years in my employment, and is with me still—I have unlimited confidence in him, and I am certain he thoroughly deserves it—I received this letter and this printed document on or about 9th February—I understood the representative clerk mentioned in it to alluded to Mr. Flaxman, and I showed the documents to him immediately—everything he has done in this case has
been done in direct; obedience to my wishes; he always acts under my orders, and it would be impossible for him to stop the action without my first being consulted, and without Mr. Hendry being consulted.
Witnesses for the Defence.
GEORGE FERDINAND SPRINGMUHL VON WEISSENFELD (the prisoner). I now reside at Stanley House, Paradise Road—I am M. D. and M. A. of Leipsic—I take great interest in scientific matters—at the time I gave this order to Mr. Hendry I was consulting chemist to the Concentrated Produce Company and to the Californian Company—when I called at Mr. Burchall's office in November and saw Flaxman, I said, "I come here to settle this matter; I offer £100 in cash and the balance, for costs and so on, in two bills, "one, I believe, the 1st March, and the other the 1st April," and I want the delivery of the machine"—Flaxman said his client would not deliver the machine under any circumstances, because he had received judgment for damages; that I must go to the Court of Appeal; and he added, "I have very good means to prevent you succeeding in the Court of Appeal"—I did not ask what the means were, but he said there were two means to prevent me succeeding with the appeal; one was bankruptcy and the other was a prosecution for perjury—I said that was somewhat in the Dodson and Fogg line in "Pickwick Papers"—then Flaxman tapped me on the shoulder and winked with his eye, and said, "Well, if you can find a £10 note I shall settle the matter; our client is a pig-headed Scotchman"—he said he had plenty of bankruptcy forms in his desk—I had to deliver the machine to other parties, and I had not the money to pay for it without getting it—Flaxman said, "Oh! you have property"—I answered, "No, I have two houses, but there is a mortgage on them, and I have furniture, but there is a bill of sale on it"—I dont remember that anything else was said—I was there less than half an hour—no one was present but myself and Flaxman—subsequently, I instructed my solicitor to repeat the offer, and he did so—I went to his office, saw his clerk, and made a communication to him—I have written books under the name of Springmuhl—I have never, in any shape or form, attempted to conceal my right name as Von Weissenfeld—my right name is Springmuhl von Weissenfeld.
Cross-examined. I believe I had 200 of these publications printed; I don't know when, in 1891 very likely; in January or February—besides the three I sent out I have shown them to many persons—I don't remember if I have sent them to others—I have shown them to my solicitor—I believe I showed them to Messrs. Ashurst, Morris and Crisp, or their clerk; he was acting at the time as my solicitor—he was not acting for any one of my debtors—Mr. Davis was my solicitor in the action before Mr. Justice Charles—Ashurst, Morris and Crisp were solicitors in a sale of property to Mr. Willis and others; they acted for Mr. Willis, not for Mr. Dowden, who was nobody; he was nominally the purchaser—I may have shown the publications to other solicitors; very likely I have shown them to a number of people—a petition was presented against me by Mr. Hendry before one Registrar, and my solicitor went, with my sanction, to another Registrar and got me declared bankrupt on my own petition—my name was always Springmuhl von Weissenfeld, and I should sign a document in that name—when I went
before the second Registrar I put George Ferdinand von Weissenfeld—I omitted the Springmuhl because I did not want to damage my name under which I wrote books—I slept last Saturday at a friend's, not at Stanley House—I was at Stanley House on Saturday; I left it as soon as I got a telegram from Mr. Davis to come here—I bought Stanley House in 1889—when I presented my own petition in bankruptcy I gave my address as 97, Portland Road, which is Nelson's Hotel—Mr. Hendry, in his petition, put me as residing at Stanley House—this petition is in my writing—I say, "Lately residing at Paris and at 5, Glebe Terrace"—5, Glebe Terrace is Stanley House—letters are addressed to both; 5, Glebe Terrace is the official name—I generally date my letters from "Stanley House"—I do not know if I gave this card to the Registrar—I have been unsuccessful in my principal action—I had no action in bankruptcy—I swore in the witness-box that Stanley House and Grafton House belonged to the Concentrated Produce Company—I think Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams said he could not believe that—in the Court of Appeal Mr. Justice Fry said he believed it—they did not upset the judgment of the Court below—I did not also say that certain furniture over which I had given a bill of sale was the property of the Concentrated Produce Company; there was a bill of sale on it, the bill of sale was with the Company—I said the Concentrated Produce Company had found the money for the fresh bill of sale; and so they did—the Court decided they did not—all the money of the Company was in my wife's banking account—I had no furniture or property to hand over to the trustee; I have not handed it over—I wanted the machine to be given to me on payment of the £100 and bills; on the £100 and two bills being given I expected to get the machine—my solicitor offered to secure the payment of the two bills, I believe—I told Mr. Flaxman I would give him the houses as security for the bills—he did not say, "Could you give me any security for the payment of those bills"; he only spoke about the houses—I believe he said, "If you don't pay us, and have got no security, we know you have a bill of sale on your furniture"—I told him my two houses were mortgaged; but the property was worth £450 more than the mortgage—the mortgagees were not actually in possession at that time.
Re-examined. Lord Justice Fry differed from Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams in saying that he did believe me in reference to the alleged transactions between me and the Produce; Company. (The judgment of LORD JUSTICE FRY was here read).
FREDERICK GEORGE JONES . I am an articled clerk to Mr. Joseph Davis—I remember the prisoner coming to the office after having had the interview in question with the prosecutor—he made a statement to me.
—The JURY added that they found the plea of justification woe not true— Two Month' Imprisonment.
MR. C. MATHEWS Prosecuted, and MR. C.F. GILL Defended.
DOUGLAS HARDING . I am a merchant at 50, Whitecross Street, City—in November last I owed money to the firm of Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—on 4th November the prisoner called and asked me for a cheque, and I
drew a cheque for £60 on account in favour of Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—I knew the prisoner as being a partner in that firm, and believed that he was so—on 6th November he came again for the balance, and I drew this cheque for £46 in favour of Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—that subsequently came back to me, having been endorsed Boynter, Kuhn and Co. in the ordinary way the firm signed, and paid into the bank on 6th November—I still believed him to be a partner in the firm—I had not the slightest notion of any change having taken place—the cheque of the 4th came back to me similarly endorsed.
Cross-examined. The £60 cheque may have been post-dated a few days; I do it sometimes—I know nothing of the private relations between Boynter and Kuhn—I was a customer of the Machine T winemakers' firm—I may have put the date of a Saturday on the 4th November cheque, as we collect large amounts on Saturday; but I cannot say whether I gave it before the 4th—I have not got the receipt; as far as I can remember the receipt was given on the 4th—it would be dated the day I gave the cheque—I never went to their place of business—I had known the prisoner two or three or three or four years—he always attended to this business.—I knew nothing of the arrangement for him to take over this business, or as to what was proposed with regard to it—I think I have post-dated a cheque to a Wednesday.
Re-examined. I can send for the cheque and the receipt.
JAMES HANDFORD . I am the head cashier of the North British Rubber Company, 59, Moorgate Street—in November last I owed money to Boynter, Kuhn and Co., and on 14th November the prisoner came to me for a cheque on account—I gave him a cheque for £50, and either he gave me a receipt or sent one on; I have not got it—the cheque afterwards came back to us through our bankers, and I put it into a box, and the mice got in and ate a lot of papers, and I destroyed the rest of them, and this cheque, I presume, was among them; there were two hundred or three hundred cheques there—I did not know when I gave that cheque to the prisoner that he had ceased to be a partner in the firm, and it was as partner in the firm that I gave him the cheque—on 18th November he came again for the balance of the account; I am not sure if I gave him the cheque for £45 1s. then, or sent it on to the firm—this receipt was sent to us—that cheque when returned to us was placed in the box, and the mice got the benefit of it—I believed on 18th that he was a member of the firm when I gave him the cheque—he made no statement to me on 18th about being short of money, or anything of that kind—the cheque was given in the ordinary course.
Cross-examined. I have known the prisoner since we have done business with him, some two or three years—the business was always done with him—the goods, in respect of which the money was paid, we bought from Lang and Polen; they came through Boynter and Kuhn—I knew nothing of what was happening with regard to the business; whether the prisoner was going to buy it.
ADOLF EVERS . I am a member of the firm of Jacobson and Co., of Billiter Buildings—on 8th November the prisoner called and asked for a cheque—I objected, as the goods had not been delivered, but the prisoner pressed for payment, and at last asked me to give him £30 or £50 on account if I could manage it—I think he used an expression similar to "time over,"about a firm in Germany having drawn on him
at sight—I had my suspicions, but I was anxious to oblige him because I believed he was a member of the firm of Boynter and Kuhn—I gave him this cheque for £30, which afterwards came back through our bankers as having been paid, and endorsed "Boynter and Co.," and then "Fredk. Kuhn"—he would not have received that cheque if I had not believed him to be a member of the firm—about a quarter to six on the evening of the same day I called at Boynter and Kuhn's premises, at 21, Addle Street—I saw both Boynter and Kuhn—as to the money the prisoner had received, Boynter told him he was quite surprised, and did not know what he should say to him; he said he did not want to use any stronger expression to him just then on account of my presence—we spoke about the £30 cheque which had been stopped at about a quarter to four, because Boynter had called at my office at half-past three or four, in consequence of the bankers having sent the cheque back to Mr. Boynter to ask whether the endorsement was right; I was not in at the time, and I afterwards went round to Boynter's office, and by that time it was known that the cheque had been stopped—Boynter was very angry.
Cross-examined. Boynter told me he had already had from Kuhn on that day a sum of £30, but I think that may have been another £30; it was suggested to me that it was—I am not a friend of Boynter; I did not know him before that matter—I have seen him since about three times—I was not called at the Police-court—Boynter told me a sum of money was paid out by the bankers to Kuhn on that day—it was suggested that the £30 paid to Boynter was some other £30; that was not on that day—I don't think any particular sum was mentioned as having been paid by the prisoner to Boynter on that day; there was £30, but there may have been a sum in addition to that—he did not mention £70 or £75—I was a customer of the machine twine people—I had always known Kuhn to be a partner, two or three times before—I should not have paid him if I had known him to have bought the business because I had my suspicions and advised the firm in Germany before, and I should not have paid him without asking Boynter, in whom I have confidence as an honest man who would not try to rob his partner.
Re-examined. The £30 supposed to have been paid over by Kuhn was got from the Capital and Counties Bank.
ARTHUR WHEATLEY . I used to live at 261, Albany Road Camberwell, I live now at Nunhead—I have been employed by the firm of Boynter and Kuhn for the last eight years—early in November last the prisoner, on several occasions, asked me to copy the letters of the different firms that be usually wrote to and place the press copy letter-book in his desk—up to that time the letter-book had been usually kept in the outer office in no particular place—I did what he asked and placed the letter-book in his desk after copying the letters—he requested me to place the letters for the Machine Twine Company on one side, out of sight—I placed them just inside his desk—up to that time the letters had been laid on the top of his desk outside for anyone that came first to see, either Mr. Boynter or the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I could see by the letters what took place on the 4th November—I knew nothing about the prisoner arranging to take over that branch of the business—Mr. Boynter did not tell me—I knew
nothing about the position of affairs in the office in November, only that they were going to part—Mr. Boynter took another office about the beginning of November, but he did not go into it till the 14th or 15th—I believe he was backwards and forwards there, he was principally, I believe, at Addle Street, at our place—I knew Boynter and Kuhn were going to part—I did not know exactly what part of the business the prisoner was going to take over—I thought the musical branch—I knew what he had attended to before—I believe Mr. Hodgson kept the books there; he came there of an evening occasionally—I think I heard something about an application being made for a balance-sheet to be made out; I think I heard that Hodgson was asked to make a balance-sheet—I did not hear anything more about it—I don't know whether he made it—I don't know why it was it was not compiled—I did not hear Mr. Boynter's instructions to Hodgson—I think the prisoner told me that they were parting, and that he was going to take the musical branch—I know nothing about where he was going to get the money from to buy Boynter out—things went on after the 4th and up to the 20th, as they had gone on before, I think; but separate books were kept, that is books with regard to the branch which Boynter was to take over, and the books with regard to the branch that Kuhn was to take—Kuhn came into the business just before I went there, I believe—I do not know what money he brought in—Boynter is now carrying on business at 21, Addle Street, the same place—Kuhn did not tell me that Lang and Polen was one of the businesses he was going to take over, nor the Machine Twine Company—the business that Boynter attended to was the ammunition and powder business—the letters written after 4th November were signed by the prisoner "Boynter, Kuhn, and Co.,"I believe; I have seen it in the book—the letter-book was left in the desk out of sight, but the desk was not fastened in any way, and anyone could open it if they knew it was there—there was no difficulty in opening it and reading the business letters, if it was known it was there—the letterbook was never asked for—any time between 4th and 20th November Boynter could have seen the letter-book if he had asked for it; I never mentioned anything about it, but I should have told him where it was if he had asked me—the letters he wrote were copied into another book, not into the old book—the double set of books started from 4th November—at this time I might have seen the solicitors, Messrs. Osborne, once or twice at the office—Dr. Weber, the prisoner's father-in-law, came to the office last November, I believe—I did not hear Boynter ask him for £1,200, or say he would have £ 1,200; I heard nothing about it—I did not hear Weber ask for a balance-sheet to be prepared or offer to pay any money that could be found on that balance-sheet as against the prisoner; I heard nothing of the kind—I only saw Dr. Weber there once—the press copy letter-book which the prisoner told me to place in his desk commencing the 4th November was the new book which was started from the 2nd November—Boynter's letters were copied in the old book—I believe the prisoner looked to the twine people's business—I said, "He also asked me to place letters from the machine twine people in his desk or on one side,"to put them on one side and out of sight; in his desk he said—that was a branch which the prisoner had attended to, I think he always wrote to those people—letters before they were copied would in most cases be put in a basket on
the top of the desk—anybody could take them before they were sent out—it was a desk between the prisoner's seat on one side and Mr. Boynter's on the other, so that one was as near the basket as the other.
Re-examined. After the prisoner had given me instructions, some letters were put in the basket and some were handed to me to do up separately, to enclose in envelopes and post—it was on the first Saturday in November, I think, that the prisoner told me about this parting.
GEORGE FREDERICK BOYNTER . Down to the 4th of November last I had carried on business in partnership with the prisoner at 21, Addle Street, City, for some eight years—some short time prior to 4th November there were negotiations between us for terminating the partnership, and on 4th November this deed was signed by both of us dissolving the partnership, which existed up to that date, and constituting me the prisoner's attorney to receive all debts, etc., owing to the partnership—at the same time this other deed was signed. (This was read)—the 3rd December is mentioned as the date on which the purchase is to be completed—as a matter of fact, nothing was ever done towards completing the purchase; no Sum of money was ever paid with regard to it, and nothing done for the purpose of carrying it through—the arrangement between us as to the prisoner's position between 4th November and 3rd December was that he should carry on his branch, that was taking orders for the branch which he took over in case he paid his liabilities, and writing them over, but the firm was to be Boynter and Co. as. I wrote to the bank on the morning of the 5th in his presence—I wrote that no other signature but my own should be honoured; this is the letter—I drew his attention to that letter—no monetary arrangement was come to after that under which he stayed on till 3rd December, except that at the end of each week, as I knew he had no money, I gave him £6, I think—I think he remained a fortnight longer in the business—he was not entitled to receive moneys owing to the old firm prior to 4th November and he had no authority to receive money owing to the firm with regard to past orders which had been executed—I did not know of his receipt from Harding of £60 on 4th November, nor of £46 on 6th November he brought a cheque for £50 from the North British Rubber Company on 12th November, saying they gave him a cheque—it was paid into the bank on the 12th—it is possible the cheque of the 14th is the same—with regard to two sums of money alleged to have been received on 18th November, one from the North British Rubber Company and the other from Mr. Jacobson, I had already taken new offices, and while I was moving in a gentleman from the Capital and Counties Bank came and made a statement to me, and I went round and saw two cheques, and he' asked me to go and stop them—I went and asked the prisoner for the money he had stolen, which he tremblingly handed back to me, and asked me not to prosecute him—he returned me the money which he had already received from the bank, and I paid it into the bank—up to that time he had not said anything to me about the receipt of those moneys—up to my asking him he had not said anything about haying been to the North British Rubber Company about that money—he had no authority from me to go there or to Mr. Harding or to Mr. Jacobson—when I spoke to him he said, "Please don't say anything more," and he drew the
money out of his pocket—I said to him, Give me the money you have stolen—he took the money out of his pocket and said, "I could not help it," and he said something about a bill he had taken up—I was not very well; and I got the money and paid it into the bank—that would make the two sums of £30 and £45.
Cross-examined. We never had a partnership deed—he paid nothing when he came into partnership with me, I swear; nor has he paid me any money during the time he has been in partnership with me—he attended to one branch of the business, I attended to the ammunition and powder part of it—he had accepted some bills; I cannot tell for what amount; it has been going on for years—I have been liable for about £160, I swear—he is an old schoolfellow of mine—I learnt that I was liable for that £160 on 4th November—the arrangements for dissolution were pending before that—there was no money to get for him to purchase his part of the business—I don't call it a purchase; he had more liabilities than assets almost at the time—he asked me to give him three days to get the money—it was to come from Dr. Weber, his father-in-law, he told me—there is such a person, a man of means and position, I dare say—there had been letters between us before 4th November to arrange the terms upon which we were to part—the business was that of acting as agents for firms abroad, and collecting their moneys—the liabilities of the firm to the people abroad on the 1st November I took from, the prisoner's figures—I must go by his figures, because all those figures were his part of the business, and I went by his figures, and have not ascertained at this moment what the amount is—the liabilities were over £1,000 at that time; the nearest figures I can give are £1,500 or £1,600; it may be roughly about £1,500—the assets were merely stock-in-trade and book debts—the stock-in-trade was worth, say, £250, or something—I had the money to discharge my liabilities—I proposed that with regard to taking over his share of the business he should do nothing but pay his share of the liabilities, I paying my share, and he had to pay me the half share of the assets which he took over, which means the stock-in-trade and the book debts—the arrangement proposed to him was not that he should take over the whole of the liabilities; I do not know that—there were no other assets except book debts and stock-in-trade—he was not represented by a solicitor; I took him to mine—he was to hand me half of the amount of the liabilities for the purpose of purchasing his share of the business; we could not make out altogether what he was to pay me, but roughly it was £1,200 or £1,500—that would be half the liabilities and half his share of the assets plus the bills which he had accepted, which came to about £600—I was to be relieved of all responsibility if he took over all the business of Boynter, Kuhn and Co.; but he was to have half the assets—my object was that, as I was primarily liable for the liabilities of the firm, if I sold the business he must give me half the liabilities, so that if I were sued I should be protected, as half would be due from him—if he paid me half the liabilities in cash I had to pay mine at the same time, and I made him a present of the business—he told me he wanted to get the money in three days from his father-in-law—when those deeds had been signed I wrote to my manufacturers telling them that I had dissolved partnership, and that my new office was at Suffolk House—I took new offices—I believe he had arranged
with the landlord to take those offices—I supposed he was going to carry on business in the name of Kuhn and Co. from the date he purchased—I attended at the office daily, but I was out almost all day, as I had to go over to my new ones—I had a balance-sheet prepared soon after this by our old bookkeeper; I could not say exactly when—the last balance-sheet before 4th November was prepared in 1887—no balance-sheet had been made up after that—Mr. Hodgson prepared a balance-sheet and showed it to me, I think, soon after the 4th November—he did not point out to me that I was taking credit for a sum of £480—I heard him swear that I did tell him to do so; he was perjuring himself—I said to the prisoner that he stole this money which he bad collected—I don't remember if I also told him that it was a criminal offence to accept the bills, but, anyhow, I gave him a piece of my mind—I took him to my solicitor's office on 4th November, and again on 20th November—I did not tell him that I should prosecute him unless he made a statutory declaration; nothing of the kind—I asked him to sign a statutory declaration in order to know my liabilities of the moneys he had stolen and the bills he had accepted—I cannot say exactly if my wife was there on that day—she has been there once or twice—I did not know the prisoner's wife was ill at the time—I don't think I said in the presence of my solicitor that if he did not sign a statutory declaration I should send for a policeman—I cannot remember every word I said; it may be I said I would send for a policeman; I cannot remember it—I did not say if he did not sign it I would send for a policeman; I don't know what I said about a policeman—I did not take him nor go with him to a telegraph office—I did not tell him I would prosecute him if he did not telegraph to his father-in-law for £1,200; I remember now, I wanted to prosecute him then already, and he begged me not to; Mrs. Boynter was there—I did not dictate to him the terms of a telegram to his father-in-law, nothing of the kind—I know of his sending a telegram; I was not with him when he sent it; I stopped at my solicitor's office with my wife, I think—I do not think he came back—I have not said that I made him send a telegram in my own words—when I took him round to the solicitor after the two sums of money had been taken I wanted to know my exact liabilities; he came and said in that declaration that he had embezzled about £187, and there were coming in £500 to £600 of bills that he had accepted, and when that came out said I had had enough of it, I would rather prosecute him; and he begged of me and Mrs. Boynter as well to allow him, he would do the whole matter in three days, his father-in-law would be over here, and he would settle the whole matter, and at last I did not trouble him, and he' went to telegraph over very likely himself—I did not give him the words of the telegram—all this took place on 20th November—I gave him into custody in January, I think, two months afterwards—his father-in-law came over—I did not demand from the father-in-law £1,200; I even refused to see him when he called once at my private house—I did not fix any sum that was demanded—the father-in-law did not say he would, pay any sum that could be found on any balance-sheet to be due from his son-in-law; he said nothing except that he wanted first to see the balance-sheet—he did not, to my remembrance, say that he would pay any liability if the balance-sheet were produced to him; I should not forget that—he came
because he wanted very likely to settle this matter—he wanted a balance-sheet to decide afterwards, and it was not ready at the time—he did not say he had the money with him and would pay any difference of account between us, nothing of the kind—I did not fix on any sum I wanted, I did not know, myself—I never mentioned any sum—I never demanded any sum—such a sum as £1,200 was never mentioned that I know of, except in this document—the sum that Dr. Weber was to pay was not discussed at the solicitor's office in his presence; it did not get from £1,200 to £650, at least I know nothing of it—Dr. Weber did not say he would refuse to pay anything unless he were satisfied from independent sources and not from me that a sum was due; what he said was that he wanted to see a balance-sheet—he did not say he would leave the money in the hands of Mr. Goldberg, his solicitor, for any person who would prepare a balance-sheet; I got repeated offers, which I refused—I knew Mr. Goldberg was advising Br. Weber in the matter—I do not know that Mr. Goldberg held the money to pay if the matter was gone into, and a proper balance-sheet prepared; I heard afterwards that Mr. Goldberg had forwarded about £400, which he offered repeatedly, and which I did not want to take—I believe I offered Dr. Weber the balance-sheet prepared by Hodgson; was it not at Mr. Osborne's office?—I believe my solicitor has it—Hodgson made it; I did not trust it—I swear there was one; I believe Mr. Osborne has it—Hodgson did not refuse to act in the matter because I insisted on his crediting me with £480 I was not entitled to; to say the least that is an invention of Hodgson's—during this time, after 4th November, I was receiving moneys—on 12th November I received £50 from the North British Rubber Company, paid by Kuhn; he brought the cheque over—I paid it into the bank—at that time I was a customer of Seller and Bellet; they belonged to the ammunition branch—the Rubber Company would be quite a distinct business—I did not send the £50 from the Rubber Company to the ammunition people; I paid another cheque—this is my bank-book, in which is the entry of the £50 from the North British Rubber Company—no notice of the dissolution had been given to any of these people from whom money was received, and they would pay the money to the firm, Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—I think I paid the sum of £50 the same night to Seller and Bellet—when Kuhn gave me the cheque for £50 he said he had been to the North British, and they had paid him a cheque for £50, because he went there several times a day; I was a good customer—that was on 12th November—I don't know if that is a cheque described as a cheque as of the 14th—during this time I saw some of the letters written by the prisoner—I looked at the letter-books—I saw a bill accepted for people abroad; I don't know for how much it was—every month our musical people sent us over a bill for acceptance for goods we had had during the previous month; I wanted the prisoner to keep that business; a word of mine would have been sufficient to deprive him of the whole matter, because he had no capital when he began; but I enjoyed good credit in Germany, my father being a governor in Eastern Prussia; I did not want to harm him, and I did every possible thing to help him into a new life; and I wrote to my manufacturers and moved to Suffolk House; I did not write to his manufacturers, if I had they would have given up the whole thing—I
had all these contracts made in Germany, and they traded on my credit alone—that bill became payable, and he put it in the safe; he offered to pay the money in three days; I gave him three or four weeks—I left the bills in the safe, and a few days later I said, "This bill most be accepted; but if you will accept it I shall have to sign Boynter and Co.; I don't mind leaving it for a few days, but it must be done"—he left it for a few days, and next day I saw in the letter, which he wrote in my name to those people, that he said he had torn the bill by mistake and must have another one; and then one morning I was away ill, and when I could not find it I asked where it was, he said, "I sent it away"—I said, "How did you accept it?"—he said, "Boynter, Kuhn and Co."—I said, "How dare you do such a thing"—he always tried to sign Boynter and Kuhn, and I told them they must not look to his signature—that bill has been accepted without my knowledge, behind my back, and with the wrong signature—this is my entry of it in the bill book on 5th November, as a bill payable—I have nothing in my letter-book on 16th November about a sum of £48 15s. 3d. sent to the twine people, because he copied that branch into his letter-book—this is the new letter-book which he started after 2nd Novembers—it says in it that £48 15s. 3d. was sent to the twine people; I did not know it at the time—I gave him a cheque for the £18 15s.—he drew on his own account for £30 and got from me the £18 15s. without my knowledge; he wrote out a cheque for £18 15s. and asked me to sign it; I knew it was going to the Twine Company; he said he wanted to settle the account, and I gave him the cheque and he kept the book in the drawer where it would not easily be detected—I saw the letters left to be copied—I have the fact of £48 15s. 3d. being sent to the twine people; of that I supplied £18 15s.; you can see from the scrawl that the name was meant to deceive those people—he was to trade as F. Kuhn and Co. from 3rd December, and I as Boynter, if he had completed his purchase—in this letter the Kuhn is made almost so that no one can make out what it is meant for—the advantage of altering the signature was because he wanted not to let these people know that we were separated, and to make them believe that he was still the old firm of Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—the old firm still existed, because it was his branch—if he had signed Boynter and Co. they would have wondered why he signed like that, and I wanted to help him—I do not suggest it was fraud; I say he did not sign as usual—he signed Boynter—he knew he had no right to sign Boynter and Co., and Boynter, Kuhn and Co. did not exist any more—in early letters I find the signature Boynter, Kuhn and Co.—he several times tried it on, and I told him—I saw the letter-book and the letters—he did not sign them at all sometimes—the objection to his signing Boynter, Kuhn and Co. was because that firm did not exist—the dissolution of partnership was not advertised—after the 24th November he had no right to sign Boynter, Kuhn and Co. if the purchase had been carried out—we kept the dissolution secret, and it would have been extraordinary not to write in the name of Boynter, Kuhn and Co., but it was strange for him to sign in that way, because he was not a partner—on 17th November he collected £45 from the North British Company—I find an entry of that in my book on 17th, and there is an entry of £30 from Jacobson—Jacobson's cheque was stopped after Kuhn had the money—I had the money from Kuhn, and afterwards the cheque for £30 was
stopped—I had £45 from the Rubber Company and £30 from Jacobson, which the prisoner handed to me, so that I got £75 on that day from him, and I paid it into the bank and got the benefit of it to my credit—before that I had caused Jacobson's cheque for £30, which had been paid to the prisoner, to be stopped, because Kuhn had received from the bank already the £75—he did not get the benefit of the £30 cheque because another cheque came back which he had sent over to those people for £30; that was his own cheque which came back unpaid—he had already had the £30 for Jacobson's cheque—it was stopped by Jacobson at my instance, but the prisoner handed me the whole £75—he produced £75 out of his pocket as the money he had received from the North British Company and Jacobson—although the cheque was crossed he said he was rather in a hurry, and they cashed it for him, so my bankers told me—my principal desire was to help him—I did not send circulars round to people in. Germany, but I did to my customers here, not to pay any one but myself—I took round the statutory declaration and showed it to customers; and sent a circular asking them to pay outstanding money to myself—I wrote round to the manufacturers—a sum of £80 which had been collected in July was due to Rheineker and Jasper on 30th November—I ascertained afterwards that it had been paid—I did not know it when I wrote to them a letter, of which this is a copy; I was away when the money came in, and Mr. Kuhn paid it into the bank, and I knew nothing about it—I found it out as soon as he had given the declaration of the moneys he had stolen; I did not believe it then even, because the sums did not agree—I did not know it was in the book—it is marked in the day-book "P"—I did not look from the day-book to see whether I had had the money—I showed the declaration to perhaps two or three, and perhaps to the North British Company, that was all—I showed it to friends in a friendly way; that did not go on through November, December, and January—I did not charge the prisoner before, because I did it very reluctantly, and only when I found he went round impersonating me among people; till I feared more harm would come of it—I was driven to it after all; that was the effect of it—I did. not instruct my solicitor not to take the £650—I was not informed over and over again that if I would let some person make out a balance-sheet I could have what the difference was; I never heard that—I never heard that Mr. Goldberg had the money—I refused some on Saturday.
Re-examined. Only on Saturday an offer of money was made for the purpose of buying me off from this prosecution; I did not sell myself—the prisoner had given, accepted, and endorsed a number of bills in the partnership, contrary to a verbal agreement which we had entered into between ourselves—that resulted in the deed of dissolution of 4th November.
The statutory declaration was read.
GUILTY. —MR. MATHEWS stated that Mr. Boynter hoped the prisoner might be leniently dealt with.— Judgment respited.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted; MR. BODKIN Defended Ada Evans, and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Defended Henry Evans.
During the progress of the case the prisoners stated, in the hearing of the JURY, their desire to
PLEAD GUILTY, and the JURY thereupon found them
GUILTY . The JURY expressed a wish that the prisoners should be leniently dealt with, as there teas no evidence that they had treated the child cruelly before this offence.— Judgment respited.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.
GEORGE JOHN TURNER . I am a warehouse-boy, and and live at 36, Maryland Street, Stratford—on 25th March, about 6.30 p.m., I was in Leytonstone Road, and saw the prisoner with a coin on a plate conjuring—there was a good crowd loosing on—I had a silver watch in my pocket and a metal chain—I heard a click, looked down, and saw my chain hanging down; my watch was gone—I mentioned it to the bystanders, and saw a witness seize the prisoner and take my watch from his hand, which was down and clasped—he did not offer to give it me before he was seized—another man was with him, who went and stood by his side After I heard the click, and said he wanted a ring, and then he went off—he was between me and the prisoner, shutting out my view of the prisoner—he got away.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You had a plate on the ground with a shilling, and you pulled a plate of rings out of your pocket—I said to the man who was with you, "You have got my watch,"he is the man who went and got a ring—I did not hear you tell him you had not got change—you said that you picked the watch up, but I did not see you do go—you did not come to me with the watch in your hand.
Re-examined. He did not say, "Here is your watch. "
JAMES DAGLEY . I am a zinc worker, of 2, Wayfield Road—on 2nd March, about 6.30, I was in the Leytonstone Road and saw a crowd—Turner made a statement to me, and I caught hold of the prisoner's right hand and took a watch from it—he scuffled with me, and I was thrown down in the road, but I held him till a policeman came—he said nothing—he had the watch in his right hand with his arm down by his side, holding it very tight; it was not visible—I did not see the other man.
Cross-examined. No one touched you but me—you did not; pick the watch up—I did not see you stoop—the crowd said to me, "I know that man has got the watch,"but they would not touch you.
JOHN TODD MITCHELL . I live at 7, Fen Road, Romford Road, East—I saw the prisoner selling rings in Leytonstone Road, he had a coin in one hand and two rings in the other, and had his sleeves turned up, and was drawing a crowd—Turner exclaimed that his watch was gone—the prisoner could hear that—I then saw another man go from the pavement to the prisoner and hand him the watch, which he put behind him, and the other man went away—I assisted Dagley in the scuffle, and saw him take the watch from the prisoner's hand—the prisoner did not attempt to hand it to Turner—he held it tight in his hand and struggled desperately
—he had his hands up like this with two rings and a coin at the time the watch was handed to him.
Cross-examined. When you saw the other man coming you dropped your hand, and took the watch from him.
SAMUEL ROBINS . I am a warehouse-boy—on 25th March, about 6.30 p.m., I saw a crowd outside the shop, 73, Leytonstone Road; I went out, and saw the prisoner with a tray in his hand, doing some conjuring—Turner called out, "My watch has gone"—I asked him which man it was, and watched, and saw a man pass the watch to the prisoner, when they tried to get round the other man: he walked off—the prisoner then began reeling about, but he was not drunk when he was doing the conjuring; he struggled desperately, and I saw the watch taken out of his hand.
By the COURT. I also saw a coin in the prisoner's hand, and a case of rings; he had a tray on the ground.
Cross-examined. You put the rings in your pocket when the watch was passed, and when they arrested you you rolled about, and the other man rolled about too—you were not on the kerb; the other man came from the kerb, and passed the watch to you; he pulled out a shilling and said he was going to buy some rings.
JOSEPH JOHNSON (490 K). On March 25, at 6.35 p.m., I was in Leytonstone Road, and saw the prisoner detained by the witnesses—Dagley handed me this watch, which the prosecutor identified, and charged the prisoner with stealing it—he said, "I know nothing about any b——watch"—at the station he said he worked for his living by selling rings—I found these rings in his pocket—he was taken to the station—he told me he earned ten bob a day, but watches were not in his line, he could make more than I could earn—he was sober, but he pretended to be drunk—while I was removing him from the court he said to a woman, "Tell him to keep his mouth-piece, and I am all right"—I do not know what that means.
Cross-examined. You said, "Mary, get me a mouth-piece and I shall be all right;"that is a lawyer.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he picked up the watch.
He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell on June 23rd, 1891.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
449. ROBERT POTTER (28) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 160 yards of calico, 3 lb. of Indian-rubber, and other articles, of The Indian-rubber, Gutta-percha, and Telegraph Works Company, his masters.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
was Hood, and asked me if I could rough four horses for him the first thing on Monday morning, as he had three or four truck loads of building materials standing out—I arranged to do it, and them he asked if I could recommend him some stables, which I did, and went there with him—he took stabling for four horses, and asked me to recommend him a corn-chandler, which I did, and left him—he came again three-quarters of an hour afterwards, and asked if I could cash a little cheque for him—I said, "I have not the cash in hand, but a friend of mine very near will cash it on my responsibility"; we went to him, and he cashed it—this is it, for £2 10s.—my friend afterwards showed it to me marked "No account"—I went to Greenwich Station and picked the prisoner out from a number of men.
AUGUSTUS FREDERICK DENNIS . I am manager to Joseph Thomas Morgan, a corn-chandler, of 107, New Cross Road—on February 4th the prisoner came and said his name was William Bright, that he had opened an account at the London and Provincial Bank across the road, and had brought his horses to New Cross and had found stables, and required provender that evening for ten horses, and that he was living at 215, New Cross Road, that is the same road as myself—he gave me an order for 9 trusses of straw, 2 sacks of oats, 2 cwt. of chaff, and 1 cwt. of bran, value £2 11s. 3d., and said he would send his man for it, and he was going then to pay the men off—about forty minutes afterwards he called and asked me to change this cheque. (On the London and Provincial Bank for £5 in favour of Mr. Bright.—I took £2 11s. 3d. out of it and gave him the change, £2 8s. 9d.—I paid it into my bank next morning, and it came back marked "No account"—the man did not come for the provender—I cashed the cheque because I believed it would be met by the bank.
FREDERICK WELLS . I am a corn merchant of 118, Brockley Road, about a mile from New Cross Road—on February 5th the prisoner came and said, "What is the price of corn?" and ordered corn amounting to £3 11s., to be sent to the Maypole stables, which he said he had taken, as he was about to open an estate and build 150 houses, and he should have six or nine horses there for fifteen to eighteen months, and that he always paid cash—he called again about seven p.m., and said the forage must be delivered promptly at eleven o'clock on Saturday morning, or there would be nobody there to pay for it—he asked if I would take anything off for ready cash, and then said, "Will you change me a small cheque for £2 10s., as I have paid all my money for railway charges?"(This cheque was on the London and Provincial Bank for £2 10s., in favour of W. Bright, and drawn and endorsed by W. Bright, marked" No account. ") I parted with my money, believing he had opened an, account there, and that the cheque was valid.
WILLIAM ALFRED PITT . I am manager of the London and South Western Bank, Chiswick branch—this cheque E is one of our cheques, taken from a book which we issued to a man who gave the name of Wright—I cannot swear to the prisoner—the man came on 21st November, 1891, and asked if he could open an account—he gave a reference, and gave me this cheque for £200 on the London and County Bank to open the account with—it was returned, marked "No account"—I gave him the cheque-book from which these two cheques are taken—they are in the same writing as the cheque for £200—I had seen the man, about
half an hour previously, walking up the road with the gentleman whose name he gave—a cheque for £150 on the National Provincial Bank was presented to me, and I sent them a wire at once—Wright gave his address—I went there, and he was not known there—we communicated with the referee, who said that the prisoner called and gave him an order and asked whether he could recommend him to a bank.
CHARLES CORAM . I am manager of the New Cross branch of the London and Provincial Bank—on February 4 the prisoner opened an account there—I was not present, but I saw him at the Police-court—I received this cheque for £150, and should say it is in the same writing as these other cheques for £200 and £2 10s.—two cheques, one for £5 and one for £2 10s., were sent to our bank, and were marked "No account,"by my instructions—we have no customer named W. J. Bright.
WILLIAM THOHPSON (Detective H). On 18th February I went to Mr. Davey's shop, a corn chandler, at 86, Commercial Road East—he was not there, but the manager was—while I was there the prisoner came in and ordered 2 quarters of oats, 9 trusses of straw, 1 cwt. of bran, and 4s. 6d. worth of bags—he said he kept a horse repository at New Cross, and had just taken a contract in Christian Street, Commercial Road, and wanted borage for his horses—the manager brought the cheque for £5 to me, signed "William Bright"; he handed it in payment—it is on the London and Provincial Bank—I went to him and said, "Is this a genuine cheque?" he said, "Yes"—I said, "Where might your place of business be?"he said, "New Cross; I have taken a contract in Christian Street; I suppose you know where that is?"—I said, "Yes, quite well; I might tell you, Mr. Bright, I am a plain-clothes Police-officer, and that your description corresponds with that circulated in the police information of a man wanted at New Cross for fraud, and on that charge I shall take you in custody and take you to the Police-station, where you will be retained for inquiry"—he made no answer, and I took him in custody—I searched him at the station and found a cheque-book of the London and Provincial Bank, New Cross, with six blank cheques and three filled in for £2 10s. and three for £5, signed by Bright—I took him first to Leman Street Station and then to Deptford, and handed him over to Sergeant Goddard, who had the warrant.
EDWARD GODDARD (Police Sergeant R). On the evening of February 18th I read the warrant to the prisoner for obtaining £2 8s. 9d. by false pretences—he said, "I paid the cheque into the bank, but did not know about the money"—he was detained—Mr. Dennis was sent for, and picked him out from eight or nine other men—he was taken to Greenwich and remanded for a week—Mr. Gillham and Mr. Wells picked him out from eight or nine other persons—he was further charged on the other cases, and said, "I am innocent"—I found this piece of paper in his pocketbook; the cheques have been blotted with it.
Prisoner's Defence. The cheque for £150 was paid me for a bill, and I paid it over the counter, thinking it was genuine, and I presented the bill to Mr. Wright, who paid it into the bank. I am sorry I did not inquire further into the matter. I know nothing about Gillham's cheque for £2 10s.
GUILTY .— Ten Months' Hard Labour.
The GRAND JURY made a presentment commending the conduct of the police.
There were fifteen other charges against the prisoner.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.
Upon the evidence of Mr. P.F. Gilbert, surgeon of H.M. Prison at Holloway, the JURY found the prisoner insane and unable to plead.— To be detained during Ser Majesty's pleasure.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. KIDD Prosecuted, and MR. ELLIOTT Defended.
SIDNEY SMITH . I am the son of Sidney Smith, a grocer, of Kirkdale, Sydenham—on the evening of 11th March the prisoner came into the shop and presented this envelope, enclosing a note and a cheque—I read it and said, "I see you want change for this, and I am not sure I have got it"—he said, "Well, I should like you to oblige me if possible, because there is a party on, and a little baccarat"—we have a customer named Craig, but I do not know his writing—I had not got enough, and got it from Mr. Glass, and gave the money to the prisoner, and three bottles of whisky—he then said, "What champagne have you got?"—I showed him the list; he selected a pint bottle, and told me to send a dozen next day to Mr. Craig—I did so, and it was returned the following, week—I endorsed the cheque and gave it to Mr. Glass, and it was returned marked "No account"—I had been to the station the day before and described the man as a man in evening dress, but I did not describe him fully—Frederick Newland, our stableman, was about the premises.
Cross-examined. I had never seen the prisoner before—I was not quite able to identify the prisoner at the station, and I heard a voice behind me say, "Who is the nearest?"
Re-examined. I have no doubt now; I cannot say who said that—several policemen and detectives were there; there were twelve or fourteen people in a row.
JOHN CRAIG . I am a manufacturer, of Upper Sydenham—this letter is not my writing; I do not use paper like this—this is my address at the top—my son bears the same name; it is not his writing—I do not bank at the London and South-Western Bank—I was out of town on 11th March.
Cross-examined. My son has no paper with this heading—I know nothing of the prisoner.
FREDERICK NEWLAND . I am. stableman to the prosecutor—on 11th March, about closing time, 8.20, I was outside the shop, and saw the prisoner walk in and out—I saw young Mr. Smith come back from Mr. Glass, and give the prisoner something, and he left with a parcel—on 23rd November I was in High Road, Balham, with Sergeant Bunting, and saw the prisoner on the opposite side of the road; I pointed him out, and he was taken into custody—he was not dressed in the same way on the 11th; he had a dark coat on, a high hat, black trousers, a chain, and a white neck-tie, evening dress, I suppose; and on the 23rd he had a dark blue coat and dark trousers—I nave no doubt the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined. My attention was called to the matter about three days after the 11th—I saw him for about five or six minutes on the
11th—he was as if he was waiting for my master—he had a dark overcoat on; lit was not buttoned—I could not see what sort of coat he had on underneath—he displayed a good bit of shirt front, and had a white tie—I had instructions from Mr. Smith to go to Balham on the 23rd—the detective took me there—it is rather more than six miles off—the detective told me if I saw a man I knew I was to point him out—after accusing the prisoner I went back to the shop and told Mr. Smith we had got the man, and he went to the station with me and identified him—I did not describe him to Mr. Smith in any way, nor did he ask how he was dressed when I accosted him—I did not give a description to him of how the man was dressed on the 11th, nor did I tell the Magistrate so—if it is down in my deposition it is a mistake—I did give him a description after he had been to the station, but not before—one of the assistants told me that the cheque was bad—I did not know when I saw the man on the 11th that he had given a cheque to be changed—I knew nothing of the business that was going on.
Re-examined. On the night of the 11th the prisoner seemed to be waiting for something, and I remembered that on being told that a forgery-had been committed.
HARRY WALLIS . I have been for five years a clerk at the Clapham Junction branch of the London and South Western Bank—we have no customer named John Craig—there has been an alteration in the numbers of this cheque (produced), 83 in my opinion was 38, which is the number of the Clapham Junction branch—I cannot tell what figures have been altered in the other number, but I know some have.
Cross-examined. We have no such number in our cheque books as is now represented by this cheque; three or four other cheques have been drawn on our books by persons who have no account, which have been cashed by tradespeople—Mr. Ernest Carter, junr., banks at our branch.
By the COURT. The prisoner had no account at our bank—this was originally a Clapham Junction branch cheque.
FREDERICK BUNTING (Detective P). On March 23rd I was with Newland in Balham High Road at 10.30 a.m., he pointed the prisoner out, and I said I was a police officer, and should take him in custody for uttering a cheque on March 11th to Sidney Smith, of Sydenham—he said, "You have made a mistake, I am surprised at your stopping a gentleman in the street like this. I have been in Balham fifteen years. I am just going to pay my taxes; did you say Sydenham? I have not been there for 'three years, I suppose I can go before a Magistrate to-day. Can you tell me what sort of day it was on 11th March?"—I said, "It was snowing"—he said, "That man you have with you belongs to the Powis's, who hare done this"—I took him to the station, and found on him four memoranda, a tax-paper and cheque, five pawn-tickets, one albert, one eraser, one knife, and fourpence. (The cheque was for rates drawn the London and South Western Bank, Balham branch, signed George Motte.)—I said, "Is this your writing?—he said, "Yes"—I found two cheque-books at his house, one of which was on the London and South-Western Bank, Clapham branch—I compared the letters found on him with the letter asking for the cashing of the cheque, and there is a similarity in the "f' s" and in the "C"in "Conservative club," and told the prisoner that the letters corresponded—I placed him with ten more at the station and told Smith to see if he knew any one there—he looked
and said, "I am not sure, but I think that is the man,"pointing to the prisoner—I said, "If you see him, go and touch him"—he said, "I am sure that is the man," and touched him.
By the COURT. I did not hear any one behind Mr. Smith say, "Who is nearest?"
Cross-examined. I find that the prisoner has an account at the Balaam branch of this bank—a forged cheque has been cashed by Mr. Killett, a tradesman of Balham—he knows the prisoner perfectly well, and says he is not the person who cashed the cheque—the letter given by Mr. Killett has the same style of heading and the same style of writing; I should say it was written by the same person—there are two other cases, and the tradesmen in each have failed to identify the prisoner—the circumstances are similar.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I know nothing whatever of the case. "
Witnesses for the Defence.
GEORGE FELLOWS (Detective V). I received instructions in February from Mr. Killett, of Balham, to make inquiries respecting a person who had presented this forged cheque (produced) to him—this note was with the cheque—I do not say that the letters are on similar paper—I arranged for Mr. Killett to see the prisoner in custody, he knew him personally and said he was not the man; there have been two other cases in which the tradesmen not only failed to identify the prisoner, but they said he was not the man.
Cross-examined. I was present when Mr. Killett said he was not the man; and when we got outside he said, "I know that man"—I went with him to Greenwich Police-court.
FANNY EDDLES . I am the wife of Robert Eddies, a baker, of Balham—on Friday, March 11th, we were living in the same house as the prisoner and his wife; we had done so since last autumn—his sister-inlaw did not stay there, but she called there—I used to go out at five o'clock and return between six and seven—the prisoner was not at home at that time—I prepared my husband's supper at a little after seven—when I went out that evening between eight and nine the prisoner opened the parlour-door—I have never seen him in evening dress during the whole time I have lived in the house, and I have known him twelve years.
Cross-examined. I cannot be sure whether I saw him on the Thursday or the day before, but I know I saw him on Wednesday evening—I saw him on Saturday evening about ten minutes' walk from Balham Station—I do not know how long it would take to go to Sydenham by train; it takes about twenty minutes to go to the Police-station.
Re-examined. I remember March 11th because it was my birthday, and he wished me many happy returns of the day—I received a letter, which I have with me now.
MARY AGNES ILLINGWORTH . I live at Hayes Villa, Wandsworth Common—the prisoner married my sister—I called on her on Friday, March 11th, about 7.15 p.m.—the prisoner was at home—I remained till 8.20—he was there the whole time—he was not in evening dress, he was dressed as he is now, except that he had a light tie, it was not white, it was a little check.
Cross-examined. I often call there—I called there the day after, and
again on the Monday—I called on the Saturday afternoon and took the children a pine apple—I called on the Monday about eight o'clock—I am always in the habit of calling on my sister on Fridays and Mondays—I have been a witness in this Court before in the case of Miss Harrison for libel; she was acquitted—It was suggested that I had written the letters to myself—I am not married; I am living with my parents.
The prisoner received a good character.
— NOT GUILTY .
MR. ROACH Prosecuted.
HARRY BISHOP (Police Sergeant R). On the evening of February 6 I arrested the prisoner and told him the charge; he said, "I wrote to her several times, and she has not answered my letters, and I thought it right to get married again"—these are the certificates. (The first certified the marriage of James Stephens and Mary Ann Holmes on 3 April, 1850, and the second, the marriage of James Stephens, widower, age 50, and Hannah Satchell, aged 60, on November 5, 1891).
GEORGE WALKER (131 N). I have known the prisoner rather more than twenty-one years—I married his daughter in September, 1891, and lived with her at Devonport, and then at Croydon—I lived in the prisoner's house three months previous to my marriage—his wife was living with him—I last saw her last September, and I have had several letters from her since—the prisoner has been a greengrocer.
HANNAH SATCHELL . I live at 50, Bloomfield Road, Plums tead—on November 5, 1891, I went through the form of marriage with the prisoner at the Registrar's office, Woolwich—he told me he was a widower and had been left between five and six years—we lived together some weeks, and then I heard of his first wife being alive, and I left him—this is my marriage certificate—I am a widow.
Prisoner's Defence. She has been away so long I thought she was dead. I have had to have my eye taken out through having a cancer in it.
GUILTY.—Recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of his affliction and age.— Six Weeks Without Hard Labour.
Before the Common Serjeant.
MR. WALLACE Prosecuted.
CHARLES SMART . I am a leather-dresser, of 2, Larnaker Street, Bermondsey—on March 13, about 10.30, I met the prisoner Hall coming out of the Crown and Anchor, Jamaica Road—I knew him by living next door to him for twelve months—he asked me how I was, and I
asked him to have a drop of beer—I went to the Rising Bun opposite with both the prisoners and had some beer—that was the first time I had seen Gallivan; he came with Hall—that brought on eleven o'clock, and when I had got four or five yards round the corner Gallivan called me back—I was then within, four or five yards of my house—(I have not been drinking to-day)—Gallivan shoved me down and took my watch and ran away—I halloaed out "Police!" and my mistress too, who was with me—Hall said, "Leave go of him," and shoved me down; he came to rescue another man, who is not here—my mistress got hold of Hall and held him—this is my watch (produced)—I injured my elbow when I fell, and it was stiff next morning.
Cross-examined by Gallivan. I met you on 13th March, and Hall said, "One of your pigeons came home"—I said, "It is no use, keep it"—I did not fall down, and get up, leaving my watch lying on the ground; you ran away with it out of my pocket.
Cross-examined by Hall. You left me and my mistress outside the Rising Bun, but you followed us to Bridge Street and to the bottom of Colon Street; we were not drunk.
ALICE SMART . I am the wife of the last witness—non Sunday evening, 13th March, we went to the Grown and Anchor, and had a little refreshment; we came out about 10.30, and William Hail said to my husband, "Halloa, Charley, I have got one of your, pigeons., I am very fond of pigeons"—he said, "Keep it; I suppose you can drink a drop of ale?"—Hall said, "Yes"—my husband said, "Come to the Crown and Anchor"—Hall said, "They won't serve us there," and we went to the Rising Sun—we left Hall there, and as we went home Gallivan came up, and said, "Halloa, Charley"—I was arm-in-arm with, ay husband, and we walked two or three yards—he said, "Come on, Charley, they have knocked me down Wand taken my watch"—I did not see him knocked down, but I saw him lying on the ground, and helped to pick him up. Hall was with the two other chaps, and I got hold of him and said, "Give me that watch;"he said, "I have not got it but I know where it is"—we had a struggle, and he called me foul language—when Gallivan came up, Hall and another: man were with him.
Cross-examined by Gallivan. My husband did not ask you to see him home a little way, nor did he slip on the kerb and drop his watch and tell you to pick it up and put it in your pocket.
Cross-examined by Hall. You did not leave us in the Rising Sun, we left you there—we were not drunk; my husband had had a little drop, but I had not—he was not drunk at the Police-court.
WILLIAM BRADFORD (Police-sergeant M). On Sunday evening, the 13th March, the prosecutor complained to me, and next morning I was in Tooley Street with another officer and saw Gallivan come out of the Britannia public-house about 9.30.—I said, "Gallivan, I want to speak to you"—he ran across the road into a common lodging-house; we ran after him and caught him just inside the doorway—he said, "What is the matter?" and began to struggle violently—I said, "I am going to take you into custody, and you will be charged with two others with assaulting a man named Smart last night, knocking him down, and stealing his watch"—he put his left hand to his trousers pocket, and as we were struggling the watch came from the bottom of his trousers' leg—Hunt, the manager of the lodging-house, picked it up
for me, and brought it to the station—half-an-hour afterwards I was with another officer in Tooley Street and saw Hall and another man, who was arrested, but discharged by the Magistrate—I said to Hall, "We are going to take you in custody; you will be charged with Patrick Gallivan in knocking old Charley Smart down last night and stealing his watch"—Hall said, "We were with him last night, and he treated us in the Sun; I have heard that he had his watch stolen, but I had nothing to do with it"—we took them to the station—the three prisoners were placed with eight more, and Smart identified Hall as the man who was there when he was knocked down, and his wife identified Gallivan as the man who knocked him down, and the other two as the men who were there—Smart's chain was broken at the swivel.
Cross-examined by Gallivan. I examined your trousers where they were torn; there was a hole right through, and I saw the watch drop from the bottom of them.
Cross-examined by Hall. I have known you a great many years, and was quite surprised to see the company you were in—you work for a timber merchant—the other man's name is Mahoney.
JOHN HUNT . I am deputy of these chambers in Tooley Street—on this Monday morning, about ten o'clock, I saw Gallivan run into our place followed by Sergeant Bradford and Knell—they said they should take him for stealing a watch from Charles Smart—I saw a watch drop from his trousers; the sergeant said, "Pick that watch up and bring it to the station," and I did so.
The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Gallivan says: "I was drunk at the time; I am very sorry for it. "Hall says: "I bid the gentleman good-night; that is all I know. "
Gallivant Defence. I am guilty of having the watch on me, but I did not steal it, and I did not assault the man.
Halls Defence. I am not guilty of being concerned with this prisoner, for I left them at the Rising Sun, and that is all I know about it. They used to fight something cruel. The police were fetched in the middle of the night, and that is the reason they charge me.
GALLIVAN— GUILTY .
He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Guildford on 29th January, 1888, in the name of Patrick Howard, having then been previously convicted.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
HALL— NOT GUILTY .
MR. HEDDON Prosecuted.
JOHN CHRISTIAN BOYLE . I am manager to Messrs. Pocock, bootmakers, 163, Newington Causeway—I sleep in the house—on March 6th I went to bed about one o'clock and closed the place—I was called up by the police and found a pane of glass in the shop window broken, and missed sixteen pairs of boots from the window, and afterwards four pairs more—on the next Thursday this pair were shown to mo, and afterwards other pairs, which I identified.
WILLIAM HOLLINS (147 M). On March 10th I was called to Ullman's pawnshop, 62, High Street, and found the female prisoner there pawning this pair of boots; I said, "Where did you get them from?"—she said, "My brother gave them to me to pawn"—I took her to the station.
MOSES JOSEPHS . I am manager to Mr. Ullman, pawnbroker, of 62. Borough High Street—on March 10th, about 12.45, the female prisoner came and offered some boots in pledge; they looked as if they had been cut down—I said, "Whose boots are these?"—she said, "My brother's; they are too tight for him"—I asked where she got them—she said, "He bought them in Petticoat Lane last Sunday morning; he took the laces out of them to put into another pair"—I told my foreman, who fetched a policeman, and I gave the boots, to him, and referred to the sheet, and found that sixteen pairs of boots had been stolen.
THOMAS DIVALL (Police Sergeant M). On March 10th I was in South wark Police-court—before the female prisoner was charged I said to her, "Where did you get those boots from?"—she said, "My brother Teddy gave them to me to pawn this morning"—I went with a detective to the Borough Market, and asked for Edward Rogers at a public-house, and said to him, "Your sister is detained at the Police-station charged with having the boots in her possession; she has said something to me, and I am going to take you to the station for burglariously breaking a shop window and stealing some boots"—on the way to the station he said, "I bought the boots down Petticoat Lane about eleven o'clock on Sunday morning; I do not know whereabouts in the lane I bought them; I gave 7s. 6d. for them, and wore them all last Sunday morning"—he was taken to the station and charged with the burglary, and then to the Police-court, and while sitting in the prisoners' waiting-room he said to the other prisoner, "I had them given to me"—I went on the 12th to 114, Tabard Street, Borough; the prisoner Charles occupies the top front room there—I saw Gentle take this pair of boots out of a tin with water and mud in it; they were wet, and there was a portion of string where they had been fastened together—we then went to the Borough Market, where I saw the other prisoner in Gentle's custody—on the way to the station, he said, "I bought the boots down Bermondsey last Sunday morning; I gave 5s. 6d. for them"—he afterwards said, "I bought two pairs of boots at the top of Kent Street—at the station he pointed to the boots, and said, "I wore them. "
Cross-examined by E. Rogers. You said you bought them in Petticoat Lane—they were in water when found, but the others have never been in water; they have been locked up ever since they were found.
WILLIAM GENTLE (Detective M). On the 12th March, about 12.30, I went with Divall to 114, Tabard Street, and found a pair of boots in a tin containing water and mud under a table—we went to the Borough Market, and the prisoner Charles came to me, and said, "What are you inquiring about me for?"—his wife was with him—I said, "I shall arrest you for being concerned with your brother and sister in breaking into a boot shop in Newington Causeway, and stealing some boots. I have found a pair of boots in your room which are very much like those missing"—he said, "That is all right; I bought these boots in Kent Street four or five weeks ago, and gave 7s. 6d. for them"—his wife made a statement, and from what she said I went into the market and arrested
the prisoner—I did not say anything to him about what his wife had said—I took him to the station.
The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Edward Rogers says: "I bought the boots in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning for 6s. I asked my sister to pawn them. "Charles Rogers sags: "I bought the boots in Kent Street for 7s. The constable searched my place; I pawned them three or four months ago. "
Charles Rogers' Defence. I have a very good character, and it is the first time I have been in trouble; I am an innocent, hard-working chap. I never took the boots; I bought them.
Edward Rogers' Defence. I bought the boots in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning as I got locked up on the Thursday. It does not seem likely I should send my sister to pawn the boots and get her into a serious bother if I had known they were stolen.
Louisa Rogers' Defence. I am a hard-working girl; I have been fourteen months in one place with respectable people. I have a good character, and three months at another place.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
456. JAMES FORBES (25), JAMES RUSSELL (37), THOMAS WHITE (55), and WILLIAM BUCKNELL , indicted (with JAMES BIGGS , not in custody), for unlawfully obtaining £3 from Herbert Ellis Davis, by false pretences; Second Count, for conspiracy to defraud.
MESSRS. BIRON and ELDRIDGE Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended
HERBERT ELLIS DAVIS . I am an accountant, of 46, Darley Road, Croydon—on 22nd February I was at the Horse Repository, at the Elephant and Castle, attending a sale—while there the prisoner Forbes came up to me and asked me for information about the repository—he said he had a horse for sale, and asked mo to go out with him and see the horse—I did so; we went to the side of a public-house—Russell was in charge of the horse—Forbes asked me what I thought of it, and what it would fetch at the sale—I am very little judge of horses; I told him it might fetch £12 to a tradesman; but at a sale £4 would be a good price—we then went back to the repository and met Biggs—Forbes introduced him as his companion—White then came up and said his master wanted to buy the horse; he introduced Bucknell as his master—some words took place between Biggs and Bucknell about the horse, and Biggs refused to sell it to Bucknell, chiefly owing to his dislike of White—after a little talk Bucknell asked me to buy the horse for him and said he had offered £12 for it, and he would pay me for it immediately I handed it over to him—I saw Biggs, and he said the lowest he would take was £12—I only saw the head of the horse, it was covered up; I did not see it moved—I told Bucknell that I could not get him the horse for £12, and he increased his price to £14, and I was to have £2 10s. out of it—I went back to Biggs, and he said he would let me have the horse for £11, as he wanted to get home, and I could make what I liked out of it; he did not intend to sell it to Bucknell, as he had quarrelled with him—I went and told Bucknell that I had bought the horse and paid £3 deposit—he said I must pay for it in full before he gave me the money—I had not sufficient money about me, and I asked Bucknell to give me the difference—he said he was not a money-lender,
and I must find the money myself—I said I could give him a cheque, but he refused to take it—Biggs gave me this receipt for the £3,"February 22nd, 1892, sold one horse for £11 to Mr. Davis. Received £3 on account; balance on demand £8, signed Wood"—Forbes wrote out the. form, and Biggs signed it in the name of Wood—I agreed to meet Bucknell next morning about ten at London Bridge, so that he could see he horse before completing the purchase; the horse was then in charge of Russell, in the mews in Ripley Street—Forbes wrote out the address for Russell, and Russell gave it to me as his address, as he had not a card—next morning I went to the stable and saw Russell and Biggs—I asked Biggs to have the horse out that I might see it; he refused—I went to London Bridge, Bucknell was not there, I waited there about twenty minutes, and then went back to the stable and saw Russell—he took me to a public-house close by—Bucknell and White were there—I asked Bucknell how it was I had not seen him at London Bridge—he said he had been there waiting for me—I asked him if he was really going to buy the horse, or if he was only playing with me—he gave me his word it was his intention to take the horse when I handed it over to him—I then left the public-house, and Bucknell and White followed me to the stable, and I asked Bucknell to take the horse and pay the money—he said that would not do, I must pay it, and then he would take it—Forbes then made out a second receipt, and Biggs signed it in the name of J. Wood—this is it: "Sold to Davis a bay mare for £11, warranted, quiet in harness and sound in wind and limb"—I showed the receipt to Bucknell, and told him I had purchased the horse, and asked him to come with me to the stable, and take it and pay me the money—I had paid the £8 in postal orders—I counted it out to Russell, and Biggs took it—we went to the stable, and Biggs told me to go and bring the horse out—Russell said he must take orders from Biggs—at last I brought it out and offered it to Bucknell—he refused to take it, and said I must make him out a receipt for the money before he paid it—I offered to do it with a pencil—he said it must be in ink—I had hold of the horse, and asked him to take it—he refused—I asked Russell to hold it—he said he would go to the public-house and et ink for me to make out the receipt, and I could put the horse in the stable and make it out there—I took it to the stable-yard, but Russell refused to take it, and when I brought it out again I saw Bucknell and the others running away—I asked Russell what he would keep the horse for, and also asked him the names and addresses of the others—he said he did net want to keep the horse, and he did not know them; that he had the. horse there for me—Forbes and Biggs walked back with me and White to the stable, but they waited outside, and they disappeared while I was arguing with Bucknell and White—Russell walked with me to the New Kent Road; on the way he offered to buy the horse of me; I asked what he would give me; I am not sure whether it was thirty shillings or £2, and then he offered me a pony in the stable; I saw it, and afterwards I saw that it had a blind eye, and a scar on the near fore-leg a little above the knee—I left the horse at the repository, and went to the Lambeth Police-court; from there I went to the Hackney Road Police-station, and on my way I met the prisoners in custody—I have since received from the police these four postal orders for two shillings, four shillings and sevenpence, seven shillings, and five shillings; they form part of those I
had given to Biggs in part payment of the £8—when Bucknell agreed to meet me at London Bridge he gave me his address, which I wrote down, "H. Smith, James Street, Paddington"—on 1st March I went to the stable in Ripley Mews with Sergeant Brogden and Mr. Dossett, and there I saw the one-eyed pony and two others—in all my dealings with the prisoners I believed it was a bona fide transaction, and it was under that belief that I parted with my money.
Cross-examined. by MR. HUTTON. I am carrying on business as an accountant—I went to this repository about a phaeton belonging to a client of mine, which was for sale—I was not to get anything out of it; simply paid for my time—I constantly attend sales, as I have a fancy for dogs and birds, not for horses.
WILLIAM WATSON . I am a carman—I have stables in Ripley Mews—about ten weeks ago I let this stable to Russell; I gave him the key, and he put two horses in—he paid the rent—I went with Sergeant Duke to the repository, and there saw a horse which I had seen in the stable.
HENRY DUFFIN (73 L). On 23rd February, in consequence of information, I went to the Carpenters' Arms public-house, and there saw the four prisoners and Biggs—Bucknell had a number of postal orders in his hands, apparently dividing them between themselves—I had suspicion, and ran to Kennington Police-station and got assistance, and they were all arrested—Biggs was allowed on bail, and during a remand he disappeared.
Cross-examined by Forbes. I found some silver and coppers on you, which I allowed you to keep; also an order-book—I know you are a traveller in the haberdashery line—I have known you to deal at one house for a number of years.
HENRY DUKE (Detective Sergeant L). I took Russell into custody—I found on him £5 in gold and four postal orders for 7s. 6d. and three for 2s. each, 5s. 6d. in silver, and 8 1/2 d. in bronze—I asked him how he accounted for the possession of the postal orders—he said he got them over buying a horse.
Cross-examined by Russell. You did not say they were from Biggs selling a horse—you did not say that Biggs owed you 14s. and he had paid you 13s. 6d. in postal orders—you did not point to the prosecutor and say, "That is the gentleman I received them of. "
SILO DOSSETT . I am a bookseller, and live at Plumstead—on 22nd February I was outside the Elephant and Castle Horse Repository about half-past one, waiting for a tram—Forbes came up to me and asked me to go down the street with his father to look at a little pony—I did not know him, and said I did not want a pony, I could not afford it—Biggs
was the father—I saw the pony—Russell was holding it—the father said, "You can have that pony for £8 10s."—I said laid not want it—Bucknell came up with a handful of gold in his hand, and he asked me to buy the pony for him, and he would give me £9 10s.—the other man said he would not let any dealer have the pony—I said I had only £5 10s. with me—he wrote out a receipt for the £5 10s., and took the £5 10s.—this is the receipt: "February 22, sold one pony to Mr. Dossett; £5 10s. on account; balance on demand, £3"—he asked me if I had not any more money—I said no—he said did I not know anyone in London to borrow the £3 of—I said no, I was quite a stranger—he said then I had better go to Plumstead and get it—they took the pony to a stable close by—I followed them there—they said they would stop there till I came back—I went to Plumstead and borrowed the £3, and went back to the stable, but they were gone and the stable door was locked—I walked about there a good bit, and then went home—I afterwards went with Mr. Davis and Sergeant Brogden to the stable, and there saw the pony; it was a one-eyed one—I afterwards picked out the prisoners, who were placed among other men, but "the father"was not there.
Cross-examined by Forbes. You were present when I gave Biggs the £5 10s.—it was in a beer-house—Biggs gave me the receipt—you were all together at the stable—I did not promise to come back in three hours—it was a week afterwards that I went to the stable—I was taken very ill, it was a great mercy I did not have a doctor—I have not been right since.
Forbes, in his defence, stated that Biggs asked him to look after the horse and he would make him a present, but me took no part in the sale. Russell stated that he had nothing to do with the prosecutor, but merely lent the use of the stable to oblige Biggs.
GUILTY .— Six Months Hard Labour each.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.
WILLIAM LAWLEY . I live at 64, Southwark Park Road—I am a collector to the Royal London Friendly Society—it is & duly registered friendly society—I produce a certified copy of the rules registered in the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies—I know Luckins—on 11th May last I went to her house, 41, Neckinger Street—I said I was a collector in the Royal London Friendly Society, and asked if she had anyone to insure—she said she would insure William Alford for a penny a week—she said she was the mother of the child—the child was brought forward—he appeared to be about seven years of age—£4 10s. would be secured by the payment of 1d. per week—if the child died within six or seven months of the policy being taken out the £4 10s. would be payable—I accepted the proposal, and a policy was issued—I called at the house and received the weekly payments—I knew her as Mrs. Luckins—I thought she had been married a second time, and that this was a child by toe first marriage—on 14th November last I called on her for the subscription—she said there was a mistake in the policy, that the name should be Ephraim instead of William—I asked her for the policy—she said she could not find it—I called again
on Monday, the 16th—I did not see the child—she repeated that the name should be Ephraim—I compared the policy with my book, and they both contained the name of William—she wanted me to alter the name in the policy—I said I could not do that; she must go to the office and explain the case—she said William was dead—I made a report to the office—on 18th November I went to the house again with Superintendent Duffell; that was after I had seen a Mrs. Wicks—Mr. Duffell said, "I have called with reference to a claim that has been made with reference to Ephraim Alford; have you any child of the name of William?"—she said no—she also said she was not the mother of the child, but his aunt—on that same day we saw Mrs. Alford—Mr. Duffell said he had called with reference to a claim that had been made for Ephraim Alford, and asked, "Is there any William in the family?"—she said, "No"—Mr. Duffell asked her if she knew of a child in Mrs. Luckins' family of the name of William, aged between six and seven—she said there was a child about that age—I do not know that the name of Mrs. Wicks was mentioned—I did not see either of the prisoners again till the 14th February, when I went to Mrs. Luckins' house with Mr. Atherton, one of the managers of the Society—he said to her, "I have called in reference to a claim made for Ephraim Alford at our office; is William alive?"—she said, "Yes"—we then went round to Mrs. Alford, and Mr. Atherton asked the same question, "Is William alive?" and she pointed William out—on or about the 12th December Mrs. Luckins came to me and offered me ten shillings if I got the money all right—that was after she told me she was the aunt and not the mother of the child.
Cross-examined by Alford. When I came with the superintendent I looked in the coffin and said I did not think it was the child—you did not say, "That is my boy William"—you said, "There was no William in the family. "
Cross-examined by Luckins. I told you to get a declaration—I did tell you to get it at Waterlow's, for a penny.
EDWARD WILLIAM WOOLLEY . I am a clerk in the Royal London Friendly Society, of 108, Paul Street, Finsbury—on the 17th February I saw the two prisoners in our office—I said to Luckins, "Have you called for a claim?"—she said, "Yes," and she handed me the papers; a policy in the name of William Alford, aged five, and a certificate of the death of Ephraim, aged four, and a premium-book in the name of William—I looked at the papers and said, "How do you explain the difference in name and age?"—she said the child insured as William, aged five, was the same as mentioned in the certificate of death as Ephraim, aged four—I said, "What relation are you?"—she said, "Aunt"—I said, "Did you insure the child?"—she said, "Yes, in the name of William, believing that to be the correct name"—I said, "Where is the mother of the child?"—she said, "This is the mother,"pointing to Alford—I said to Alford, "Have you a son named William?"—she replied, "No, I have no son named William, there is no William in the family now living"—I said, "We shall have to send the papers on for inquiry"—on the 19th November they came again; the inquiries had not then been reported on—they came again a few days after; I told them the report had been received from the district superintendent, but owing to the nature of the report it would be necessary for them to
make a statutory declaration; they went away, and I did not see them again.
CHARLES STIRLING . I am a B. M. and a registered medical practitioner—I was called in in November last to attend Ephraim Alford, aged about four, at 18, Woods Place, Grange Road, Bermondsey; I do riot recollect seeing Mrs. Alford—the child was suffering from bronchitis; it died on Sunday, 15th November.
Cross-examined by Alford. I only paid one visit—your husband got a parish order, which I have.
By the COURT. The age was given to me, and I took it for granted.
HORACE CHARLES DUFFELL . I am one of the superintendents of the Royal London Friendly Society—on 17th November last I received instructions to inquire into the policy of William Alford, and on the 18th I went to 18, Woods Place, Grange Road, and there saw "Mrs. Alford; I had previously paid a visit to Mrs. Wicks; I told Mrs. Alford that I had received a communication from the chief office of our society, and as the claim was not satisfactory I was to make inquiries, and having read through the particulars supplied to me, I asked her whether she had a child living of the name she had insured, William Alford—she said no, she had not a child of that name, and it was simply a mistake in the policy—I said, "Have you got a William at all in the family, or connected with the family?"—she said, "No, there was a William about 27 or 17"—I said, "Nothing like a child of that age?"—she said, "No, we have not a William living now, we never had a William of that age in our immediate family"—I told her I had called on Mrs. Wicks, and also told her what she had said—I said to Mrs. Wicks, "I wish, if you can, to tell me the address of Mrs. Alford; I wish to see her respecting her claim made on the Royal London Friendly Society, I believe you are related to her, I think?"she said, "Yes"—I said, "Do you know if there is a little child living by the name of William in the family?"she said, "Yes, there is"—I said, "How old do you think?"she said, "I could not tell you the age"—she seemed to have some motive in keeping the age from me; I had to suggest all sorts of ages, five or six, and she said, "Yes, about six"—I forget exactly the age, but I put it in my report, I put this conversation in my report; I repeated this to Mrs. Alford—she said, "Mrs. Wicks is a very bad wicked woman, I cannot understand why she should make such a statement as that, because there is no truth in it whatever"—after that interview with Mrs. Alford I went to Mrs. Luckins, and had the same kind of conversation, bearing on the same thing; I also told her what Mrs. Wicks had said—she said it was wrong, that Mrs. Wicks had no right to say such a thing, and she had insured the child in the name of William because she had a William herself and lost him; and Mrs. Alford told her, when she was carrying a child, if it was born it should be named William; the child was born, and she thought it was named William, but it was christened Ephraim unknown to her, that the mother had deceived her—I asked her if there was a William living now—she said no, there was no child of that name living—I went again to Mrs. Luckins' house somewhere about the 13th February, and had a conversation with her about the matter; the office did not intend taking proceedings, and I have no note of the date; she told me she was very sorry for what she had done, and she was dragged into it by other women; she was helped on in the matter by those other
women—I told her she should not do a thing like that, and she really made a confession that she was very sorry for it, she had attempted to defraud the society; Mrs. Alford was one name she mentioned, I can't remember the other, it was two sisters; I could not be sure whether it was Mrs. Wicks.
GEORGE ATHERTON . I am one of the Committee of Management of the Royal London Friendly Society—this matter was mentioned to me, and in February I went to Mrs. Luckins, and informed her that I was one of the Committee of Management, and that I had called to know the particulars of the application that was made with reference to the claim of Ephraim Alford—I said, "Here is my card, so that you will know who it is that has called"—she said, first of all, "I am very sorry indeed; I much regret, and I hope the matter will be allowed to drop"—I said, "When the proposal was taken by collector Lawley, did you tell him that you were the mother of William Alford?"—she said, "No, I did not"—I said, "Is it a fact that you offered the collector ten shillings if the claim was paid?"—she denied that—I then said, "Do you know whether your sister, Mrs. Alford, ever had a son William?"—she said, "Yes, she had" or "has"—I said, "Do you know it the child is alive at the present time?"—she said, "Yes. he is"—I said, "Can you tell me whether the child lives with its mother?"—she said, "No, I cannot"—I said, "Then I shall have to go and see the mother to-night"—she advised me not to go, as I might find the house full of drunken people—I left her—it took me ten or fifteen minutes to walk from Neckinger Street to Mrs. Alford's—I found Mrs. Alford in—I told her who I was, and I said, "What about saying that you had a son William?"—she expressed regret at the matter, and said a mistake had been made in the name, and hoped the matte would be allowed to drop—I said, "Have you a son William?"—she said, "Yea, and there he sits,"pointing to a child by the fire, about six years old, I should say.
Cross-examined by Alford. I found you washing—I think there was no one in your place except you and your husband and children.
By the COURT. We have about 8,000 claims made in the course of a year—a ere is about one percentage of mistakes as to names, and about five percentage as to age—I cannot say if Luckins had insured other children—Mrs. Luckins said, to the best of my recollection, "I am very sorry, sir, and I hope you will allow the matter to drop"—Alford made a similar reply; she was very sorry that her sister had made a mistake in the name, and she expressed regret, and also hoped we should allow the matter to drop.
WILLIAM LAWLEY (Re-examined). On 11th May I saw a lad called forward as the lad on whom the policy was to be taken out; the dead child I saw on 16th November in Mrs. Luckins' house was a different child altogether.
By Alford. I told you it was not the child; Superintendent Duffell was present; I said it in his hearing as well as in yours.
H.C. DUFFELL (Re-examined). I saw part of the dead child—I asked Lawley whether that was the child; the prisoner was present—he said, "No, I do not think so.
By Alford. I cannot think how he could say that was the child; the
dead child was three or four, and the child insured was five years old a year before.
By Luckins. I recommended you at the Police-court to hare a solicitor, because I considered it a kindly action towards you—I have no ill-feeling against you; I feel for your position—you wanted to get into conversation with me outside the Police-court, and I walked away; I only advised you to have advice.
Alford, in her defence, asserted her innocence. Luckins said that she was asked to insure the child, and did so, and that as she could neither read nor write it teas through want of education it had happened.
GUILTY .—The JURY added that they did not think the insurance was effected with a guilty intention.— Four Weeks' Hard Labour each.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
458. JULIUS ROHMANN , Unlawfully, with twelve others, tumultuously, riotously, and routously assembling together to disturb the peace. Other Counts, for assaults on Edward Bailey and on Martha Bailey, and for forcible entry, expulsion, and detainer.
MESSRS. GRAIN and BIRON Prosecuted, and MESSRS. GEOGHEGAN and
During the progress of the case the prisoner stated, in the hearing of the JURY, his willingness to
PLEAD GUILTY to a common assault on Martha Bailey, and the JURY thereupon returned a verdict of Guilty of a common assault.— Judgment respited.
OMITTED FROM THE OLD COURT, TUESDAY.
459. JULIA. HART (35) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a box and certain valuable securities, the property of George Edmund Paget and another, after a conviction of felony at Manchester in March, 1889, in the name of Joseph Burton.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. And
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, MAY 2ND, 1892.
The following Prisoners, upon whom the sentence of the Court was respited at the time of Trial, have since been sentenced as under:—
Vol. cxv. Page. Sentence.