CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
FIFTH SESSION, HELD MARCH 6TH, 1893.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
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
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, March 6th, 1893, and following days.
BEFORE the RIGHT HOW. STUART KNILL, 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 WHITE HEAD , Bart., M. P., Alderman of the said City; Sir CHARLES HALL , Q. O., M. P., K. C. M. G., Recorder of the said City; GEORGE ROBERT TYLER , Esq., EDWARD HART , Esq., HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Esq., FRANK GREEN , Esq., JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Esq., MARCUS SAMUEL , Esq., JAMES THOMPSON RITCHIE , Esq., JOHN POUND , Esq., WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., and WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Esq., other Aldermen of the said City, and Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., Q. C., 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.
JOSEPH RENALS, Esq., Alderman.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
KNILL, MAYOR. FIFTH 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, March 6th, 1893.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. PASSMORE Prosecuted.
JOSEPH KERSLEY . I am a coachman of 48, Princes Mews—on the morning of 22nd February I came home about a quarter-past twelve—I let myself in—no one else was living in the house—when I got upstairs I lighted the gas, and then saw some soldier's clothes on the bed, a tunic and great coat, and a pair of trousers on the table—I saw a man's foot projecting from under the bed—I asked what he was doing there, and told him to come out—he came but; and I said, "You have got my trousers and waistcoat on"—he replied, "All right, old man, I am a deserter"—I said, "And you have got my cap"—I took the cap off his head; he went to the window, shoved it up, got on a ladder, and down he went—I halloaed out "Police!" as loud as I could—no policeman was there—I went into Exhibition Road and got one—I saw the prisoner run up the mews—he had broken a pane of glass, put his arm through, and pulled the catch back—it was all safe when I went out; I had never seen him before—he seemed to me to be half silly, or three parts drunk; but he must have known what he was about, or he could not have got up the ladder, and got on it again to get away.
JOHN SEARS (253 B). On the morning of 22nd February, about a quarter past one, I was in Princes Mews—I saw the prisoner walking out of the mews, and haying received information of the burglary I stopped the prisoner, and took him to be the man who had broken into 48, Princes Mews—he had on the clothes produced—I said I should take him into custody—he said, "All right, take me where you like; I. can't walk about the streets in this rain"—he then became very violent, threw me into the road, and escaped—I saw another constable coming down the road—I shouted to him to stop the prisoner, which he did, and I assisted him in taking the prisoner to the station—I asked him
where his military uniform was—he said, "I hare not any; I am not a soldier"—I charged him at the station—he was drunk, but not too drunk to know what he was about; he had been drinking heavily—he had a coat on.
GUILTY — Ten Months' Hard Labour.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for a burglary and stealing a coat. Lieutenant Hall, in whose battalion the prisoner wan for nine months, stated that prisoner's character was very bad.
MR. BARKER Prosecuted.
THOMAS WILLIAMS . I keep the White Lion in High Street, Clerkenwell—on 17th February I closed my house at half-past one—about two I heard a smash of glass—I went downstairs and saw a hand passing through the bar window at the side of the house and taking away a bottle; I only saw one bottle taken—I subsequently missed others—I subsequently saw three bottles produced by the police—these are them, two of gin and one of whisky—my name and address are on the bottles.
GEORGE SAUNDERS (67 G). On 17th February, about two a.m., I was I was on duty in High Street, Clerkenwell, and saw the prisoner walking along with a bundle on his shoulder—before that I had been to the public-house and seen the broken window, and the prosecutor had made a statement to me—the prisoner was about 150 yards from the house—I said, "What have you in your bundle?"—he said, "Nothing"—I said, "Let me look"—he said, "I shan't"—I took hold of him, and said, "I intend to see what you have in the bundle"—he then threw it down, and said, "It is whisky"—I took him to the house, and the prosecutor identified the property—I took the prisoner to the station, and charged him—he said nothing—on the way to the station he said, "I broke the window with my boot and took the spirits out. "
Prisoner's defence. The things were given to me by a young gent, who I had known ten years ago.
GUILTY — Three Months' Hard Labour.
299. WILLIAM JOHN ROBINS (44) and DAVID LLEWELLYN PUGH (37) PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Lewis Pollard , and stealing two bottles of beer—Pugh also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court of obtaining goods by false pretences.
ROBINS— Nine Months' Hard labour. , PUGH— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MESSES. C.J. GILL and A.E. GILL Prosecuted, and Ms. WARBURTON Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
301. WILLIAM TARGET (26) PLEADED GUILTY to two indictments for forging and uttering orders for goods, the property of William Whiteley; to stealing two blank cheques, the goods of James Piatt, his master; and to unlawfully conspiring with George Robert Bannister to obtain by false pretences from William Whiteley divers of his goods and moneys. And
NEW COURT.—Monday, March 6th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
304. OLIVER EDWARD JOHN HUNT (20) , to stealing while employed in the Post Office twenty-five letters; also a letter and thirty postage-stamps, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
305. CHARLES JACOBS (18) , to stealing while employed in the Post Office a post-letter, the property of Her Majesty's 'Postmaster-General; and HORACE JAMES ALDERMAN (19) , to feloniously receiving the same. JACOBS— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. ALDERMAN— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
306. WILLIAM DE BANKS (38) , to stealing a post-letter containing six table mats, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
307. FREDERICK DAKINS (25) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Kathleen Taylor, and stealing a cash-box, a purse, and £10 9s. Bd., her property.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Seven Months' Hard Labour.
308. JOHN JONES (49) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Pellegrino Varioni, with intent to steal, after a conviction at Clerkenwell in the name of John Francis on 23rd May, 1892.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Ten Months' Hard Labour.
309. ELGIN DAWS (19) , to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Eliza Matilda Baldwin, and stealing two brooches and other articles and 25s. in money.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Nine Months' Hard Labour.
310. GEORGE PETERS (32) and MARY PETERS (24) , to stealing a cornet, the goods of Emma Pope; also a silver watch of Thomas Taylor Pike; also a portmanteau of George Eaton; also a postal-order for 15s. of Alice Clara Johnson; also a silver watch of Joseph Whalley; also obtaining by false pretences a postal-order for 15s. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] GEORGE PETER8— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. MARY PETERS— Four Months' Hard Labour. And
311. JOHN RICHARD WEBBER (39) , to stealing a portmanteau, two night-shirts, and other articles, of Thomas William Plant; also a dressing-bag and other articles of Evelyn Simpson; also forging and uttering a request for the delivery of a bag, with intent to defraud; also to forging and uttering an order for £7, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Six Months' Imprisonment without Hard Labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
I was at the first floor window, which looks into Castle Street, and saw the prisoner come down Castle Street from St. Martin's Lane—he backed himself up against a hole in the brewery wall on the opposite side of the street, took a white paper packet from his pocket, put it into the hole, and walked away—I went over with Green about five minutes afterwards, looked into the hole, took out the packet, undid it, and found seven bad half-crowns and a florin in it, with paper between each—in ten minutes I saw the prisoner come back with another lad and feel in the hole—there are several holes along the wall—he went to two or three and then went a way again—I informed the police, handed them the packet, and described the prisoner.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I am sure it was you—I know you by your dress and your face, and picked you out at the station standing in the dock.
JOSEPH HUNT. I am a brewer's workman—on 31st January, about four o'clock, I was in a room in the brewery overlooking Castle Street; not the room in which Simons works—I saw the prisoner and another lad in Castle Street playing about, and saw him put something into the hole of a ventilator which lets air into a cellar—he walked away, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards he came back, put his hand into the hole about the same spot, and then went to the next hole—I had not seen Simons remove them—I afterwards went with Simons and gave information to the police—I next saw the prisoner on the way to the station—the constable who had him in charge said, "Is that the man?"—I said "Yes"—I am quite sure he is the man—the window is about ten yards from where I saw him.
CHARLES BOURNE (276 E). On January 31st I received information from Hunt, wont to Seven Dials, and saw Simons and the prisoner—I told him I should take him in custody for being in possession of counterfeit coin—he said nothing—Hunt met us, and said he was the man—he said, "You have made a mistake; I don't know anything about it," and when he was charged he said the same—I received this packet from Simons containing seven counterfeit half-crowns and a counterfeit florin, and this coin from Miss Baker.
LIZZIE BAKER . I manage a confectioner's shop at 447, West Strand—on 30th January, between one and two p.m., the prisoner came in for two halfpenny pastries and gave me a half-crown—I gave him change and he left—I found, about four o'clock, that the coin was bad, and broke it in the tester—on the next afternoon Mrs. Higgins called me into the shop and showed me a bad half-crown—the prisoner was there—I recognised him, and sent the waitress for a constable—he then rushed out with the buns—he had also passed a bad half-crown to me a month before, and I recognised him on the 31st, though I had not done so on the 30th.
Cross-examined. I picked you out from twenty—I knew you by your face.
LOUISA HIGGINS . I am assistant at 447, West Strand—on 31st January, between one and two, I served the prisoner with two buns—he gave me this half-crown—I tried it in the tester, and gave it to Miss Baker—a constable was sent for, and the prisoner ran away—I had not given him any change—I next saw the prisoner at Marlborough Street Police-court on the Monday week—I did not pick him out from others.
Prisoner's defence. I am not guilty; I am taken for somebody else.
GUILTY — Discharged on Recognisances.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
EMMA MEAD . I assist Mr. Adcock at the Bricklayers' Arms, Cecil Street—last Friday week I served the prisoner with a pot of ale, price fourpence; he tendered a florin; I put it in a till, and gave him the change—he left, and came into another bar with a man, and asked for two half pints of ale, and tendered a florin; I put it in the same till, and gave him 1s. 10d.—there were no other florins there; nothing above a shilling—they drank the beer and left—the prisoner then came in a third time, asked for a pot of ale, and tendered another florin; I took it into the parlour to my father, who found it was bad—I then went to the till and took out the two florins, and my father found them bad—I am quite sure the prisoner is the man who passed the three florins—he did not go away—I went for a constable; he was still there when I came back, and my father gave him in custody—I saw him drop a florin, which was picked up, and handed to the policeman—I identify these coins.
WILLIAM ADCOCK . I keep the Bricklayers' Arms, Cecil Street—the last witness is my step-daughter—on February 17th, between seven and eight p.m., she brought me a bad florin, and then two other bad florins—I sent her quietly for a constable, and the prisoner remained in the bar—these are the coins.
HENRY RICHARDSON (Policeman). On 17th February I was sent for to the Bricklayers' Arms, and Mr. Adcock gave the prisoner in custody for uttering three counterfeit florins—I told him I should search him; he dropped this florin behind him—I asked him how he accounted for it—he said, "He has made a mistake, I had no bad money"—I took him to the station, and found a good florin on him—I received these three coins from Miss Mead, and the one which was dropped was handed to me—he gave his address, 18, Duncan Square; I went there, but he was not known.
The prisoner, in hit statement before the Magistrate, denied being the man who passed the coins.
GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.
Upon the opening of MR. PARTRIDGE, for the prosecution, there being only one uttering, the COURT directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
10.40, I was on duty in St. John's Road, Hoxton, and saw the prisoner carrying a bag—I asked what he had in the bag—he said he did not know; a man at the Star asked him to carry it—I took him to the station, and found in the bag twenty-three shirts and a, new pair of boots the prisoner was remanded, and it was found that the house had been broken into.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You did not say that a gentleman behind asked you to carry the bag; you said that the man had gone up a turning, and I sent somebody after him.
SIDNEY DE CABLE . I am a shirt manufacturer, of 2, Butler Street, Milton Street—these shirts and boots are mine, and the bag also—I occupy the third floor—I locked it up on Friday, 17th February and at six a.m. next day I found the door burst open and a jemmy on the counter—the top of the safe was wrenched off—I missed a large old twopenny piece and a Melbourne coin with my initials on it—there is a common staircase—the outer door is closed at night, and he could not get in there—there is no tenant to the first floor, and he must have been concealed there.
SAMUEL LYTHAL (Detective Serjeant). I examined these premises on the morning of the 18th; the door had been secured by a Maltese lock and a padlock, which was forced off—there was evidence of somebody having been secreted there from something which I saw—I then went to the next floor and found the padlock forced off, then to the third floor and the padlock broken off there, then to the fourth floor and found the padlock forced off, but nothing was stolen there—it was evident that the thief had made his exit by the front door—every mark corresponded with this jemmy.
EDWARD GARDNER (Policeman). I was on duty and examined the basement about 10. 15; everything was perfectly secure—at 12. 30 I saw the basement door about an inch and a half open, and sent for the sergeant.
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, and in his defence, said that a gentleman engaged him to carry the bag to High Road, Hoxton.
HENRY AIREY (Re-examined). The copper coins were given back to the prisoner—I searched him afterwards and he had not got them—he had been in custody all the time, but he had opportunities of seeing his friends.
GUILTY — Ten Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, March 7th 1893.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
for ladies during their accouchement—I advertise for that purpose occasionally in the name of Beta, my maiden name, my Christian name—on 29th October last a child was born in my house—the mother went in the name of Weston—I did not hear her right name; I never asked hex for her name—I sometimes ask the ladies their names—in this case she advertised in the name of Weston—I did not know her name or where she came from—I asked her if she was married, and she said "No"—I asked her nothing else—it was before she was confined that she advertised to procure a home for her baby—I do not keep babies in my house—the letters in answer to the advertisement were to be addressed to 11, Newington Butts, a stationer's shop—the prisoner answered the advertisement there—we had several letters from her; I had had letters once before in the name of Weston addressed to the stationer's shop; that was why the lady's letters were addressed in that name, because it was better known at the shop—the mother read the letters over, and she chose the letters written by Mrs. Garter, and said she would settle on that home—I had nothing to do with that—Mrs. Carter lived out Kilburn way, I forget the name of the street—I did not know it before I handed the baby over to her—she said the home was a good one, and she would do. a mother's part to the child—I saw the address on the letters; I did not see Mrs. Carter before the arrangement was made; the mother wrote to her and said she was suited for her to take the baby, and it was handed over to her—an appointment was made for me to meet Mrs. Carter; that was after the baby was born—the lady came to my house a few days before she was confined; she answered my advertisement, she did not write—she called to see me, and arranged to come to my house to be confined; there was no correspondence whatever; the ladies use what name they like—the lady paid me £3—she stayed over a month—I never inquired her name or where she came from—I met the prisoner at Victoria Station about a week after the baby was born; another lady was with her—it was arranged that she was to meet me at the waiting-room—she described a little how she would be dressed, with a little sort of flower in her bonnet—I saw she was waiting to see someone, and I spoke to her—Mrs. Robertson was with her, and she recommended Mrs. Carter as being a very respectable person and a lodger of hers; I did not know Mrs. Robertson before—she said she had been a lady's nurse herself, and that the baby would be taken care of—so I felt more comfortable that the baby would be taken care of, and I gave the baby to the prisoner and paid her what was arranged by letter, £2, at the mother's wish; that was to take the child and adopt it as her own; nothing more was to be given, and there was to be no future claim for the child; that was named in all Mrs. Carter's letters—we understood the child was going to a comfortable home and would be taken care of, as was mentioned in the letter—some of the letters are in Court—when I handed the child over I said, 'Remember, you take this child, as promised the mother in your fitters"—that was all that passed; I was with her a very few minutes—I did not tell her it was my eldest daughter's child—it had not been baptised or registered at my house while I had the care of it—Mrs. carter wanted it registered in her own name—we knew where the child was going to, but I have forgotten the name of the street—it was between eight and nine in the evening when the interview took place at Victoria
station; I did not see the baby again—the mother had a letter from Mrs. Carter a week after to say the child was going on very nicely—I did not expect to see the baby again—I don't interfere with their business—it was no business of mine after I parted with the baby in good health and nicely clothed; it was a beautiful baby (letter produced)—this is the letter the mother received from the prisoner, the first and only one; it is in the same handwriting as the letters that came before; they were in red and black ink—after the mother went away there were a lot of letters at Newington Butts from Mrs. Garter, but I did not send for them—some letters were found at my house by the police; they were left behind by the mother—when I handed the baby over it had plenty of nice clothes, besides what it had on—I gave her a parcel of clothes with the baby—nothing more was promised—I did not hear of the baby's death till the police came to my house.
LYDIA ROBERTSON . I am a widow, and live at 153, Canterbury Road, Kilburn—I am a certified nurse—I know the prisoner as Mrs. Cox; she lives at 6, Beethoven Street, Queen's Park—in the beginning of November last she came to me and asked me to go with her to Victoria Station, where she was going to receive a baby from a lady of the name of Mrs. Weston; she said that she had answered an advertisement in the Weekly Times and Echo by XYZ, Newington Butts—she said she was going to take the child for £2, and the lady promised to pay her railway fare—she brought a letter with her, and read it to me; it was something about meeting this lady, Mrs. Weston, at the station with the baby and its clothes—she said she would like me to go with her; perhaps the lady might give her the baby and not give her any money, so I went as a witness to see that she did receive it—I went with her—it was a very cold night in November, somewhere about the 3rd or 4th—the lady was to be Mrs. Weston; I knew her by that name—it was the last witness—I took her to be Mrs. Weston—I had never seen her before—she said, "I have brought the baby, and here are the baby's clothes; I hope you will take care of it; here is your money," and she gave her two sovereigns and some silver, I did not see what the silver was, and a parcel of clothes in brown paper for the baby—Mrs. Baker said the baby was her eldest daughter's child, and when she got better she would bring her some more short clothes for the baby—nothing was said about more money; all she said was, "Remember, you are the adopted mother, and you have no further claim upon me; it is your baby"—she seemed very well satisfied, and said she understood it very well—I carried the baby to my own home, and changed it and made it comfortable—it was a beautiful healthy child, clean, and wrapped up lovely and warm, and a beautiful bottle of milk with it—it was not quite a week old—I gave it to its adopted mother, and she took it home, clothes and all—I saw it again on Sunday evening at the prisoner's house, and bathed it, and it was all right then—there was nothing at all the matter with it, not a sore or anything—it looked very healthy—it was small, but in very good condition—about a month or six weeks afterwards I called on the prisoner; she showed me the baby—it looked thin and ill, and I said, "You must take it to a doctor"—it looked wasting away, it did not look like the same child—I saw another baby there in long clothes, between two and three months old; it was ying on the bed—Mr. Carter, or Cox, was there on the Sunday when I
washed the baby, and he said, "What a nice little thing it is"—I had known the Coxes before—he is a sign writer, or something of the kind—I did not see the child again—I heard of its death a fortnight after—I do not recollect anything being said about the baby being registered—Mrs. Cox did ask Mrs. Weston what the name of the child was, and she said, "No name."
ELLEN WOODRUFF . I am the wife of David Woodruff, of 6, Beethoven Street, Bermondsey—we occupy the second floor back room—the prisoner occupied the front room on the same floor with Mr. Carter—I knew them both by that name—about a week before Christmas I first saw two children there—I only went to live there about a week before Christmas—one of the children was much younger than the other—the younger was in a very poor, weak condition, very thin—I have seen Mrs. Carter feed them with milk in a bottle—I did not notice whether this child took its food—I have seen the man Carter doing some jobs in his own room, painting on different kinds of boards—I saw the child the day it died—I had only seen it occasionally—it was a small child—I had no conversation with the prisoner about it—she told me it was not well, and she was going to take it to the doctor's—she had no condensed milk that I am aware of.
MARGARET WAITE . I live at Queen's Park, Kilburn—my father is a dairyman—I know the prisoner as a customer, in the name of Carter, of 6, Beethoven Street, Queen's Park—I supplied her with milk during November, December, and January—she had on an average a pint a day; sometimes she had a pint and a half, some days she had only half a pint—she had it regularly except for a fortnight in December, when she had none from me.
CHARLES SMITH . I am in the employ of Higgins Brothers, dairymen, at Kilburn—we supplied the prisoner with milk at 6, Beethoven Street, from December 12th to January 3rd—she had a pint a day on an average, on two or three occasions she had a pint and a half a day—it was ordinary cow's milk—I did not supply her with any condensed milk.
HENRY MOUNTSERAT RAINSFORD . I am a physician and surgeon, of General Road, Kilburn—on 25th January last the prisoner brought a child to me for advice—I did not see it again—it was said to be a male child—she said it had been vomiting and purging for a good time, and it could not retain any food—it was very much wasted; there was no flesh on it; it seemed very ill indeed—I thought it was dying; that it had not many days to live—I advised her to take it to the hospital, and leave it there, where it would be taken care of—I gave it some powders, and ordered her to mix them with water and milk—I did not give her very much advice—I saw her again about five days afterwards—she said the child was dead, and she wanted a certificate—she said she had not taken it to the hospital—I gave her a partial certificate; I filled it in as well as I could—I certified the cause of death as wasting—I had only seen the child once—I did not certify the cause of the wasting; I thought I was bound to give some sort of certificate as I was the last doctor that had seen it—I did not know the cause of death—my opinion is that it was from indigestion, wasting, and want of food.
By the JURY. A child of such tender age being kept out on a cold winter's night might have a very depressing effect upon it—it might
bring about the things I noticed; it might weaken it so much that it would never be able to thrive—that would be a permanent injury.
ALFRED LEETE GRIFFITHS , M. D. I am the parish doctor, of 606, Harrow Road, Chelsea—on 15th December last the prisoner brought a child to me with an order—it was in a very weakly emaciated condition, with scarcely any fat on its bones—I said to the prisoner, "You are not feeding the child properly"—I advised her to feed it regularly every two hours with a pint of milk and half water during twenty-four hours, to keep it warm and well covered up—I saw it again on the 17th, and I did not see it again till after its death—I was sent for on the 29th January and found it dead—I made a post-mortem examination on 2nd February—it weighed four and a half pounds; the normal weight of a child three months old is about 11 pounds—it was a mere skeleton, there was no particle of fat anywhere about its body—the organs were healthy—there was a very slight patch of congestion on part of the right lung, but my opinion was, it was simply from the lung—I could attribute the death to nothing but want of sufficient and proper food.
By the JURY. I do not think it might have contracted cold on account of being taken so soon from the mother, if I may take the other evidence—if it had contracted any serious cold it would have shown the symptoms so much more quickly, so that probably it would not have lasted a week—I did not discover any symptom that led me to conclude it had been suffering from indigestion—it is possible it might have had a certain amount of irritation in the stomach, which might bring on diarrhoea—when I opened the stomach I discovered some food in it, in the nature of starch and milk globules—that would be improper food in that age and condition—I don't think a child four or live months old could digest anything but milk—condensed milk would be bad for it, it would make it ricketty—I believe it is very largely used in poor neigbourhoods—I could find nothing in the stomach to account for the use of condensed milk.
GIFFORD LUXMORE DREW . I am coroner for the Western Division of the County of London—on 3rd February I held an inquest on a child named Alfred Victor Weston—it was adjourned to the 16th; the prisoner was called as a witness—I told her that any evidence she gave was entirely voluntary, and any question she answered would be put down in writing, and might be used on a future occasion—I took down the evidence she gave—this (produced) is it.
The substance of this evidence was that she received the child in question, in consequence of the advertisement; that she treated it well, and did the belt she could for it; that when it became ill she took it to a doctor and to the Children's Hospital, but nothing did it any good.
JAMES PINKAM (1 XR). I am the coroner's officer—on 1st February I went to the prisoner's lodging and there saw the deceased and another child, which the prisoner said belonged to a person in the next room, and she was only minding it while she was out—next day I went again, when she said, "I told you a lie about the child; I had it about five or six weeks; I had it from the home in Carlton Vale"—she said it had been taken away just before I arrived.
INSPECTOR MORGAN. This letter in red ink was found at the house of Mrs. Baker; I afterwards showed it to the prisoner at the inquest, and asked if it was her handwriting; she said it was, and also
another letter—Letter read: "Just a line to say baby is all right, but it has got the thrush. Hoping you will send some more things, those two I took to the Police-court; however, I write these few lines to you, having written twice before. As for your saying it was a strong and healthy child, quite the reverse, and as for clothes I have not half sufficient for him, and he continually wants change; £2 is not sufficient for me to get along with; if not I shall have to bring him back, but I am willing to keep him if I can. "
NOT GUILTY .
On the following day the prisoner was charged on another indictment with unlawfully neglecting the said child in a manner likely to cause injury to its health. The evidence in the last case was repeated, and the JURY found the prisoner
GUILTY . Two Years' Imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, March 7th, 1893.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; SIB EDWARD CLARKE, Q. C., and MR. C. GILL Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
318. PATRICK REARDON (23) PLEADED GUILTY** to robbery, with violence, on Moses Isaacs, and stealing 18s., his money, after a conviction at Worship Street on May 16th, 1892.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. And
319. PATRICK SHEHAN** (38) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of John Frederick Williams, and stealing a jacket and other articles, his property, having been convicted at Clerkenwell in March, 1889.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Four Years' Penal Servitude.
PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. CRICKETT Prosecuted.
JAKES GRIFFITHS . I am a bootmaker, of 90 and 92, Hanbury Street, Brick Lane—on 30th January, at nine or 9. 5 p.m., I saw the premises locked up securely, and went out—I was called back not later than 9. 30, and found the door-shutter broken away and lying in the shop, and a number of boots lying on the floor, they had been hanging on the wall—my brother lives over the shop, which was broken into, and I live over the adjoining premises—the shops communicate, and the boots were removed from one shop to the other; they are worth about £2 10s.
SUSAN GRIFFITHS . I am the wife of the last witness—I was upstairs when the premises were closed—I heard a noise about 9. 20—I went own, and saw the prisoner Hyde with some boots on his arm trying to open another door—I caught hold of his collar—he said, "It is not me; there is another one in there. "
30th January I saw the prisoners and two other, men standing in a gateway about six yards from the prosecutor's; Drew forced the door open, and Hyde went inside—I heard screams of Murder! "and saw Drew run away—two men stopped them both, and Drew said, "If you don't let me go I will stab you. "
MORRIS WOODRICH . I am a sailor, and live at 2, Spital Court—on January 30th, between nine and ten p.m., I heard a lady screaming—I caught Hyde, and tried to get him back to the shop, but Drew came behind me, and said if I did not let him go he would stab me.
DREW**— GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction on 9th May, 1891, in the name of George Gilbert— Five Years* Penal Servitude.
HYDE**— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, March 7th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
321. JOHN WILLIAMS (36) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a pair of boots, the goods of George Dare, and also** to a previous conviction of felony in the name of Stevens in November, 1891.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. And
322. JOHN WESTON (50) , to breaking and entering the warehouse of Duncan Stewart, and stealing a pair of shears; also to breaking and entering the counting-house of Henry Harris, and stealing fourteen pairs of spectacles and other articles; and also to attempting to break and enter the counting-house of Gitshby Darby, with intent to steal; and to a conviction of felony in July, 1889.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. SANDS Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
324. HERBERT COWLES and EDWARD LYNCH, Burglary in the dwelling-house of Mary Ward, and stealing four bracelets and other articles, and 1s., the goods and money of Agnes Savory; Second Count, receiving the same.
MESSRS. LEVER and ROACH Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended Cowles.
AGNES SAVORY . I am the wife of John Savory, chemist—in February last I was staying at 11, Lower Grosvenor Place—on the night of 6th February I was in bed asleep, and between half-past one and two I awoke and heard someone fumbling about my room—I said, "Is that you, Mrs. Ward?"—there was no answer, and I said it again, and somebody
muttered something about water—I said, "What is it you want?"—the person made some muttered explanation about water, and then went out at the door—my husband was not with me at the time—I heard someone going downstairs—I raised an alarm; the man called out something as he went downstairs—subsequently I missed these four bracelets, ring, brooch, and my purse; and I have since missed my silver fruit-knife, which I had turned out of my pocket with the other things—I next saw the articles at Rochester Row, when the prisoners were brought up, on Friday, I believe—the value of all the things taken would be about £20—the bracelets were given to me.
ELIZABETH SEWELL . lam cook at 11, Lower Grosvenor Place—on the evening of the 6th inst. I could not be sure if I fastened the downstairs window; a man had been cleaning that window that day, and I think it was left undone; but it was shut down when I went to bed—when I came down on the morning of the 7th, about 7. 15,1 found the window had been opened and pushed up—I saw dirty footmarks near it on the staircase.
CHARLES BEARD (Detective A). At midnight, on the 9th February, I saw Cowles at 22, Strutton Ground—I told him I was a police-officer, and had been told that he had purchased some bracelets—he said, "Yes; quite right"—I said, "I want to see them; you know what you have done with them"—he took me upstairs to the top floor back room, and produced three bracelets from his clothes-box—I said, "Where did you get them from?"—he said, "I bought them of a man named Lynch in the lodging-house last Tuesday morning when I was out driving with my master's cart in Victoria Street; I gave him £4 for them"—I told him 1 should take him into custody for having them in his possession, they being supposed to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained—I conveyed him to Rochester Row Police-station—in Cowles' back trousers pocket I found a ring—on the morning of the 10th I sent for Mrs. Barnard, of 43, Marsham Street, and she identified it as having been stolen, the part proceeds of a burglary on Christmas morning, from her place—I said to Cowles in Lynch's presence, "This ring has been identified by Mrs. Barnard, from 43, Marsham Street, as the part proceeds of a burglary about five weeks ago; can you account for the possession of it?"—he said, "Yes; I bought it from him," pointing to the prisoner Lynch—I said, "When did you buy it?"—he said, "About five weeks ago, when I went into the lodging-house to get some hot water; I paid him 25s. for it"—I said, "Are you sure it is about five weeks ago?"—Lynch said, "Yes, that is quite right, about five weeks ago"—I charged the prisoners at the station with being concerned together in burglary and receiving—they made no reply.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Cowles had before that told me about the bracelets—there is a hall-mark on the snap, but you cannot see it unless you know the secret—Cowles was in the service of Madden, a butcher, in Strutton Ground; his shop is next door but one to the common lodging-house where Lynch was in the habit of sleeping—I don't know if Cowles is not eighteen years old—Madden is here, and no doubt will give Cowles a good character—he has always borne a good character, so far as I know—I have heard he has been entrusted with his master's money—it was not open talk in the neighbourhood that he
had been showing bracelets to persons—I have only learnt since that he had shown them to Alexander, manager to Wright, a fishmonger—I believe Alexander told him they were worth £5—Cowles went quite openly and showed Alexander the bracelets—Madden was in the habit of going to the lodging-house to get hot water to wash down the meat boards, and that is how Cowles came to go to the lodging-house.
GEORGE WALDUCK (Detective Sergeant A). On 10th February I went to Wilmot's lodging-house, Strutton Ground, with Beard, and found Lynch in bed asleep—I woke him, and said, "I want to speak to you"—he said, "All right, Mr. Walduck, what is it?"—I said, "Get up, dress yourself, and I will tell you"—he got up, and dressed himself; we came downstairs and were on the way to the Police-station—I said, "I have not told you what I am taking you into custody for"—he said, "That is all right"—I said, "lam taking you into custody for being concerned with Cowles, one of Mr. Madden's assistants, in committing burglary with him at 11, Grosvenor Place, last Monday night, and stealing bracelets"—he said, "I was in bed last night"—Cowles was at the station when we got there—I said to Cowles, in Lynch's presence, "Do you know this man?" Cowles said, "Yes"—I said, "You had better say what you know about him"—Cowles said, "You stopped me last Tuesday morning, when I was coming from market, and I bought these three bracelets from you"—three bracelets were produced—Lynch hesitated for a moment, and then said, "They don't belong to me"—I said, "Perhaps you can tell us to whom they do belong?"—he said, "No, I don't wish to say anything more about it at present"—they were charged and made no reply—after they had been before the Magistrate next day, Cowles told me where he had sold this bracelet, and in consequence of what he said, I went and found what he said was true—on the Monday in the next week Cowles said, "Have you found that other bracelet?"—I said, "Yes; you were going to tell me last week how you paid for the bracelets," because he said he had paid £4 for them—he said, "Yes; I paid him £2 on Tuesday morning and two half-sovereigns, "I think he said, "on Tuesday evening, and a sovereign on Wednesday morning"—Lynch made no reply—I said, "You also said you bought those rings of him"—he said, "Yes '—I said, "What did you give?"—Cowles said, "25s."—I made this note soon afterwards—Lynch said nothing to that—I said, "You also tell us you bought a coat of Beales'"—Beales was present—Cobles said, "Yes; I bought that of Lynch on Tuesday morning, and gave him six shillings for it"—Lynch said, "It is not my coat; I pawned my coat for four shillings"—I said to Cowles, "Where were you when you bought it?"—he said, "In Vincent Square"—Lynch said, "Vincent Square? Do you think I should bring it to Vincent Square? I might as well bring it to the Police-station at once"—Vincent Square is at the back of the Police-station—he then said he knew nothing about it.
Cross-examined. I found that everything Cowles told me was true—I found that Cowles had sold this horseshoe bracelet to the manager of a coffee-house in Eccleston Street, close to where he was employed, and a house at which he delivered meat—from the information he gave me I have been enabled to trace the things.
Eccleston Street—on 8th February I bought this bracelet from Cowles, giving twenty shillings for it, in the coffee-house—he delivers meat there, and is in the habit when he does so in the morning of having a cup of tea—on this morning he sat down, and when I brought his tea he drew four bracelets out of his pocket and asked me what I thought of them—I said they looked very nice—he asked me to buy them—I said, "No, I do not care to buy them, I could not afford to do so"—he said, "I gave £4 for them," and he would take £5—I showed them to one or two customers in the shop—Cowles did it quite openly—about six people were in the shop—finally I bought this one for £1.
WILLIAM SANDERCOCK (A 627). About a quarter to seven on 7th February I was called by the servant to 11, Grosvenor Place, and examined the premises—the window on the ground floor by the side of the door was open from the top—there were finger prints on the window—it had been opened so that a person could get in.
HENRY BARNARD . I am a fishmonger, of 43, Marsham Street—about eight a.m. on 24th December I missed this ring, this coat, and other things, which had been safe in my room the night before—about six weeks afterwards they were shown to me at the Police-station.
The JURY here interposed, and stated that they found COWLES
NOT GUILTY .
Lynch, in his defence, stated that the things were brought to him by a man who he knew was in the habit of buying things at Debenham's and that he, thinking they were honestly come by, took them to Cowles for the other man,
LYNCH GUILTY**† of receiving. — Twelve Months' Hard Labour. There was another indictment against the prisoners for burglary in the dwelling-house of Henry Barnard, and stealing a coat, a ring, and 6s. 6d. No evidence was offered by the prosecution against Cowles. —
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CONDY Prosecuted.
ALFRED BAILEY . I am manager of the Brunswick Tavern, Blackwall Pier—the prisoner was in my employment for about two weeks; I took him into my laundry on 22nd December for about two weeks—on the night of 6th February I saw that my house was closed before going to bed—in the morning I missed eight counterpanes, one blanket, three pieces of carpet, three pieces of sheeting, one sailor's bag, and one shirt—I had missed things about the house, and the prisoner was in my employment, and I gave information to the police to look after him—I next saw the counterpanes and other things at the Station, and identified them as mine—my window, which was safe the night before, was broken open in the morning—I found the sash was broken, and we traced footmarks where someone had got over the wall—at the end of the building, on the south side, is a hoarding, over which we traced the footmarks.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I lost this shirt at the same time as the other articles—the shirt you had on when you were searched was a shirt we had missed some time previously, and had given information to the police about; and before the inspector took it off you I gave him the exact marks there were on it—we had missed several shirts when you were in the laundry—I cannot say whether I missed a shirt on this
particular night—the window had evidently been forced, and you had been in the laundry.
MICHAEL FLYNN (Sergeant London and India Bocks Police). About a quarter past three on this day I saw the prisoner come running from the front of the Emigrants' Home, which is the same as the Brunswick Tavern—I went towards him; he crouched behind some cases—I asked him what he was doing there; he said he had no home to go to—there were 4 ft. railings between him and me—I allowed him to go away, and then got over the railings, and 25 yards from where the prisoner was I found a canvas bag containing eight counterpanes, three pieces of sheeting, a washing board, three pieces of carpet, and a shirt—I went after the prisoner, apprehended him, and asked him if he knew anything about the bag—he said, "No"—I went for the prosecutor, who in the prisoner's presence identified the property, and also the shirt the prisoner was wearing.
Cross-examined. You were inside the enclosure and I was outside—you did not follow me to the end of the pier—after questioning you you walked down to the further end and I got over the palings, and then you came back for the bag and I apprehended you.
JAMES CAMP (Inspector Bock Police). On the early morning of February 7th Flynn brought the prisoner to the station—I told him he would be charged—he said he knew nothing about the things; he bought the shirt in Petticoat Lane.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: " I am innocent; I bought the shirt three weeks ago in Petticoat Lane. "
The prisoner in his defence, stated that he knew nothing of the bag which the policeman had brought to him and asked him about, and that the shirt he was wearing he had bought four or five weeks before.
He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony at Winchester in November, 1887.
There was another indictment against the prisoner.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
CASLEY and WILLIAMS PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. MORRIS Prosecuted.
WILLIAM CRIDLAND (62 H). On 20th February I saw the three prisoners drawing a coster's barrow, which seemed to be heavily laden with something in three sacks—I and two other constables got on to a tramcar and followed them—when they were about to enter a marine store-dealer's, I got off the tram and asked the prisoners, who were together, where they got the lead from—Casley said, "We all three work for Mr. West, 104, Jubilee Street, and he sent us down with this lead to sell"—I told them I did not think Mr. West lived at 104—he said "He has shifted to 25, Jubilee Street"—knowing that to be a private house, I detained the prisoners and sent Onions to make inquiries—when he came back he said that no Mr. West lived at 104 or 25, Jubilee Street, or in Jubilee Street at all, to the best of his knowledge—I told the prisoners they would be taken to the station and charged; subsequently they were charged with stealing
the lead—Freeman, in reply, said that the others had asked him to assist them, and they would give him some money to get some coffee—the shopkeeper said, "I think it is a strange case, as the three prisoners have been here three times before with some lead; this is the fourth time. "
ERNEST FRASER . I am an engineer, of Bromley—on Tuesday, 20th February, I was spoken to, and we found that a certain amount of lead had been stolen off the roof of one of the offices in our factory—we first found it out when the rain came through; it was alt right on Saturday—the value of the lead taken was about £7; it had been cut off the roof—I afterwards saw the lead at the station, and it corresponded exactly in character and thickness with ours—the prisoners were never employed at our place as plumbers or anything of that sort, to my knowledge.
The prisoner Freeman, in a written defence, stated that Casley and Williams had asked him to assist them, and that he got a barrow and they put the sacks on, and he pulled it for them.
FREEMAN— GUILTY.—Recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of his youth.
WILLIAMS PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in February,— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
CASLEY— Eight Months' Hard Labour.
FREEMAN— Three Months' Hard Labour.
There was another indictment against the prisoners.
327. JOHN HENRY SUART (29), PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for forging orders for the payment of money, and also to an indictment (with the exception of the Third Count) for unlawfully, and with intent to defraud, falsifying a' banker's cheque.— Eight Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, March 8th, 1893.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
SAMUEL WILSON MARKHAM . I am second mate of the British barque Myfield—in December last we were on a voyage home from California—he prisoner was an able seaman on board—on the night of 10th December we had rough weather; it was blowing a gale—we were then a little to the northward of the Falkland Islands—we were taking in the mainsail—the prisoner was not doing his work quick enough to please me—I spoke to him about it—I said I wanted to get the sail in—he said he would not do it at all—I turned round and told the boy to go for the captain, and the prisoner came up behind me and stabbed me under the right shoulder-blade with a knife—he did not say anything—I turned round, and saw him with the knife uplifted to come down again—this is the knife—it is a common sheath knife, such as sailors use—he held it so (Striking downwards)—I ran aft towards the cabin—I did not see what became of the prisoner—there was no doctor on board; the captain and steward attended to me—the wound bled a great deal—I remained in
bed for about a fortnight—it was five or six weeks before the wound healed—I still feel the effects of it when I put up my arm.
Cross-examined. The barque is 1,275 tons register—two men and two boys were hauling in the mainsail, one boy was standing alongside the capstan—the watch consisted of two men and two boys—the prisoner told me to come and pull—I told him to pull away—I did not say I would not help him—I did not call him a son of a——he is a Swede—I did not call him Dutchy.
Re-examined, He did not say it was too much work.
JAMES STRONAR . I am master of the Myfield—on the night of the 10th December the second mate came to me complaining of a wound—I called the steward and we examined him—I saw the wound; it was a stab about an inch and a half long and two inches deep—it was a stab with a knife, straight in, such as this knife would produce—this is this knife I took from the prisoner—when I had dressed the wound I sent for the prisoner, and asked him if he had done it—he denied it—I did not observe any blood on the knife; it had been cleaned, of course.
Cross-examined. He signed articles with me at Liverpool—the chief officer brought him to me in the cabin—I put him in irons from the 10th December to the 18th February—he made no resistance.
HARRY WEAVER . I was an ordinary seaman on board the Myfield—on the night of the 10th December there was a gale of wind—we were ordered to take in the mainsail—the second mate called all hands to haul away—the prisoner refused, he said he would not pull any more; and he offered to fight the second mate—the mate told him to stand out on deck and he would give him fair play, and while he was putting the apprentice up to go and call the captain, his back was to the prisoner, who ran and struck him in the back with this knife—I heard a shout, and the mate said he was stabbed—I saw him turn round and run aft—the prisoner walked about—I saw him rub the knife in the sleeve of his coat, and wipe it—before doing that I saw him smell it, and then wipe it on his sleeve—he threatened me if I should tell anyone on board—if I had told the mate he might have put the knife into me, and thrown me overboard—he had the knife in the sheath when he said that—that was what I thought; he did not say he would do it.
Cross-examined. It was dark at the time—there were five of us on the watch—the second mate had not time to take his coat off; it was hanging over his shoulders—I did not hear him call the prisoner the son of a——, or use any words at all.
FREDERICK JARVIS (Inspector). On 18th February I arrested the prisoner on board the Myfield, in the Thames—I told him I should take him into custody on a charge of stabbing the second mate with intent to murder—he shook his head and said "No"—the captain handed me this knife in his presence.
GEORGE ALBERT HAMMERTON . I am a surgeon of Southampton Street, and am surgeon at Bow Street—I examined a scar on the back of Markham; it was about an inch long, but the wound had shrunk; it must probably have been longer.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am very sorry; I had no intent to murder."
GUILTY of unlawful wounding. — Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. HILL Prosecuted.
JAMES ALFRED FAULKNER . I am the prisoner's son, and live at 7A, Peabody Buildings, Westminster—on Sunday, 19th February, I was in the sitting-room—there are three rooms—the prisoner and my mother and sister were with me—it is the front room—I left the room—the prisoner went out before I did—it was a little before twelve—while absent I heard cries of "Murder!" but no quarrelling—I rushed back to the room and found my father with a knife in his hand and his left arm round my mother's neck—I saw some blood on his arm—I struggled with him and took the knife from him and put him outside in the corridor—the prisoner had his back towards me as I came in at the door and my mother was half on the floor; he seemed to be pushing her on the floor—he was in front of her—the prisoner was given in charge—my parents have not lived on good terms lately—I have not heard threats—the prisoner has been a teetotaller—he came home drunk about eight days previous to this occurrence—I saw him—I believe he has been drinking since, and his manner has been strange—on the Friday he called me in and said he wished to apologise; he was off his head; on another occasion he would not go to bed, and then got into bed with his trousers on; I spoke to him, and eventually he took them off—he then seemed sober but strange.
WADHAM BRUCE WINKWORTH . I am house surgeon at Westminster Hospital—I attended Caroline Faulkner—she was in a collapsed condition due to shock; she had a superficial wound two inches long on the left side of the neck, and on the ring finger of the left hand a lacerated wound, probably due to catching hold of the knife—the wounds could have been inflicted with this knife.
CAROLINE FAULKNER . I am the prisoner's wife, and live at 7A, Peabody Buildings—on Sunday, 19th February, I was in the kitchen with my husband and son—my son went out with a glass to get some water—my husband went to the door in a flurried manner—I was washing my little girl's head—my husband came back, and I felt my head pulled back, and then I felt I was cut—I put my hand up and screamed and said, "Oh! he has cut my throat"—my son rushed to my husband and took hold of his arms, and I saw him holding his arm up, with this knife in it, and then I know no more—it is a shoemaker's knife—I had seen him sharpen it an hour before—I next found myself in bed at the hospital.
HENRY HUCKER (321A). About 12. 30 mid-day, 19th February, I was called to Peabody's Buildings—I said to the prisoner, "I have been informed that you have cut your wife's throat"—he replied, "That is so"—I said, "What did you cut her throat with?"—he said, "With a shoemaker's knife"—I said, "Where is your wife now?"—he replied, "I believe they have taken her to the hospital in a cab"—I told him I should take him into custody—he said, "Do not catch hold of me; I shan't attempt to run away"—I took him into custody and handed him over to another constable in Victoria Street—I went to the Westminster Hospital and saw the woman—the son gave me this knife—the prisoner did not appear drunk—he was very cool, not strangely cool.
GEORGE SAVIN (Police Inspector). About 12. 30 on 19th February the prisoner was brought into the Rochester Row Police-station—I entered the charge and read it to him—he said, "I had been cutting up greens with the same knife I had been mending boots with, and I thought of something that occurred last night, and that enraged me; I do not say now what it was, and I dashed at her throat"—I noticed the inside of his left sleeve was bloodstained—the prisoner appeared quite sober, cool, and collected.
CAROLINE FAULKNER (Re-examined). The prisoner threatened me on the Monday previous to this Sunday—he said he would cut my head off. and he would chop it off—a little while after he said he would blow my brains out with a pistol; also my son's—he had been drinking heavily then; he was the worse for drink—the day before he carried on very strange—we had had no words.
PHILLIP FRANCIS GILBERT , M. D. I am surgeon at Holloway Gaol—I have had the prisoner under my observation since 20th February—I see nothing the matter with him now; but my attention being called to him I asked him some questions—I found he had been strange for some time; he was under the idea his wife and sons were against him, trying to put him out of the house—he used to listen at the walls and say that he heard people in the next room, and he had all appearances of having been drinking very heavily.
GUILTY of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. — Three years Penal Servitude.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, March 8th, 1893.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. ELDRIDGE Prosecuted; MR. SANDS appeared for Poole; and MR. KEITH
FRITH for Russell.
WILLIAM LONG . I keep the Dover Castle—on 10th February, about 2. 30 p.m., the two prisoners came in, and Poole called for two drinks, price fourpence—he gave me a half-sovereign—I gave him 9s. 8d. change—he then asked for the half-sovereign back, and said he did not mean to give me that, he had got ten shillingsworth of silver, and put it by the half-sovereign and said, "Now you give me a sovereign for that and we shall be right"—I asked them what they where at, and they rushed for the door—I tried to catch Poole, and Russell struck me on the back of my neck—it was not a violent blow—I went after Poole—he ran down a court where there was no outlet and into a w. c.—I took him in charge, and he offered me a sovereign to let him go and say no more about it.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. He put his hand in his pocket as if he was feeling for money, took out 4d., and put it by the side of the 9s. 8d.—I did not count it till after he picked up the half-sovereign
and ran to the door—I jumped over the counter immediately and told him I would punch him on the nose—after he was in custody he said, "I only asked you for a sovereign for the ten shillings I have here and a half-sovereign"—I thought I was being done, and was very angry—I have been in the business all my life—I have sometimes made mistakes about change—if he had taken ten shillings out of his pocket besides, that would have been right—I had never seen him before.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I do not believe I said at the Police-court, "He did not pull out any silver of his own"—he did put ten shillingsworth of silver on the counter, which I picked up and put in my pocket—when he put the 10s. down Russell had taken no part in it—I do not charge Russell with assault; I struck him because he was going to punch me, but I did not strike him first—people often come in in a muddled state and make mistakes about change.
By the COURT. Neither of the prisoners were at all muddled—I told the Magistrate he pulled out the silver and put it on the counter—he made up the 10s.—besides that, I saw no silver on him.
ALFRED EDWARD SKINNER . I live at 6, Robert Street, Oakley Street—on February 10th I saw Mr. Long find Poole in a w. c. down a court; he took him into his house and I followed—Poole offered him a sovereign not to go on with it as it would not do him any good. Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Poole seemed very nervous.
ALFRED DUNNETT . I am a waiter, of 39, Commercial Road, Lambeth—on February 10th I was in the bar of the Dover Castle and saw the two prisoners—Poole said, "Oh; governor, is that a half-sovereign I gave you? I did not mean it; I have "plenty of silver, give it me back"—I took it out of the till and put it on the counter—Poole had put the silver in his pocket; he took it out, put down a half-sovereign by the side of it, and said, "Give me a sovereign for that, and that will be right"—Mr. Long said, "That won't do, you have come to the wrong place"—Poole ran out, and Mr. Long jumped over the counter, stopped him, and Russell tried to stop Mr. Long, who brought Poole back, and I fetched a constable.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Mr. Long got very angry; he showed it directly the 10s. was put on the counter, and said he would punch his nose, but he went away—he was pale and nervous when he was brought back—he was clean shaved at that time.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Mr. Long said he would punch them if they did not go away—Russell had not taken any part in the conversation—I saw Russell tackle Mr. Long—I believe a blow was struck, but in self-defence—I signed my deposition—I still persist in saying that I saw a blow struck.
WILLIAM ANDREWS . I keep the Duke of York, Blackfriars Road—on 8th February, between ten and eleven a.m., I saw Russell in the bar—after he left, my sister spoke to me; I counted the change, and found it half a sovereign short.
ALICE ANDREWS . I am a sister of the last witness—on 7th February Russell came in between ten and eleven a m. with a friend—he called for two drinks and put down a half-sovereign; I gave him the change—he then said, "What did I give you?"—I said, A half-sovereign"—he said, "Oh, I did not know that; if I take a half-sovereign and
silver, will you give me the half-sovereign back again"—I gave him the half-sovereign, and just as I was picking the silver up to count it he pushed it back and said, "Give me a sovereign for this"—I gave him a sovereign for it—they drank their drink and went out—I told my brother, who examined the change, and there was half a sovereign short.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I think I said at the Police-court, "I think that is the man "; but I am satisfied he is the man.
EMMA PRISCILLA HILL . My husband keeps the Prince Alfred Stores, Blackfriars Road—on 4th February, between eight and nine p.m., Russell came in with another man—I did not know him before—he asked for two drinks, which came to fourpence—he put down a half-sovereign; I put 9s. 8d. change on the counter—he pulled a handful of silver out of his pocket and said, "I forgot I had got all this silver in my pocket, give me that again; give me two for one"—I said I had not got two half-sovereigns—I fetched the half-sovereign back, and he took up the change and the half-sovereign—when they had gone I counted the money and I was half a sovereign short.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I found 10s. in silver and a half-sovereign on him—I do not know that Poole has ever been convicted before—I have not seen his discharge from the Army, but I have no doubt he left it with a good character—this discharge (produced) refers to Herbert Ward.
Re-examined. He left the Army in July, 1889.
Poole, in his statement before the Magistrate, stated that Russell had nothing to do with the matter beyond picking up the half-sovereign; that when Mr. Long returned it he added ten shillings in silver, and asked for £1, and that he had no intention to defraud.
GUILTY .—POOLE — Three Months' Hard Labour. RUSSELL**— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
MR. BESLEY Prosecuted, and MR. WATTS Defended.
JOHN PALMER . I live at 21, Glynn Road, Clapton Park, and have an account at the London and County Bank, Hackney—the prisoner lived next door to me about five years, and borrowed £150 of me for his mother, and in November, 1890, I gave him a cheque for £5—on January 1st, 1891, I advanced him £12, and on January 2nd £5—Mr. Wells, who lives next door to me, called on me one evening and said, "Will you kindly give me a cheque for £1 4s. 8d.?"—I did so, and he gave me the cash for it—this is the counterfoil—the cheque has never been cashed—I sign my cheques with my address following my name—some time after I got this cheque-book, two months ago, I found that two cheques had been torn out of it—this cheque (for£81 4s. 8d.) is not signed by me or by my authority—I kept my cheque-book in a small desk on my right hand as I sit in my arm-chair, not locked, but no one can possibly get at it when I am in the room—the prisoner and his mother
together have got at least £150 from me in cheques, most of which were given to him for his mother—I started a suit against the mother, but withdrew it because I saw the chances were bad—I have not been on good terms with the prisoner and his mother for some time—it is getting on for three months since I saw the prisoner last—this is the last cheque-book I got from the bank—I do not think the prisoner has been in my house since I got this cheque-book—when he visited me, getting on for three months ago, we were in the kitchen and the cheque-book was in the parlour—he was not in the parlour and the cheque-book was not out of the parlour while he was in the house—I was with him all the time in the kitchen; he came to make an arrangement with me for his mother to pay the money, but I had already put it in the lawyers' hands—he had not called before that for a year or two—I rather expect he got into the house without my knowing it, because the house was broken into, and throe guns taken away; I have no real evidence that he took them—a number of people come to my house on Saturday evenings to pay their rent—I have not money dealings with horse and cattle dealers, only with him.
FREDERICK WELLS . I live at 22, Glynn Road, Clapton Park, next door to Mr. Palmer—I have known the prisoner by sight about three years—on Wednesday or Thursday, January 26th or 27th, I was at the George public-house with a friend, about 10.5 p.m.; the prisoner came in five minutes afterwards, and asked if I could get him a cheque for £1 4s. 8d.—I said, I do not know where to get one"—he said, "Go to Mr. Palmer"—he said it was too late to get a post-office order, and that it was for Mr. Bottle—I wrote the name down, and went to Mr. Palmer's, which is only a stone's throw off, and gave him the £1 4s. 8d.—he gave me a cheque for it, which I gave to the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I cannot read—he told me to tell Mr. Palmer who the cheque was for, and that he wanted it to pay a little debt—I did not post the letter.
Re-examined. I found Mr. Palmer as deaf as he is to-day—I think he misunderstood Stannard's name; but I gave him the paper, and he copied it to make it payable to Bottle—the prisoner talked as if a man who was with me was not there.
JOHN WALKER . I am a cashier at the London and County Bank, Hackney—Mr. Palmer keeps an account there—this cheque-book was delivered to him on December 15th, 1892—it contained cheques numbered 6,826 to 6,850—this cheque for £81 4s. 8d. was the first cheque in that book; it was presented to me on January 26th by messenger No. 632, and I paid it with £40 in notes and £41 4s. 8d. in money—at the end of the day I found I had nearly £20 over—there were eight £5 notes, 86442 to 86449, dated November 17th, 1892—I put the cash into a paper bag open, and handed it to the messenger.
Cross-examined. I gave the boy's number first as 626, but I corrected it at the last examination; that was before I had time to refresh my memory by looking at my notes—according to my impression I paid him the full amount, but as nobody has claimed the amount and the boy says I paid him £20 short I suppose I did so—£19 19s. 7d. is the exact amount—I took the notes from a drawer by the side of the till, and as I took out each note I entered it in a book—I identify it by the name of the drawer of the cheque and the numbers of the notes.
Re-examined. Besides the entry in the book of the notes, I have put down the number of the messenger—I balance my cash every night—it was my cash which was surplus; the notes are undisputed.
GEORGE CURTIS . I am fifteen years old, and live at Allworth Terrace, Victoria Park—I was a boy messenger in January, No. 632, which was on my cap and on my uniform—on 26th January, after three o'clock, I was told to go to the Palmerston Restaurant, Wormwood Street, and saw the prisoner there—he gave me a cheque, and told me to go to the London and County Bank, Hackney branch, and get the cheque cashed—I went to our office first to get my expenses, and I gave the cheque to the superintendent—I then went to the bank, and Mr. Walker put some money in an open bag—I know now that it was £61 4s. 8d.—I went back to the Palmerston at 4. 5, but could not find the prisoner—I waited an hour, and then went back to our head office, and handed the superintendent what I had brought—he opened it, and examined it—on the following Saturday I saw the prisoner at our Gresham Street office in the afternoon—I handed him the money, and asked him to give me a receipt, which he did—this is it—the difference of 1s. 10d. is for the expenses—he wrote this and signed it in my presence—he said he thought they would send the rest of the money on to him—I saw him next at the North London Police-court—I have no doubt he is the man—I picked him out from about a dozen others.
Cross-examined. I had no doubt about him at first, but I pretended to have—I wanted him to know I recognised him—the inspector told me to walk up and down, and make sure—he had a cap on, and several of the others had hats—I looked at the cheque before I presented it; it was funny writing, I did not know whether it was £81 or £61, but this is the same cheque—I expected to get £81 for it, but I only got £61—I counted it, but did not make any remark—I told my superintendent that—I did not tell him that the cheque was for £81, but he saw it before I went to the bank with it.
Re-examined. The prisoner only gave me a receipt for £61.
EMILY GERTRUDE SMITH . I am superintendent of the Boy Messenger office, 5, Gresham Street—on 28th January, in the morning, the prisoner called and handed me this letter, with a letter in it, and asked me to have it sent at once, and he would come back in half an hour for the answer—he did so, but I told him we had not sent the letter, because the address was so vague, and there were a great many people in Palmerston Buildings—I then added the word "Hotel" at Sexton's suggestion, and the prisoner said, "Yes, that is the place I meant"—I sent a boy to the Palmerston Restaurant, who came back, and I sent him back again with further instructions, which the prisoner gave, but they were very vague; I did not understand them, and I do not think the boy did, and he came back—I sent another boy, who returned with the boy Curtis, the district messenger, who handed a parcel of money to the prisoner in my presence, who opened it and counted it, and signed a receipt—I saw the prisoner five times that day between eleven a.m. and 2. 45, and made this sketch of him (produced) from memory—I afterwards picked him out from about eight others at the Police-station.
Cross-examined. I am very busy during the day; a great many people come in and out—it did not strike me that the prisoner's was not an
English face; I saw no photograph of him—I did not pay special attention to him, I was busy about other matters.
Re-examined. I did not know his business till I saw the notes and coin counted, but I had plenty of opportunity of noticing him, as he came five times.
FREDERICK KING WARD . I keep the Cock, at Waltham Abbey—Tuesday is market day there—on Tuesday, January 31st, the prisoner came—he handed me a £5 note to take tenpence or a shilling out of it for refreshment—my wife was attending to him, and there was not sufficient change—he said that he had been at my place before, and he wanted the change in the market—I gave it to him—I had no other note whatever—I put it under look and key till I paid it into the branch Joint Stock Bank on Saturday, February 4th—that was the only note I paid in—I picked the prisoner out from several others at the Police-court—I have no doubt he is the man.
Cross-examined. There are a great many dealers in the market, but very few £5 notes; they are principally cheques—I did not take a note of the number of the note—I had never seen the prisoner before to my knowledge—I paid in £80, £90, or £100, but only one note—I carried it to the bank myself.
ORMSBY TOPHAM HILL . I am a clerk in the Bank of England—I produce a £5 note, 86445, November 17, 1892, which came in from the London Joint Stock Bank, head office, on February 10—there is a name on it which looks like F. K. Ward.
Cross-examined. I got it from our bank-note library—it was paid in in a bundle—I did not receive it.
Re-examined. Each branch has an indicature number, and this No. 132 enables me to say that it was not cashed over the counter—I find "Joint Stock Bank, Waltham Abbey Branch," on it.
——CHANCE. I am manager of the Waltham Abbey branch of the Joint Stock Bank—Mr. F. K. Ward keeps an account there—on February 4th he paid in an amount, and among other money this note—I gave it to the cashier, who wrote the customer's name on the back, and it was stamped with the stamp of our branch—that was the only note Mr. Ward paid in that day.
Cross-examined, I took the number of it the same day—I made this extract of the entry—this is a fairly large market, and a good deal of money changes hands.
WALTER DINNEY (Police Inspector). I was supplied with the sketch made by Miss Smith a day or two before the arrest—I had arranged for the prisoner to come to Victoria Park on another matter—he came, and told him I was an inspector of police and suspected him of forging and uttering two cheques which I showed him, and said, "These are the cheques"—he said, "I know nothing whatever about them; I had some cheques from Mr. Palmer; one was for £1 4s. 9d."—I superintended the putting him with twelve others at the Police-court, and Miss Smith pointed him out—Mr. Ward picked him out from eight others—there was no hesitation in either of the other cases.
Cross-examined. There was no hesitation on the part of the boy messenger—I found on the prisoner these two receipts headed "Waltham Abbey," one dated on the day the £5 note was changed, and about
16s.—I searched his house, but found no money nor any papers relating to the case.
Re-examined. I spoke to him about the two cheques torn from Mr. Palmer's book, and showed the book to him—this is the other one (Produced)—I received it from the prisoner.
Evidence for the Defence.
FREDERICK BROWN . I am an engineer, of 82, Fir Street Road, and have had dealings with the prisoner—he owed me £1 4s. 8d., and I was pressing him for the money—his wife told me that a cheque had been sent—I never got it.
Cross-examined. I have worked for E. Hunt and Co., of Milwall, for five or six years on weekly wages—I have known the prisoner five years living at 24A in this road—I knew that Mr. Palmer had lent money for the benefit of his mother—I lent him £1 to buy a cart, and he was to give me half the profit, which was 4s. 8d.—he sold it for ten shillings more, and he had to pay fourpence—he did not charge me the penny for the stamp on Mr. Palmer's cheque—I did not know that the cheque had miscarried till after he was in custody—I went to his house to see why he had not sent the money, and was told he was in custody on a charge of forging a cheque—I was not told that he had sent the coin through Mr. Wells to Mr. Palmer to get the cheque—I live between three and four miles from Clapton—I never took any pains to stop the cheque after I knew of it.
By the COURT. I did not think anything about it; I never asked what bank it was drawn on—I did not ask the postman about it.
HENRY MASON . I am a cattle-dealer, of Mountfort Road, Upper Clapton; I attend cattle markets—on the last market day in January, Saturday, January 28th, the prisoner and I went to Hertford Market together between ten and eleven, and left between four and five—he asked me to post a letter for him in January, and said there was a cheque in it—I saw him put the cheque in; it was for about £1 4s. 8d.
Cross-examined. I am a friend of the prisoner's—I have attended Hertford Market with him pretty well every Saturday this year—I rather think the cheque was posted on Tuesday the 25th—the prisoner employs me—I did not know he was charged with forgery—I did not attend at the Police-court when he was under examination—he did not tell me he was committed for trial—no one asked me to come here, but I knew from his brother that it was important—his brother did not ask me if I remembered what the number of the cheque was, or on what bank it was drawn—I looked at the envelope and saw the name of Brown—I did not know Brown before—I never heard that the letter was lost—I posted it between seven and eight p.m.
ROBERT STANNARD . I am a brother of the prisoner—I attend markets—on January 28th I attended Hertford Market with my brother; we got there about 12. 30 in the day, and stopped till four or five—we tried to do some business, but things wore so dear we could not—we went to Waltham Market on the last day of January; my brother took some pigs there—he took a £5 note from a man who I had seen before—there are all sorts of people in the market.
Cross-examined. I do not know of my mother borrowing money of Mr. Palmer; he gave it to her as a gift—I knew what the charge was as soon as my brother was in custody, but it was a mistake—I went and heard the evidence—I gave my statement to a solicitor—Brown is no relation of mine; he is not my brother-in-law, or connected by marriage; he has nothing to do with my family—he has never been to the solicitor's office in my presence—I asked him to go about a fortnight ago—I swear that he did not marry my youngest sister—he used to go out with her—they have never lived together as man and wife; she only knows him by keeping company with him—I told Brown they were trying to put my brother away, but they could not; it was all false—I had counsel for my brother at the Police-court.
By the COURT. I heard Miss Smith swear that she had seen my brother in her office when he was at Hertford Market—I did not say anything because I did not like to disturb the Court, but I can take my oath my brother was not there.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY — Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, March 8th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
333. JOHN GARLAND (36) , Unlawfully conspiring with John Pemberton and other persons to obtain, and obtaining, wines and spirits from C. M. Taylor's Patent Bottling Company by false pretences, with intent to defraud. (See page 451.)
MR. BODKIN, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
335. GEORGE BETJEMANN (19) and WALTER BLACKBROW (22) , Unlawfully conspiring by false representations to induce and persuade Stephen Fry, the manager of the Bell for William Rose, to take Betjemann into his employment as barman; Other Counts, for conspiring for Betjemann to steal the money of William Rose. BETJEMANN PLEADED GUILTY, except as to those Counts charging conspiracy to steal a florin.
MR. BESLEY Prosecuted, and MR. BLACKWELL Defended.
STEPHEN FRY . I manage for William Rose, the Bell, Middlesex Street—I advertised for a potman and barman just before 20th January—Betjemann applied for the situation in the name of Blackbrow—as the situation of potman and barman was filled up engaged him as barman—he told me to apply for his reference to Mr. Lipmann, Peabody Arms, Shadwell—he said he had been in that situation as potman and barman ten months, and had left it about a fortnight—he asked me 10s. a week, and lodging and food—I went to the Peabody Arms and left my card with Mrs. Lipmann, and
next morning I received this letter (This, signed L. Lipmann, stated that he had always found Walter Blackbrow honest, sober, and a good worker, and that he had been with him for ten months at 10s. a week)—next morning Betjemann came; I told him his reference was satisfactory and I would take him on as a barman—he entered on his work the same day, and was with me ten days, and on Monday, 30th January, he was in custody—I saw Blackbrow in my bar on the first night Betjemann was in my employ, and on four or five occasions afterwards on separate days—I believed at the time that Betjemann was called Blackbrow—Blackbrow was in my bar about two hours on 20th—he generally came in the evening—I did not see him there when Betjemann was not behind the bar—I never saw him before Betjemann came into my service—I leave the bar to rest from between two and three to five, and that is the only time I am away from the bar except meal and washing times—I received information from the police—on Monday morning, 30th, they marked eight sixpences, four shillings, and a florin in my presence, and I arranged that the police should pass the money while I was resting on that same day—I went away from the bar at three o'clock after clearing all money out of my three tills—at five o'clock I returned—I had left Betjemann in charge of two tills, and the barman Ford at the end of the bar in charge of the other one—at five o'clock when I came down Cumner and Thompson came in, and in their presence I cleared the tills—my tills were Cox's patent—when you put the coin in the bell rings, and the coin cannot be taken out again and must be found there—the marked florin was not in any of the tills—I then called Betjemann into the bar parlour and the officers came in with him—Cumner told him who they were, and asked him if he had any money on him that did not belong to him—he said, "No"—they said, "I want you to produce what you have in your pockets"—in his waistcoat pockets were sixteen sixpences and eight separate shillings—this marked sixpence was among the sixteen—the officers asked if he had any more money, and he said, "No"—they emptied his hip pocket and took out a packet of thirty-four sixpences—they said something to him, and he said, "I had better take and tell the truth; I have stolen it all"—they asked him why he had done, it, and he said, "Because I have such a mob behind me I am obliged to do it; one of them is in the bar now"—Cumner said, "Which one is that; the one that is in front of the engine?"—he said, "Yes"—Cumner went round and brought Blackbrow into the bar parlour, and then said to Betjemann, "Is this the man you mean?" and he said, "Yes, that is the one I mean"—Blackbrow said, "Me?" and Betjemann said, "Yes, you," pointing to him—Betjemann said, I am here with your name and your reference"—Blackbrow said he did not know * anything about it—the policemen took the prisoners to the station—I went there—Betjemann told the inspector, "I am here in Blackbrow's name and with his reference, and pay him 10s. a week for it"—Blackbrow disowned it at first, but afterwards he said to the inspector, "Yes, I did give him my reference; I did not want it, and I thought it would do him good as he had not got one"—the inspector said, "You have to pay him 10s. a week for his reference?"—Betjemann said, "Yes"—the inspector said,
"How could you do that if you are only getting 10s. for your wages?" and he said, "I had to steal it"—Blackbrow heard that.
Cross-examined by Betjemann. I only searched in the tills for the florin—I did not look on the shelf where money is put when change is given—the detective said he came in for half a pint of whisky in a bottle, and two two-pennyworths of whisky, which would be 1s. 6d., and you would have to give him sixpence change; you would put the florin on the shelf and take sixpence change off it—the florin may have been on the shelf; I did not look there.
Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. I have since seen Mr. Lipmatin—I have no doubt that Blackbrow was in his employ as barman and potman, and that if the character had applied to Blackbrow it would be perfectly true—I have seen Betjemann serve Blackbrow; but I saw nothing between them that excited my suspicion—I expected something was going on, as the takings were so short—I had a communication from Miss Reeves on Sunday, 29th—on the Monday I saw Blackbrow in the bar—my suspicions were not directed towards anybody else but Betjemann.
JOHN GRUMMETT (358 H). About 4. 30 on Monday, 30th January, I went in plain clothes to the Bell, Middlesex Street, with some marked coins which Cumner had given to me—I tendered a florin for two two-pennyworths of whisky and half a pint of whisky in a bottle—I had a friend with me—Betjemann served me; I gave him the florin, and he gave me sixpence change—I did not notice where he put the florin; he went to the till and the bell rang—I believe he got my change from the till; it was from a shelf at the back where the change is kept—I went outside and returned in less than two minutes, and called for two two-pennyworths of whisky, saying to my friend, "It is my birthday, I will treat you again"—I tendered a marked sixpence, given to me by Cumner—the prisoner rang the bell again, and put the sixpence in the till, I believe.
Cross-examined by Betjemann. You gave me sixpence change in silver.
CHARLOTTE REEVES . I keep the Baker and Basket, Leman Street, which is not far from the Bell—I have known Betjemann and his family for seven years—on Friday, 27th January, between five and seven, Betjemann, Blackbrow, and another man, who were strangers to me, came into my bar—they had a drink and left; they had a cab outside, which Betjemann's father, who happened to be there, called my attention to—about the same time on Saturday the same three men came in; they remained two or three minutes and had one drink—after they had left Betjemann returned immediately, as if he had a sudden thought—he stooped his head and said to me, "Would you take care of this?" handing me £3 10s. in gold—I had only heard on the previous evening that he was in a situation in one of Rose's houses; I did not know where it was—I heard he was with bad associates the night before, and when he left this money I sent down to the police, believing something was wrong—I identified Blackbrow afterwards from among ten others.
Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. On the Friday week previous, the 20th, I had taken charge of a sovereign for Betjemann—he borrowed two shillings of me, and came and paid me, and I took charge of a sovereign—I had not seen him for two months before that.
THOMAS CUMNER (Sergeant H). On the Monday morning I was in plain clothes—I marked the money in Fry's presence—I gave Grummett a florin and a sixpence to pass—about five o'clock I went to the house; the prisoner was serving behind the bar—the tills were turned out in my presence—we could not find the florin nor the sixpence—I did not examine the money on the shelf—I think the bell of the till could be rung without putting a coin in—Betjemann was called into the bar parlour, and I asked him about the matter—from what he said I went round to the bar where Black brow was, and said to him, "There is a barman making a very grave accusation against you; you had better come round and see"—he said, "Certainly"—I said, "A barman has accused you of giving him his character; that he is working here with your character, and that he has given you ten shillings a week for the use of it, and that he has to treat you and your mob to drink. You had better come round and see him"—he said, "Certainly, I will come round and see him"—he came round with me into the bar parlour, and then Betjemann repeated his statement—Black brow said, "I deny it"—I said, "You will have to go to the station along with me"—he said, "Don't show me up. I have got a brougham outside, and I will drive you down to the station"—we walked there—the brougham followed—Blackbrow said to the driver in livery, "Follow down. "
Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWRLL. It was a commercial traveller's brougham; Blackbrow had met the man casually, and took him to have a drink—I have made inquiries about Blackbrow, and find that up to the present he had borne the highest character—he was in Lipmann's employment as barman and potman for eight months—I found without going there that Betjemann was employed at an eel-pie shop, under the name of George Lewis—he was only there a short time, and was turned out for drunkenness—he went out and got drunk and never came back.
PATRICK LYNCH (189 H). On 30th January I was at Leman Street Station when the charge was made against the prisoners, and I heard Blackbrow say, while detained in the waiting-room, to Betjemann, "You are no man, or neither you nor I should be here"—Betjemann said, "How is that?"—Blackbrow replied, "You ought to have taken the judy's tip, and jumped across the bar and bolted; if you had neither you or I should be here. "
Cross-examined by Blackbrow. Only the two prisoners and I were in the room; one was on each side of the room, and I was in the middle—I said nothing.
WILLIAM THOMPSON (Constable H). At five o'clock p.m. on 30th I went with Cumner to the Bell—I heard the account he gave at the Police-court—I searched Betjemann in the public-house—I took thirty-four sixpences from his hip pocket—I spoke to him of the £3 10s. left with Miss Reeves—he said, "I stole that also from my employer, Mr. Rose. "
CHARLES PINHORN (Inspector H). I took the charge when the prisoners were charged together—Betjemann said the whole of the money Miss Reeves had and the money found on him was the property of his master, except 28. 6d. left from his wages—he then began a statement in Black-brow's presence, and I made these notes of it on blotting paper: "I was in service at an eel-pie shop, and went out one evening to a public-house at Stepney; I there met Blackbrow and other barmen; I got drunk, and in consequence lost my situation"—I told Blackbrow that concerned him
—Betjemann went on: "It was then arranged between Blackbrow and me that I should steal money at William Rose's before I went there"—he was charged with conspiring, and he then said, "I met Blackbrow at the Angel and Trumpet at Stepney, about eight months ago, in company with some other barmen, when they made me drunk, and I lost my situation at the eel-pie shop. Soon after that he offered to give me a brief to work on if I would give him 10s. a week if I got on, and pitch them over the bar when they came in. In consequence of what I saw, I went for the potman's place at the Bell with the brief Blackbrow gave me; I did not get the potman's place, but took a barman's. He has been in the house every day since, and I have pitched him a number of pieces over the bar"—Blackbrow interposed and said, "I have been to the house; Mr. Fry knows that, and knows when I have been there; I have not spoken to that man"—Betjemann said, "Yes, you have, and I gave you 5s. one day when I was out, and another day 10s., and another day 5s., £1 altogether"—I said, "How did you do that in a fortnight out of 10s. a week?"—Betjemann said, "I had to steal it from my master"—Blackbrow said, "I gave him my character because I was tired of the business, and he could not get on without one; I thought it would help him a bit."
Cross-examined by MR. BLACKWELL. "Brief" means a written character. Blackbrow received a good character.
BETJEMANN—GUILTY (except as to those Counts relating to the florin).
BLACKBROW— GUILTY of conspiring to give a false character.
BETJEMANN PLEADED GUILTY! to a conviction of felony in December, 1891.
BETJEMANN PLEADED GUILTY . No evidence was offered against Blackbrow—
NOT GUILTY .
BETJEMANN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
BLACKBROW— Four Months' Imprisonment.
MR. FARRANT Prosecuted.
ALICE. NEWPORT . I live with my uncle in Mathias Road, Dalston, and am an artist—at half-past nine, on Monday, the 20th February, I was in the Bullen Road, going home, when I was surrounded by about half a dozen boys—Murray got hold of my arms and pulled me down, and Cooke hit me on the breast and put his hand in my pocket—Murray held one of my arms and Cooke the other, and Murray wrenched the purse from my hand—Cooke put his hand up my petticoats, and hit me in the face—I called out, "Police I"; two of the boys were keeping watch—when I called out they ran away, and Murray came back and hit me on the cheek, which swelled very much—I got up, went home, and told my uncle all about it—we went out on Wednesday and Thursday; and in the Allen Road, not far off, I saw a number of boys, and pointed out to my uncle the three prisoners—my uncle ran after them, and blew a whistle—the boys ran away directly they saw us—my uncle
made a complaint to the police—on the Sunday week I went to Dalston Police-station and identified them there—these are the boys—I had seen them many times, and knew them by sight—I have seen them together—I am almost sure Ludkin was there, but I cannot swear to him.
Cross-examined by Cooke. There were three more beside you.
JAMES WALL . I am a beer-house keeper, of 88, Mathias Road—Alice Newport is my niece—on the evening of 20th February she came to me holding her face—she made a complaint, in consequence of which the day but one afterwards we went out to identify the boys; she knew them by sight well, and she pointed them out to me in the street—immediately they saw us they made off, and I chased them—I gave information to the police—on Sunday I went to the station and saw them in custody—my niece pointed to one boy and said, "That was one that struck me," and Ludkin, thinking she was pointing to him, said, "No, I did not strike you, but I was standing on the kerb"—I heard Ludkin admit being present with the boys on this occasion.
RANDALL HODSON (Detective J). On Monday, the 26th, I arrested Murray at 6, Garden Villas—I told him the charge—he said, "I know all about it; I did not steal the purse. He tried to get us the other day, and blew a whistle"—I took him to the station—on Sunday morning, 26th, I saw Cooke at 48, Thomas Place—I told him the charge, and he said, "I did not steal the purse"—when charged at the station he said, "It is well got up"—when Ludkin was charged he said, "We did not steal any purse. I had nothing to do with it; I was standing on the kerb. "
JOHN ROSENFETTER (Detective J). On the 26th I told Ludkin I was a police officer, and told him the charge—he said, "I was there, but did not have the money; in fact I had forgotten all about the job"—I took him to the station.
Murray, in his defence, said he never took the purse, nor stopped the lady. Ludkin said he came up just as it was all over, and stood on the kerb; that the girl called out "Police!" but did not seem to trouble very much, and that the boys walked away, and did not run. Cooke said that he did not take the girls purse or strike her; that they only had a game with her, as they had seen other big chaps doing.
LUDKIN— NOT GUILTY .
MURRAY and COOKE— GUILTY. Recommended to mercy.
MURRAY and COOK then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in August, 1892. Judgment respited.
Cookers mother handed in a written request that Cooke should receive twelve strokes with the birch— Discharged on recognizances.
NEW COURT.—Thursday, March 9th, 1893.
Before Mr. Recorder.
GUILTY .—He received a good character.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
ANNIE FLETCHER . I live at 9, Walton Road, Harrow—on Tuesday, February 21st, I had a gold watch in a box, in a room—I saw it safe at 7. 30 a.m., and missed it on Wednesday morning—I saw it again at Harrow Police-station on February 23rd.
ALFRED MUGGERIDGE (Detective X). I received information from Annie Fletcher, and from information I received elsewhere I went to the prisoner and said, "I am a police-officer, and am making inquiries about a watch which has been stolen"—he said, "Yes; I bought the watch of a small boy yesterday, who I do not know, and gave him twopence for it; he said he found it on a dust-heap"—he thought it might do for his children to play with, but it might be broken up—I took him to the station—he gave his address at Kilburn—I went there, and his wife handed me the watch from a chest of drawers—I took it to the station, and it was identified.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You gave me all the information in your power, and asked me to inquire into your character—I did so, and find you are a very honest and respectable man; nothing was known against you—you have been known in the neighbourhood of Kilburn for three years, as a man who works hard.
NOT GUILTY .
NOT GUILTY .
The prisoner stated in the hearing of the JURY that he was guilty of the publication, upon which the JURY found him
GUILTY of the publication — To enter into his own recognisances to appear for judgment when called upon.
MR. BESLEY Prosecuted, MR. LITTLE Defended.
EDWARD Box. I am clerk at Islington Workhouse—this letter is in Smith's writing.
WILLIAM LEWIS . I am a solicitor and have been nearly forty years on the Rolls—I am solicitor to the Guardians of Islington and to the Vestry—it became my duty to prosecute Smith on this letter, and when the case came on, Cressell came forward as a witness—I asked him what he had to do with writing the letter—he equivocated at first, but afterwards said that it was written as much by him as by Smith; that he dictated it, and he believed he posted it.
Cross-examined. I will not tie myself to the words, but he either said before the Magistrate, Mr. Lane, that he dictated the letter, or that he was there and helped to write it, and that he gave information as to
some of the things in the letter, and the other things were general knowledge.
Re-examined. There was a copy of the letter which Smith produced, and which he said was in Cressell's writing, who gave it to him to copy—I believe the Magistrate affixed it to the depositions—the question was asked which was made first, and Cressell said he copied it afterwards—Smith produced the letter, and I gave it to Cressell, and asked him which was written first—he said he copied it because he thought he should like to keep a copy.
NOT GUILTY on the first count.
GUILTY of the publication. — To enter into his own recognisances to appear for judgment when called upon.
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, March 9th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. LE MAITRE Prosecuted, and MR. MUIR Defended.
The prosecutrix having given her evidence, the JURY, after an intimation from the COURT that it was clear, although the prisoners had indulged in horseplay, they had not attempted robbery with violence, stated that they found the prisoners
NOT GUILTY .
343. WILLIAM GANDER and JOSEPH CHALKLEY, Unlawfully conspiring with Andrew Mann and Robert Tournay (not in custody) to defraud John Russell and Co. of their goods and chattels, and obtaining metal piping from them by false pretences with intent to defraud.
MESSRS. BODKIN, TRAVERS HUMPHREYS and BANCROFT Prosecuted.
ALFRED NORMAN . I am London manager, at 145, Queen Victoria Street, for J. Russell and Co., iron tube manufacturers Wednesbury—I received this letter, of 15th November, from Tournay and Co., decorators and contractors, 1, Dudley Terrace, Philip Lane near West Green Station, asking for a list of gas tubing, and what our discount was—I quoted prices in answer—I received this letter from Tournay and Co., dated 19th (This ordered certain gas tubing to be delivered at their premises) I gave instructions for the goods to be forwarded—the invoice price at one month's credit was. 19s. 10d., subject to two and a half per cent, discount—on 19th December, in consequence of a letter I received, I went to 1, Dudley Terrace—I found it was a small house with stables; it was closed—when I had the goods sent I believed there was a genuine bonâ-fide firm at the address—the goods have never been paid for—on 19th December I saw the goods at the Tottenham Police-station, and identified them by our mark on them.
Cross-examined by Gander. I had a reference to Stubbs and Co., of whom I inquired, and I considered it was sufficiently satisfactory to send up to £20 worth—I never saw you in the transaction.
Cross-examined by Chalkley. I don't know what business was carried on at Dudley Terrace—I did not see you—our terms would not be eighty per cent, discount off—its actual price ought not to be £15—I
did not state at Edmonton that a fair price for Tournay to sell them at would be £15—I do not think I was asked the question.
WILLIAM JUBB . I am an ironmonger, of Summerhill Road, Tottenham—I first knew Gander a few days before 16th December, when he called at my Shop and said he had some iron barrel for sale—I asked if it was his own property—he said, "No," he was commissioned by a friend to sell it—I asked how much there was of it, and the value, and whether it was new or second-hand, and he told me it was new, and was about £25 nett, I think—he told me he had been a builder and decorator—I told him it was a very heavy amount; I could not entertain that if it was new stuff, unless I saw the invoice—he promised to bring me the invoice the following day—he came during Saturday 14th and brought me this paper, which had no printed heading, but is just a description of the articles—I told him it was of a very informal character, and I could not purchase the goods unless I saw them—I asked him where the goods could be seen—he said, "At an empty shop at Stamford Hill, near the South Tottenham Station"—I arranged to meet him some few hours afterwards and go with him—he came for me afterwards; in the interval I had communicated with the police officers—I went with him to an empty shop on Stamford Hill, in the occupation of Cox, who was there—we went through the shop into the back yard, where I saw the property in question, a quantity of new barrel, galvanised and black, and a bag containing gas fittings—Cox in Gander's presence told me he had certain charges on this barrel, and that he could not let it go till these charges were paid—I said that had nothing to do with me—Cox said he had been carting it about the day before trying to sell it for Gander and could not succeed in doing so; I thought he had a claim on it—he said his claim was some shillings—I and Gander went bask to my shop and I offered him £12, or £12 10s., or £15; I think it was £15; I cannot recollect clearly—whatever offer I made I made by arrangement with the police—Gander tried to get more, but eventually he accepted my offer—he was to have my cheque when he delivered the barrel, which he said he would do that day—it came on the evening of the following day, the 16th—I was not at home then, and saw nothing of the arrest.
Cross-examined by Gander. Cox did not tell me that the stuff belonged to Tournay—on our way to my place you said it belonged to Tournay—I had no knowledge of Tournay's son previous to your arrest; I knew of him afterwards—you did not say you would have to see Tournay before you could take what I offered; we agreed the price before we parted.
Cross-examined by Chalkley. I marked on this list of the stuff these figures as the value of it, and they amount to £16 13s. 3d.—that is the price I agreed to pay, as far as my impression carries me now—he said there would be £50 or £60 worth gross—Cox had a claim for thirty shillings on it—I said I would give thirteen guineas for the whole lot and the bag of fittings, subject to measurement—that would be fair value, buying it as a job line—in the usual trade way of business they would have cost £15 13s. 3d.—before going to Cox I communicated with the police, because I had my suspicions after receiving a document of this character, which I was told in the first instance would be a proper invoice—at Cox's house there were old rags, iron, and a few things
appertaining to a general dealer—I do not know of any business carried on at 1, Dudley Terrace—I saw the words "Builders and Decorators" outside, but in passing and repassing I have never seen a ny decorative business going on—I passed many times a day—it is partly a house and partly a shop—I have lived at my house for thirty years; it was not built at that time for the purpose of a decorator's business—a coal dealer had it previously for several years; he was there till the early part of 1892—there was a gate by the side of the house—I live about 100 yards off—I did not know you till you were in custody.
Re-examined. Cox did not mention Tournay as the person selling; Gander suggested that Tournay owned the piping.
GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN . I am a carman employed by the London and North-Western Railway—on 3rd December I delivered a load of gas-pipes and gas-fittings from Camden Town Station to 1, Dudley Terrace—this label was attached (This bore the name of "John Russell and Co.")—when I delivered the goods a woman opened the door, and she went and fetched a man I do not know—he took the things inside the workshop.
FRANCIS WILLIAM RODEN . I am a clerk in John Russell and Co. 's employment at their Wednesbury works—on 30th November, in consequence of instructions from our London office, I despatched a quantity of iron pipes and fittings to Tournay and Co., 1, Dudley Terrace, Philip Lane, near West Green Station—this is the label I put on the goods; and the mark put on them for the railway was B 1098.
—DUCKLING. I am a blacksmith, of 57, Ida Road, Tottenham, and work for Mr. Jubb—about 16th December Gander brought some iron tubing in a van to Jubb's about twenty minutes to six p.m.—Jubb was absent—a carman named Bevis was with Grander—they prepared to unload the goods—shortly after Gander went over to the Lord Palmerston public-house, and then Murphy came on the scene—Cox was also there, but was not helping; I saw him talking with Gander.
ROBERT MURPHY (Detective-sergeant, Tottenham). I served a subpoena on Cox to attend here—he was here on Tuesday, and I warned him yesterday to be here this morning—he is not here this morning—I wired to him, and got a reply this morning—prior to about 2nd or 3rd December, 1892, I instructed Henbest to watch 1, Dudley Terrace—on 16th December I was in plain clothes in Clyde Road, Tottenham, about seven p.m.—I saw a van backed up to Jubb's premises; Gander and Bevis were unloading it—Cox was there, but not with the van—in the van was a quantity of new iron gas barrel—I asked Gander what he was doing, and I pointed to the contents of the van and said, "This is all new iron piping"—he said, "It is nothing to do with Mr. I am only employed by someone else, as you might be. The one that will tell you all about it is in the corner; it is not mine"—he pointed to the Lord Palmerston at the corner—I took him into custody, telling him his account was not satisfactory as he was in possession of it—I asked Gander the name of the man in the corner, but he could not tell me—he took a book out of his pocket, but could not find any name in it—I went to the Lord Palmerston, where I found Chalkley and Cox—I said to Chalkley, "How do you account for the possession of the
iron that you have just brought to Jubb's?"—he said, "I cannot give any account; I am here to draw the money. It is not mine; it is Tournay's. It has been in Cox's possession about a week. I had to pay him 30s. to get it, and that I had to borrow"—I told him his account was not satisfactory as he was in possession of it, and I took him into custody—I sent him away, and he did not hear what Cox said when I arrested him—at the Police-station Cox, in the prisoner's presence, produced this authority, signed Tommy, to deliver up the goods on payment of his charges. (Chalkley here stated that he wrote this authority.)—I asked Cox where he got it from, and he said, "I got it from Grander"—I said to Gander, "Where did you get this document from?"—he said, "I got it from him," pointing to Chalkley—I said to Chalkley, "How do you account for this?"—he said, "I gave it to him"—I said, "This is signed Tournay"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Is your name Tournay?—he said, "No; but I sign Tournay's name sometimes"—I said, "Did you write this document?" he said, "Yes, I admit writing that; that is my handwriting"—Gander then produced this invoice with no heading—I asked him were he got it from—he said, "I got it from Tournay"—I then went to look for Tournay, and have made inquiries, but have not found him—on searching Gander I found this envelope, addressed Mr. Thomas Tournay, Phillip Lane, and also this one addressed to Messrs. Tournay and Gander, builders, 1, Phillip Lane—I found other documents at Gander's house, 63, Shrubbery Road, West Green, which is not far from Dudley Terrace—this card, "A. J. Mann, lime, cement, and slate merchant, 2, Marlborough Road, Bedford Park," was found on Gander—on Chalkley I found this bill-heading, "Tournay and Co., decorators and contractors, 1, Dudley Terrace," and this letter, addressed to Messrs. Tournay and Gander, asking for money for goods supplied—I had a warrant for Tournay and Mann—Tournay I cannot find—I believe there is a man Tournay distinct from either of the prisoners—Mann was committed for trial, but is now at North London Sessions on some other case—Jubb communicated with me three or five days before 16th December, but we had kept observation before that, as we had information about the same matter.
Cross-examined by Chalkley. You asked the question at Edmonton whether I was certain this letter was found among your papers—I don't know where Tournay is.
Re-examined. Chalkley made some remark at the station about a relative of Tourney's dying, and that the iron was to be sold to defray the funeral expenses; it would not have been sold only this occurred.
By Chalkley. I inquired, and found that Tournay was the tenant of 1, Dudley Terrace—there is a man named Robert Tournay—I saw an agreement signed Tournay.
By the COURT. Both prisoners have been in the habit of using that house.
WALTER HENBEST (Metropolitan Constable). I received instructions from Murphy to watch 1, Dudley Terrace, and I watched it from 7th till 16th December, 1892, when the prisoners were arrested—Mann was there frequently, sometimes once, sometimes twice, and sometimes three times a day—I have got a note of each particular day—I did not see either of the prisoners there before 14th—on 14th I saw Chalkley-enter 1, Dudley Terrace, and I saw Gander it St. Ann's Road and Phillip
appertaining to a general dealer—I do not know of any business carried on at 1, Dudley Terrace—I saw the words "Builders and Decorators" outside, but in passing and repassing I have never seen any decorative business going on—I passed many times a day—it is partly a house and partly a shop—I have lived at my house for thirty years; it was not built at that time for the purpose of a decorator's business—a coal dealer had it previously for several years; he was there till the early part of 1892—there was a gate by the side of the house—I live about 100 yards off—I did not know you till you were in custody.
Re-examined. Cox did not mention Tournay as the person selling; Gander suggested that Tournay owned the piping.
GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN . I am a carman employed by the London and North-Western Railway—on 3rd December I delivered a load of gas-pipes and gas-fittings from Camden Town Station to 1, Dudley Terrace—this label was attached (This bore the 'name of "John Russell and (7o. ")—when I delivered the goods a woman opened the door, and she went and fetched a man I do not know—he took the things inside the workshop.
FRANCIS WILLIAM RODEN . I am a clerk in John Russell and Co.'s employment at their Wednesbury works—on 30th November, in consequence of instructions from our London office, I despatched a quantity of iron pipes and fittings to Tournay and Co., 1, Dudley Terrace, Philip Lane, near West Green Station—this is the label I put on the goods; and the mark put on them for the railway was B 1098.
—DUCKLING. I am a blacksmith, of 57, Ida Road, Tottenham, and work for Mr. Jubb—about 16th December Gander brought some iron tubing in a van to Jubb's about twenty minutes to six p.m.—Jubb was absent—a carman named Bevis was with Gander—they prepared to unload the goods—shortly after Gander went over to the Lord Palmerston public-house, and then Murphy came on the scene—Cox was also there, but was not helping; I saw him talking with Gander.
ROBERT MURPHY (Detective-sergeant, Tottenham). I served a subpoena on Cox to attend here—he was here on Tuesday, and I warned him yesterday to be here this morning—he is not here this morning—I wired to him, and got a reply this morning—prior to about 2nd or 3rd December, 1892, I instructed Henbest to watch 1, Dudley Terrace—on 16th December I was in plain clothes in Clyde Road, Tottenham, about seven p.m.—I saw a van backed up to Jubb's premises; Gander and Bevis were unloading it—Cox was there, but not with the van—in the van was a quantity of new iron gas barrel—I asked Gander what he was doing, and I pointed to the contents of the van and said, "This is all new iron piping"—he said, "It is nothing to do with Mr. I am only employed by someone else, as you might be. The one that will tell you all about it is in the corner; it is not mine"—he pointed to the Lord Palmerston at the corner—I took him into custody, telling him his account was not satisfactory as he was in possession of it—I asked Gander the name of the man in the corner, but he could not tell me—he took a book out of his pocket, but could not find any name in it—I went to the Lord Palmerston, where I found Chalkley and Cox—I said to Chalkley, "How do you account for the possession of the
iron that you have just brought to Jubb's?"—he said, "I cannot give any account; I am here to draw the money. It is not mine; it is Tournay's. It has been in Cox's possession about a week. I had to pay him 30s. to get it, and that I had to borrow"—I told him his account was not satisfactory as he was in possession of it, and I took him into custody—I sent him away, and he did not hear what Cox said when I arrested him—at the Police-station Cox, in the prisoner's presence, produced this authority, signed Tournay, to deliver up the goods on payment of his charges. (Chalkley here stated that he wrote this authority.)—I asked Cox where he got it from, and he said, "I got it from Gander"—I said to Gander, "Where did you get this document from?"—he said, "I got it from him," pointing to Chalkley—I said to Chalkley, "How do you account for this?"—he said, "I gave it to him"—I said, "This is signed Tournay"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Is your name Tournay?"—he said, "No; but I sign Tournay's name sometimes"—I said, "Did you write this document?" he said, "Yes, I admit writing that; that is my handwriting"—Gander then produced this invoice with no heading—I asked him were he got it from—he said, "I got it from Tournay"—I then went to look for Tournay, and have made inquiries, but have not found him—on searching Gander I found this envelope, addressed Mr. Thomas Tournay, Phillip Lane, and also this one addressed to Messrs. Tournay and Gander, builders, 1, Phillip Lane—I found other documents at Gander's house, 63, Shrubbery Road, West Green, which is not far from Dudley Terrace—this card, "A. J. Mann, lime, cement, and slate merchant, 2, Marlborough Road, Bedford Park," was found on Gander—on Chalkley I found this bill-heading, "Tournay and Co., decorators and contractors, 1, Dudley Terrace," and this letter, addressed to Messrs. Tournay and Grander, asking for money for goods supplied—I had a warrant for Tournay and Mann—Tournay I cannot find—I believe there is a man Tournay distinct from either of the prisoners—Mann was committed for trial, but is now at North London Sessions on some other case—Jubb communicated with me three or five days before 16th December, but we had kept observation before that, as we had information about the same matter.
Cross-examined by Chalkley. You asked the question at Edmonton whether I was certain this letter was found among your papers—I don't know where Tournay is.
Re-examined. Chalkley made some remark at the station about a relative of Tourney's dying, and that the iron was to be sold to defray the funeral expenses; it would not have been sold only this occurred.
By Chalkley. I inquired, and found that Tournay was the tenant of 1, Dudley Terrace—there is a man named Robert Tournay—I saw an agreement signed Tournay.
By the COURT. Both prisoners have been in the habit of using that house.
WALTER HENBEST (Metropolitan Constable). I received instructions from Murphy to watch 1, Dudley Terrace, and I watched it from 7th till 16th December, 1892, when the prisoners were arrested—Mann was there frequently, sometimes once, sometimes twice, and sometimes three times a day—I have got a note of each particular day—I did not see either of the prisoners there before 14th—on 14th I saw Chalkley enter 1, Dudley Terrace, and I saw Grander it St. Ann's Road and Phillip
Lane—on 15th I saw Gander in the neighbourhood—I saw Chalkley go into the house—I saw them together in Phillip Lane and Clyde Road—I did not see either of them on 16th till they were at the station—I saw them three times in the two days—I saw several other men there; I did not know one as Tournay; I looked for Tournay—there was apparently no sign of business at the house.
Cross-examined by Chalkley. There may have been glass and lead piping on the premises—paper was hanging up at the windows—there were pigeon-holes containing materials.
ROBERT MURPHY (Re-examined). These documents C and D are in Mann's writing—I left a subpoena at Cox's house, and he afterwards admitted receiving it. (Cox was called on his subpoena, but did not answer.)
THOMAS GILLIANS (in custody). I am a carpenter, living at 270, Stromer Terrace—on the 14th you saw me, Tournay, and Chalkley together, and Tournay wanted you to go and get piping from somewhere—I do not recollect about the bill-heads, nor your saying Cox would want authority before he would give the piping up—I know Tournay had a relation dead at the time—I heard nothing as regards Jubb. Cross-examined by Chalkley. I never saw you before 14th December. Ganderf in a written defence, stated that Tournay, as his sister was dead and he had to pay for the funeral, had asked him to try and sell the gas piping, and that Chalkley and he had, tried to sell it to oblige Tournay.
Chalkley, in his defence, said that he knew nothing of the piping till 14th December; and that all he did was to oblige Tournay, with no anticipation of benefit to himself, and he argued that he should not have tried to sell it to a respectable tradesman close by if he had any guilty intention.
Chalkley received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Friday, March 10th, 1893.
Before Mr. Recorder.
345. WILLIAM BALL, Unlawfully obtaining property from his trustees in bankruptcy, and GEORGE FREDERICK BRANSON, Aiding and assisting the said William Ball. Other Counts, for conspiracy to defraud the creditors of Ball.
MR. STEPHENSON and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted, and SIR EDWARD CLARKE, Q. C., appeared for Branson, and MR. GRAIN for
Ball. Ball having stated in the tearing of the JURY that lie was
GUILTY they found that verdict.—Judgment respited.
SIR EDWARD CLARKE submitted that Sec. 11 of the Debtors Act, under which this indictment was framed, applied to no one but the bankrupt himself; and that as to the conspiracy there was nothing to show that Branson knew that Ball was about to file a petition in bankruptcy.
MR. STEPHENSON contended that any person who aids and assists the offender mail he tried as a principal; but the RECORDER considered that there was no case to go to the JURY against Branson, and directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Friday, March 10th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. C. GILL and MR. ELDRIDGE Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.
During the progress of the case, the prisoner, in the hearing of the JURY, stated that he PLEADED GUILTY to the first two Counts of the Indictment, and the JURY thereupon found him
GUILTY of the first two Counts; upon the other fifteen Counts MR. GILL offered no evidence.
Discharged on Recognisances.
NEW COURT.—Saturday, March 11th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. C. MATHEWS Prosecuted, and MR. GILL Defended.
EDMUND WADE . I am clerk to the Registrar of the Colchester County Court—I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Frederick Clark—the petition is dated August 19th, 1892, filed by Clark himself on August 22nd, in the Essex County Court—the proceedings include a joint affidavit of August 27th, 1892, sworn by Clark and Jones—there is also an application for a motion for an interim injunction dated the same day; that was for a motion to set aside a bill of sale on May 13th, 1891, alleged to have been given by Clark to James Frederick Town-end—the original affidavit of William Upton is on the file—it was sworn on 6th September, and filed on the 7th before George Boulter Bathurst Norman, a Commissioner for Oaths in Argyle Place, London, in opposition to a motion to restrain the bill of sale—the application was heard on September 9th first, and then on October 7th, when an order was made setting aside the bill of sale with costs—Upton was cross-examined on his affidavit, I believe, on 9th September—I was in Court—there is an order of the Judge, directing a prosecution, on the file.
Cross-examined. There are three or four affidavits on the file—there is a joint affidavit of James Frederick Townend and Frederick Clark, sworn on August 31st, and another of Clark and Jones on August 27th, and one of Clark only on September 7th—this matter was heard before the County Court judge, Mr. Adley—Mr. Jones conducted the proceedings for the debtor and attested his signing the petition.
Re-examined. There is an affidavit of Mrs. Clark sworn on 21st September and filed on the 22nd—in support of the affidavit are two of Upton's and Mr. Townend's—I produce a number of documents
impounded by the judge—amongst them are the cheque and the bill of sale, and some letters used in the case. (The cheque was an open one for 11 dated 13th May, 1891, endorsed Frederick Clark.)
GEORGE BOULTER BATHURST NORMAN . I am a solicitor, of Argyle Street, and a Commissioner for Oaths—I know the defendant by sight—he swore to the truth of this affidavit in my presence on 6th November, 1892—he has sworn affidavits before me before.
Cross-examined. Affidavits are generally prepared by the solicitor, and I ask, "Is this your name and handwriting?"
FREDERICK CLARK . I live at Halstead, in Essex, about seventy miles from London—I am a bookbinder and news agent—in April, 1891, I saw an advertisement in one of the papers, which I did not preserve, that a man was willing to lend money on note of hand alone without bill of sale—I believe it was in the name of James Frederick Townend, of 16, Princes Street, Hanover Square—I sent him this letter. (Enquiring the terms for an advance of £25.)—I received this answer on April 30th (This stated: "I shall be glad to make an advance, I only want to be satisfied of your bona-fides and ability. My representative shall wait on you. ")—a day or two after that somebody came down and looked over the premises—I spoke to him; he was there half an hour—he wrote something, and went away—I afterwards got a letter and went up to 16, Princes Street on 13th May, 1891—I saw the prisoner and. Another man behind the counter in the front office; I gave them my business card, and said I wanted to see Mr. Townend; I was told he was busy—after I had waited a minute or two a gentleman came out of the inner office, and I was told to go in, which I did, and saw a gentleman who I supposed was Mr. Townend, but I found out afterwards that his name was Leicester—the prisoner came in, and I told them I wanted £25—Leicester said, "You cannot have £25; you can have £15"—I said, "That is no use"—he said, "I cannot lend anymore, but if you like to have. £16 you can"—I said, "Very well, I will take it"—one of them gave me a paper with "Indenture" on the top of it, and read part of it to me, and told me to sign it—I signed it twice—these are my two signatures. (This was a bill of sale for £30 with 60 per cent, interest, to be paid by monthly instalments, and a schedule of furniture.)—at the time I signed it I did not know it was a bill of sale, or that it recited a loan to me of £30—I do not think the £30 was read to me, and I am sure the 60 per cent, was not—Leicester gave me a sheet of paper "with a printed heading, and told me to put down every word he dictated—I did so—I naked him how to spell some of the words, and he told me—this is what I wrote. (This stated: "I understand I am paying one shilling for every pound I have this day borrowed from you, namely, £30, for which you hand me a cheque, and I am to repay the same by monthly payments of £1 10s., and I understand I am giving you a bill of sale to secure the same.—FREDK. CLARK.")—I never saw the bill of sale again—I put £30 down, but I did not understand what I was doing—he said, just before I received the money, that he could not lend me less than £30, because the law would not allow it; but I should not get £30, only £15—Upton was present all the time—Leicester produced a cheque face downwards, and said, "Sign this"—I did so—this is my signature (Produced)—he said, "It is no use taking this away, because the banks have closed; I
will give you the money for it"—I said, "Very well," and he gave me a £10 Bank of England note and five sovereins—he kept all the papers—I then left—the prisoner left just before me, and was in the outer office as I passed through—he took the document with him which I now know as the bill of sale—I heard Leicester say to him, "Take this out and have it copies"—there are two doors; one is for the general public—the prisoner went out at one door as I went out at the other—he was present when the £15 was given to me, and when I endorsed the cheque—the money was put down on the table before me and I took it up—I went back to Halstead the same night, where I was living eith my mother, and showed her the £10 note and £4 in gold; I had changed a sovereign going down—it is not true that I went to the bank with the cheque, and that I ttok it away from 15, Princes Street—it ahd gone four o'clock when I left; I lost my way in London, and then took a cab went sraight to Liverpool Street—I commenced to repay in June, asking occasionally for some days of grace, and by May, 1892, I had repaid fifteen guineas—about May 20th I received this letter: "Unless we receive your overdur instalment by twelve o'clock to-marrow we shall at once take possession"—I wrote: "In reply to your letter I do not know what is meant; I have paid all the money; the interest was to be 7 1/2 per cent. You only lent me £15. I have only the interest to pay back"—I received no answer to that letter; but on June 16th I received this: "We beg to remind you that your instalment is over due; we beg you to send it by return of post—I then wrote this letter. (Enquiring how much was due.)—I received no answer to that; but on June 29th I receivd this: "We must request payment of your overdue instalment by return of post"—on June 30th I wrote this. (Complaining that he had received no answer to his former letters, and refusing to send more money.)—there was no answer to that—on August 11th I received this: "Unless we received yoour instalment by return of post we shall at once take possession"—on 16th August my goods were seized, and I then learned for the first time that the document I had signed on May 13th was a bill of sale—I consulted Mr. Jones of Colchester, and under his advice files a petition in bankreuptcy in August 19th, returning a statemnt of affairs showing my liabilities, which amounted to £62 0s. 9d., including Mr, Townend's claim, £36 15s., as being still due—the Official Receiver became the receiver in my bankruptcy—an application was made to set the bill of sale aside—I swore an affidavit on August 31st—the first hearing was fixed for September 9th, in answe to my affidavit—what I swore was true.
Cross-examined. I only paid one visit to the premises in London, and only saw Upton once—I never saw Leicester again—I learnt that he had absconded—there is a warrant out for him—all the conversation I had was with him—he told me I should have to pay 7 1/2 per cent. interest—my affidavit says: "He called a man, presumably a clerk, from the other room, who read to me what I understood was a note of hand"—I nver used those words; the affidavit was prepared by my solicitor—I belive it was the prisoner who read it—the one who came into the room read; the list of furniture was not read—when I signed this it was blank sheet of paper—I asked no question at all about the document—
I listened to every part of it—I cannot recollect whether, £30 was mentioned in it—I thought the document which was read over was a note of hand—I said nothing about it to Leicester—I do not recollect saying, "I knew it was a cheque when I endorsed it; I knew what the amount of it was when he gave me the £15"—I had never seen a cheque before—the man told me that the bank was closed, but I did not care so long as I got the money—it was after I signed the bill of sale that I signed my name on the cheque—I do not know in what order the things were done—Upton was in the room all the time the business was done; he was called from the outer office directly I said what my business was—I am almost sure he was there when I accepted the offer—whatever story I first told to Mr. Jones was the right story—I brought an action against Mr. Townend, but got nothing out of it—Mr. Jones said it was settled in my favour—I have no idea for how much—all the money I parted with on the bill of sale was £15—it has been set aside, and my mother and I brought an action for trespass, and costs incurred by Mr. Jones—I have not got my discharge yet—I do not know whether the money was given to the trustees in bankruptcy—my liabilities were for goods sold and delivered to me—although I never saw a cheque I can read and write—when I wrote, "I understand I am paying 1s. for every £1 I have this day borrowed from you, viz., £30,"I did not understand it—I wrote the words, "Bill of sale, "but I did not understand it—it was given out to me word for word, and I did not notice that I wrote "Bill of sale,"I was so confused—I am sure Upton was in the room when I signed the cheque, although I said before the Magistrate, "To the best of my belief defendant was in the room when I signed the cheque; I can't swear positively"—he took the document I had signed out of the room with him—I put the money in my trousers pocket when I got into the street—as I went out Upton was behind the counter with a young clerk.
Re-examined. The prisoner was defended before the Magistrate by Mr. Newton, the solicitor—he put some questions to me in a leading form asking me whether such and such things happened—I said, "The defendant was present the whole time"—I now say that he was called in directly after I went in—he did bring the bill of sale in, and he did read it over, and remained after he had read it over—to the best of my belief he was in the room when I signed the cheque.
By the COURT. Mr. Leicester was behind a table—I was standing before him, and Upton was standing at the end—he remained there all the time—when Mr. Leicester put the money on the table he said, "There is the money for you"—the sovereigns were wrapped up in the note—he took the note out first, and the money afterwards, and laid it nil down together—I counted it before I took it up—I had seen a note before—I am sure there was only one note.
SARAH ANN CLARK . I am the mother of the last witness—in May, 1891, he was living with me at Halstead—I remember his going to London on May 15th, and coming back in the evening by the last train; he showed me a. £10 Bank of England note and four sovereigns—he has never been to London since, as far as I know, till he went to the Police-court, and he could not have gone without my knowing it. Cross-examined. I brought an action against Mr. Townend; I do not
know that it has been settled, I was not consulted about it; Mr. Jones looked after it.
HENRY WILLIAM JONES . I am a solicitor, of Colchester—Mr. Clark consulted me last August, and by my advice he signed his petition—proceedings were taken to set aside the bill of sale, and affidavits were filed, one by me and one by Mr. Clark on August 27th, and copies sent to Mr. Townend's solicitor—there is an affidavit of the defendant, sworn on 6th and filed on 7th September—he attended the County-court on September 9th, and the following time in October—I cross-examined him on his affidavit, and he adhered to the truth of the statements he had made—he said he was present and saw Clark take the cheque away with him out of the office—he swore over and over again that he saw Clark take the cheque away with him—at that time the bank clerks were not called, they did not come, I think, till the second occasion.
Cross-examined. Mr. Sims, solicitor, of Manchester, acted for Mr. Townend at the County-court v. Mr. Furness—Mr. Furness said that he could not cash the cheque at the bank—I also acted for Clark and his mother in an action against Mr. Townend; £20 was paid into Court, which we declined to accept, and when here last Tuesday they agreed to pay £120—the money has not been received yet; so I cannot settle the action—I received Mr. Townend's cheque for £100 on Tuesday, and paid it in on Wednesday, and whether it has been honoured I do not know; and the £20 paid into Court I only received authority last night for—I brought an action for debt and costs—this is the writ—it is for damages for trespass in wrongly entering the house and seizing the goods—my costs have been paid—I made a claim for costs over and above my taxed costs—the £120 included my costs—there is a claim for costs between solicitor and client—I do not know whether it ever went into a statement of claim for libel—the actions were going on up to last Tuesday against Mr. Townend and Mr. Upton at the same time—someone stated that Leicester was authorised to sign Townend's name—he said, in cross-examination, that Clark may have received the £10 note and £5 in gold, and that Leicester never told him he only gave Clark £15—Mr. Townend told me at the Police-court that there is a warrant against Leicester, and I heard Mr. Newton say that a warrant had been issued at Marlborough Street Police-court.
Re-examined. I was present when Mr. Townend was called as a witness at Colchester—I cross-examined him on his affidavit—he was called on October 7th on the second occasion—an advertisement was produced for him to identify, appearing in the East Anglian Daily Times, of Wednesday, October 5th, 1892; it was the day or the day before we were at the County-court—it related to money, and said, "Why pay exorbitant interest, etc. Apply in confidence to Harry B. Leicester, 16, Princes Street, London."
By MR. GILL. That was put to him whether he admitted it, and I think he said that it had been in the papers for a year.
JAMES DENOPS . I am a clerk at the head office of the Provincial Bank of England, Bishopsgate Street Branch—in 1881 I was cashier at the St. James's branch of the National Bank of England—James Frederick Townend had an account there—I identify the signature on this cheque as his—that signature was not presented at the bank before 15th May, 1891, I can say that by my entry—I cannot say who presented it,
but the details enable me to say that it was presented with another cheque, also for, £30, both drawn by Mr. Townend and cashed over the counter with a £50 note, 07469, of 2nd July, 1890, and a ten-pound note. 93912, of August 5th, 1890; and on the same day both of these banknotes were paid into Mr. Townend's current account at our bank.
Cross-examined. The signature I honoured was Mr. Townend's and in the pass-book that cheque would be debited against his account.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY — Three Months Hard Labour,
OLD COURT.—Thursday, March 9th, 1893, and following days.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MR. HILL Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended. WILLIAM NEWMAN. I am a porter, and live at 9, Coventry Street, Bethnal Green—on Saturday night, 11th February, at a quarter to twelve, I was with my brother, sister, and a young lady in Bucks Row, close to the London Hospital, and saw the prisoner with several other men—I was just bidding my sister good-night, and when I turned round I saw the prisoner and several other men setting on my brother—I went to his assistance and got my brother away from them, and we parted—on the following Saturday morning, the 18th, about a quarter to one, I saw the prisoner in Buckhurst Street—I said to him, "What did you mean by bringing people and waiting for me over night, going home?" alluding to the 11th, when after we parted he and the others followed me to my own door and struck me and my brother; we got indoors as quickly as we could, and that ended it for that night—on the 18th I told the prisoner if he did not stop that, I should stop him—on that he drew a revolver from his pocket, and said, "I will stop you with this," pointing it to my face—I put my arm up and put it on one side, and said, "You can't frighten me like that"—he said, "It is loaded," and at the same time he fired a shot into the ground by the side of me—I said, "If that is your game, I have done with you," and 1 turned and walked away from him—I had got three or four yards when I heard a report and felt something strike my hat—I took it off and examined it, and saw two holes through it—this is the hat—I called "Police!" and a constable came up—the prisoner ran into the glass-works close by—we went in, but could not find him there—we had had a quarrel about eighteen months ago, but since then there had been no ill-feeling on my part against him.
Cross-examined. The prisoner lived at 9, Northampton Street, that runs into Coventry Street—the glass-works where the prisoner was employed is about a minute's walk from where I live—I did not know that he was going to work on the night of the 18th—I was on my way home—I did not expect to see him—I did not know he was employed there—he is a relation by marriage—I have known him about two years—I did not see him every week—I might see him three or four times in one week, and then not for a month—we do not use the same
public-house—I did not know where he was employed—I did not go on the 18th to pick a row with him—when he showed me the revolver I did not say, "Oh, that is made of glass, that is nothing"—the moment I turned my back I heard the report—Taylor was present, he was called before the Magistrate—I was sober, but I had been drinking—when I went into the glass-works I did not say to Taylor,"I will mark you"—the constable did not interfere and tell me not to threaten the man—the holes in my hat are slanting—the bullet went in at the back and came out at the side.
LOUIS ELLIS (Inspector). On the 20th February, between twelve and one in the day, I was in charge of Bethnal Green Station, when the prisoner came her with two friends; one of them said, "This is Be Groat, he has heard he is wanted." I replied, "Yes," and detained him.
Cross-examined. The prisoner works for the same master as I, but in different turns—on the night of 18th February the prosecutor came to the glass factory with a policeman—he was not sober—he said, "I will mark you"—there were two constables with him, and they told him not to use threats to me—I don't know what he meant by marking me—it did not frighten me.
NOT GUILTY .
The prisoner received a good character.
There was another indictment against the prisoner for a common assault on the same person, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Three Months' Imprisonment.
MESSRS. C.F. GILL, BODKIN, AND STEPHENSON Prosecuted, and MR. ABINGER Defended.
CATHERINE MARY PHILLIMORE . I live at Shiplake House, Henley-on-Thames—I am a spinster—in January, 1889, I saw an advertisement in one of the newspapers with reference to an invention for the saving of coal in steamships—I did not keep the advertisement—it stated that the invention would produce at the rate of about £1,000 a day—I wrote for particulars, and received this letter of 11th February, 1889. (This was dated from 115, Great Titchfield Street West, and was signed C. Wells, C. E. It stated that he required £60 to carry out the invention, which would bring in a large sum in a few weeks, £5 to make a pattern and sample, offering a., quarter share on all sums realised in three years, with no possible loss, etc., and enclosed an extract showing immense profits realised upon various successful inventions)—I believed the statements, and sent £5, which was acknowledged in this letter of 12th February—on 18th February I received this letter, enclosing what purported to be a certificate of his patent, as a security for an advance of £45, which I forwarded, also £10, and received these receipts (A large number of letters were put in and read, detailing the progress of the invention, and requiring further moneys for the purpose of carrying it out✗ in response to which the witness forwarded cheques for £6,000, £1,500, £3,000, £4,500, £2,000, etc., making a total of £18,860. In subsequent
letters the defendant explained to Miss Phillimore that as she had become a partner in an unlimited company it would be necessary to find further funds or ruin would be the result)—on the 21st March, 1892, I received this memory dum of agreement, ready signed, which I returned, and on 6th April I received these registered parcels, enclosing 150 shares, which were to be exchanged for cash in a few days—I never saw the defendant personally till he was at Bow Street—I then sent this cheque for £500—and after that I refused to part with any more money—I placed the matter in the hands of my solicitors Messrs. Few and Co.—up to then I had taken no advice from anyone—I had never seen the prisoner—until my solicitors had made enquiries I believed there was a genuine French Company; I did not believe I was a partner in it. (Other letters from the prisoner to the witness were read) I never received a farthing—all the £18,860 that I parted with was lot—when I got his letters describing the kind of business he was carrying on, and the different departments, I believed it was a genuine description of his business—I was more than once assured that he was Dot dealing with any other person than myself.
Cross-examined. I believed the prisoner had an invention for saving the consumption of coal, and I believed what he said, that he had the intent in existence—he enclosed a provisional specification—I was to have a quarter share of the profits of the invention—I never heard of any profits; I made no inquiries about them—in October, 1891, I saw another advertisement of the same style in the paper—I think it offered £1 000 a day for an advance of £6,000, with the return of ordinal capital in a fortnight—I wrote asking for further particulars, and received in answer a long letter about the steamship—I was unaware of any particulars in connection with the invention; I knew nothing about it—I have no reason to think there is a valuable invention—I thought his agreements with foreign Governments were to be relied on, and I believed I should have sufficient security for my advances—I believed his inventions were to be relied on—I believed I was helping an honest, clever inventor to promote an invention which would be of general benefit to the world—that refers to the whole of the money I parted with—my real motive was not benefit to myself in particular—I have no reason to think that the prisoner is a clever inventor—I had no expectation of receiving £1,000 a day—I thought my money was secure, and that I might have £2,000 or £3,000 for the loan I had advanced—all the large sums I sent were sent from the same motive—the letters" C. E. "influenced me to a certain extent—I received a number of shares which I have not negotiated, nor attempted to realise—my solicitors have them; they amount to about £22,500—the prisoner promised in one letter that as I was not a partner the shares should be exchanged for money if I preferred crash—I did not prefer the shares I also had two bills, one on Michel and Co., of Paris, for £25,000, which I was to send back on 1st June, and receive the cash; but the money was not forthcoming, and my bankers told me I must take some steps—I sent the bills to the prisoner at his request—I was not aware in 1891 that the prisoner was at Monte Carlo; I knew it when the matter was in my solicitor's hands—I was aware how he had raised £1,500 for the steamer, and my loan of £6,000 was made to him on the distinct understanding that he
never resorted to that mode of raising money again; he made that pro mise before the money was sent—I did not keep that letter—I did not see the statements in the daily papers—an action was commenced against the prisoner—I think it was stated in the letters that the steamer had a displacement of 2,000 tons—I looked on that steamer to some extent as security for my money—a fire broke out on board six months after I had invested my money.
JAMES DIXON SYKES . I am a partner in the firm of Few and Co., solicitors—we acted for Miss Phillimore, who consulted us on 12th June, 1892—I saw a number of these letters and also these shares in the sup posed company—in June we commenced an action to recover £11,000, mentioned in the agreement—I made enquiries as to Charles Wells and Co., of Paris, and could not find any such company—an order was made in the action giving him leave to defend the action on paying the money into Court—the Master's order went to the judge and the Divisional Court—a joint affidavit of the prisoner and Vaughan was made, and I filed in answer an affidavit that there was no such company—they put in this affidavit, in reply, to show that there was a company, and that Vaughan was secretary—unconditional leave to defend was given—we also brought a Chancery action to restrain the prisoner from using Miss Phillimore's name—we began a third action for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, and went on with that and got judgment, by which the damages were assessed at £18,860—we have got nothing by that judgment—I received this letter of 2nd September, 1892, from the prisoner while the litigation was going on.
Cross-examined. The Master gave judgment in the action in default of the prisoner failing to answer interrogatories and giving particulars—there was no appeal against the order for final judgment—I have been told that the prisoner was under arrest when we filed the final judgment on 11th February, 1893—the action was not heard on its merits—in the first action I could only go under Order 14 for the specific amount agreed to be paid—the judge gave the prisoner unconditional leave to defend, and the Divisional Court dismissed my appeal against that—we had to pay costs for that—I had consultations with Miss Phillimore, who told me the story she has told to-day—I have got a judgment in the action for £11,000, and I shall do nothing unless the prisoner moves in it—I have taken no steps to enforce the final judgment for £18,860—I have proved in the bankruptcy for £18,000 odd, on the judgment—we hope there are assets in the bankruptcy proceedings—there is a ship; I am not sure of any assets in this country yet—there are some little steam things—the threats did not have much effect on me; I looked on it as trying to get more money in settlement—the prisoner said, "What is the good of going on?"
WILLIAM CROSBIE TRENCH . I live at Clonodfoy, county Limerick—in December, 1890, I saw an advertisement in the Times—I wrote in answer, and received this letter of 3rd December from 115, Great Titchfield Street (This stated that Wells required money towards developing a patent, which would yield a good return, and requesting £5 first of all)—I sent a cheque for £5 to 115, Great Titchfield Street—I received an acknowledgment, and this letter of 11th December, asking for more money—on 23rd December I received this letter, enclosing a provisional specification—on 30th December I sent to Charles Wells this cheque for £470, and I received a
letter acknowledging its receipt—about that time I saw another adver tisement in a paper—I wrote to the address, and received this answer of 6th February, headed 115, Great Titchfield Street, and signed C. Wells—then I got this letter of 9th February, 1891, stating "The different parts of our machinery are now nearly cast and forged" (Other letters were read from the prisoner as to the invention and the cost to which he was put in developing it and securing foreign rights)—in con sequence of the letters on 25th February I sent a cheque for £500 to Charles Wells, Great Titchfield Street—I received these letters from him, dated from Marseilles (These referred to the ship he was fitting up, and acknowledged the £500 cheque. Other letters were read concerning the invention and its development)—on receipt of the letters, and in consequence of them, I sent a cheque for £1,250 on 15th April—I received this letter of 22nd April, acknowledging its receipt. I received this letter of 3rd May (This stated that an opening had been made for a Franco-Belgian company which required an outlay of £2,500, of which he could find £800, and requested the witness to provide £2,000)—I then received these two letters of 7th and 10th May, in consequence of which I sent him this cheque for £2,000 and received this receipt—about that time I went to 115, Great Titchfield Street—I went there about twice—I cannot remember the dates; I think it was some time about May or Jane—I saw the defendant there—it was a small business premises—I had some conversation with him about this invention—he said he believed it was a good and genuine concern—I said I did not believe he would make such an enormous amount of money out of it—I think he showed me a model at Great Portland Street when I called on him there—I think that was at the end of 1891—I saw a big traction engine there on the ground floor—I do not understand engines at all—he showed me a small model of an engine in his private office upstairs—he said he wanted a bigger model made on the same lines—he said it was a model of his new engines—he explained something about it—it was to save fuel—I did not understand the engine; it was not set to work for me to look at—he said he believed I should shortly have a return for my money—I received this letter of 24th June from Turin, and this one of 12th July from Genoa—on 17th July, I believe, I handed them to the prisoner at Great Portland Street—I had from him this receipt of 17th July—about that time I got about fifty share certificates similar to this—the name of tabot appears on them as president of the company—after keeping them for some time I sent them back to the prisoner—in July or August, 1891, I was taken down to the Thames by the prisoner, who showed me a small steam launch—he said he had small engines of his own type on the launch—I went on board; we went down the river for about twenty minutes—he proposed taking me to Paris later on in a launch to see the company promoters—he did not give me their names, to discuss the invention with them—I said 1 would go—I did not go; he kept putting me off—I asked why he kept putting me off, and he said he was going on other business elsewhere—it did not occur to me to go and see the company myself without him—I believed him to be an honest man—I received this letter (This stated that he was starting for Paris, where offices for the company had been taken at 16, Rue de Surenne; that he hoped to send witness £100 in a short time, as a small 'part of the cash he was to receive, and asking him, if a gentleman wrote as to Wells,
to reply that he had trusted Wells with thousands)—I got this agreement, dated 7th September—I then got this letter of 12th October from the prisoner, in which he mentions his extraordinary success at Monte Carlo; that he won. £40,000 in five days at the tables, and enclosing a rough photograph of the ship—I received these letters of 27th October, 26th November, and 29th January, 1892 (These slated that further sums would be necessary to finish the ship)—on 29th January I sent a cheque for £1,250, dated 4th February—I produce the receipt I had back for it—I had these letters, 18th March and 22nd March, stating that further sums were required—on 2nd April I sent two cheques, one for £100 and one for £350—I got a receipt, I think it was in an agreement, dated 4th June—I received this letter of 13th July, 1892 (Stating that the company was registered in Paris and that he required more money)—in consequence of that letter I drew this cheque for £1,500 dated 16th July—this is the receipt for it—that was the last sum I parted with—the total sum I parted with was £9,925—on 27th July, 1892, I had this letter (Stating that the name of the company was to be Wells, Phillimore, Trench and Co.)——before that I received this telegram of the same date (Stating that Trench and Com pany not being limited, all shareholders were responsible)—before I paid the last cheque I met the prisoner at Drummonds' Bank, London, and we had a conversation about three launches, Flower, Isabelle, and Ituna—he gave me this mortgage for £1,500 on those three boats—I afterwards realised on the Isabelle and Ituna together £90; the Flower we could not find—my solicitor advised me to sell them, and they were sold by an auctioneer in London I believe—I know nothing about it—I received this letter of 1st August, 1892, from which I believed that he might incur liabilities on my behalf and I should be liable; but I did not believe that the law would allow such a thing—up to July last I believed I was dealing with an honest and respectable person when I parted with the various sums of money—I believed the genuine business of a civil engineer was being carried on at Portland Street and Great Titchfield Street—I believed I had security for my money in a good profitable invention, and that the French company was genuine, up to receiving the letter of 1st August—I had no adviser.
Cross-examined. The prisoner told me I should get a quarter of a million—I held no security; but I thought his invention would be security—I did not expect to. make a quarter of a million; I expected tomake about 20 per cent.—the prisoner explained his invention to me—I did not understand it; I told him I knew nothing about engines—on 15th May, at Great Portland Street, he showed me a model; he did not show me how it worked; he showed no working model—when I went for the trip on the Thames he said he had the engines on board, but I could not see them—I was satisfied with his assurance that it would turn out a success—I could not estimate if it saved coal—I learnt nothing from the trip—I went on board the Palais Royale at Liverpool, towards the end of February, 1892—the big room was being decorated—I should not call her a splendid vessel—the prisoner said he was going to receive company promoters and Government officials on board, and show them his invention, and entertain them in the ball-room and the concert room—he offered to take me to France in her, and I accepted,
but I did not go, as he put me off—I knew by the newspapers of his gambling at Monte Carlo—I sent him money after that—I answered about four of his advertisements—in reply to one of my answers he wrote saying that the matter was in connection with his scheme at Monte Carlo—I sent him no money to play the scheme with—I proved in his bank ruptcy—I have seen it reported that £6,000 has been offered for the steamer—I received this letter from Monte Carlo on 12th October, 1891.
Re-examined. The advertisement I answered gave the address of Willings' office, and I had no idea I was communicating with Wells when I answered it.
PAUL GLEDDON . I am a member of the firm of Hughes and Gleddon, solicitors, of 40, Gracechurch Street—on 4th August, 1892, Mr. Trench consulted me; he came to my office with the prisoner—he asked me to advise my client to advance him a sum of £2,500—he said that my client was a member of an. unlimited company, registered in Paris; that the company was in difficulties, and that there were bills out to the extent of £50,000—he asserted that my client was liable, and that he would free him from all responsibility as managing director of the company if Mr. Trench would pay him the sum of £2,500—he said there were no books of the company at present, and therefore nobody knew who the shareholders were, or the amount of their holdings—he suggested that Mr. Trench should give up the shares he held, and upon which his name was written, and accept in exchange some further shares, which were to be allotted to Mr. Wells simply as security for the £2,500—that was the conversation on that day—next day I saw him again—I then told him that Mr. Trench would not let him have the money; that I did not see his liability—I asked the defendant how he made him liable in England—he said that he (Wells) had a London office in Great Portland Street—I requested the defendant to put any proposition he had to make in writing—on the Saturday morning, 6th August, he brought me a document embodying his terms—he said he was going to Paris to enter the Hon. Mr. Trench's name as a share holder of this unlimited company, and I think he said as partner—I made some inquiries at the Patent Office in London—I also received from Mr. Trench a document, in consequence of which I went to Paris on 8th August—while there I went to 16, Rue de Surenne, also to the Rue de Surenne—I did not find an office of a company there—I also went to the Hotel du Commerce and saw the prisoner there—I asked him where the meeting was held of which he had given notice to Mr. Trench, who attended it, and what was done—he declined to tell me—I said the whole thing was a fraud, that the patent was invalid, and I had the proof—I showed him this certificate of abandonment, that is, that the application had been abandoned—I said I had been to the Rue de Surenne and could find no office, and from inquiries I could find no exist ing company—he said I did not come in time for the meeting—I said the whole thing was a swindle and fraud—there was a somewhat heated argument—he said he would have me thrown out of his hotel—I then left—I did not see him again until this prosecution began—I believe there was some correspondence.
Cross-examined. He did not tell me that the meeting was over; he said I had not come in time to go—I did not believe in it at all—it was about half-past eleven a.m., when I went to the Hotel du Commerce—I
saw a concierge at the Hotel de Surenne; she told me that Wells had lodged there some time ago.
REV. FREDERICK HOOPER ALDRED BLAKE . I am a clerk in holy orders at Ross, Herefordshire—in July last I saw an advertisement in the daily papers—I answered it and got this reply, dated 8th July, from 154, Great Portland Street (This stated that he (Wells) was seeking an investor with £1,500 to join him in carrying out an invention which would result in large profits)—I replied to that letter, and on 11th July I received this letter; another on the 12th, and then these two agreements—I signed one and returned it—on the 15th July I drew a cheque for £750 and sent it to the defendant—on the 28th July I got this receipt—I had a difficulty in obtaining it—on the 28th of July I got this letter, enclosing the certificate from the Patent Office, and stating that all was progressing well—on 3rd August I went to Great Portland Street, and there saw the defendant—briefly, I may say, that the prospects of the proposed invention were discussed between us—I was not shown any models there as being models of the invention—I knew nothing specially of engines and models—the invention was to be placed on a steam-boat lying first at Liverpool and then at Plymouth—he said that he had given up work on the premises, and was applying all his energies to the invention—he suggested that I should put further money to promote the success of the invention—he said further money was to be used chiefly for machinery, and also for some slight expenses; for promoting the company—it was to be promoted in Paris; that was to be its headquarters—on 5th August I drew a further cheque for £750, and sent it to him, and on the 6th I got this receipt—on the 10th August I got this letter from Great Portland Street about an agreement, and on 24th August I got this enclosing this agreement, No. 1,354—on 12th September, 1892, I received this letter. (This enclosed £3,000 in shares, arid stated that cash payment would take place at the end of the month, when the shares would soon double or treble their value.)—on the 17th September I got this letter enclosing 7,000 shares, for which I sent a receipt—on the 29th September I returned to the prisoner, through his manager, the shares he sent me—I afterwards wrote a letter, registered to an address in the Rue de Londres, Paris; that came back through the Dead Letter Office—I did not see the defendant after that, he wrote me letters—I got no part of my money back—I parted with my money believing the defendant to be an honest inventor needing help—I supposed there might be some profits from the invention, certainly no such profits as he alleged—I believed that there was such an invention, and that there might be profits from it; I believed that there was a company as mentioned in the letters, and that the defendant was promoting it.
Cross-examined. My object was partly to assist him, and partly to invest the money profitably—I believed the representations made by him—I did not make any inquiries about him, not in time—I began to make inquiries about the beginning of September, I think; that was after my money was paid away—I believed his representations that he had invented something that would be valuable, resulting in future profits—he gave me an impression at the interview I had with him that he was a man experienced in these matters—I had some reason to think so from the general appearance of the premises, and so on—I simply believed the representations he made regarding the invention—
I believed him to be an experienced man, as the result of the con versation and the letters—he slightly explained how the fuel was to be economised, but rather hazily; he said something about it—I really cannot tell what he said.
CHARLES JOSEPH WHITE . I am a medical practitioner, living at Acacia Cottage, Bournemouth—in July, 1888,1 saw an advertisement in the paper, in consequence of which I wrote a letter, and received this letter of 3rd August (Stating that £30 wag required to develop a sound invention which would bring in money)—I went to Great Titchfield Street and saw the prisoner, who described to me an invention for the improve ment of arc lights, by which he hoped to effect a saving of 37 per cent, in the production of the current, and do away with opaque glass—he showed me no model—I afterwards received this letter of 16th August from him—I sent him a cheque for £5—I received this letter of 27th August enclosing this certificate, No. 12383—I sent £25 on 3rd September—I received this receipt for the £5 and. £25, dated 4th October—I got these letters of 27th November and 3rd December (The first complained of sending a solicitor after him without warning; and the second said that the electric apparatus was ready if he would go and see it)—I did not go to London—I had instructed a solicitor to look after my interests, and the solicitor sent Truth to me; it contained certain articles, and I com municated with the police—I parted with my £25 because the prisoner had given a plausible account of this invention—I thought from the C. E. that the prisoner was what he represented himself to be, a civil engineer; and I thought he was an honest man, if a poor one—I believed it possible improvements might be made in arc lights, and that this invention was for that purpose.
Cross-examined. I knew very little about arc lights, but I referred to a friend who knows all about them, and he said it was very possible im provements might be made, and a great deal of money was to be made out of it—I made no inquiry about the prisoner before parting with my money; I did afterwards—he gave as a reference Phillips and Legge, the patent agents in Chancery Lane—what they said induced me to part with my money.
Re-examined. What also induced me was that I believed he was an honest man, and that this was an improvement in arc lights—I thought I should get my money back.
HENRY BAKER VAUGHAN . I live at 186, Goswell Road—I was a clerk—in May or June I saw an advertisement in the paper, through which I came into communication with the prisoner—his address was 115, Great Titchfield Street—he sent me by post the draft of a letter only two or three lines in length which I was to make 500 copies of—I did so, and handed the 500 copies to the prisoner, who paid me 12s. 6d.—he then in structed me to make more copies of it, and I made in all about 3,000 copies—I then had other letters to copy, and then this draft was given me (This was almost identical with the first letters sent to Mr. Trench and Miss Phillimore)—I left the dates blank, and sometimes the amounts—I did probably about 2,000 or 3,000 of them in lots of twenty or fifty at a time—the prisoner paid me—he gave me the paper—there was a long lapse in my work from 1887 to 1889, and then from 1889 till last October I made these copies on and off—I have been to the premises at Great Portland Street on several occasions—I have seen Esham there
for the last four or five years possibly; he only opened the door to me as I went through to go up to the prisoner's room—on two or three occasions I saw some workmen there, and on another occasion a gentleman was making a sketch or drafting out machinery, something of that sort—in the summer of 1891, previously to a gentleman calling, the prisoner asked me to copy something, and while I was copying it the gentleman came in—I copied some quantities or contracts about sewerage, or something of that sort, out of the Builder or Invention—in July, 1892,1 went with the prisoner to Paris—for a year or two he had promised to place me in a position when he had started the company, and I was to go to Paris to be made secretary of the company, and I was to swear an affidavit that I was the secretary—he did not tell me the name of the company, but he said it was one of his own companies—I got to Paris early in the morning, and the prisoner afterwards came back later in the day and gave me an affidavit to copy—I afterwards swore it in Paris—he said at first I was to describe myself as honorary secretary, but I protested, and I was put in the document as secretary—he said he had the power to appoint me secretary, and he should do so—I was in Paris about two days—I did not go to the Rue Surenne—I got my expenses and £1 a day—that was all I had to do with the company from first to last—Wells and Co. was the name of the company; I was to be the honorary secretary and paid secretary too—I knew nothing of any office at which the company carried on business beyond what the prisoner told me.
EDWARD TOWERS . I am principal clerk in the office of the Registrar to the Patent Office—a person wishing to take out a patent first leaves an application form stamped with £1 stamps, and a provisional speci fication in duplicate or a complete specification in duplicate—those documents are passed on to the examiners, and if in order a certificate of provisional protection is issued—within nine months of that it is necessary for the applicant to file a complete specification, but may be allowed to extend that by another month on special application, so that there would be ten months within which the com plete specification is to be lodged—if it is not lodged within that time it is treated as an abandoned application—I have searched the Patent Office registers, and I find that a provisional appli cation, No. 2,769, for a patent for improvements in steam engines was made on 16th February, 1889, by Charles Wells, 115, Great Titchfield Street; that did not go beyond the provisional protection, and was treated as abandoned and advertised accordingly—20,902 was an appli cation by Charles Wells, 115, Great Titchfield Street, on 22nd December, 1890, for a patent for improvements in steam and vapour engines; it did not go further than the provisional application, and was advertised as abandoned—12,445 was an application for a patent for improvements in steam engines by Charles Wells, on 25th July, 1892; that has gone no further—12,383 is an application for a provisional protection for im provements in arc lights, by Charles Wells, in 1888; that went no further, and has since been advertised as abandoned—in 1886 Charles Wells made forty-five applications, the whole of which were abandoned—in 1887 he made nine applications, eight of which were abandoned and one completed, a musical skipping-rope—in 1888 he made forty-two applications, thirty-five of which were abandoned and seven completed; in 1889 fifty-four were made, forty-nine abandoned and five completed; in 1890 fifteen
were made, eleven abandoned and four completed; and in 1891 five were made, all abandoned.
Cross-examined. A person who has abandoned the provisional protec tion can obtain the same rights again by applying again—I cannot say that a large number of applications are made over again—a provisional protection protects only to a certain degree—the person cannot bring an action for infringement—provisional documents are not allowed to be seen by the public by statute—the applicant alone could see it up to the ten months, and then no one could see it; it would be supposed to be destroyed—it was held by the authorities that no one could see it (MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS stated that Mr. Abinger might see one of the provisional specifications mentioned in the case, but that he must not make its contents public)—from 1885 to 1891 the prisoner has completed twenty-eight patents—in 1885 they were for preserving mustard when mixed, tor pedoes, preventing heat in bearings, preserving ships' bottoms, con fectionery, sunshades and umbrellas—I cannot say if they were valuable or not—in 1888 they were for combined safety lamp and fire-guard; hot air motors heated by gas, water-borne vessels, hot air engines, incan descent electric lights—anything that was the subject of an invention we should grant a provisional specification for if it were patentable—we are bound to take anything that is not contrary to morality—we should grant a provisional specification for making eggs out of sawdust, if you showed a way of doing it.
JAMES YOUNG . I am manager to Messrs. Willing, advertisement agents 61, Piccadilly—I acted as the prisoner's advertising agent from about the beginning of 1886 to last October—these are two advertisements he inserted; he changed them occasionally—they appeared more than once in 1891; at different dates, but in the same papers—the advertisements we inserted for him came to about £350 a year—they were not always in the name of Wells; they used to be addressed to a different name at the office.
GEORGE SAMUEL SMITH . I live at 37, Reedsdale Street, Chelsea—on 5th October, 1891, the prisoner engaged me as captain of the Palais Royale at £200 a year in the Mediterranean, and. £180 a year in English waters—the ship was nearly 1,200 tons register; she had previously been a cargo boat—there was a ball-room, ladies' cabin, saloon, and a long corridor, and a full compass organ, harmonium, and grand piano were on board—she was luxuriously furnished fore and aft—the engines were the old tandem type, with one cylinder above the other—in 1891 the prisoner said we were going to Monte Carlo, Nice, Cannes, Mentone, Mediterranean, and different ports—we never started from Liverpool—in August, 1892, I left the service—during the time I had to do with the vessel I knew of no alterations being made to the engines beyond sundry repairs that were required—no experiments were made with the engines to try and make them burn less fuel.
Cross-examined. On February 23rd a fire broke out in the ball-room and fore part of the vessel between one and two a.m.; the prisoner was not there at the time—I made out a report and gave it to Burgess—I made an affidavit to the effect that a fire had occurred; I put in no claim to the insurance company—I was paid. £15 a month for ten and a half months—I heard talk of getting a cargo at Liverpool, but it did not come—the prisoner lived on the boat for several days while I was
there I saw no signs of extravagance; there was champagne; I never saw him have any—it was a beautiful vessel when new, no doubt—a mug might spend £20,000 on the ship—no doubt a large sum of money was spent on it—I saw no balls going on—I did not hear the organ—the prisoner was seldom there; he was absent for four or five months, and then perhaps he would be there for several months—I very seldom saw him in the engine-room while I was there—alterations were made, but I knew nothing of them—I saw no card-playing.
ALEXANDER FERGUSON . I live at 26, Fentiman Road, Clapham, and am an engineer—on 7th August, last year, I joined the Palais Royale—Johnson was captain after Small left—I remained in the ship at Liverpool up to 20th August—the prisoner and a lady and Mr. Verges, the prisoner's agent, came on board; but Mr. Verges did not go with us from Liverpool—we went in the vessel to Plymouth, where we stayed up to 17th November—the prisoner lived on board while we were at Plymouth—the ball-room was altered there—the prisoner was always superintending while he was there—on 17 th November we went to Cherbourg on our way back to London—we remained at Cherbourg about a week, and went to Havre, where the prisoner was taken into custody—the engines on the Palais Royale were old, but very good working engines, Alfred Holt's patent—they were about twenty-six years old—nothing was done to make them burn less fuel—repairs were done to them before I joined; but nothing was done except what we did our selves—we took no cargo on the voyage—I joined her as a yacht—a little steam launch, the Flyer, went with us.
Cross-examined. I left the Flyer at Havre—I knew the Kettledrum and the Cathlinda—I believe experiments were made on the Flyer—I never saw any—we remained in Cherbourg about a week—the prisoner was going to meet a friend, but I do not know that anyone came—then we went on to Havre; we might have gone to London—we could not go to Lisbon, as we were under coasting articles, and if we had gone beyond the coast we should have had the Board of Trade after us, and had no protection from the English Consul—I saw no sign of extravagance on the prisoner's part; he was a very plain-living man; in fact he lived more plainly than we did—there was a small leak in the boiler at the back of the furnace leading into the combustion chamber, and the prisoner said he did not intend to do much to the boilers as he intended to take the fronts out altogether when he got to Marseilles, but what was going to be done I don't know.
ALFRED EDWARD GREEN . I am manager of the Chelsea branch of the London and South-Western Bank in Sloane Street—the prisoner opened an account there in December, 1890—I produce a cortified copy of his account—on 1st April, 1892, he had a balance of £1,589, and from then to October, £18,700 was paid in from time to time—from time to time we transferred to Smith and Co., bankers, of Monte Carlo, £11,220 on behalf of the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I should say we remitted considerably more money to Monte Carlo than we received back—on November 9th, 1891, we re ceived from Monte Carlo. £11,000—in August, 1891, we had £2,000 from the Credit Lyonnaise, who have an agency at Nice—on October 21st, 1891, we have a credit cash £6,000; I could not say if that came from Monte Carlo—my general impression of the account was that we sent
more money to Monte Carlo than that which came back; I did not state it as my decided opinion; I will not contradict what I have said.
Re-examined. I know the prisoner's writing—I have looked through the writing in these two memorandum books; it is all the prisoner's, in my opinion.
WALTER DINNEY (Police Inspector). Last January I received twenty four warrants from Bow Street—On 15th January I went to Havre, where I found the prisoner in the custody of the French police; he was given up to me—I read the warrants to him on board the steamer—he said "I knew of the cases of fraud against me, but not of the larcenies"—£ brought him to Bow Street, where he was formally charged—he made no answer—the French police handed me a number of documents—the Palais Hoy ale was lying at Havre—one of the documents appears to be a memorandum book, containing certain names—I went over the yacht—I should say it was luxuriously furnished.
Cross-examined. I said at the Police-court that the prisoner said, "I knew of the charges of fraud against me, but not of the larcenies, as I was informed by the French authorities"—I made no note of what he said—no one knew of the warrants against him that I was aware of, except the French authorities.
Re-examined. I found in these books the names of Mr. Trench and Miss Phillimore, but not Mr. Blake.
CHARLES RICHARDS (Police Inspector). On 28th November I went to 154, Great Portland Street and examined the premises—there is a basement, ground-floor, and three floors above—on the ground floor, just inside the door, was a cannon; there was a very old traction engine nicely painted, two models of engines, iron pipes and boilers—in the basement were three old boilers and a hot-air engine, a smaller boiler, and an old boiler with a gauge—I could not find any electrical depart ment—on the first floor was a clerk's office and a kind of private office, in which were some books; there was a letter book, from which leaves had apparently been torn out—I could not find any business books—the second and third floors were fitted up as living rooms; there were two bedrooms, a sitting-room, and dining-room—there was no appearance of a chemical laboratory, or a testing department—I found on the first floor, ready to be sent out, some letters similar to those that have been read, and some forms of agreement, some stamped and some not—I found writing-paper with a printed heading, "C. Hill Wells, C. E., naval architect," and some envelopes with "C. Wells, C. E.," printed; envelopes with "Novelty Company, Great Titchfield Street," printed; and also envelopes addressed to "Harvess Security, Piccadilly, at the office of Willing "; and envelopes addressed to Wells, at the Casino, Monte Carlo"; also some Casino admission tickets, and writing-paper with "Wells, Phillimore," and "Wells, Phillimore, and Trench and Co.," printed on the top.
Cross-examined. The shop was full of engines, wheels, cranks, pumps, gauges, and so forth—there was a yacht engine with gun metal fittings, and a donkey pump, a Patterson's dynamo with gun metal fittings, a high-speed steam-engine pressure pump, a small half horse power steam-engine, a drilling machine, and other things—in the private office was a steam-gauge, and two small models, and the model of a launch—I do not know a steam-gauge when I see it, but I
took the names from the catalogue—in the office there were about 100 books—the things were all seized under an execution and sold—the traction engine fetched £20—I have not the least idea what was the total amount realised.
Witnesses for the Defence.
HERMAN ESHAM . I live at 25, Southampton Street, Fitzroy Square—I am a mechanical engineer—I was five years employed in engineering business in Bolsover Street—the name of the firm was Knoekongner—I met the prisoner there—he had done engineering work for Knoekongner over and over again—I first met him at the beginning of 1887, I believe—I did engineering work for him, for machinery; my governor called it patent machinery; I cannot tell you nearer than that—I made parts of machinery there—there were other workmen at the same time, doing other work—in the time I was employed there, last year, I did perhaps three or four works—that I did for Mr. Wells in the shop; they were bearings and shaftings and cranks—at the end of 1887 I met Wells in the street, and he asked me if I should like to start for myself—I asked, "Under what conditions?"—he said he would make arrangements, You can have three months' start," and if I suited him for doing his work he would keep on giving me more work—so we made arrange ments and I started for myself the next Saturday—he asked me what pay I got in the other place—I told him two guineas for 51/2 hours—but I could not do it for the same money—so he said, "I will give you fifty-two shillings for the time, amounting to 14d. an hour"—I have been an engineer since I was fourteen years of age; I am now thirty-six—I worked for Wells at 142, Great Titchfield Street—I remained in his employment up to November last year—I used to make all sorts of models—he always gave me plans to make his models—as far as I know he used to draw the plans himself—I was not constantly employed in making models, because I had my own work to do for customers, but the most work I did for him—I could not tell how many models I made in the course of the three years—I am referring to a book I keep little accounts in, beginning at the end of 1887, when I started business for myself—I made models during 1888 and 1889—I cannot tell you what models—I can tell pretty well all I did, but not at what time—I made machinery which was to use less steam; I believe that was after 1890, but I could not mention any date—(looking at a drawing) I made that machine, Mr. Wells made the drawing for it—it was a steam engine; this is not complete, there were two more cylinders on the top—the machine was not ready for work, I never saw it at work—as much as I know, it was for saving steam—he explained it to me—it was all complete, but I never saw it used—I do not know the machine that was made for Miss Phillimore—I made the machine before I saw Miss Phillimore—she came to 154, Great Portland Street, and asked for Mr. Wells, and went away again; he was not there—according to Mr. Wells's explanation, the invention must be valuable; it must work, it cannot do otherwise—I have never seen it since—I never heard of a machine like it since—I did not tell anybody how it was made except my workmen in the shop, who saw it—it was a lot of trouble to do this work—I had to polish everything perfect—I had many drawings from the prisoner for another machine; I had, perhaps, six, eight, or twelve; that was a small machine; I
made electric signals for railways, and electric lamps, and are lamps; that is a light with two carbons—I made those from Mr. Wells's drawings—I have not got them; they were left at 145—this paper (produced) has no reference to it—this is for a hot air engine, not an arc light, a different thing; the original was a circular movement—I made a steam engine for the steamship Isabella, but not complete, it was only one side; there was a double engine to make alterations in—that had the fuel consumption apparatus—the object of the invention was the saving of coals; if you do not want so much steam you save the coals—I never saw the model at work, but I did in a model made for the same purpose in the Isabella; that was the engine that I altered at Mr. Wells's drawings; I saw that at work—I made more than one machine for the purpose of saving the consumption of coal; four or five as far as I remember just now—there was a difference between them—I have some models here—they were afterwards cast in gun-metal or iron—the cost of that would be something from £30 to £50; that would not include the wooden model—I only made one model in connection with this steam-engine—it is difficult for me to say when that was—I never kept an account of things I made—I saw that machine at work in Great Titchfield Street—it was made of iron and gun-metal—it went very well—I did not see an engine in use made after that model—I never heard of anybody who did—I saw an engine on the Isabella—I altered it; it was for saving steam; not on this principle, on another; I have not got it here—I have no more models here; I have a cartload at home from the prisoner's designs—I have never seen any of the machines at work that were made from these models, except what I did for the Isabella; no other one—I was on board the Isabella—in my opinion it worked properly—I saw it at work about three or four hours—it was on Saturday afternoon; the Isabella was in motion, she went up and down the river, from Woolwich way—you could only tell whether any fuel was saved by the use of the coals—I do not know how much coal was consumed—I don't remember whether I saw the Isabella working before the new engines were put on her—I put a steam-engine on board the Flyer for the purpose of saving steam—I made that engine from Mr. Wells's models, it was a complete new engine—I do not remember it; I was not on board when Mr. Trench was—I saw it working from the embankment; as much as I saw it seemed to be all right, it went along the river—I don't know how much coal the Flyer would use—in my opinion this is a feasible invention for saving coal—I think it is to be carried into effect—I know that for a patent a specification is provisionally required; I don't know about making it complete; it is a patent already; if you don't like to lose it you must keep it up and make it complete—I think I can explain the matter scientifically—on the Flyer there was a steam-engine, and another one, a new invention which I put in it, and the steam went to a cylinder, and the cylinder was filled with chemicals which made the steam expand much quicker—I do not know what the chemicals were—Mr. Wells used not to be constantly working at Great Titchfield Street—when he was in town he was always busy, always at work, before anything arose about Monte Carlo—he came at all times of the night, he would sometimes fetch me out of bed if he wanted something done all at once; he would make a little sketch, and I did it there and then—I should describe him as a hard-working man, and nobody could
do otherwise—the work went on till he went to Monte Carlo; he was in and out all over the shop—there was a workshop and all the appliances—work used to go on every day all the time I was there; that I swear—when people came asking for Mr. Wells I let them in; if he was not there I did not—I did not know what expense he was put to in making these models—my wages and material would amount to about from £7 to £10—I don't know what he paid for the Isabella, the Flyer, or the Ituna—he was obliged to get steamboats—sometimes I had workmen with me on the premises, usually two men and a boy; one of them is here—I know of some of Mr. Wells's inventions, I made some of the models—a model is not handed in at the Patent Office when a preliminary certificate is applied for—Mr. Wells would describe the patent, and the agent would put it in complete—I did not make the navigable balloon; I made the musical skipping rope; I have not one here—I made the hot air engines—I saw Mr. Wells after his return from Monte Carlo—he did not do much work in London then—in my opinion he was carrying on a business, as far as I was concerned; he did some work.
Cross-examined. I was on very friendly terms with him—I was at Great Titchfield Street and Great Portland Street—my workmen used also to be there; not Verges, I know him, he came now and then; he is a shipbroker; I did not know him very well—I used not to go about with him—I don't know if he is here; I saw him in the Court at Bow Street nearly every time—I remember the case of Harris and Wells being tried—I did not know of the verdict going against Wells at the time; I knew of it afterwards, he told me—I indirectly tried to find out when the warrant would be out against him—at the time the case of Harris and Wells was on I went home one dinner-time and a German named Rebatting came up to me and said they were trying to get a war rant out for Mr. Wells, and he should like to see him—Wells had not left the country at that time—I was not paying money to get informa tion as to whether a warrant was out against him—I did not pay £5; Verges did, not in my presence—I did not pay him £5 myself, I only exchanged a cheque; I got it from Rebatting—I handed him £5; I got it from my own bank—I do not know when the verdict was given in Harris and Wells; I think it was in November—I know now that Wells went straight on board the Palais Royale and left—I did not know it then—this letter (produced) is mine—I was writing to Wells after he went away—I did not know that there was a warrant against him; I knew there was likely to be one—I did not make enquiry where there was no extradition treaty in existence—I did not, that I remember, write to Wells informing him that he could not be arrested in Portugal—I remember the police coming to see me about this matter in January—I declined to make any statement—I did not say that I had done scarcely any work for Wells, as I had been working for various firms—I said that lately Wells was very little at Great Portland Street, as he was generally on the Continent for the last eighteen months or two years—I did not know that he was advertising in the papers, I heard of it from other people; but I did not know it, and never saw it—people came and asked for him; I did not know that they came about the advertisements, they never said so—if Wells was not there, they would see me or my apprentice; there was no clerk there—I don't know of any
books kept there—I have seen a good many letters sent out; I cannot tell how many—I have seen the paper upon which they were written—I saw the description of the business—in the basement, the electrical department, things were supposed to be made—I had notice from the place where I had my shop, and I asked Wells to let me have the base ment—I made some electrical machinery there—I was not responsible for the department—I had workmen with me—he told me not to let anybody in to the ground floor machinery—there was no one in the first floor general office—at one time he had a man who was a draughtsman and at the same time writing letters—not the man that used to write out the agreements, some other man—in the chemical laboratory, on the second floor, there were chemicals, bottles, and apparatus—the second floor was afterwards used as living rooms, also the rooms on the third floor—I think I was present when I saw one gentleman there who saw the model at work—I have no idea of the number of persons who parted with money in connection with this invention—I used to witness some of the agreements—I think something like fifteen—I do not know that the agreements were prepared by Vaughan—at the time I was at work for Wells I was living at 142, Great Titchfield Street—when I left there I went to 25, Southampton Street; that would be in September, 1891, when I got the notice, and I have been there since—I made the whole of this work myself.
OLIVER HOLLINGSWORTH . I live at 3, Clifton Street West—I am an engineer—I am not apprenticed to anybody; Mr. Esham engaged me—I used to work at Mr. Wells's place, 132, Titchfield Street—I commenced about 1889, and continued working there between eighteen months and two yeans—I assisted at the lathe, and generally assisted in the work shop—I went there the first three weeks for nothing—I thought it was a good opportunity of getting experience, and it was—several engines were made—when I first went there he was working at the Isabella, and shortly after I went down to Charlton Pier and placed a new engine in her—I think the engine had been repaired; it was begun before I went to Mr. Esham—I think I made a compound engine of it—I was there when the engine was tried at Woolwich, according to what I heard—I saw it at work on Saturday afternoon—she was there for about four hours in the water—Mr. Esham was there, Mr. Wells, and Charles Reed—I think he is dead; he was there as driver of the engine—at that time I knew nothing about engines, only what I had read in engineering books; nothing about patents—this model (produced) was made while I was there—I could not say for certain how long it took in making; three or four months, perhaps—there were four other men engaged while I was there; I don't think they worked on this, they did general work in the place, engineering work—all the while I was there work was going on, sometimes till eleven and twelve at night;—Mr. Wells was always about the place; he might not stay there an the time, he was there the greater part of the day—he used to be at work on the drawings and ex perimenting, I think—I was working at small engines for ventilating fans from Mr. Wells's drawings—it was worked by steam—about six models were turned out.
Cross-examined. I did not work there for the last two years—I am at present out of work—I have seen Verges once or twice—I was not at Bow Street; I was at work then—I have not seen Verges here this
morning—he was here on Saturday—I do not remember being at Great Portland Street when people called; I never answered the door—I left shortly after Mr. "Wells came there—I think I was there once when there was an artist drawing—I never saw the yacht Palais Royale.
GEORGE LANGFORD . I am a tailor, and the landlord of 142, Great Titchfield Street—Esham was my tenant there—I have often seen the prisoner there—he came on business with drawings in his hand, perhaps a dozen times a day, from 1887 up to 1891—Esham was on the premises when I bought the house—"Wells came frequently at all hours, early in the morning and late at night—I have heard him come to give orders for work, in the morning, I suppose.
Cross-examined. I have heard people come and ask to see the models.
WALTER MINN . I am an electrical engineer, of 20, "Wyvenhoe Road, Peckham—I met the prisoner two or three years ago at Erith—I was with his agent, and I went on board the Isabella, and about October last I went to Liverpool and Plymouth to do some electrical work on board the Palais Royale—I am not an engineer, but I have taken the Isabella up and down the river to Gravesend several times, and the con sumption of fuel was very slight—the boat was about 50 ft. long—I have seen the engines; I cannot say if they had any special apparatus—the prisoner was not on board; my brother and the engive-driver were with me—we used from three to four cwt. of coal going down to Gravesend and back—I have had several other boats under my control, some belonging to me, and some to friends, and the consumption of fuel was sometimes three times as much and twice as much—I cannot say if the consumption of the fuel depends on the con struction of the engines—the Ituna, another of the prisoner's boats which I took down to Gravesend, was 26 ft. long, and consumed three times as much fuel as the Isabella—I have been on the Kettledrum, but not when it was under steam.
Cross-examined. I know very little about ordinary steam-engines—the prisoner's agent was Mr. Verges; I saw him this morning—the Palais Royale was magnificently fitted up; very large sums had been spent on it—I saw the engines on board; I cannot say what make they were, but they were in very splendid condition—I don't know what became of the Isabella.
RICHARD MICHEAN . I am an engine-driver—I ran the Isabella for about two months—her engines were very peculiarly constructed; I had never worked the same before—there was a considerable difference in the fuel she burnt—I went five or six times up and down the river testing the consumption—the prisoner was not on board—Mr. Verges was, and others were there.
Cross-examined. I don't know the prisoner; he was never on board—different gentlemen came on the boat, and were taken up and down the river—I saw the Palais Royale—I did not see her engines only the cylinder covers—I was in the prisoner's employment for eleven months in April, 1892, until last month—I did not always see the prisoner, nor know where he was—Mr. Verges paid my wages—I do not Know where the Isabella is, and I last saw her in June.
him from designs or sketches he has given me—one was for the purification of the residue of olive oil; it was not patented—I have known him for twenty-five years, but have not been with him for the last ten years—I knew him when he was an engineer in Marseilles on his own account and for other people—he worked for the Compagnie Freycinet and the Compagnie Messageries Maritime—he invented a marine engine regulator, which he patented and sold to the Compagnie Freycinet for 5,000 francs—he had been at work in Russia for Count Vraniski, who had sugar factories—the prisoner worked at Marseilles for fifteen years; he left there in 1879 at the time of the exhibition—at Nice he invented a machine for the purification of oils, and he was also engineer to a lead mine company in Spain at a salary of 1,000 francs per month for about one year and a half—I had nothing to do with fitting the Palais Royale at Marseilles; I do not know the ship.
Cross-examined. I last saw Wells two years ago at Marseilles—he was there alone and with no yacht—it was four or five years before that since I had seen him—he was in Paris in 1885—his name was Wells there; I never knew him by any other name—he occupied himself with inventions and machines there—he went to and fro between Paris and England—my sister, the prisoner's wife, asked me to come here to-day—I have done no business with him for about fifteen years.
GUILTY .— Eight years' Penal Servitude.
(For the case of Leon Block and others, tried New Court, Monday and Tuesday, March 13th and 14th, see Surrey Cases.)
NEW COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, March 15th and 16th, 1893.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and BUTLER Prosecuted, and MR. GEOQHZOAV
THOMAS. SALTER . I am a clerk at the central office of the Royal Courts of Justice—I produce the petition and the particulars delivered in the Stepney election petition, and the amended petition, under the order of the High Court—the petitioners are Mr. Rushmere and Mr. Stead man.
JAMES JOHN GLIDDON . I am a shorthand writer, in the employ of Messrs. Gurney and Co., the shorthand writers appointed under the Act to attend all election petitions—I attended the Stepney election petition, commencing December 15th—I was sworn to take true and correct notes of the evidence—the trial lasted five days, before Mr. Justice Cave and Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams—I took verbatim notes of the defendant's evidence in chief cross-examination—there was no re-examination—I produce my notes and a transcript of them, which is correct—Simons said, "When they got near the People's Palace Bloomfield said 'Well, I will me down here'; Green said, i Oh, no, you might come with me and do me a favour. 'He said, 'No, I cannot, I am going on a journey'; with that he gave him half a sovereign. "Q. What did Bloomfield do then? A. He hardly liked to take it; still he did take it, and went to the polling-station
station in White Horse Road or Arbour Square. Q. Did you see him going to the polling-station? A. Yes. Q. Did you hear anything else; tell us all you can remember of the conversation between Green and Bloomfield, what was said about it? A. He said, "I do not care about it." Green said, "Do take it, you will do me a favour, you will be open ing the ball," and then he took the half-sovereign, and said, "I suppose I shall oblige you"; then Hyams said he waited till a friend came out of the Railway-station, and Green said, "I have waited long enough for you, at last I have trapped you; get on, I expected you would be a little late"—Hyams got on the trap, I handed the reins to Green, and Hyams said, "It is all very well, am I going on now?" "Oh," he says, "you are all right," and with that he goes to his pocket and gave him two half-crowns—he says, "I am not going for that"—he says," Here is another one"—he said, "I will not be hard upon you, I suppose you must make a list on this job?" Q. Did Hyams go to the polling-station? A. Yes, and picked up another voter. I saw a sum of money pass with Isaacs. "Then on sheet 7 he said "He waited on a man called Isaacs, a tailor and cutter." Q. Did you mention Isaac's business? A. Yes. In cross-examination he said, "I saw these two. acts of bribery, and another one. Q. What was the other one? A. There were three acts of bribery which I can bring home. Q. Three acts of bribery committed before you? A. Yes. Q. In broad daylight? A. Yes, I believe they are called bribery, I saw money given; he answers to the name of Cohen"—Then as to Hyams he said "Hyams had three half-crowns." Q. Altogether? A. Altogether, one after the other, like that—first he had two and then one put in after wards; it was done openly. Q. A half-crown is not a small coin? A. I know what the size of a half-crown, is—he said, "lam not going to do it for five shillings, and he gave him another half-crown. Q. He gave him three? A. Yes, he would not give him a fourth—he said, "I should like a fourth," and he want to the poll. Mr. Green went with him to the poll; he objected, he said; "I will just put you down" he said, "I don't want to be disappointed, as you are the first man I called on; here is half-a-sovereign for you"—he gave half-a-sovereign; he gave it in gold.
Cross-examined. I also have on page 30—" Q. What did Green do then? A. Green went to a manufacturer's shop in Buxton Street, Brick Lane, &c, reading down to the words 'Cecil Street"—I should I very sorry to say whether the prisoner was sworn on the Old or the New Testament, as a Hebrew or as a Christian.
SOLOMON ABRAHAM GREEN . I am a provision dealer and founder of the Jewish Home of which Isaac Bloomfield is secretary—it is a home for the purpose of taking Jews out of Christian workhouses—I was interested in the Stepney election last year, on the side of Mr. Isaacson—I was not., an agent or a member of a committee—I was a volunteer—I assisted in taking people to the poll—I drove for them and went to their addresses—I started between 7 and 8 a.m., and went direct from my house to fetch Isaac Bloomfield, in a small wagonette with a pony, to 68, Grove Road, Mile End—on my journey down I was accosted on Grove Bridge by Solomon Hyams, he asked me to take a drink—I got to Bloomfield's about 8, and saw him in his front parlour—we were together some time—he was writing letters, then he went into the back parlour to have his breakfast—I waited for him, and we went out together and got into the trap, and I drove him to Trafalgar Square polling-station—I waited outside
and he went in—I never gave him any money at all, and never offered him any, nor did I have any conversation with him about money—the prisoner was not present at any time when there was a conversation about money—I met Mark Hyams promiscuously on the polling day at East Aldgate Station, and drove him to the poll at Dempsey Street Schools—he polled there—it is not true that I gave him any sum of money; I could not afford to give him two half-crowns, and I never received any money to give him—I did not give Barnett Isaacs any money, nor any other Isaacs, never a coin passed from me that day or any day in connection with the election—I took him to the poll—he lives at 5 or 6, Leslie Street, and I took him to Dempsey Street Schools—he called on me in the morning and asked me to fetch him—he is manager to Isaac Cohen and Co., retail clothiers—I called there for him—I gave him no money—I know an Isaacs, a tailor's cutter, but he is in Colorado—I gave no man named Isaacs any money on the polling day—I had no money to give them, and I am not in a position to pay it out of my own pocket—there is a Cecil Street in Mile End; that is where Isaacs lives—I took Mark Hyams to the poll at 7 p.m.
Cross-examined. It was not my own trap, it was lent to me—I did not pay any hire for it—I canvassed quietly a great many people, and Lady Beaumont called upon me—I acted simply as a volunteer, as I have for many other friends who I take a liking to—I know Buxton Street, Mile End Old Town—I did not call there on the polling day, it is entirely out of our district—I have not been there for months—I do not know any Barnett Isaacs living there—I know a great many Isaacs—I do not know where they are all employed—I know Barnett Isaacs and Louis Isaacs—I know Barnett Isaacs who lives in Cecil Street—he went to the poll—there is a Michael Isaacs in Cecil Streets—Louis Isaacs died in Colorado, but Barnett Isaacs who I drove to the poll is now outside—I won't be sure whether it is Cecil Street or Leslie Street—there is no Barnett Isaacs in Cecil Street—I did not receive a farthing from Mr. Isaacson, and I had no money in my pocket to throw away—I did not pay for the horse's provender, he had a nose-bag; my own refreshments came out of my private pocket—none of the people who drove about with me had any drink—I first saw the prisoner on July 7th—I was standing outside my shop about 6. 10. a.m., and he called on me; he being in the neighbourhood, I saw him every day, and being in difficulties I got him £10—he might have seen the election bills outside my door—he asked me if I could put him on a job at the election—I said, "I have no power, go and do your work for there is nothing hanging to it"—he asked me what Angel was doing—I said, "I don't know"—I got Simons, £10—he was not with me the whole morning, but leaving out from 1 to 3. 30, he was with me the whole time—I saw him at 6. 20, and went to get some coffee, and I came back at 7. 20, and he got into my trap and said, "I may as well have a ride," and he was with me till 1 p.m.; he then left me, and I saw him again at 3. 30, and he drove with me till 8—when the poll closed he rejoined me—I was requested to fetch two old men out of Burdett Road, and he was to meet me in Dempsey Street again—I gave Hyams a ride in my trap up to the poll—he was the only person on the opposite side who I gave a ride to—he told me a few days previous to the election that he was going to vote for the other side, as the Cigar-makers' Society were all going to vote for the other side—I had no list of voters given to me,
because I am so well acquainted with the neighbourhood, I know every voter there—I asked my friends and neighbours to vote for Mr. Isaacson, I knew they would oblige me—I mean that prior to the election I occu pied myself in canvassing, and on the day of the election I went about taking them to the poll—Mr. Harris was in charge of one of Mr. Isaac son's committee rooms—he did not give me a piece of paper that day—I do not know whether a man named Rich was on the register—I inquired whether he was or was not; I only canvassed a few days before the election, not so much as ten days.
Re-examined. From the time the dissolution was announced I began to canvass—I had known Simons some time before the polling-day, and just before the polling-day he said he was in distressed circumstances and I got him £5 from some one in the Old Bailey, and £5 from a society—he is a very poor man and in a state of starvation, or he would not have done this.
ISAAC BLOOMFIELD . I am clerk and secretary to the Jewish Home, and live at 58, Grove Road, Bow—Mr. Green called on me about 8. 30 a.m. on the polling-day and remained with me about a quarter of an hour—we then got into a trap together and drove to the polling station in Trafalgar Square where I voted—he then took me a little distance in the trap and then I got out and walked to my business—it is utterly false that he gave me a half sovereign or any other sum either that day or any other day.
Cross-examined. I was writing letters when he came, and then I had breakfast and we went out together—I know Cohen—I have seen him three times since the polling day—I met him shortly before the hearing of the petition, at Coborn Road Railway station and had a conversation about the Stepney election petition—he said that there was a lot of money going about, spent by Isaacson's agents, and he mentioned Mr. Green parti cularly—I said "I do not believe it"—he did not mention the names of the persons to whom it had been paid, but he suggested that I had received money; he said that there was a petition, but he did not say "They are trying to unseat Isaacson, but will fail if the Jews hold their tongues," nor did I say "I shall deny having received half a sovereign for my vote"—I had taken no part in the election—I had not canvassed anybody—I had asked Mr. Green to come and fetch me early as I was going to my place of business at Battersea, which is five or six miles away—I met Cohen a second time two days afterwards at Coborn Road station—I had not told anyone what he had said to me—he did not know my politics, I had never seen him before in my life—I did not say then, "You think yourself very clever in pumping me," that was on the third occasion—a week afterwards he was congratulating me ironically about what he had got out of me—I said, "You laid a very neat trap, but I could not fall into it because it does not fit me"—he was set on me to elicit some observa tions of mine to prove in some way that I had received a bribe—on the second occasion he said that Simons told him I had received ten shillings from Mr. Green—I replied, "He is a d——d liar"—I had previously said to Cohen that any man who accepted a bribe for his vote was a scoundrel and deserved to be kicked—I knew that every person who accepts bribes is liable to punishment—I did not say on the second occasion, "It would be worth £50 to be clear of this, all this for a paltry half a sovereign; but the matter shall not drop, you shall hear more of it;" on the contrary I said that £1,000 would not buy me—I went to the
Treasury of my own accord to vindicate my character—Mr. Green took no steps till I went to the Treasury, nor did Mr. Hyams—between the conversation in Coborn Road and my going to the Treasury I saw Mr. Green and asked him if he knew a man named Cohen—he said he did not—I wrote repeatedly to Mr. Isaacs solicitor, and when I found there was little chance of their doing anything I wrote to the Treasury a fortnight after the petition was over—I waited till the case was tried at the Royal Courts of Justice—I swore my information a very short time ago—Mr. Green owes me money—during the whole time when I came out of my house and went to the trap Simons was there—he drove with me to the polling station—Green drove me back—we stopped nowhere till he set me down—I do no recollect seeing Green with a pen and paper in his hand.
Re-examined. I did not know Cohen before—I heard somebody calling my name and said, "You have the advantage of me," and then I re cognised him, and he at once commenced about the Stepney election petition—my next meeting with him was at the railway station—I use that station to get to Battersea, not daily but as a rule—he was on the platform before me on the second occasion, and on the third occasion he was in the street, and having in the interval been subpoened to attend I partly knew what his business was. By the Court. I got my subpoena between the second and third interviews, and while I was speaking to him I was tapped on the shoulder and served with a subpoena on the other side, he was there to point me out—on the previous occasion he followed me wherever I went—January 21 was the date of my letter to the Treasury, having been in the meantime in communication with Mr. Isaacson's solicitor. (In this letter the witness stated that Simons had charged him with receiving ten shillings for his vote, which was absolutely false, and asking them to prosecute him for perjury.)—I received an answer asking me to call at the Treasury on the 28th at noon—I did so and my statement was taken down by a clerk—after that I received another notice from the Treasury with Mr. Green and from there we went to Bow Street.
MARK HYAMS . I am a cigar maker, of 13, Cecil Street, Mile End Road, and am a voter on the list for the Stepney division—I met Mr. Green on the polling day, between 7. 15 and 7. 20 p.m., outside Aldgate East railway station—he drove me to the polling station at the Board Schools, Dempsey Road, which is a little over a mile—it is not true that he gave me two half-crowns and then put in another afterwards, or any money—it is not true that I said, "Come, come, I am not going for five shillings," or that I stuck out for four and only got three—no money whatever was offered to me—I gave evidence on the petition denying that I had received any money.
Cross-examined. I was at work on the day of the election at Henry, Brothers', Battersea—that is not near Mr. Bloomfield's place—I came home and wanted to get a lift to the poll—I voted for Mr. Thompson—I had told Mr. Green I should do so some days before—I voted for my trade on principle—I heard it suggested the next day that I had received 7s. 6d.—a few people round said so, but I took no notice, I knew it was a falsehood—I did not mention it to Mr. Bloomfield; I did not see him—I sometimes go into the Earl Grey of an evening—I saw Mr. Green there—I did not speak to him about it being said that he gave me 7s. 6d.—I did not
feel indignant because I knew it was a falsehood—some stranger first asked me to give evidence against Simons—there was a general jabber—I saw Mr. Green from the election to the day of the petition, but never said a word to him.
Re-examined. I had a letter from the Treasury, it might be early in February—I did not go there, I sent a post card—I did not go there afterwards—I attended at the police court and made a statement on oath—I was called on the hearing of the election petition and gave evidence.
BARNET ISAACS . I am a clothiers' assistant, of 5, Leslie Street, Stepney, and a voter for the Stepney division of the Tower Hamlets—I voted at the election—I saw Mr. Green early in the morning and told him to call for me at 5 o'clock on Thursday, which he did, and drove me to the poll—the prisoner was in the same carriage, sitting at the back—Mr. Green gave me no money in connection with my vote—I was called as a wit ness at the election petition and gave the evidence I have given here to-day.
Cross-examined. I am manager to Mr. Isaac Cohen the clothier, I am not employed at a manufacturer's shop in Buxton Street, Brick lane, nor do I live in Cecil Street, nor am I a tailor's cutter.
Re-examined. I know of no Barnet Isaacs except myself—it is a fact that about 5 o'clock that afternoon I drove with Mr. Green, and the prisoner was sitting behind—no other Barnet Isaacs was in that trap.
JULIUS FRANKLYN . I live at 10, Milk Street, Spitalfields, and am fore man to Franklyn and Sanders, boot makers—on December 16th, after the prisoner had given his evidence, I was outside the office door, 60, White Lion Street, Lewis Lery was present, and Mr. Leon Franklyn, who was paying the prisoner, said, "You have lost your time;" Simons said, "Yes, I have been to give evidence, I do not mind that, I have been paid very well," and took a handful of gold out of his pocket and held it like this—Mr. Franklyn said, "How did you get that?" he said, "I got paid for speaking the truth." Mr. Franklyn said, "People do not get paid for speaking the truth, they get paid for telling lies;" I then locked up the premises and went into the Golden Harp, not very far off, and there saw Simons with some other people; he said, "I have got £10 for my day's work and I shall get £50 before the case is over"—Mr. Stall said, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself for receiving money to give evidence"—that is all I remember.
Cross-examined. I do not know Mr. Bloomfield personally—I have only known Mr. Green since this matter has been on—the prisoner is paid weekly—I had not seen or heard from Green or Bloomfield before 16th December'—I saw Green next day, Saturday—the prisoner was discharged from our firm on the 23rd I think—I am foreman of the lasters and finishers; I have no power to discharge anybody—Mr. Franklyn is my. great uncle—I never inquired why the prisoner was discharged, I do not know whether it was after Mr. Green called and saw my people—he called when the petition was over—I was standing outside the office and Lewis Levy was standing close to me—I said nothing to him, he is outside—we had no conversation about what the prisoner said—I met him after wards in the public house, but we had no conversation about this man's statement—I did not tell Levy I heard Simons say he had got £10 and expected to make £50, that was said to Mr. Leon Franklyn; he is a young man; he is not in delicate health—he is not here—he was not called at the Police-court.
Re-examined. There are two doors, Levy was at one and I was at the other—I saw Green on the Saturday evening afterwards and made a statement to him, and went to the Treasury and my statement was taken down.
LEWIS LEVY . I am a boot clicker to Franklyn and Co., White Lion Street. On the evening of 16th December, I went into the office and Simons was there—Mr. Franklyn said to him, "You have lost a day's work and I must charge you for it"—he said, "I don't mind, I have earned more that day than I shall earn in a week," and he put his hand in his pocket, pulled out some money, and said, "This is what I got for my day's work"—I afterwards went to the Golden Harp and saw Simons there—I asked him whether he had really got £10 that day—he said, "You would wish yourself to earn a month what I got more. "
Cross-examined. Before I went into the public-house, Mr. Julius Franklyn told me that he saw £10 in the prisoner's hand in gold—that was how I knew he had been showing £10—the prisoner was gasping a good deal—that was in the office before I locked up the place; he is a Jew.
HYAM ISAACS . I am the father of Lewis Isaacs who went to Colorado and died there—I live at 19, Mesler Street, Mile End—on the night before the prisoner gave evidence before the Judge, I was at the Golden Harp, Spitalfields, and saw him there—I said, "How did you get on at the election"—he said, "Oh, I got on all right," and he put his hand in his pocket and showed me some sovereigns and said, "That is what I have got. "
ARTHUR HARE (Police-inspector). On 13th February, I took the prisoner on a warrant at 273, Commercial Buildings—I said, "I have a warrant for your arrest for perjury at the Stepney election petition"—I read it to him—he said, "perjury! I told God's truth, and never committed per jury; this is that Mr. Green's doing"—on the way to the station he said, "Green and the others have got this up for me, they are two and I am only one, what can I do to prove I am innocent"?—when he was charged at Bow Street, he said, "lam innocent, I have not committed perjury. "
ALFRED BOWAN (Police-sergeant). I was with Hare when the prisoner was arrested—I searched him at Bow Street and found these four docu ments upon him, two subpoenas and two accounts. (One of these accounts was"1. 12. 92 visit to Mr. Pearce—3. 12. 92 assisted Mr. Cohen, 2 hours—6. 12. 92 assisted Cohen re Hughes, etc., 10s. 6d. a visit, 3 visits—received £6 15s., leaving a balance, cash on acct., £1 15s., cash due, £2 8s."—Mr. Pearce was solicitor to the petitioner, he told me so when I served him—he is now instructing Counsel for the defence.
MR. GEOGHEGAN submitted that the identity of Isaacs was not proved—SECONDLY, the Indictment alleged that the prisoner was sworn on the Gospels which was an oath not binding on the conscience of a Jew. Also it had been decided by Barons Channell and Pollock in the Shrewsbury and Salisbury election petitions that it was material that the person committing the perjury should be the agent of the person for or against whom the petition was lodged, which had not been proved in this case.—MR. MATHEWS contended that there was evidence of Isaacs' identity to go to the Jury: that as to the oath the whole question was whether the prisoner was duly sworn, and if he did not object at the time the oath was administered he was duly sworn, and that as to the agency, he submitted, that was fully proved. THE COURT left the question of identity to the Jury, and as to the oath held that it was binding on the prisoner
under 1 and 2 Vic., c. 105, it being hit duty to have objected at the time he was sworn, and that as to the agency it was proved that Green was acting on behalf of the candidate on the day of the election.
Witnesses for the Defence.
JOHN ROBERT OVERY . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Bayliss and Pearce, of 1, Church Court, Old Jewry, solicitors for the defence—they were acting for the petitioners in the Stepney election petition—Simons was employed by them—he came to them and offered to give evidence about 1st December—Mr. Pearce took his proof either that day or the 3rd—the total sum we have paid him is £10 2s.—there was no promise of £50—I have heard the items of the memoranda found upon him—Mr. Pearce had several lengthy interviews with him—there was four days attendance about the Court, 10s. with his subpoena, and £9 12s. for expenses and loss of time.
Cross-examined. I do not think he told me that he received 10s. 6d. a visit—I cannot tell you whether this is a true or false account, I can only say he was paid two guineas on December 3rd—he was never paid £1 15s. that I know of—there was 10s. on December 1st; £2 2s. on December 3rd; and on 16th December, after he had given his evidence, I paid him £7 10s.—my office cash book shows those payments—there was no promise of any kind—the first time he came was on 1st December—the books show that he was there on that day, and as far as I know, that was the first time he came—(The particulars were here produced, dated November 26.)—I account for particulars appearing on 26th November, in this way, his statement was furnished to us some days before I saw him—I did not settle the charges, nor did I draw them—I had not seen the witness, but several clerks were getting up evidence—I was present at the hearing—Cohen was not called as a witness—I knew him by his coming to the office.
Re-examined. I cannot swear whether I heard the question of agency discussed. My recollection is that we failed upon that, and that, I believe, was the reason why Cohen was not called—this is my office cash-book—I see on the payment side an item of £2 2s. to Simons, and on December 19th, "Stepney Election Petition payment to witnesses as per list"—the list is in my writing—it appears by this that I paid him £7 10s. and 10s. with his subpoena.
ROBERT PEARCE . I am one of the firm of Bayliss and Pearce, solicitors—I have heard the question put to my clerk, why Cohen was not called—he had been employed by us to get up evidence, and he was in attendance—he was not called, and I can. give you the reason for that; one of the Judges said something, and after that Mr. Robertson made an observa tion to me, and Cohen was not called.
ALFRED COHEN . I am a commission agent, of 81, St. Thomas Road., Victoria Park—I am agent for a life assurance company,—I was employed by Messrs. Bayliss and Pearce in obtaining evidence on the Stepney election petition, after the election was over—I had seen Simons several times before the 22nd November—I have known Mr. Bloomfield some years—I believe I first spoke to him about this case on 22nd November—I met him as he was leaving his house, 68, Grove Road—I spoke to him and we walked together to Coborn Road Railway-station—I said, "I did not know you were such a great politician, Mr. Bloomfield;" he said, "I never bother with such matters"—I said, "Did not you vote at the last election; did not Mr. Green fetch you, and did not he wait some time outside your
house for you?" he said, "Yes, he did"—I said, "There is plenty of money rolling about, I learnt that from the person who was with Mr. Green all day, he told me all about it, "I did not mention his name—he said, "Yes, undoubtedly, I suppose it was six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. "While we were waiting for the train, he said, "When a person aspires to such a position, I suppose he must pay for it, otherwise he can't get it"—When we got near the Bank, I said, "The person who was with Mr. Green told me that as you were getting near the People's Palace, Mr. Green gave you half-a-sovereign; "he nodded his head, and said, "Yes, it is quite right"—we shook hands and parted; that was all that took place—I saw him again two days later, November 24th, on the same platform; he spoke of various matters till he left the train at Bishopsgate, and as we were passing Worship Street I said, "I believe there is a petition coming off in Finsbury;" he said, "I know nothing of that, I know that they are trying to unseat Isaacson at Stepney"—I said, "Do you think they will succeed in doing so?" he said, "They will while people hold their tongues"—I again spoke to him about the person who gave me the information; he said, "You must be very careful"—I said, "The person with Mr. Green told me all about his experience that day;" he said, "You had better be careful, because it must leak out eventually if known to another person"—I said, "I am positive, I am certain he will not speak of the matter to anyone else, as he told me in strict confidence"—I believe he said, "No man would admit having received money, as it places him in a very awk ward position"—I had said, "Would you admit having received a half-sovereign for your vote?"—he said, "No, I shall deny it"—I think he said, "If the person says that I have, I shall call him a liar, and you may tell him so"—that was the second interview—the third interview was on the day he was served with his subpoena, I believe that was December 2nd at the same railway-station—I travel to and fro by that line sometimes—we had the conversation on the platform and in the carriage—on the platform he seemed terribly annoyed at having received the subpoena—he told me he had received it—I saw him served, a man named Murphy served him with it, and then went away—I remained on the platform till the train came in and then we travelled together; he then said, "I understand it all now and you will hear more of this matter, Cohen, I shall not let the matter drop"—he was very much excited and appeared to be speaking to himself, and then he said, "Is it right that you should hear from both sides?"—I said, "Do you mean subpoened?" he said, "Yes"—I believe I told him that he could draw expenses from both sides—he said, "It is a shame for a man in my position to be served so; it is worth. £50 to get clear of this"—and he mentioned half-a-sovereign—At the end of the day I wrote down what had taken place and handed the statement to Messrs. Bayliss and Pearce—these are my original notes of 24th November and 2nd December, which I forwarded to them—he said, "All this trouble is about a paltry half-sovereign, but the matter shall not drop here, you will hear more of this"—he also said he was a man of 30 years reputation in business and it was a shame for him to be brought into it—this paper (produced) is an impress of my writing—I wrote the notes and made this press copy of the notes of 22nd and 24th—I was at the Law Courts before the election Judges, but was not called as a witness.
Cross-examined. I was not subpoened, but I had a subpoena from the other side the last day or two—I was there eight days, and I attended
some three or four days without a subpoena—I was employed to get up evidence on behalf of the petitioners: that is a correct description—I was paid by the solicitors—I was employed in October I think—I had known Mr. Bloomfield many years before the 22nd, I had never spoken to him before, but he knew me from my early childhood—I had been in communication with the prisoner before I spoke to Mr. Bloomfield—I had been some six weeks employed by the solicitors to get up evidence for the petitioners—I knew on 22nd December that Mr. Bloomfield's name had been scheduled in the particulars, as receiving a bribe, and that there was a charge to be made against him on the hearing of the petition—I did not know that before I spoke to him—I cannot answer whether I knew on 22nd December that he was to be charged with having received a bribe—on the 22nd when I spoke to him you wish to know whether I was aware that that was one of the charges—well, as I took it at the time, if I could extract something from him, if I learnt something from him, that would make a charge—I met him outside his house, I was going to the station—I went down for the purpose of meeting him because I knew he left his house about 9 a.m.—I went in the hope of meeting him; I waited just a few minutes, two minutes; that was my first conversation with him, walking to the station, then on the platform, nothing was said about the election in the train—it took us four or five minutes to walk to the train from where I met him, and twenty or twenty-five minutes to get to the Bank of England—I say on my oath that during that twenty-five minutes he confessed to me that he had been guilty of receiving a bribe—he has known me all his life—I have known Simons six or eight months—I was with him a good deal in October while I was getting up evidence, also in November and in December down to the hearing of the petition—I am sure he said he would not speak to anyone, because he spoke to me in strict confidence—on 22nd November I sent to Mr. Pearce a full report of my alleged conversation with Mr. Bloomfield that day—I do not think I knew on 24th November that the prisoner had given information to Mr. Pearce against Mr. Bloomfield, I don't think he had personally, and I do not know whether he had communicated with any of Mr. Pearce's firm, the particulars are dated in November, 1892—I do not know that this very serious charge is set out in them in detail—I cannot account for it, unless Simons had given the information.—Q. When he said that person would not speak about it as he had spoken to you in confidence, did you know that you had betrayed the confidence reposed in you; did you lie to him?—A. I don't know whether it is a question of lying—I scarcely know what to say—I am not aware that I was speaking falsely when I said that on the second occasion, on the 24th, I was going to the City and he called to me on the platform—I believe I was there for the purpose of seeing him and to get into conversation with him if I could and to get further admissions from him if he would tell me anything—I do not see how it was possible to improve his confession that he had received 10s., but I thought he might tell me something else—it made no difference to me which way I went to the station—I say that in the face of the Jury—I went there for the purpose of seeing him-r-on the second occasion I said, "Would you admit having received a half-sovereign?"—he said, "No, I shall deny it," and I put into his mouth, "If any person says I received one I shall call him a liar"—on the third occasion I happened to be on
the platform about the time Mr. Bloomfield was going—I knew he would be going, and after I had spoken to him, Murphy served him with a subpoena—Murphy knew from me what train I travelled by, I told him I saw Mr. Bloomfield occasionally—I did not arrange with him that I was to go and speak to a person—I did not know Murphy was going to the station that morning, but I knew he had to serve the subpoena—I say now that I did not know Murphy was going to the station; I did not swear a minute ago that I did—I swear that Bloomfield said, "It is worth £50 to me to get clear of it"—I did not tell him I had already sent in two reports against him and was going to send in a third—I talked as if I was friendly towards him and anxious to preserve his confidence, and he turned on me on the third occasion and said that I should hear more of it, and he would not let the matter drop; I made no reply.
Re-examined. I do not believe I have used the words "get up evidence," I meant arriving at the truth—I believe other persons were making in quiries on behalf of the petitioner besides me; Murphy was employed in that capacity—Bloomfield did not know that I was acting on the part of the petitioner, it was no part of my duty to tell him that or he would never tell me anything.
By the Court. I went to Bayliss and Pearce because they sent me a letter asking me to call and see them—I did not know them before—I think that was early in October—they knew of my existence because Mr. Samuel Montague, the member for Whitechapel, communicated with them—he sent me a letter telling me so—I have never acted for him in elections, only in registration work, and he always found me most reliable—there is one house between 68, Grove Road and Coborn Road station, it is almost next door, but there is a very long passage, not a sub-way—we travelled 3rd class, and it was very full—I then walked with him from Liverpool Street Station to the Bank of England—we first spoke in the long passage going to the platform, which is above a quarter of a mile long, but it was on the platform he said, "They are trying very hard to unseat Isaacson" and "I suppose a person must pay for it if he wants to get it"—nothing was said in the train—I then joined him again, and went to the Bank of England, and he said, "The person with Mr. Green tells me that as you were getting near the People's Palace he gave you half-a-sovereign"—I asked him whether he had a vote; he said, "Yes, I voted for Stepney Green"—I then wished him good morning and parted from him.
GUILTY .— Two Month' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, March 15, 1893, and two following days.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
351. WILLIAM KOSSMAN (18) was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, at this Court on 14th January last, on the trial of Joseph and Marie Kopelewitz, before the Common Serjeant. Second Count, for like perjury in an affidavit in the same matter.
MESSRS. BESLEY and CRISPE Prosecuted.
The prisoner being a foreigner, and only partially understanding English, an interpreter was sworn.
indictment against Joseph and Marie Kopelewitz, also a promissory note marked H and other documents used on the said trial. EDWARD KINGDOM SMITH, managing clerk to Mr. E. Clark, solicitor, of 21, Great St. Helens, produced the affidavit sworn by the prisoner, and CHARLES GEORGE TIMMS, clerk in the Record and Witt Office, produced two affidavits of J. and M. Kopelewitz in the same matter. PATRICK GALWAY SHAW, a solicitor and commissioner to administer oaths, produced two affidavits sworn before him on 2nd December, 1892, one by Kossman and the other by Kopelewitz, and FREDERICK LAMB, assistant shorthand writer to Messrs. Barnett and Buckler, produced the shorthand notes taken by him at the trial of Queen v. Joseph Kopelewitz and Marie Kopelewitz, and he read his notes of the evidence given by Kossman. This is given in substance at page, 364.
EDWARD ROSENBERG . I have been known as an interpreter for 28 years—I was sworn at the Kopelewitz trial to interpret—the prisoner speaks German—he understood what I said to him. I put to him the Counsel's questions, and he replied in German which I understood and translated.
EDWARD CLARK . I am a solicitor—I acted for Freedman—On 21st November I went to West Kensington Police-court about this matter—I received this letter from Freedman—I supervised the action brought for the purpose of getting an injunction—I only remember one affidavit being made by Kossman, and I cannot recollect more than one being used and bled by Kopelewitz—when the injunction was granted I instructed Mr. Crispe to go to the magistrate again, on 21st December.
ABRAHAM ISAAC FREEDMAN repeated in substance the evidence he had given at the trial of Kopelewitz (see page 355), and added: When I went into the public-house on my way home I was very bad indeed, I could hardly speak; I did not recover my voice till next morning—Kopelewitz gave me brandy-and-water without asking me; I drank it and said nothing—I cannot recollect who were in the bar or if there were a lot of people there—I should think that probably there was—Kopelewitz kept me close by the door—someone was serving behind the bar—I could not complain, I had no power of voice to do it—I don't recollect people going in and out of the public-house door; we did not stay more than about two minutes I suppose—Kopelewitz kept my arm walking there—it is not true that on 14th November or on any occasion the prisoner opened the door of 16, Nether wood Road to me; nor that I entered the house on 14th; nor that I went into the house with Mr. Kopelewitz on that day; nor that the prisoner at any time wrote anything in my presence; nor that the prisoner signed this paper in my presence—I did not in the prisoner's presence sign a promissory note or anything—it is not my signature to., this document—these two cheques bear my signature—it is not true that I stopped in the passage without my trousers; they were never off while I was in that house—I fell to the ground in the house—it is not true that I was well when I went away—(Kossman's and Kopelewitz's affidavits were read)—it is not true that I did not become unconscious during the interview at Netherwood Road, nor that my signature was obtained without any threats of any kind; nor that the prisoner was present when I put my name to some paper; nor that he put his name to this paper in my presence; nor that I was in my usual state of health when I left the house on that night.
By the Court This is my signature to this affidavit and to these two cheques—it was half a sheet of letter paper on which I scribbled—there was no stamp on it—I did not see anybody write upon it before I wrote—I cannot say how many lines of writing were on it; there looked about six or eight; it seemed to be all of a blur, thickly written—I did not ask what it was; I could not speak, I was too ill—no one could hear me when I hollaoed—Mrs. Kopelewitz had been to my house about twice—I only saw her once.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner (Through an interpreter). Kopelewitz gave me no paper to sign before he gave me this one; he did not give me a bluish paper to sign; I did not tear it up—Kopelewitz did not then go into the parlour and write out another paper and come back with it and give it to me to sign—it was raining just a little on the evening of the 15th, not much—I had no cape, only an umbrella—no one led me from Bishopsgate Station to the cabman, who was by the Eastern Hotel—I did not have Kopelewitz arrested for stealing my pin and money on my way to the station because I saw no one, and I was too ill to do anything—he took me into a public-house; there were people there—when I entered the railway carriage I did not shake hands with Kopelewitz and tell him not to forget what he had promised; I said nothing, I could not speak, I was too much upset—he said to me, "I will send you my address"—I made no answer—he was to send his address that I might know where he lived; I did not know the address—he said, "I will let you know my address, and then you will know where to write to me, because I want £5"—I stated that at the Police-court—I said nothing in answer to him—he sent me a post-card to the same effect—I did not say to him, when he said "I shall want £5 of you," "You shall not have £5 and you have robbed me of a pin and my money"; I made no accusation against him—on the way to Kensington I and Mrs. Kopelewitz did not enter a public-house in Hanbury Street, I am sure—I did not then leave her outside the public-house, go home and come back to her—Kopelewitz did not slap my face when he found me in bed with his wife—I did not have Kopelewitz arrested in the public-house in Broad Street because I gave it to my solicitor to do it—I never had my trousers off—I did not tell Kopelewitz "I have got everything except the key of my safe"—I asked Kopelewitz to walk back with me to the station because I was too ill to walk by myself—and I took a cab at Bishopsgate because I could not walk—I don't remember if there was a fender in the bedroom—I think it was an iron poker Kopelewitz had in his hand—I did not know you at all—I did not see you in Brick Lane before the Jewish holidays and ask you to give me Kopelewitz's address at Blyth Road—Kopelewitz's office-boy did not write down the address because you could not write proper English; I do not know the boy—there were no apples and nuts on the table, only the ale and a lamp—when Kopelewitiz struck me I attempted to hollao and I did it the best I could, but I was helpless—at the Police-court my beard was as it is now as nearly as possible.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I say the signature to the promissory note is not the same as that on the two cheques produced; that is my opinion—I think the "one" is squeezed in, and the other written in the
margin would not coincide with the rest of the document—I can give no opinion about the blot, because that was not there when I first saw the document, and it was there when I saw it in the other Court.
By the Court. The first part of the document was apparently all written at the same time—it reads, "I promise to pay Mr. Joseph Kopelewitz of 16, Netherwood Road, "15" without an £ the "£" is in a parenthesis, and there is a "0" after the "15" to make it "150"; the word "pounds" is written following the "£"—it is a stupid document written in that way—he has put the" £ "as well as" pounds"—I do not think the "0" looks as if it formed part of the "150"—there is nothing inconsistent in that with its having been written by the same person—part of the document is in lighter ink, as if the ink had been spent—that is also the case in the word "Kopelewitz"—a striking feature is that the two initials form a monogram—this paper (produced) I saw written in the Court by Freedman—the letters there are separate—there is the same peculiarity there—that certainly weakens my point; it absolutely destroys it; the striking peculiarity is gone—these test signatures were handed to me for the purpose of com parison—I have not seen this affidavit before signed by Freedman—it agrees with the test signatures, not altogether—it certainly is an entirely different signature—people do sometimes alter their signatures in their cheques—that explains the monogram and the separated initials—he spells his name "Freedman"—in one of the cheques the "e" looks more like an "a"—my opinion is not infallible—I never knew a man sign his name precisely in the same way on any two occasions—if I found one signature mathemati cally like another I should be inclined to say it was a forgery.
Cross-examined. Freedman told me in the morning what had happened to him—he was not wet when he came home—I was there when Mrs. Kopelewitz came to see him—after leaving with her he did not come back ten minutes afterwards, stop a couple of minutes at his house, and then go back again to her.
ISRAEL LEVIN repeated hit former evidence (page 361), and added: When Mr. and Mrs. Kopelewitz were before the magistrate I saw the prisoner in the passage of the Police-court; it was 31st December—I got into con versation with him about the promissory note—I asked him how it could be that Kopelewitz would lend him so much money when he was in a bad position, and he said, "Well, I don't know anything about money matters between Freedman and Kopelewitz"—I asked him, "There is your sig nature on the bill?"—he said, "I don't know about money matters between Freedman and Kopelewitz"—I asked how it was his signature was attached to it, and he said he did not know anything about it.
By the Court. The prisoner started to talk to me about the case—Freed-man had not spoken to me about the matter, nor had the lawyer, nor any body, but I told the lawyer afterwards—I wrote it down when Kopelewitz's case was going on here, not before.
GEORGE BAXTER PHILLIPS . I have been in practice as a surgeon since 1861, and I have been divisional surgeon to the police for about 30 years—about noon on 16th November Freedman called—he was suffering from a good deal of disturbance both of his stomach and nervous system—disturb ance of the nervous system often upsets the stomach and vice versa—his tongue was coated, which indicated disturbance of the stomach—I drew no definite conclusion, but his symptoms were consistent with a stupifying drug
having been given to him the night before—they were equally consistent with his having had a lot of brandy-and-water—as much water as a man could take would be good for heartburn—I saw him again some weeks afterwards and he was in very much the same condition, with a very dis turbed state of his digestion.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I never said he was drugged.
By the Jury. Whether a drug would act immediately would depend upon the drug; some drugs would act instantly, but there are not known to me many drugs of common use, or any, which would produce instant action to render him insensible, and I must state that I did not believe the modus operandi of the drug as described by Freedman, and therefore I wrote a letter to his solicitor.
Cross-examined. There was a small lamp in the room—I did not see you.
HARRY MORGAN (Inspector T.). I took possession of these papers from the prisoner when he was given into custody; I took him from this Court to Bridewell Place Police Station—he had no opportunity of going away—I found these papers on him.
By the Court. I handed the papers to Serjeant James—I was not before the Lord Mayor or Grand Jury.
HENRY GELD . I have made a careful, and, to the best of my ability, accurate translation of these papers, which are in Russian. (The transla tions were read. The first was a Utter dated 14:11:92, addressed"My dear parents" and stated that he could not start upon his journey home as he was a witness in a case Kopelewitz had brought against a very rich man who owed him £150, the rich man letting out machines on hire and Kopelewitz having earned that sum in two years. Kopelewitz arranged four bills for the man for the £150, and then the man asked Kopelewitz to prolong them for another month. Kopelewitz wrote out a new bill for the whole amount, and the writer signed it as a witness, and now the man refused pay ment. Another of the documents was headed Affidavit, 9th Jany., 1893, and stated that en 14th November he was at home the whole day at 16, Netherwood Road. Between six and seven, when they were at tea, Freedman came and asked for Kopelewitz. After conversation between Freedman and Mr. and Mrs. Kopelewitz the writer went into the parlour and saw Kopelewitz writing on white paper; two or three blue papers were lying near. When Kopelewitz had finished writing he, Freedman, and the writer signed it, and Mrs. Kopele witz made her mark, and Freedman left. Kopelewitz afterwards told the writer that Freedman had called to say that he could not meet the bills, but would pay £5 in a week and the remainder in three weeks, and he (Kopelewitz) had got the writer's signature to the document in case he did not pay. There was also another letter beginning "My dear parents," and asking for money, as he was without any, and stating that if the verdict went against Kopelewitz he would be unable to pay for his journey, but that if they sent him his fare he should not wait for the verdict, but should start at once; that he had been told he need not fear imprisonment, though Kopelewitz would be liable to a few months).
Cross-examined. I thought it was a body which was thrown down—I went down because I was frightened; it was not my business to interfere—
the next floor was empty—nobody slept in the ground floor rooms on the 14th; I bolted the door myself after ten o'clock on Monday night, and no one could get in the door unless it was unbolted; you came in the next morning—Mrs. Hood went out on Tuesday night, and she locked the door.
WILLIAM GRAHAM MONTAGUE . I am a house agent, of 31, Maclise Road, West Kensington—I had the letting of the first floor of 129, Blyth Road—Kopelewitz was the tenant, and he gave seven days' notice to leave on 7th November—at 11 o'clock I called there, and saw Mrs. Kopelewitz; the furniture was there then—next day, 15th, I went again at 11, and saw them about moving out; the furniture van was there—I remained till all the furniture was out, and received the keys from Kopelewitz about 12 o'clock.
WILLIAM WOODWARD . I live at 13, Caithness Road, Blyth Road, and am employed by Mr. Cook to remove people—I removed furniture from 129, Blyth Road to 16, Netherwood Road; I believe it was on 15th Nov., but I have no entry of it—I saw Mr. Montague there when the moving was going to be done; he did not wait there—I carried the goods into the two rooms at 16, Netherwood Road; 1 believe they were empty when I got there, I did not see anything.
Cross-examined. You came out of 16, Netherwood Road, and stopped me in the road when I was looking for the house, and asked me whether I wanted Mr. Kopelewitz—I went into the parlour and saw Mrs. Kopelewitz.
WILLIAM JAMES (Detective). I was present at this Court at the trial of the Kopelewitzs—the jury's verdict was given on 17th Jan.—the prisoner was then taken to the Police station from the Court and charged with committing wilful and corrupt perjury at this Court before the Common Serjeant—the prisoner was called up into the witness-box, and the Common Serjeant called me forward, and said, "I order you to take this man into custody for committing wilful and corrupt perjury"—the prisoner heard it.
Cross-examined. I took possession of the keys belonging to Kopelewitz—you did not ask to be allowed to remain in the house for a couple of days—you asked for the keys.
EDWARD ROSENBERG (re-examined by the Court). I was the interpreter here—I do not remember exactly whether I interpreted the oath to the prisoner—I am positive I was present when it was administered—my belief is I did not interpret it to the prisoner—I said at the Police-court, "I don't remember if the oath was administered in English or German"—there was a translator, but no other interpreter.
The prisoner in his defence stated that Freedman when he reached home was frightened or excited and wet, but not ill. It was only after Kopelewitz brought an action against him that Freedman accused him. He (the prisoner) saw no glass or jug in the room when he entered it. In his presence Freedman signed the kill, and after that Kopelewitz told him to fetch Freedman's things, and he fetched Freedmans trousers, waistcoat, coat, shirt, and a holey sash and also Mrs. Kopelewitzs things. He argued that on a wet night Freedman would not have gone to Kensington to get £5 14s. He put his name on the document after returning from the station, but with the same pen and ink, Kopelewitz
asked him if he had seen Freedman sign it, and upon his saying yes, told him to sign it. Two days later Kopelewitz told him that only his name was on the paper, and that he would have to say that the bill was signed on 14th for £150 He (the prisoner) said he would not do that, as he might be sent to prison for it but Kopelewitz told him it would never 70 into Court, and all he wanted was an affidavit from him. Upon his saying he did not want to do it Kopelewitz said he had been living with him a long time and now would not do him a favour and he must leave the house. He (the prisoner) then left the house and wandered about the streets, and in the evening returned and said he would sign it, as he was pressed to do it, and had no money; if he had had a shilling he would not have stopped in London. He had entered a bad society. All he had said about the 15th was true; all he had said about the 14th was untrue. Kopelewitz told him to say it was the 14th instead of 15th.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Friday, March 17th, 1893, and eight following days.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
352. HENRY GRANVILLE WRIGHT (50) and JAMES WILLIAM HOBBS (49) were indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a Bill of Exchange for £197 2s. 6d., purporting to be drawn by G. Wright and Co., with intent to defraud. MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS, C. F. GILL, and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted. SIR EDWARD CLARKE, Q. C., with MESSRS. BESLEY and SPOFFOBTH, appeared for WRIGHT. MR. KEMP, Q. C., with MESSRS. DICKENS, Q. C., and TURNER, for HOBBS.
WILLIAM BINGHAM . I am chief clerk in the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies—the Liberator Permanent Building Society was registered on 10th July, 1868—it was afterwards incorporated under the Building Societies Act on 7th December, 1884—it went into liquidation on 13th September last.
ALFRED GEORGE WRIGHT . I live at Maybourne, near Woking—up to 31st December, 1883, I was London manager of Geo. W. Wright and Co., ironfounders, 155, Queen Victoria Street, and Rotherham, Yorkshire—as London manager I drew all the trade bills connected with the London business—at the end of 1883 Hobbs had an account with our firm—I think he then owed us £39 2s. 8d.—that was secured by a bill drawn by my successor and accepted by Hobbs at three months—this is it; it is dated 17th January, 1884—I left on 31st December—up to the time of my leaving every trade acceptance connected with the London business would be drawn by me—I drew all the bills on Hobbs to the amount he was owing—he was a builder—I did not draw this bill of 16th October, 1883, at five months, on G. Wright and Co., for £197 2s. 5d.—I do not know the handwriting—the drawer's name is not in my writing, nor that of any member of the firm—I know the writing of all of them—it was not authorised by me, and I know nothing about it—I have drawn many bills on Hobbs and seen many acceptances by him—I should say that was Hobbs' signature—at the date covered by the bill no such sum as. £197 2s. 5d. was owing by Hobbs to our firm—there is no record of any such amount in our bill-books, or at all.
Stewart, in the liquidation of J. W. Hobbs and Co., Limited, which was wound up in September, 1892—I married Hobbs' cousin, and in 1891 he married my sister—from November, 1877 to the time of the formation of Hobbs and Co., Limited, in April, 1885, I was clerk to Hobbs, and in October, 1885, I became secretary to Hobbs and Co., Limited, and so continued up to May, 1892—Hobbs was a builder and contractor at Queen's Buildings, Southwark—in 1883 the Liberator Building Society was in the habit of making advances to Hobbs for the purposes of his business—we used to draw up a list of requirements for. the coming week—the total of the acceptances coming due would be shown on that—this is the estimate for 15th March, 1884 (This gave the totals of acceptances falling due on various days during the week; interest; deficit last week; wages; cheques; anticipated receipts; and special account)—that is the. form in which they were sent in—anticipated receipts are what were expected during the week—the receipts and requirements were usually about the same; in this case there is a balance of £78—these estimates would be sent in to the Liberator for the purpose of showing what money we wanted for the following week—by this estimate we should want £3,698 for the following week, and our proposal was they should advance the money to Hobbs on the security of these anticipated receipts—the acceptances are supposed to be falling due, which Hobbs would have to meet during that week—on the estimate being sent in the Liberator was in the habit of advancing part of the amount, because some of it was coming from another Company—of the £3,698 12s. 5d. the Liberator would pay about all of the items except those against "Ilford" in, the receipts, about £350—money on that property was being advanced by the House and Lands Investment Trust—the properties named in the anticipated receipts are building estates on which building was going on, and the Liberator had charges on them, with the exception of the Ilford estate, on which the House and Lands Investment Trust had a charge—having sent in that estimate Hobbs would receive one or more cheques in the ordinary course from the Liberator during the week—the following week, after the amount had been advanced, a weekly return was sent to the Liberator to show how the money had been expended; this is the return for the week beginning 15th March; it shows the money actually expended in the ordinary course; the acceptances themselves would be also sent in to the Liberator as vouchers for the payments which had been made; I think they would be sent at the same time as the return—this letter of 14th March, 1884, is in my writing, and is addressed to Mr. Brock, who was either secretary or a director of the Liberator at that time (This letter enclosed a schedule, and stated that after next week there would be a very material reduction commencing in the amount of the bills maturing: that the paid bills would be returned from the bank next day, and would be sent over together with the acceptances for the special sum next week, as Mr. Hobbs had not yet arrived)—the cheques sent to me were all payable to Hobbs; in the ordinary course they would be paid into his bank, the London and South-Western, Upper Norwood—the cheques were all drawn by the Liberator in favour of Hobbs as advances for the total amount—they would be drawn for the aggregate amount required that week—we should get a lump sum by way of advance, and that would be paid in to Hobbs' bank—I knew Wright as solicitor to the Liberator, and also as financial director or manager of the Liberator at that time—all the cheques I received drawn by the Liberator for advances were signed
by him—I think he was both solicitor and financial manager—the cheques were signed by him as solicitor and also by a director—usually I applied for them at the office of Bonner, Wright and Co., Adelaide Buildings, London Bridge—I got the cheques there—it was the practice of the Liberator that all these cheques should be sent to the solicitor and handed out by him—I believe that was for the purpose of the solicitor preparing any necessary charge as security for the advance—I knew Hobbs had given to the Liberator a charge or charges upon different estates—as chief clerk with Hobbs I became aware that he owed money to Wright on a private account, apart from the Liberator—that indebtedness was entered in Hobbs' general ledger—I became aware from that book of that debt in 1877, when I first entered the service—I do not know what has become of the book in which those sums were entered; it was in Hobbs' office some time before the Company was formed—I know I saw it in 1884—since these proceedings commenced I have searched for it, along with a lot of old books, and I cannot find it—I began to search about December last—I continued as Hobbs' clerk until the liquidation, but I did not continue as chief clerk—I then gave up that post to a man named Roberts—I ceased to be chief clerk in June, 1884—the book was laid in the office with the other books, and I left it there—Roberts was appointed in my place—In November, 1883, Hobbs owed Wright between £3,000 and £4,000—Wright was pressing for payment—Hobbs' financial position at that time was the same as it had been for some time before—it was always a difficulty to get enough money to pay the requirements—about that date I heard an arrangement made between Wright and Hobbs for the purpose of paying this money, at Hobbs' office in Queen's Buildings it was early in November or the latter part of October, 1883—I cannot remember the exact words, but the arrangement was that the amount should be paid by bills, but that those bills should bear the names of merchants, and not Mr. Wright's own—they were to be drawn in the names of merchants, and then they were to be handed to Mr. Wright, so that when they fell due he could get the money—I don't remember hearing where he was to get the money from—the total amount for which these bills were to be drawn was about £2,250—they were to be drawn upon Hobbs—on the same day I had instructions to draw the bills; I believe Wright instructed me to do so, but there had been previous talk between the three of us as to the months that they should be divided over, and the dates at which they should be made payable—when I was asked to draw the bills I asked Wright if it was not a wrong sort of thing to do—he replied, "Oh no, they are not going to be negotiated at all"—I said, "Well, of course there is no responsibility resting on me"—I think the next evening after Wright had gone I said to Hobbs that I objected, I thought it was a wrong thing to do, the drawing of these bills in such a manner, to which he replied, "What am I to do, he will have his money, and he will have to find it"—I think I had already drawn the bills when I spoke to Hobbs; I had drawn them that day, they were eight or ten, I am not quite positive—I had filled up the bills—I believe I drew them before he said, "What am I to do," but after the conversation with Wright—this list of bills was made out at the time I was speaking with Wright—I believe it is a complete list of all the bills, and is in my handwriting; I drew the bills for amounts which are specified on this list—I believe some of the figures were crossed out
afterwards, as they became due, or as they were paid—when I filled in the bills I put no drawer's name, but I got them accepted by Hobbs; he accepted them all at one time, and that was at the time that he made the observation I have told.
Saturday, March 18th.
WILLIAM HENRY MICKLETHWAITE . I am an iron founder carrying on business at Clough Works, Rotherham—in 1883-4 Hobbs was one of my customers—I know nothing of an acceptance by Hobbs of a bill for £263 5s. alleged to have matured on 22nd December, 1883—no such bill was ever drawn by me or by my authority.
GEORGE CHARLES KENTISH (recalled and further examined). These (produced) are six of the bills which I filled up and which Hobbs accepted, and this is the list I spoke of; it is a list of nine bills: "1884—January 19th, Hoare and Brown, £493 2s. 5d.—another of the same, March, 1883, £256 17s. 7d.—December 9th, Collinge and W., £237 16s. 11d.—December, Micklethwaite, £263 5s.—February 8th, 1884, Key and Son, £285 18s.—February 18th, Rocheford, £214—G. Wright and Co., March 19th, £197 2s. 5d.—March 19th, Bradford and Co., £136 8s. 7d.—and J. E. Shirley, £166 9s."—that is a complete list of bills which were filled up and accepted; at that time they were all without drawer's names, all perfect except that—that list was made about the end of October, 1883, on the same day as the interview I have spoken of—it does not represent the dates of the bills, but the dates they were falling due—at the same interview reference was made to the bill-book, to see what acceptances were coming due in the months mentioned here up to the end of March, 188, and it was then settled as to which month should be entered and the amount that was to be drawn—the amounts appearing in the bill-book were entered on this list in pencil; all the pencil figures represent the amount of the acceptances falling due as appears by the bill-book: I entered them in the presence of both Hobbs and Wright—the ink figures are the same amounts plus the additional amounts that were agreed to be drawn in those bills—this £2,25 Q. is the amount that was wanted to be added to the genuine bills—the entry is 29 in red ink and 250 in black ink and 659 in pencil, and there are two lines where there is 7,050 above it—the 29 in red ink was written I should say: the 29 the last of all would be the date of the month when it would be most convenient to add the extra amount—250 represents the amount to be added the 1st October—£6,869 represents the amount of bills legitimately falling due according to the bill-book in October, and the two lines that are struck through the £6,869 in pencil and over the 7,050 means the amount by which the bills were to be altered in some way or other before October—in each case the next amount is added on and carried out—these are the items in the bill-book—the total at the bottom, 2,250, is the total amount which was agreed to be added on—this "Stock in dock and yards, £12,000" was stated to be the value of the stock of timber in the dock and also in the yard at Croydon, supplied by Hobbs; these amounts of £500, £500, and so on, were arranged partly with Mr. Wright, with the three of us really—these ink figures on the list are Mr. Wright's writing—having got the bills representing the £2,250 accepted, I took them to Mr. Wright's office the next day I think, and he asked me how they were to be signed, whose names—the drawer was a blank; I showed him the list on the front again, and told him the F 2
names, and he thereupon signed them in my presence, and I left them with him—they had been accepted the day before—these figures 2,251 on the back of this list are mine, and I believe they are the exact total of the bills mentioned—there were two other bills of that character drawn besides these nine; that was done about two or three weeks afterwards I believe; they were drawn in the same way and filled up by me and accepted by Hobbs—the drawer's name is Key and Son, the same as one of these on the list I wrote "Key and Son"—I do not remember distinctly how that came about, I believe Mr. Wright told me he wanted another £250, would I get him another bill, and I did so—it was drawn in two bills, one for £200 and the other for £45 7s. 6d.—these bills are six bills out of the eleven I have spoken of—they are all signed by Wright—this one for £197 2s. 5d. of October 17th was signed by Wright in my presence—I left the bills with Wright—the list I kept—after that date the estimates were sent in week by week to the Liberator for advances; they were usually made out by myself, in consultation with Mr. Hobbs—the amount of the acceptances falling due was inserted in each estimate—that amount included the bills I have spoken of—from that time up to the end of March, 1884, I received cheques from week to week either from the Liberator or the Lands Allotment Co.—the amount was usually a little less than the estimate; that was because they would not give any more—I am not sure that there were any advances from the Lands Allotment Co. prior to 1884—they may have been all from the Liberator, I am not positive—these eleven bills were not entered in the bill-book—they were entered in the office diary—all bills which were accepted were entered according to the dates they were due, genuine trade bills as well as others—I arrived at the total amount of the acceptances in the estimate from the diary—some time in 1883 I was instructed by Hobbs to make a copy of his bill-book, which I took over to the office of the Liberator at 20, Budge Row—this (produced) is that copy—I believe that was started just a little before the arrangement about the eleven bills—I can't remember what was said about it, but I know both Wright and Hobbs wanted it—the Liberator wanted it as a sort of check on the account—as long as I had charge of the books I think I used to take over a rough list and enter it up at the office of the Liberator—I believe all the eleven bills are entered in the copy bill-book—I think they were all entered in my handwriting, but I will not be sure without reference—yes, they are, according to this memorandum—Bill No. 2421 is Hoare and Brown, £256 17s. 7d.—that is in my writing and is one of the eleven bills—2476 is Collinge and Walks, £237 16s. lid.—that is my writing—2477 is Mickle-thwaite, £263 5s.—2513 is Hoare and Brown, £493 2s. 5d.—1552 is Key and Son, £285 18s. Id.—2553 is Rocheford, Mount, and Dell, £214—2616 is G. Wright and Co., £197 2s. 5d.—2617 is Bradford and Co., £136 8s. 7d.—2618 is J. E. Shirley, £166 9s.—2714 is Key and Son, £245 7s. 2d.—that includes two bills, but the entry is not my writing but Mr. Brock's, who at that time was secretary to the Liberator—I know it was two bills, from the bills themselves—they were drawn two or three weeks later, in the name of Key and Son, of which I filled up the name—there is a third acceptance of Key and Son, which was drawn by Wright; I only filled up two—Mr. Brock entered those last two in the copy bill-book, because the bill-book would be in the office of the Liberator, and after I had made a copy of the bill-book as it then stood, I believe nearly all subsequent bills were entered by Mr. Brock, not by myself, from
information I should supply from time to time as to bills falling due—this is the original book I left with the Liberator—this is a letter of 2nd November, 1883, to the Liberator, enclosing this estimate for the week and the weekly return for the previous week from me as clerk to Hobbs, signed pro Hobbs, George C. Kentish, and addressed to Brock the secretary—that is the ordinary form in which those estimates and weekly returns were sent in—this is the estimate for the week commencing 8th December, 1883; the total of the acceptances falling due is carried out at £2,082 5s. 5d., and includes Collinge and Wallis's bill for £237 10s. 11d.—there are cheques of 8th December, 1883, for £1,000 drawn by the Liberator in Hobbs's favour, and signed by J. Spencer Balfour, director, and H. G. Wright, solicitor; of 11th December, 1883, for £600 in the same way; of 13th December, for £513; and of 14th December for £431 1s. 6d.—all those were paid by the Liberator to Hobbs as advances for that week beginning the 8th—in the weekly return for that week beginning the 8th I see "Acceptances as per estimate, £2,082 5s. 5d."—in the estimate for the week commencing 22nd December the total of acceptances is £759 14s. 3d.—that includes Micklethwaite's bill falling due on 22nd December—these are cheques of 22nd December, 1883, for £600 drawn by the Liberator to Hobbs and endorsed by Hobbs personally (sometimes I endorsed them in his name), and of 24th December for £693 10s.—both these cheques are signed by Wright, as solicitor to the Liberator—this is a letter of 21st December, 1883, from Wright to me: "There is another bill due to-morrow, which I enclose; please let me have cheque for this, G. W."—that refers to Micklethwaite's bill for £263 5s.—I have no doubt he enclosed it in the letter, he says he did—I sent Hobbs's cheque for it on the London and South-Western Bank, Upper Norwood, for the exact amount, I believe—cheques had been sent from Hobbs to Wright for Hoare and Brown's, bill for £256 17s. 7d., maturing on 1st November, 1883, and for Collinge and Wallis's bill for £237 16s. 11d., maturing on 9th December—for the first few, cheques for the exact amounts were drawn, but after a little while it was found inconvenient to pay the amount of the bill, and Wright received some acceptances of another company in place of cheques, and cheques also, but bearing amounts on account, such as it was convenient to draw from the bank—the trade bills, which were sometimes given by Hobbs to Wright instead of cheques, had come to Hobbs in the ordinary course as payments—this estimate for the week beginning 19th January, 1884, shows a total of acceptances £2,089 10s. 4d., including Hoare and Brown's bill for £493 2s. 5d., falling due on 19th January—these are cheques of 19th January, 1884, for £1,000 drawn by the Liberator to Hobbs; of 22nd January, 1884, for £750; of 24th January for £2,736 5s. and of 25th January for £5 6s. 8d.—the total is in excess of the estimate in this return for the same week, the acceptances are entered at the same figure as they were in the estimate—this is a letter from Wright to me, of 18th January, 1884," Dear Mr. Kentish, I enclose bill for £493 2s. 5d., will you please let me have a cheque for it."—that refers to Hoare and Brown's bill for £493 2s. 5d.—this is a letter of 22nd January, 1884, from Wright to me, referring to the same bill: "I am waiting the cheque for £493 odd, in respect of the bill, which you promised Saturday or Monday"—this is the estimate for the week beginning 31st January; the total of acceptances is £1,459 4s. 4d., including
Key and Son's bill for £285 18s. 1d., falling due February 4th—these are cheques of 1st February, 1884, for 6s. 8d. (I expect that is the balance of some previous week), and of 4th February for. £299 from the Liberator to Hobbs—the weekly return for that week shows the same amount of acceptances—for the week commencing 15th March, 1884, the total of acceptances is £1,525 17s. 1d., including the bill of Rochford Mount, and Dell for £214 due 18th March—I altered the date of the bill, I believe, to more equalise the amount of the bills; I have no recollection of the alteration—on the list it appears as falling due in February—I think in the copy-bill book it appears as 15th March—the whole of the writing is Mr. Brock's—the bill originally stood due in February, and it has been altered to March—in the diary it is entered original as due on 18th March; my impression is that I entered it here as due in March by mistake; instead of entering it as due in February, I entered it as due in March, and when I got the bill back from Wright, I must have then made the alteration of the date in the bill itself in red ink, so that it should look like a bill that was due about that time when they were submitted to the Liberator—I am satisfied it was included in the 15th March estimate, by adding up the amount of the bills which would appear by the bill-book—these are the cheques for the week beginning 15th March, on 17th March,. £895 10s., and on 21st March, £367 7s. 8d.—the return for the week shows the same amount of acceptances—this is the letter from Wright to me of 28th February, 1884: "There was a bill for. £214 drawn on 15th October, 1883, and due on 18th February; will you let me have a cheque for this, or a Brickfield bill. I must press you for those old bills; you really give me a great deal of trouble as to this"—that refers to Rochford, Mount, and Dell's bill for, £214, and the passage, "I must press you for those old bills," means that after these particular bills had been submitted to the Liberator with the other paid bills he wanted them back for the purpose I suppose of destroying them—it was the practice to send with the weekly return all the paid bills as vouchers, being Hobbs' acceptances, if they would in the ordinary course of business be returned to him to be kept or destroyed—the estimate for the week beginning 15th March also includes G. Wright and Co. 's bill, falling due on 19th March, for £197 2s. 5d., and Bradford and Co. 's bill falling due the same day for. £136 8s. 7d.—this is Wright's letter to me of 24th March, 1884: "Dear Sir, you are quite aware I suppose that there are two bills, one of £214 and the other for, £197 2s. 5d., overdue, will you send me a cheque? Do you not want the bills to produce to Mr. Brock?"—that refers to these two bills of Rochford, Mount, and Dell and G. Wright and Co.—I have not got the estimate for the week beginning 22nd March, this is the return for that week; in it the acceptances are shown as. £409 11s. 4d., including J. E. Shirley's bill for £166 9s., due 24th March—the "Shirley" on that bill is in Wright's writing—these are cheques drawn by the Liberator to Hobbs for £350 on 22nd March, £400 on the same day; £328 10s. 3d. on 28th March—the words at the bottom of the return, "Deficit on previous week £985 19s. 10d.,"I take to mean that we did not receive the previous week all we anticipated or asked for, and it was brought forward to this week—it would be the difference between the amount asked for on the estimate and the amount actually advanced—when we did not get the full amount we added it on to the next week's estimate—this £985 19s. 10d. has been
added by Hobbs himself after the return sheet was made up, before it was sent to the Liberator no doubt—this is a letter of 27th March, 1884, from myself to Wright: "Dear sir,—Will you let me have the bills for which I am to draw cheques so that I can nil up the correct amounts and send them on to you"—on the front of it is written Wright's answer, "You have one, I enclose another"—that referred to some of these bills—on 1st April, 1884, is this letter from Wright to me: "Enclosed are three bills that I have. Do please send me a cheque for last week's bill We must have some money for costs, and Mr. Hobbs arranged on Friday that this cheque should be sent"—I am not, sure, but I believe the three bills referred to were the last three bills, the George Wright, the Bradford, and the Shirley bill—the two bills of Key and Son, falling due on 17th April, 1884, and in which I signed the drawer's name, were included in the weekly estimate sent in to the Liberator—they are entered in my diary as due on 17th May, 1884, as one bill, £245 7s. 6d.—I returned some of the. bills to Wright after they had been paid—I recollect seeing him destroy one of them by tearing it up and throwing it on the fire—I did not return them all to him, and these six produced here are some of those which I did not return—three Brickfield bills were sent to Wright in part payment for these bills—Brickfield bills were acceptances given by the Building Estates Brickfields Co. to Hobbs in payment for goods (principally timber used on brickfields) which Hobbs supplied them with—this is Hobbs' bills-receivable book—on 27th November, 1883,1 find that Hobbs received two acceptances from the Building Estates Brickfields Co., for £250 each; they are entered in his writing, and against the entry in my writing is "H. G. W.," which means that those bills were forwarded to Wright—they were sent in payment of some of the eleven bills, instead of cheques—on February 8th, 1884, there is another Brickfield bill for £250 received by Hobbs, and against it is the same memoranda, "H. G. W."—that also went to Wright on account of the bills—each of the bills would be endorsed by Hobbs before they went to Wright—the memoranda as to the disposal of the bills are made in a column of the book reserved for that purpose, "How disposed of," and the memoranda were made in the ordinary course at the time—I have no recollection of seeing the bills-payable book for years; after the book was filled up it would be put away with the other books; I know nothing of its being destroyed—I have searched for it since these proceedings, but cannot find it—I should make out the weekly returns from the books and lay them all before Hobbs with the other papers; in the ordinary course they would all go before him prior to being sent to the liberator—I used to draw the cheques in payment for these bills along with all the other cheques, and Hobbs would sign them—I believe I said to him that the cheque was in payment of another one of those bills, or of the bills—the cheques were made payable to Wright and in the name of Wright.
(The cross-examination of this witness was postponed. See page 584.)
ELLIOTT SHIRLEY . I was clerk and traveller to my father, Mr. James Elliott Shirley, in his lifetime—he was a timber merchant—I kept his books from 1878 to 1885, and I was in the habit of writing out any bills he had to draw in his business; he accepted them for himself—Hobbs was one of my father's customers, and my father would draw bills on Hobbs for Hobbs to accept for sums Hobbs owed him—that was the state of things at the end of 1883 and the beginning of 1884—this bill dated 21st September,
1883, for £166 9s., is not drawn by my father nor by me, nor by the authority of either of us; I know nothing about it.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. It is not at all like the signature—there is no attempt at imitation.
CHARLES PUDDY . I live at 8, the Triangle, Kensington—I was formerly a partner in W. and C. Bradford and Co., timber merchants, of Lawrence Poulteney Lane—Hobbs was one of our customers in 1883 and 1884—I would draw bills upon him for the amount he was owing, which he would accept—this bill of 16th October, 1883, for £136 8s. 7d., is not signed by me, nor by any of my partners, nor by the authority of any member of the firm; I know nothing of it.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. It is not in the least like my signature—I have had a great many bills.
THOMAS HENRY NORRIS . I live at Berkhampstead, and since 1890 I have been a member of the firm of Key and Son—from 1883 to 1890 I was a bookkeeper to that firm—in 1883-4 Hobbs was our customer—we used to draw bills on him for amounts he owed from time to time—these two bills dated 14th November, 1883, were not drawn by me, nor with my authority, nor the authority of any member of the firm; I know nothing of them, nor of a third bill for, £285 18s. 1d. purporting to become due on 4th February, 1884; that is not drawn by me or by any member of my firm or by their authority.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. The signature to this bill for £45 7s. 6d. is a very good imitation of my uncle, Mr. Key's, writing—the signature to this one for £200 is not nearly so good; it is not a successful imitation, but no doubt it was written with the intention of imitating it.
ALFRED SPRAGUE . I am chief clerk to Messrs. Collinge and Wallis, hardware merchants, of King Edward's Road, Birmingham—down to September, 1883, Hobbs was a customer of our firm, but the account was practically closed in September, 1883—we drew no bill on him for £237 16s., maturing on 9th December, 1883—no such bill was drawn with my authority or the authority of our firm.
JOHN MOUNT . From July, 1882, to July, 1884, I was a partner in the firm of Rochford, Mount, and Dell, timber merchants—Hobbs was our customer at that time—I generally drew the bills on behalf of our firm—they were drawn upon special bill paper of our own—these two bills are genuinely drawn on our paper by me—this bill of, £214 was not drawn by me, nor by any member of the firm, nor with my knowledge or authority; I know nothing of it.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. The signature is quite different to mine; it is Rochford, Mount, and Bell, so that the last name is wrong—we had several bills accepted by Mr. Hobbs, always on this sort of paper, I believe—it is what we generally used, so that anyone who had been in the habit of receiving and dealing with the bills would notice at once the difference in this one.
Re-examined. Hobbs had accepted many bills drawn on such paper as this.
CHARLES ERNEST GRAHAM . I am a clerk in the London and Southwestern Bank, Upper Norwood Branch—Hobbs had an account there; I produce a certified copy of it from 1st November, 1883, to 31st December, 1884—I find on 3rd November, 1883, a cheque for £256 17s. 7d. debited to his account—it is an entry to the number on the cheque—the name of
the payee of the cheque would appear in the pass-book, which was made up partly from the ledger and partly from the cheques themselves—in the ordinary course of things that pass-book would go back to the customer—I have not looked for the pass-book, and know nothing about it—on 23rd January, 1884, I find a cheque for £493 2s. 5d. debited to the account under the serial number of the cheque—the name of the payee would be in the pass-book—on 7th April, 1884, is a cheque for £411 2s. 5d., debited to the account—cheques are returned to customers with their pass-books in the ordinary course of things.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. Identifying the cheques by number was done for the convenience of the bank—if a person brought a cheque with the name of the payee on it we should still put down the number—where names occur they are the drawers of bills.
JOSEPH WILLIAM CLARK . I am the superintendent of Messrs. Prescott, Dimsdale and Co. 's Bank, Cornhill—Wright had two separate accounts at Messrs. Dimsdale's Bank between November, 1883, and June, 1884, one in the name of H. G. Wright and the other in the name of Henry Granville Wright—this is the certificate of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, showing that our Bank makes a return—these two pass-books are correct copies of Wright's accounts, and this is a correct copy of the bank reserved waste-book—on 2nd November, 1883, I find £256 17s. 7d. was paid into the credit of Wright's account—I cannot trace how it came in—on 22nd January;1884, I find a payment in of £537 14s. lid.—I find by the waste-book that that sum was made up of two cheques, one of which was for £493 2s. 5d—on 5th April, 1884, I find a single cheque of £411 2s. 5d. paid in.
WILLIAM JOHN . I am now engaged in assisting the Official Receiver in Liquidation of the London and General Bank—I was secretary of that bank—Wright had an account there and he was also solicitor to the bank—this is the bank ledger for the year 1884, containing Wright's current account—on 25th February, 1884, I find that £275 was paid in to his credit, and I find from the cash receipt-book that that consisted of £250 in hank-notes and two small cheques—on the same day I cashed over the counter an acceptance of the Building Estates Brickfield Company for £250 in notes; and the notes which were paid into Wright's account on the same day were those given in exchange for the Brickfield bill—I find on 25th March, 1884, £254 was credited to his account; and in the cash receipt book I find that was a Brickfield bill which was paid in—on 9th April, 1884, another Brickfield bill for £250 was paid in and credited to his account—that bill was discounted—it was due 7th May, 1884.
JOHN WALTER ROBERTS . I live at 14, Madeira Road, Streatham—I was employed by Mr. Hobbs both before and after his business was made into a Company—I was there from 1st July, 1884, to 30th September, 1885—between those intervals there was a ledger in existence which I believe contained some of the earlier advances by the Liberator—all the amounts advanced were, I believe, not entered properly in that ledger—the books had not been kept up, up to the time I went there—there were practically no accounts of the Liberator representing amounts advanced, except a few of the earlier ones—that was the condition 1 found when I went into the service in July, 1884—from that time I kept the ledger, and I think I kept it properly, in the sense that all entries were made of money received from the Liberator subsequent to that date—up to that date there were
very few entries—when I left in September, 1885,1 left the ledger behind at Queen's Buildings; I believe I should say that because the last time I saw it it would be about when the business was transferred into a public Company in April, 1885—at that time fresh books were opened; the Company took over all Hobbs' liabilities I understood—a schedule of the liabilities was made up by me, in conjunction with Kentish and Hobbs about the 15th April—I did not know of the existence of any debt from Hobbs to Wright—I never heard of it till to-day—I believe that among the liabilities so taken over by the Company there was no debt from Hobbs to Wright—my knowledge was derived from what I saw in the books—there was not what I should call a cash-book kept at that time—there was a book which represented the rents which were received day by day, and there was another smaller book which Kentish called his petty-cash book, which was supposed to contain all the money received except that which was in his rent-book—the petty-cash book would, I presume, contain the receipt of all the cash except the receipts which were received by Hobbs—in order to make the two books a cash account we should want a book which showed a record of the cash received day by day consecutively, and there was no such book—I really cannot say positively what the petty-cash book contained—the first thing I did when I entered the office was to establish a cash-book, and have it kept up—from the time I entered the office the advances from the Liberator were entered in the cash-book and entered throughout the time I remained there, to September, 1885, and posted regularly into the ledger—I inaugurated that condition of the accounts—I became secretary of the Company when it was first formed, in April, 1885—and I remained secretary until I left, about five months after.
Crow-examined by MR. KEMP. Hobbs had a very extensive business he had estates at Worthing, Ilford, and Streatham, where he was working as a builder to some extent—he went regularly to see those places, I believe—I cannot say if he was on some of the buildings from 6 in the morning till 10 at night—he frequently did not come to the office before 4 in the afternoon; it was generally after lunch before he came—the books were kept by Kentish, and I should say they were very badly kept—I heard while I was there that Kentish was carrying on a business on his own account—I discovered him paying into his own bankers cheques belonging to Mr. Hobbs—I cannot give the exact date of that—I knew that advances were being made to Hobbs from the Liberator, and the Houses and Lands Investment Company during the time I was there—there were certain advances upon the estates upon certificates of the surveyor, and also upon contracts—I had no knowledge of there being floating charges over certain properties, except that I knew there was a charge upon the properties—I cannot say definitely whether the exact procedure was that when the buildings were completed a mortgage was procured and the advances paid off—the money was advanced, and the houses were completed, but 1 cannot say about the paying back—Hobbs has signed blank cheques frequently, it was the practice I found in the office when I went there for Hobbs to sign blank cheques which Kentish put before him.
Monday, March 20th.
and the beginning of 1884 Hobbs was one of our customers for goods with which we supplied him—we should draw on him from time to time and he would accept—I know nothing of a bill due November, 1883 for £256 17s. 7d., alleged to be drawn by my firm and accepted by Hobbs—no bill was drawn at all in 1883—about £205 17s. 5d. was owing in 1883—the goods were supplied on 27th March and were paid for in cash on 4th March 1885—no bill was drawn in relation to that debt—I know nothing of a bill for £493 2s. 5d., purporting to mature on 19th January, 1884, drawn by my firm and accepted by Hobbs—no mil at all was drawn or authorised in 1884.
JAMES WALTER ROBERTS (recalled). Cross-examimd by MR. KEMP. I entered the service of Mr. Hobbs in July 1884—I found Kentish there at that time—I believe he had the superintendence of the books and accounts—I do not recollect shortly after I entered the service having applications from tenants for receipts of their rent—I remember tracing two cheques of which I spoke on Saturday; I understood they were cheques for rents which had been paid, we applied for payment—as far as my recollection goes I traced those cheques into Kentish's account—I cannot recollect the amounts, I have an impression that one was for £7 10s.; I have no impression as to the other—I reported the matter to Mr. Hobbs at the time, and he told me he had reprimanded Kentish for his indiscretion, and he promised not to do so again—the money was refunded, and then the episode, as far as I was concerned, terminated—there were a great many acceptances of Mr. Hobbs in this business—I think they were generally entered by Kentish in the bill-book—I don't think the amounts were filled in by him before Mr. Hobbs accepted them; I cant swear that bills were frequently put before Mr. Hobbs for his acceptance without the names of the drawers on them—I do not mean to say there was not a single exception; but it was not the rule to do so—I cannot remember anything with regard to bills—I remember his being asked to sign cheques before the amounts were filled in, and he did so, for the convenience of the office, and I presume he handed them to Kentish; that was the practice I found in the office when I went there.
Re-examined. I cannot tell you about when it was that the episode occurred about the two cheques; it was before the formation of the company—I believe Kentish endorsed Mr. Hobbs' name on them, and paid them into his own banking account, the Croydon Branch of the London and County, as far as I recollect—application was made again to the people for the amount represented by those cheques, that is, as far as I can speak to at the present time—that application was made from the office, not by me personally, and then the discovery was made that they had paid their rents by cheques and had had no receipts, that the cheques were endorsed by Kentish, and paid in to his account—I discovered that and reported it to Mr. Hobbs—at that time Kentish was presumed to be second to myself in office—I was chief clerk nominally; he was second clerk, before I made this discovery and after—no difference was made in his position—in April, 1885,1 became secretary to Hobbs and Co., Limited; I was its first secretary—I left in September, 1885 and Kentish succeeded me in September, 1885—Mr. Hobbs was managing director of the Company from its formation—as to the surveyors certificates, of which I spoke on Saturday, I think that needs a word of explanation—certain officers of the Liberator used to go down to the estates
very few entries—when I left in September, 1885, I left the ledger behind at Queen's Buildings; I believe I should say that because the last time I saw it it would be about when the business was transferred into a public Company in April, 1885—at that time fresh books were opened; the Company took over all Hobbs' liabilities I understood—a schedule of the liabilities was made up by me, in conjunction with Kentish and Hobbs about the 15th April—I did not know of the existence of any debt from Hobbs to Wright—I never heard of it till to-day—I believe that among the liabilities so taken over by the Company there was no debt from Hobbs to Wright—my knowledge was derived from what I saw in the books—there was not what I should call a cash-book kept at that time—there was a book which represented the rents which were received day by day, and there was another smaller book which Kentish called his petty-cash book, which was supposed to contain all the money received except that which was in his rent-book—the petty-cash book would, I presume, contain the receipt of all the cash except the receipts which were received by Hobbs—in order to make the two books a cash account we should want a book which showed a record of the cash received day by day consecutively, and there was no such book—I really cannot say positively what the petty-cash book contained—the first thing I did when I entered the office was to establish a cash-book, and have it kept up—from the time I entered the office the advances from the Liberator were entered in the cash-book and entered throughout the time I remained there, to September, 1885, and posted regularly into the ledger—I inaugurated that condition of the accounts.—I became secretary of the Company when it was first formed, in April, 1885—and I remained secretary until I left, about five months after.
Cross-examined by Mr. KEMP. Hobbs had a very extensive business—he had estates at Worthing, Ilford, and Streatham, where he was working as a builder to some extent—he went regularly to see those places, I believe—I cannot say if he was on some of the buildings from 6 in the morning till 10 at night—he frequently did not come to the office before 4 in the afternoon; it was generally after lunch before he came—the books were kept by Kentish, and I should say they were very badly kept—I heard while I was there that Kentish was carrying on a business on his own account—I discovered him paying into his own bankers cheques belonging to Mr. Hobbs—I cannot give the exact date of that—I knew that advances were being made to Hobbs from the Liberator, and the Houses and Lands Investment Company during the time I was there—there were certain advances upon the estates upon certificates of the surveyor, and also upon contracts—I had no knowledge of there being floating charges over certain properties, except that I knew there was a charge upon the properties—I cannot say definitely whether the exact procedure was that when the buildings were completed a mortgage was procured and the advances paid off—the money was advanced, and the houses were completed, but I cannot say about the paying back—Hobbs has signed blank cheques frequently, it was the practice I found in the office when I went there for Hobbs to sign blank cheques which Kentish put before him.
Monday, March 20th.
and the beginning of 1884 Hobbs was one of our customers for goods with which we supplied him—we should draw on him from time to time and he would accept—I know nothing of a bill due November, 1883, for £256 17s. 7d., alleged to be drawn by my firm and accepted by Hobbs—no bill was drawn at all in 1883—about £205 17s. 5d. was owing in 1888—the goods were supplied on 27th March and were paid for in cash on 4th March, 1885—no bill was drawn in relation to that debt—I know nothing of a bill for £493 2s. 5d., purporting to mature on 19th January, 1884, drawn by my firm and accepted by Hobbs—no bill at all was drawn or authorised in 1884.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. I entered the service of Mr. Hobbs in July 1884—I found Kentish there at that time—I believe he had the superintendence of the books and accounts—I do not recollect shortly after I entered the service having applications from tenants for receipts of their rent—I remember tracing two cheques of which I spoke on Saturday; I understood they were cheques for rents which had been paid, we applied for payment—as far as my recollection goes I traced those cheques into Kentish's account—I cannot recollect the amounts, I have an impression that one was for £7 10s.; I have no impression as to the other—I reported the matter to Mr. Hobbs at the time, and he told me he had reprimanded Kentish for his indiscretion, and he promised not to do so again—the money was refunded, and then the episode, as far as I was concerned, terminated—there were a great many acceptances of Mr. Hobbs in this business—I think they were generally entered by Kentish in the bill-book—I don't think the amounts were filled in by him before Mr. Hobbs accepted them; I can't swear that bilk were frequently put before Mr. Hobbs for his acceptance without the names of the drawers on them—I do not mean to say there was not a single exception; but it was not the rule to do so—I cannot remember anything with regard to bills—I remember his being asked to sign cheques before the amounts were filled in, and he did so, for the convenience of the office, and I presume he handed them to Kentish; that was the practice I found in the office when I went there.
Re-examined. I cannot tell you about when it was that the episode occurred about the two cheques; it was before the formation of the company—I believe Kentish endorsed Mr. Hobbs' name on them, and paid them into his own banking account, the Croydon Branch of the London and County, as far as I recollect—application was made again to the people for the amount represented by those cheques, that is, as far as I can speak to at the present time—that application was made from the office, not by me personally, and then the discovery was made that they had paid their rents by cheques and had had no receipts, that the cheques were endorsed by Kentish, and paid in to his account—I discovered that and reported it to Mr. Hobbs—at that time Kentish was presumed to be second to myself in office—I was chief clerk nominally; he was second clerk, before I made this discovery and after—no difference was made in his position—in April, 1885, I became secretary to Hobbs and Co., Limited; I was its first secretary—I left in September, 1885, and Kentish succeeded me in September, 1885—Mr. Hobbs was managing director of the Company from its formation—as to the surveyor's certificates, of which I spoke on Saturday, I think that needs a word of explanation—certain officers of the Liberator used to go down to the estates
at the end of each week and see what work had been accomplished; I believe according to previous arrangement certain draws were allowed to Mr. Hobbs on the completion of certain parts of the buildings; those buildings were inspected on Thursday, and on Friday we got the money we were entitled to draw in respect of those buildings, less the amount of interest which the Liberator allowed; and that was what I called certificates from the surveyor—it was a verbal report—Hobbs was generally late in arriving at business; he would come in after lunch as a rule; he went round the works first of all, I believe—it was understood that he was constantly employed in his work—I thought he was interested in the conduct of the business at the time.
By the Jury. I left Hobbs and Co. to return to take the management of a firm of South African merchants where I had been for fifteen years—I was not very comfortable with Mr. Hobbs, and as I had the opportunity of returning to the other business I accepted the position; it was not more remunerative than with Hobbs—I never heard of any fault being found with me by Hobbs; I resigned—I was not dismissed.
GEORGE CHARLES KENTISH (recalled). Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. During the period from October, 1883, until March, 1884, I believe Mr. Brock was secretary to the Liberator. I saw him frequently in that capacity—I believe he was also secretary to the Lands Allotment during that period, but of that I am not sure—they had offices in the same house, nominally on different floors, but much of the work of both was done on the same floor and in the same rooms; I know that from the conversations I heard, and from the books and papers which I saw tying in the rooms—I found the business of the two Companies was discussed in the same Board room used by the Companies indiscriminately—I frequently went to the offices, to get money from the Liberator; I only knew the Liberator; we used to get our advances than from the Liberator—I generally saw Mr. Brock, or if he was not there, and sometimes when he was there, Mr. Wright—I did not say that Mr. Wright had offices in the same house at that period—his offices were at Adelaide Buildings, London Bridge—I was employed by Mr. Hobbs before 1883, from October, 1877; he was already in relations with the Liberator—during the years between 1877 and 1883 he was continuously engaged in developing Building Societies—in the earlier part of that period I believe charges on his estates were given to the Liberator as security for advances. Q. Do you not know that at the earlier period, when advances were asked for and made, a charge was executed by Mr. Hobbs on the estate? A. No, I cannot answer that simply—he did not give a charge for an amount estimated as sufficient to cover the advance which he had; it was a charge to cover any sums that might be advanced from time to time, to include one specific advance, and these words were used" and any further sums that may be advanced"—it was a charge to cover general advances, so far as I saw it—it was a question for them to settle whether they would advance what was asked for, and to consider whether the value of the estate charged to them was sufficient to cover further advance—money was not paid off from time to time, very seldom; for years it was only an increasing indebtedness—I do not know that the Liberator was advised by surveyors from time to time as to the value of the property on which the charges existed. I know of surveyors going down to see as to the weekly draws, that was all; one surveyor was Mr. Howard Martin, after that Mr.
Bishop, who was in the employ of the Liberator, in later years on the South London estates both Mr. Newman and the late Binfield Bird—he is dead; I believe he was surveyor to the Board of Trade—I remember that Mr. Samuel Walker was consulted—I think between October, 1877, and March, 1883, Mr. Martin acted in that way for the Liberator, and also Mr. Walker—at this period I always understood that Mr. Wright was the financial manager of the Liberator—I learnt that generally in the office, he took the most active part in all matters relating to the advances—I continued in the employment of Hobbs and Co., Limited, until a very late period—I do not know that it was in 1888 that Mr. Wright became financial adviser—no change was made then to my knowledge—I cannot remember that in 1883 no advances were made by the Lands Allotment Co. to Mr. Hobbs, I don't think so; if they were they were made through the Liberator or were special advances on new estates, to purchase them—I do not remember that in the latter part of 1883 the Lands Allotment Co. stopped Mr. Hobbs' building operations; I believe some reduction was made in the amount of work being done—the operations were not stopped on 6th March, to my recollection—I did not know of an agreement in October, 1883, by the Lands Allotment Co., to advance £15,000 to Mr. Hobbs upon a general charge on his property—I do not remember ever having heard anything of that—the names put against the bills in this list No. 4 are in my writing; I was asked to put names; I chose the names, often being asked if they were the names of firms that we were doing business with at the time, and they came into my mind readily—the words, "Stock in dock and yards, £12,000," is in the writing of Mr. Wright—that was put in my presence—Mr. Wright asked what was the value of the timber stock in the dock and yards, and he was told by Mr. Hobbs, after referring to the dock-book, £12,000—I don't know whether that was for Mr. Wright's information only, or whether it was put in with a view to get the resulting figure of £15,000; it was taken to be the value of the stock in dock and yards, and the remark made was that that amount was covered by other material and by the acceptances running to merchants, material used in the various estates—I don't know what they were working out, I know what my impression was, it was to arrive at the amount of the liability on the bills, less the value of the stock in the dock and yards; that brought out the figures of. £15,054—I was not aware that in this memorandum of October, 1883, Hobbs was to get an advance of £15,000 upon a general charge on his property from the Lands Allotments Co.—I am in the employ of the Official Liquidator—I have not the books of that Company; I don't know whether they are here; I should know the minute-book if I saw it—this (produced) is it. (A minute of 8th October, 1883, was read stating that in consideration of the Company stopping Mr. Hobbs' building operations for six months, they agreed to assist him to take up such bills as would cover advances, not to exceed £15,000, to be secured by a general charge on his property)—that does not recall all that to me, it recalls the fact that the work was reduced and also that acceptances were given by Hobbs covering the amount of the advances, which I always understood came from the Liberator—I did not know the amount—it appears that the object was to bring out the total advance to £15,000 as the resulting figure, but I had no knowledge of it—my memory does not enable me to connect that with the advance of £15,000 in the slightest—the state of things was that Mr. Hobbs had £12,000 worth of stock in the docks and at the yards—there were £24,804
of liabilities coming forward in the six months from October to March—it may be that if Hobbs were entitled to £15,000 advance there would be room for £2,250 to be paid to Wright off the debt Hobbs owed him, but I have no recollection of its having been put in that way.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. I am in the service of the Official Receiver—I commenced after the Official Receiver paid out the Receiver to the debenture holders—the Official Receiver did not say "Now, Mr. Kentish, are you going to be a witness or a prisoner?" nor anything to that effect—I say the names to the bills were fraudulent, and Hobbs was a party to that fraud and also a participator in the wrong addition of the wages sheets—those sheets were from week to week, and added up by me—for many weeks after the formation of Hobbs and Co., Limited, those wages sheets were over-added—they were over-added I believe from in April, 1885, to December, 1885, or January, 1886—not to my knowledge before April, 1885, except those that were added up some years before, when names were put in by me in about 1880-1881—I have not mentioned that before—I stole part of the over-addition, and handed the rest to Hobbs—in 1880 I put names of men who had not been employed in the sheets, which were kept in the usual way—they were used after the men were paid—they showed what the men had been paid, and something more—the men did not get a penny more than they earned—I added other names, and put sums opposite them—Hobbs got the money so represented falsely—I gave it to him in cash—the sheets were used for the purpose of Hobbs getting, in his private capacity, apart from his business accounts, which were likely to be submitted to the Liberator at any moment, money that he might have by him—the Liberator found the money entered in the sheets—the sheets were submitted to the representative of the surveyor of the Liberator—Mr. Walker was the surveyor and Mr. Burn his representative—I believe they are alive—the money did not go into my pocket—I added weekly, £30 to. £40 to the wages sheets and £10 for superintendence—I have said I did steal part of the money after April, 1885—this went on two or three years—at that time I was not taking any of the plunder—I cannot remember that I remonstrated with Hobbs—I will say I did not—I have no recollection of it—I do not know what my belief was—I did not believe it to be honest, I suppose, because I believed it to be dishonest—that is my notion of fraud—these things occurred twelve or thirteen years ago—I know I was engaged in a great many transactions that were not honest—Hobbs knew of this excess of wages in the over-added sheets going on in 1885—I stole part of the money and gave the rest to Hobbs in cash—he told me to do it—I did not remonstrate with him—I believed it to be a fraud and an unjust thing—Hobbs married my sister Rosa in 1891—before that she was living with my aunt—I think my aunt was very fond of her, and did not want to part from her—I do not know that—very possibly I persuaded my sister to marry Hobbs and my aunt to permit her to do so—I wrote a letter—I tried to induce them to a certain extent—no doubt I gave them my reasons—they would be true and accurate at that time—this is my letter. (This was dated 24th February, 1891, addressed from Ilford, to "My dear Aunt" and recommended the marriage. He claimed to be absolutely the best judge of Hobbs, and stated that it would rejoice his heart to hear that Rosa consented to marry him. He knew him to be a genuine, honourable man, incapable of doing an injustice, and one who having made a position in life would take the keenest
delight in ministering to the happiness of others. He could vouch for his sincerity). At the time I wrote that, the past was gone, and we were both sincerely desirous of doing what was right. (The letter continued that he would say nothing as to Hobbs' position beyond that he had an ample fortune. Rosa would gain the truest love of a man everybody respected and spoke well of, and he was convinced that by accepting Hobbs she would rise to an honoured position of usefulness that would tend to her true joy and happiness. Disparity of age was not an objection worthy of consideration. To Hobbs she would look up and trust her honour and happiness, and he ms sure she would experience the true bliss of wifehood. Nor were his children any obstacle, as, they were either grown up or at school, and Rosa would soon gain their affections. As to the aunt herself he knew she would experience joy at seeing Rosa the wife of a true good husband of position and homour, and would consent to sink herself to secure such happiness for Rosa)—I believe Bailey discovered the additions in 1886—I went to Hobbs respecting them—I heard afterwards that Mr. Bailey and Mr. Currie went to Hobbs about it—I will swear I did not say to Mr. Currie, "What is Mr. Hobbs going to do with me?"—when you put that question to me at the Police-court I answered," No, I won't swear I did not"—I did not find Mr. Currie checking those wages sheets—(Mr. Kemp asked if Mr. Currie were in Court, and a gentleman stood up)—I did not say to him, "Make it as light as you can for me," nothing of the kind—I think my memory has improved since I was at the Police-court—I have had time to reflect on the consequences to myself—I cannot help it if they might be serious—Currie said I had better go and see the governor—he did not advise me to go and make a clean breast of it—I was not to see the governor in order to make a clean breast of it—I said at Bow Street, "I won't swear Mr. Currie said it"—I did not say he did—I went to Norbury Hall—I did not go down on my knees and cry and beg him not to prosecute me—I did not say I would redeem the past—I won't swear that I said at the Police-court I would redeem the past, I won't swear it here either—I do not remember saying it; I will not swear I did not—I believe I said at the Police-court that very likely I did say it—Hobbs did not ask me how I came to do it—I did not say to him that I had got into a rash enterprise—I was engaged in a business that was rash, undoubtedly—a rash enterprise was not spoken of then between me and Hobbs—I have no recollection that Hobbs referred to my financial position, or that I did so—(MR. KEMP here read a letter from the witness to Hobbs, dated 26th January, 1886, in which he stated that he wished sincerely in some measure to atone for the past, that he was deeply sensible of Hobbs' kindness, that he looked on this as the turning point in his life, that he had prepared a full statement of his accounts, and hoped to merit the favours he had received but so abused)—that was the letter I wrote to the man who was a participator in my robbery—my reason for writing the letter was that until I saw him he was not aware that I myself had been keeping a sum of money; my further reason was because so far as I knew, in the office no one had any idea but what I had taken all the money for myself—I had not said to Currie that Hobbs knew all about it until after I had written that letter; I don't remember saying that to Currie before I went to Norbury Hall; I will not swear I did not—I tried to shield Hobbs, as I had done before in many other things—I don't remember telling Currie before I went to Norbury Hall—I told Mr. Bailey before I went to Norbury Hall—I do not know that
Hobbs consulted Major Wright, the chairman of Hobbs and Co., Limited and also a director of the Liberator, I believe—I have lectured, not for the Liberator but for other societies, the Band of Hope Union was one—I did not render services to Major Wright to my knowledge—I did not know that it was at Major Wright's suggestion that I was not prosecuted but allowed to remain in the situation in order to redeem my character—I was removed from the position of cashier—I cannot produce any evidence except my statement that Hobbs was cognizant of what I was doing—every sum of money I handed to him was in cash, gold and silver, no notes to my knowledge—my salary at Hobbs and Co., Limited was £300; before it was made into a Company I had £200 from Mr. Hobbs—I was paid monthly—I had made £300 or £400 by speculations in 1885—my wife had no money except what I gave her—I was receiving presents now and again from relatives; I cannot tell you the dates—perhaps I received. £40 or £50 altogether in 1885 from relatives—several Superior-court actions and County-court actions were brought against me in 1885—I cannot remember how many—I don't know the amount of the judgments that were obtained against me; it may be £1,162 11s. between July, 1885, and July, 1886; and between July and November, 1885, judgments may have been obtained against me to the amount of £771 8s. 2d.—I cannot say they were not, and I cannot say they were—in addition to those sums I incurred a bill of costs with Messrs. Miller and Son to the amount of £110 6s. 4d.—I had an enterprise at Antwerp—I was not to my knowledge charged with fraud there—I know Mr. Van Volsen—he did not complain of my collecting their debts, nor did he threaten me with criminal proceedings—he may have talked of them to the man I called my partner; he may have done those things—Mr. Smeaton was my partner; he is dead—I managed to find money to pay the judgments and Miller's bill in 1885 possibly—this letter is my writing, addressed to Mr. Chamberlain—our pay-day was on Saturday—I usually took these moneys on Saturday—some of the falsified wages-sheets were in respect of the Northumberland Avenue Hotel, which was the biggest job at the time—I cannot remember whether Spencer was making a claim against me about that time—someone of that name evidently was—I daresay I paid them off between £25 and £30 about that time—no doubt I told their representative to come to the Avenue Hotel when I should be done paying, as I had done my week's work then—I did not pay Spencer or Spencer's representative moneys which I had taken out of the over-addition—to my remembrance, I was not about the 16th July being pressed for money—to my knowledge the London and County Bank were not pressing me—I have read this letter headed "London and County Bank"—I was not asking them to give me time—the letter says, "I think I an manage £25 on Saturday, if they will give time for the balance," I have no recollection of the matter—it is in my writing—very likely I had overdrawn my account, but I have no recollection—I do not know if I paid them £25 on the Saturday; I did not pay them £25 which I had stolen from the over-addition—I may have paid them, but I did not steal it, as is suggested, nor did I take it without stealing it—I may have squared Smeaton because he was going to try and drag me into an expensive partnership with a barrister—I thought it desirable to square him—he was a sanitary engineer—he always said he was my partner;
I don't know whether he was or not—we agreed that if the business went on and was successful we should go into partnership—I squared him because, so far as I can remember, he had made some proposals to another gentleman, which I did not approve of, and he said they were too far gone to be withdrawn, but he thought if I squared him he could manage it; I squared him several times. I squared him once by threatening him—I daresay from the 24th July, 1885, to the 23rd December I had paid my creditors £527 6s. 10d., in respect of actions brought against me; and in addition I had paid some money to Miller, possibly over £70; I cannot remember—the larger bill of Key and Son is in Wright's handwriting—Hobbs knew I had put in those names—at the Police-court I said I believed that Hobbs was a party to the arrangement—it is my writing to all the bills—the names were fixed by the imagination of myself and Wright—Hobbs was present at the time; I swear that—I said at the Police-court, I got the amount of the bills from a small slip of paper Wright and I made up at the time from our own imagination—I protested to both Hobbs and Wright, singly to the best of my remembrance—I protested to Wright in the afternoon at the interview, before I protested to Hobbs—Wright looked at the names I was putting down, and agreed with them; that was immediately after I was protesting—immediately after I had protested Wright asked me what names they were to be signed in, and I gave him the suggested names—when I took the bills over to him the names had not been signed—I took them to his office in Adelaide Buildings—Hobbs did not go with me; I did not fill in the names at Wright's office; Wright filled them in—I had already handed them to him, and, after he had filled them in and he kept them, I cannot say if the bills ever went back to Hobbs's personal possession; they came back in the ordinary course, but I do not know if they came back into his personal possession; I kept them afterwards—I can try to imitate handwriting; I have not got a faculty for doing it, to my knowledge—the two bills of Key and Son are signed by me—I imitated Key and Son's writing, so as to make a very good imitation—no doubt I intended to imitate their writing, so that those who saw it should believe it to be their writing—the Key and Son written by Wright is not an imitation—the two bills, produced were not written by Wright—I have imitated Hobbs's signature,' and Currie has, and others have done it to my knowledge—I have imitated Hobbs's signature on bills—I decline to answer whether the Lion Foundry bill is my imitation of Hobbs's signature on the ground that it may criminate me—this bill for £55 2s. 5d. purports to be drawn by a man named Marple on 6th January, 1885, and accepted by Hobbs—according to the ledger nearly £60 was due to him at that time—there was some dispute about it—Marple had been paid something over £20 at the time that bill was given—I cannot recall the exact amount, it was something between £20 and £30—I put that bill before Hobbs for his acceptance, arid he accepted it—I did not bring it back to him—I have no recollection of saying to Hobbs, "This man wants a bit of cash; will you discount this bill?"—I had not possession of this bill after it was accepted, to my remembrance—I certainly did not say to him, "I have got £30 in the till; if you will give me a cheque for £22 he will let you have £3 discount and I can give him £3 out of the till—I did not ask him to give me a post-dated cheque to put into the till against the £30—looking at this cheque on G
15th January apparently the sum of £22 was paid to Kinder as representing Marple—I do not know that that £22 cheque is the only sum that went to Marple in respect of that £55 bill—I believe that Marple was paid before that—I do not say that cheque has nothing to do with Marple's account—it is payable to Rinder—this £30 cheque, dated 17th January, 1885, is made payable to me—I have no knowledge of its being given to me on the 15th, on my representation that I was going to pay £3 out of the till—I swear I did not pay Rinder on Marple's account £22 for that bill and put the £30 into my pocket—this cheque is made payable to me for the purpose of paying back to the cash; I don't say because I had taken £30 out—it is endorsed by Rinder—the word "Rinder" is not my writing—it is Rinder's—possibly I handed the £22 cheque over to Mr. Rinder—I have no recollection of handing him any other sum than the £22 cheque for this bill—I cannot assert that I did not get Hobbs to discount that bill after it was accepted, but he did not discount it—I did not notice what account it was on—both are drawn on Hobbs private account—I do not think that was because he discounted the bill—I will swear as far as I know it was not—he was continually giving me sums of money on his private account, not on his business account, as there was a Mr. Roberts in the office then, and it would not do to do it—no doubt I received the £22 cheque and paid it away, handed it over—I believe I paid it to Rinder—the account was objected to—Marple and Co. themselves never claimed. £55, they claimed £20 to £30—Hobbs and I arranged it together, and Hobbs accepted the bill for £55 because he saw the opportunity of getting something for himself in this way—the bill would be accepted, he would pay the amount that Marple wanted and keep the bill till it matured and get the cash from the Upper Norwood Branch into his own account at Croydon—I don't believe the. £30 cheque had anything to do with it; I will not swear it—I cannot explain why the, £30 cheque was given to me—I had supervision of the books—I don't know if there is any writing of Hobbs's in the diary—I maintain that the two Key and Son's bills in my writing were not made at the same time as the third, but about three weeks afterwards to the best of my recollection—my statement at the Police-court that the six bills were all drawn at the same time was not correct—I occasionally, not frequently, placed before Hobbs for his signature cheques which were not filled up—I never put before him bills of exchange which were not filled up—I said at the Police-court he has signed bills, accepted them in blank; that is a different thing to their being filled up; I take the meaning of a bill being signed in blank to be the bill form itself with nothing on it; he has never done that—I meant at the Police-court that he had signed bills the name of the drawer not being on them, but filled them up in other respects—he occasionally signed blank cheques and trusted to myself and others to deal properly with them—Major Wright was chairman of Hobbs and Co., Limited, and also, I believe, a director of the Liberator—a Finance Committee was appointed to attend to the financial matters of Hobbs and Co.—when I became secretary I believe Hobbs was a member of that committee; he was on all committees, ex officio—he was a practical builder—I don't know where Major Wright is—Jabez Spencer Balfour was chairman of the Liberator—I have no knowledge where he has been for a long time.
Re-examined. From October, 1883, to March, 1884, when I was
frequently at the office of the Liberator, Mr. Brock was secretary, and he became secretary to the Lands Allotment Company, whose office was in the same building, but upon a different floor—in the secretary's room of the Liberator the Lands Allotment business was also much discussed at all events; it was the same board of directors for the two Companies, and Wright was also solicitor to the Lands Allotment Company, and I presume, he would have the advancing of the loans by the Lands Allotment as well as the advancing of the loans by the Liberator; I do not know of my own knowledge—I should say I first went to the Liberator in order to get money within two or three years from the time of my entering Hobbs's service; it might have been earlier—but it was somewhere about 1880—from the time I entered the service we always wanted more money than we could get for Hobbs's building operations—from 1877 downwards we were always in want of more money than we could get—Hobbs has been sued for money many times since 1879 to 1881, I should think; I don't think there was much after that, but he was being pressed frequently, and actions were commenced against him by writs—that kind of thing lasted from about 1879 to 1881, and after that we were in want of more money than we could get, but it was not so acute afterwards as then—during the years I went and saw Wright at the Liberator he acted as financial manager; he was almost in supreme control—I have been to see him at the Liberator, at his own office, in regard to advances from the Society, and also, from 1878 to 1883 at any rate, for getting short temporary loans from Wright himself for Hobbs—an account of these loans was kept in the ledger down to 1883—about the 1st of October, 1883, the amount of the loans was between £3,000 and. £4,000 that Hobbs owed Wright upon this private account—that ledger is the same one that was in existence up to 1884, but which I have not since seen—when this list of the bills was written in pencil and afterwards in ink, Hobbs, Wright, and myself were present—Hobbs supplied the figure £12,000 as being the amount of stock in the docks and yard—Hobbs at this time was very active in the conduct of the business, generally from early morn till late at night—he was conversant with the books kept in the conduct of the business—the diary referred to was always lying on his table or desk—the bills-payable book was locked up in the safe all night, but the safe was open all day, and then the book was accessible to him—the bills, the subject of this enquiry, are entered in the diary, not in the bills-payable book, the comparison of the two would have shown the omission—he was conversant with the fact that what purported to be a copy of the bills-payable book was kept at the Liberator—all these documents handed to me are in Hobbs's writing; the first two are apparently rough estimates, the rest are letters, between 1st January and 20th March, 1884; they are all addressed to G. E. Brock, who was then secretary of the Liberator—those are all in Hobbs's writing—I have a recollection of there being a reduction in the amount of work in October, 1883, owing to a reduction in the supply of money from the Liberator—I know nothing of the minute-of 8th October, 1883, in the Lands Allotment book—all my estimates and weekly returns were made to the Liberator—and I know nothing of any estimates or returns made to the Lands Allotment Company—about 1880 and 1881 there were some falsifications in regard to the moneys obtained from the society—that was partly at the time when Hobbs was under monetary pressure—at one particular job, the names of men non-existent were put G 2
into the sheets and the money put down to them was handed to Hobbs that was at Hobbs' suggestion—I did not participate in any of that money—I began to purloin money in that way in 1885 by a falsification of the wages sheet from week to week; that was at Hobbs's suggestion; he suggested that I should add to the amount of the sheets; there was an opportunity for him making a bit—about the time the suggestion was made his business had been formed into a limited Company, and I was a sort of chief clerk under Roberts, the secretary, Hobbs being managing director of the Company—I believe he was ex-officio member of all the committees—there were Finance and Works Committees—Hobbs said he proposed to make a bit out of this by an error in the casting of the sheets not by adding names—that fraudulent system proceeded up to the beginning of 1886, and then it was discovered I believe by Mr. Bailey, a clerk in the office of Hobbs and Co.—I believe Bailey communicated with Mr. Currie, and afterwards spoke to me about it—he spoke to Hobbs about it; that was towards the end of 1886, I think—I have not in my mind the date of the letter I wrote to Hobbs—this, of 26th January, is it—the discovery had been made by them, and had been communicated to Hobbs and to me—after that I saw Hobbs at Norbury Hall—I wrote that letter of 26th January at his request—I went to Norbury Hall a few days before and said the matter of the wages sheets had been discovered; he said, "Well, you must stop it"—I told him what I had been taking myself, that I had kept about £5 a week unknown to him—he said, "You had better just write me a short letter acknowledging it; and that was the reason I wrote that letter—it was arranged by us that I should give up all the cash matters to Currie, and clear up everything as far As possible—he did not say what he wanted with the letter—I wrote it within two or three days of the interwiew—I gave up all cash matters to Currie—I continued to receive. £300 a year as secretary to Hobbs and Co., down to May, 1892—my salary was increased after that from time to time, and in addition I got a bonus once a year from the Board—all my indebtedness to the end of 1885 was paid off by me out of the receipts of the business I carried on, and money lent to me—I had from £180 to £200 out of the fraudulent wages sheets—the total amount obtained by them was a little over. £1,000; Hobbs had the balance—I do not remember a cheque for rents coming to Hobbs, being endorsed by me and paid into my bank—I have paid cheques payable to Hobbs into my private account at his request; he frequently did not want some payments to appear in his own accounts: his business account was overdrawn sometimes—the Lion Foundry bill was included among the acceptances sent forward to the Liberator on 10th April, 1884, and the total amount of the advances made on the Lion Foundry went to Hobbs—a cheque would follow, and the weekly return would follow that—Hobbs had the money for it—the Marple bill was included in the estimate, and Hobbs received the proceeds—I cannot identify the estimate in the copy-bill-book of the Liberator—this slip pinned in is in Roberts's writing; he was secretary at the time—during the time Roberts was there, bills payable at Hobbs's bank were presented in the usual way—the Marples bill was paid in to his private account, so that he could get the money for it (that arrangement did not exist in 1883-4), and then, although the bills were made payable at the London and South-Western Bank, Upper Norwood, only trade bills were presented at maturity—I drew
this Marples bill, and found there was a considerable sum due to them; we settled with them for a lesser amount, and Hobbs suggested to me that I should draw a bill; as he had paid the smaller amount, he could get the rest, from himself in one respect, but from his business account, and of course from the advances made by the Liberator—I acceded to the suggestion and drew the bill in the name of Marples—to the best of my recollection I gave it to Hobbs at the time; he accepted it in my presence as far as I can remember, and took it away; it would come back into the hand of Roberts, and he would send it on—I know Wright's ordinary handwriting—these four bills are not quite in his ordinary handwriting—I made no statement to the Official Receiver, but I did to the solicitor to the Treasury, and I made it of my own free will.
By Sir EDWARD CLARKE. I have four bills here, signed in different name? by Wright—there is an attempt in these signatures to rather disguise his ordinary handwriting—I speak of this one of J. E. Shirley—I have a faint recollection that at the time he asked me if that would be recognised as his writing, I cannot go beyond that; I have a dim recollection of it—I am quite aware that not one of these signatures bears the slightest resemblance to the real signature of either of the firms, and that in one case the name of the firm is misstated—I did not quote from the list I had made at Wright's the name of the firm; the list was lying before him at the time—I can't say if I told him "Dell" or "Bell" as the name of the firm—very possibly the mistake was mine—I cannot say if his question as to the signature being recognised as his ordinary writing, was with reference to any particular firm—I did not know at the time that the bill signed W. Rochefort, Mount and Bell was on blue paper, and that all that firm's bills were on white; I did not trouble to look—I have seen a few of their bills; I do not know if they were always on white paper—I have no examples of Wright's writing, but the office is full of them—I should say that anybody familiar with his writing would recognise it on these bills; there is only a rough disguise, but I suggest there is a disguise—I have no writing of his which I can produce to support that.
By MR. KEMP. I suggested to the solicitor to the Treasury that the letter I wrote after the falsification of the pay sheets was written at Hobbs' suggestion—that was before I was examined at the Police-court—I said there, "What I mean in my letter is that I desire to take the blame entirely on myself of falsifying the sheets to shield Hobbs; he had a good name; I was intimately associated with him"—I cannot give any other explanation; he was then managing director—I can recall nothing particular that led to the writing of the letter"—I did not then give the answer I have given to-day, for the same reason as I wrote the letter itself, which was my great desire to shield Hobbs as much as I could—it was after I was asked' about the falsification of the wages sheets, I said I did that at Hobbs's instigation—I did not say I did it to shield him—I said it because the whole matter was of the most painful interest to the whole of us as a family, and I was not desirous at that time of making it worse than it was; and even now I would be willing to help him as far as I could—I have told the whole truth—I should have been pleased to make it better for him, not for myself.
By MR. MATHEWS. Five of these letters are in the ordinary handwriting
of Wright—during the remand I wrote two or three letters to the solicitor to the Treasury.
By the COURT. When the letter of 26th January was written, as far as I can remember, I went down to Norbury, and told Hobbs I had heard that the matter of the wages sheets had been discovered—he was very surprised, and said it must be stopped—I said, "All right, of course I will stop it"—I then told him what I myself had been taking, that, unknown to him, I had been taking about £0 a week; he said "I am am very sorry to hear it"—I said, "I am very sorry I ever did it," and we then left the subject and went into some general business matters, and a little bit before I left he said, "You had better write some short letter acknowledging that you have done wrong, and promising to amend for the future"—nothing was said as to its being a protection to him—it would be protection to him, so far as the office was concerned and other things too—my rash enterprise was a sanitary engineering business—"the election" referred to in the letter I think was a General Election, it was not an election to the committee, but a public matter undoubtedly—Hobbs and I took a very active part in the election, and office work was neglected—if I have any distinct recollection it was the election at Croydon, when Mr. Sidney Buxton was the Liberal candidate—I never saw any handwriting like this Shirley till I saw it there—I can recognise the capital E as one of Wright's.
JOSEPH GEORGE COLDWELLS . I was clerk in what was called the Mortgage Department of the Liberator Society—the office was at Budge Row—during that time advances were made first to Hobbs and afterwards to Hobbs and Co., Limited, in separate accounts, a general account and a special account, some on surveyors' certificates and some generally on account—in 1883 there was a separate account opened called A. W. Hobbs's General Account—advances made on surveyors' certificates B. were entered and kept separately in a book corresponding with the C. surveyors' certificates and with the estates—the advances were made week D. by week as the certificates came in—these were separate from advances E. made on general account—the weekly estimates have nothing to do with F. the surveyors' certificates.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. I was at the Liberator from 1881 to 1891—Wright was appointed finance manager in 1887—he attended almost daily, first as solicitor and then daily from January, 1888, as finance manager, to look into the accounts—one account dealt with advances upon the security of property, and the other with advances from week to week—there were various accounts, all except the general account having reference to estates and upon which surveyors sent in certificates—the Liberator minutes would show to some extent the way matters were dealt with—the Catford, Streatham, and Tooley Street accounts were Liberator accounts, but I think not Ilford, nor the Brickfields Company, Hobbs having no concern in the Brickfields Company—the general account was opened on July 13th, 1883—the accounts were running concurrently—Ilford was, I think, a House and Investment Trust Account—Hobbs's general account with the Liberator was paid off on 22nd January, 1884, by £26,700 cash paid by Hobbs to the Liberator—the charges on estates were dealt with in the solicitor's department—we have no entries showing what the secretary might advance, but the account opened for each estate gives the balance as well as the amount advanced and the state of the account at any moment—the charge made on the first advance would cover future
advances—I should know of the valuation of an estate-a number of surveyors were employed—on their certifying an amount of work had been done Hobbs would be entitled to draw an amount—there were reports upon the building—some are by myself.
Re-examined. This is the minute of Wright's appointment as solicitor, on 6th March, 1876, at a salary of £1,650, he undertaking to provide offices, clerks, stationery, &c.—this is the minute of 20th December, 1887, of his appointment as financial manager, from 1st January, 1888, at a salary of £500 per annum—the word "financial" in the minute is Wright's—Hobbs got the £26,700 to pay off the Liberator from the Lands Allotment Company, which opened an account against him that same day debiting him with £26,700—this is the entry in their ledger—they appear to have continued to make advances to Hobbs to April, 1885 in five different accounts—the total was transferred back to the Liberator in this way; while the Allotment Company were advancing to Hobbs to meet bills, the Liberator were advancing to the Allotment Company; then in April, 1885, the balance on the Allotment Company's Mortgage account with the Society was retransferred partially to Hobbs's account and partially to other builders' accounts—the greater part to the Liberator—both Companies are in liquidation—Hobbs and Co. 's liability in April, 1885, to the Liberator was about £631,372.
By Sir E. CLARKE. Mr. Bird then reported as to the value of the properties charged to Hobbs and Co.—looking at the minute-book of the Allotment Company of 11th August, 1884, I see "The secretary, brought up the account showing the values of the Equities of Redemption at Coventry Park which had been examined by Mr. Walker, and which formed the basis of the special advances made to Mr. Hobbs, Resolved that the amount be entered on the minutes"—I see various schedules here upon which probably the valuation was made, but I do not see the valuation—I now see "£145,068" in this summary—I cannot take that as the valuation of the property in the schedules; the figures are Kentish's, and I see no confirmation of them here—those figures may be taken as the values plus an amount for stocks in hand and for plant and machinery; a correct value of the estate and stock and plant.
Tuesday, March 21st, 1893.
JOSEPH GEORGE COLD WELL (Cross-examination continued). The figure £145,068 in the minute-book appears to be an aggregation of different estates—these are Kentish's figures—there appears to be a schedule putting certain values against certain estates and stocks—it is in Kentish's writing—the minute is: "J. B. Hobbs, the secretary, brought up the accounts showing the Equities of Redemption at Coventry Park which had been examined by Mr. Walker, and which formed the basis of the special advance made to Mr. Hobbs, Resolved that the same be entered on the minutes"—I find appended the accounts to which I have referred show the £145,068, but that account refers to various estates, and the minutes refer to the Equity of Redemption on the one Coventry Park estate—I have not compared the schedule with the other three documents—I cannot say if they agree—I believe they are all in Kentish's writing—I really do not understand these papers at all.
Re-examined, The Liberator Society advanced £26,700 to the Lands Allotment Company—I was not present at the Board meeting, but I made some of the entries in the books.
WALTER BRAMALL . I am examiner in the office of the Official Receiver in Companies liquidations—I have had to investigate the books of the Liberator, and of J. W. Hobbs and Co., Limited—I have also some books of Hobbs before the Company was formed in April of 1885—I have examined all those books that I could find—I find no books recording advances made to Hobbs by the Liberator prior to 1885—we have some of Hobbs's books before his business was turned into a private Company, but the ledger which should form part of them was not among them—there is no ledger or other book recording advances made by Wright to Hobbs, or recording any payments made by Hobbs to Wright on account of loans, no bills-payable book belonging to Hobbs, from 1883 to 1884 covering the period of those bills—I am acting in the winding-up of the whole of the Balfour group of Companies, nine in all—I have not got immediate charge of the Lands Allotment Company—I have of the Liberator, and of. Hobbs and Co.—the moment a Company goes into liquidation it is the duty of the Official Receiver to take possession of the office and books—in the case of Hobbs and Co. occupation was not taken immediately because there was a receiver for the debenture holders—we have found some thirty books I should think altogether relating to Hobbs before the business was turned into a Company—I have found several Liberator cheques payable to Hobbs between 2nd November, 1883, and the end of March, 1884, amongst the Liberator papers—those cheques were all produced at the Police Court—the cheque of the 3rd December, 1883, could not be found—it has always been missing—all the cheques were made payable to Hobbs's order—some of them are endorsed by him—some are endorsed "Hobbs" by Kentish—one or two are not endorsed at all—Hobbs's books do not show at all how much had been advanced up to that time—it is only in the books of the Liberator that you get it—I found among the books of the Liberator Hobbs's copy-bill-book—I also found the weekly estimates produced here, and a number of others covering that period—I have checked the weekly estimates with Hobbs's copy-bill-book, and I find these eleven bills are, all but two, included in those weekly estimates—I find the two which I could not trace in the weekly estimates, although they are in the copy-bill-book, are Hoare and Brown's, £256 17s. 7d., and Micklethwaite, £263 5s.—the amount of the acceptances entered in these weekly estimates each week correspond with the acceptances entered in the copy-bill-book, and the copy-bill-book includes all the eleven—I cannot identify the exact amount from the bill-book in respect of the two bills I have mentioned—the copy-bill-book corresponds with the total amount of the acceptances which appears in the weekly estimates with the exception of the two.
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. Hobbs and Co., Limited, was registered in April, 1885, and it was in 1892 that I looked for the books on the winding-up of the Company—some five months before the winding-up Hobbs had ceased to be managing director—what books Hobbs may have handed over to Hobbs and Co., Limited, I could have no idea—I have not been personally at all to get the books—they were found at an old office of Hobbs and Co., at Queen's Buildings, by one of our clerks—Hobbs and Co. had left that office six and a half years before they were wound up—the books were left there—they did not give the office up, I believe—I believe it was empty—Hobbs and Co. had ceased to use them—I do not know if there was any caretaker there.
Re-examined. I think Hobbs's position as managing director expired by effluxion of time in May, 1892—he was appointed for seven years in April, 1885—I know that Micklethwaite's bill is not in the estimate for the 22nd December, 1883, because I have taken the copy-bill-book and Kentish's diary which shows the dates of all the bills, and I have endeavoured from this book to make up the amount shown in that estimate, but I cannot—there may be some discrepancies in the dates in the copy-bill-books that may account for it—in the estimates there is no description of the bills except acceptances due, and in some cases it merely gives the total of acceptances for the week, so that on the estimate itself there is no means of tracing them—of all the eleven bills only one becoming due on 22nd December was Micklethwaite's—where you cannot satisfactorily trace a bill through the bill-book as forming part of an estimate it does not follow that it is not in the estimate and that it is not intended to be included.
HENRY MOORE (Police-Inspector). About 9 p.m. on the 15th December I was with Inspector Tunbridge when he arrested Hobbs; Tunbridge read the two warrants to him, charging him with feloniously forging and uttering certain Bills of Exchange of the value of £136 8s. 7d. and £197 2s. 5d., with intent to defraud—Tunbridge told him we were police-officers, that he had two warrants for his arrest on a charge of forgery in conjunction with Henry Granville Wright, who was then in custody—Hobbs seemed overcome by the announcement—his son asked for an explanation—Hobbs said, "I know that I am entirely innocent; I have in my time signed many hundreds of thousands of bills, many of them without the signature of the drawer"—that was all he said in relation to the forgeries—he was brought to Bow Street and charged—he made no further statement.
JOHN TUNBRIDGE (Police-Inspector). I held the warrants for the arrest of Hobbs and Wright on 11th December—at 12.45 p.m. I went to the Grand Hotel, Broadstairs, where I saw Wright—I said, "I am a policeofficer and hold two warrants for your arrest for forgery in conjunction with Hobbs—I read them to him—he said, "Can you tell me the particulars of these forgeries?"—I said, "I have only an outline of the case"—he said: "Please tell me what you do know"—I said, "As I understand it, it is alleged that in October, 1885, a Mr. Kentish was instructed to prepare certain acceptances which purported to be drawn by various wholesale firms with whom Mr. Hobbs had dealings, that these firms knew nothing of the bills, and that you, or some one at your instigation forged the names of the firms to the acceptances, thereby obtaining the money represented by the acceptances from the Liberator Building Society, or some other sources"—he said, "In 1883 the Liberator was financing Hobbs, but they made the advances upon his estates, and did not take up his bills; Hobbs owed me money at that time, and I remember there were bills, but I cannot now recall the particulars it is so long ago"—later on, in the train, he said, "Although I am a solicitor I know nothing of the criminal law; can you tell me if it would be an offence, if, say you owed me money, and for some reason did not wish your clerks to know the particulars, and to conceal the true state of affairs you were to accept certain bills to which had been put the names of Dick, Tom, and Harry, would it be an offence when the persons whose names had been used knew nothing of the matter, and lost nothing by the bills"—I said, "I am afraid I cannot answer that
question"—while we were still on the journey between Broadstairs and Ramsgate, he said, "Who are complaining? not the directors of the Liberator, or Hobbs and Co., Limited, I am sure, and I do not see who else could do so. If anyone had been defrauded it must have been them"—I said, "I understand the Public Prosecutor has been moved by the Official Receiver"—I took him to London—we were met by Moore—Wright was taken to Bow Street, and charged there with Hobbs—Wright made no further statement—Hobbs was on bail from 16th December to 6th January—I think I assisted Inspector Moore in examining the books and papers of Hobbs that were found at Norbury Hall—I did not search myself—the information on which the warrants were granted was on the 10th December—Mr. Bramall was the informant from the Official Receiver's office, and Mr. Kentish and Mr. Bailey.
CHARLES ERNEST GRAHAM (re-examined). I have looked at the London and South-Western Bank, Upper Norwood Branch, and I have found this pass-book of Hobbs commencing in December, 1884—it must have been kept by the bank—I have found no other pass-book at the bank, and no cheques of Hobbs between October, 1883, and April, 1884—we send to our customers in the pass-book whatever cheques we have—the Marple acceptance for £55 2s. 5d. is to the debit of Hobbs on 10th March.
Witnesses deposed to the excellent characters borne by the prisoners.
253. JAMES WILLIAM HOBBS was again indicted for that be, being a director of a public Company, did make, or concur in making, a false entry of £2,405 in the books of the Company. Other Counts for falsification of the wages sheets.
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS and MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted, MR. KEMP, Q. C., MR. DICKENS, Q. C., and MR. TURNER Defended.
SAMUEL HAYMAN . I am clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file of proceedings showing that J. W. Hobbs, Limited, was incorporated on the 15th April, 1885—George C. Kentish is one of the signatories to the Memorandum of Association, and J. W. Hobbs another—by Article 3 of the Articles of Association the Company is to take over an agreement which had been made between the Building Securities Company and J. W. Hobbs—this is the original agreement, dated 14th April, 1885 (This was an agreement between The Building Securities Company and Hobbs, by which they agreed to purchase his business and take over all his liabilities as a contractor and builder, and all his freehold estate, and agreed to indemnify him against all liabilities in respect of the business, and it recited that it had been found desirable to form a Company under the style of J. W. Hobbs and Co., Limited, to carry on the business; by Clause 11 Hobbs and Co. agreed to appoint J. W. Hobbs managing director for seven years at a salary of £1,000 per annum, and 1/8 per cent, of the Company's turnover; and by Clause 12 Hobbs agreed to give all his time, and use his best endeavours for the Company).
GEORGE CHARLES KENTISH . I was formerly cleric to Hobbs, and immediately after the Company was formed I was bookkeeper and clerk under the secretary, Roberts—in September, 1885, I became secretary of the Company—at the time the Company was formed I believe a schedule or list was made of Hobbs's liabilities which the Company had to take over—I assisted in preparing that in company with Roberts and Hobbs—all those liabilities that I made a list of were transferred in due course to the hooks of the new Company—Alfred Axam Hobbs was Hobbs's cousin, and his wife was related by marriage to me—three weeks or a month before the 15th of April, 1885, I saw them both with reference to the affairs of the new Company, by the prisoner's instructions—the prisoner said he had seen Alfred and made it all right; they were willing to appear as creditors for about £2,400, and he asked me to go and settle the details with them—I took a small half-sheet of paper on which a letter was drafted by the prisoner and myself to Alfred Hobbs, and got him to sign it, and I afterwards returned that paper to the prisoner—it was a short letter asking for payment of the £2,405 due—when I took that to Alfred Hobbs I do not remember seeing his wife till just towards the end of the interview—he signed it—the paper said that Mrs. Hobbs was the creditor—within a day or two of the Company being established, after the 20th, when the books were opened, I saw the account which was opened in the journal and ledger under the name of Mrs. A. A. Hobbs—at page 5 of the journal in Roberts' writing is the entry of £2,405 9s. 9d. as a sum owing by Hobbs to Mrs. A. A. Hobbs—I find that sum to her credit in the ledger by J. W. Hobbs—it is opened as a ledger account with her, the commencing entry—on the other side of the ledger I find entries showing how that money has been paid off; on August 1st, 1885, £500; September 12th, £500;. December 24th, £500; March 5th, 1886, £500; March 26th, £416 8s. 2d., making a total of £2,416 8s. 2d.—there is an entry on the credit side of "Interest £10 18s. 5d.," which makes the sums agree—these are the five cheques representing those amounts drawn by Hobbs and Co., Limited, in favour of Mrs. A. A. Hobbs, and signed by Hobbs as a director—I took them to Mrs. A. A. Hobbs, and she or Mr. A. A. Hobbs gave me the receipts now attached—on the last receipt there is a calculation of the interest to arrive at the £2,416—the prisoner told me to calculate the interest on it—on three occasions, I think, they, or Mrs. A. A. Hobbs gave me cheques for similar amounts on her own bank to the order of J. W. Hobbs, which I handed to the prisoner—after April, 1885 I made up the wages sheets and the totals (MR. KEMP objected that as to the counts in the indictment concerning the wages sheets there could be no corroboration of this witness, who was an accomplice, that Hobbs was a party to the falsification, or received part of the proceeds.—MR. AYORY concurred that there did not seem to be sufficient corroboration of the witness, and he should not ask for a verdict upon the wages sheet counts).
Cross-examined by MR. KEMP. When the schedule of liabilities was made before the Company was formed the late Mr. Bishop represented the Company, so far as I know—I don't know if the schedule was handed to him or what has become of it.
Re-examined. Mr. Bishop would be dependent upon the information we gave him, and that information would be supplied from the books.
By the COURT. The schedule was prepared by Roberts, Hobbs, myself and Bishop, who was secretary to the Building Securities Company—he
took no step to my knowledge to ascertain the truth of the claim—I do not know what representation was made to him; I was only then a clerk in the office; Roberts and Hobbs carried through all the transaction—it was a schedule of all the assets I believe, and they were very voluminous—I know of no conversation that I had with Hobbs on this particular matter before the schedule was prepared; it was part of my office duty to help to prepare it—when I first saw it it came before me in the form of a memo-randum from A. A. Hobbs to J. W. Hobbs to pay the amount of money he or Mrs. Hobbs had lent, and I handed it to the prisoner—that was three or four weeks before the formation of the Company.
JOHN WALTER ROBERTS . I was chief clerk to Hobbs before the Company was formed—I assisted in making out a schedule of the liabilities which were to be taken over by the new Company of Hobbs and Company, and I made the entries in the journal and ledger representing that £2,405 9s. 9d. was then owing by Hobbs to Mrs. A. A. Hobbs—Hobbs told me it represented sums of money which Mrs. Hobbs had advanced to him from time to time for the purpose of his business, and that she was pressing him at the time for payment—the cheques subsequently drawn in payment of that amount I entered in the list of requirements for cheques, I believe—I cannot now remember distinctly any direct request of Hobbs for them but I should not put a requisition of that sort into the weekly statement without some special request, because it was not an ordinary payment—as secretary of the company I signed these earlier cheques after the finance committee had passed them.
Cross-examined. Hobbs's business was sold to the Building Securities Company—I cannot say if there was considerable negotiation as to the price, because I was not present, but it was some time in hand—J. S. Balfour was chairman of the Building Securities Company and Mr. Bishop was his son-in-law—I believe I assisted in preparing the schedule, which was sent to the Building Securities Company for them to consider; it afterwards came back into my hands, and then I made the entries in the book.
JULIA ANNIE HOBBS . I am the wife of Alfred Axam Hobbs, the prisoners cousin—between 1879 and 1891 I carried on a milliner's business at 76, High Street, South Norwood—I had a banking account at the South Norwood Branch of the London and South-Western Bank—in 1885 it stood in my husband's name—the prisoner did not owe me any money when his business was turned into a Limited Company, but I owed him it may have been more than £100; I was often borrowing money and paying it back—I kept an account, but it is so long ago—shortly before the Company was formed Kentish came to our house and had an interview with my husband; I just came in and saw my husband finishing signing his name to some paper which looked like half-a-sheet of note-paper—Kentish took it away—I had had no conversation before that with the prisoner—Kentish did not explain before he left what the paper was about—I received these cheques of Hobbs and Company payable to me: 1st August, 1885,. £500; 11th September, £500; 21st December, £500; 5th March, 1886,. £500; 26th March, £416 8s. 2d.—these receipts are signed, three by my husband, two by me—all the signatures on the back of the cheques are mine except the first, which is my husband's—at that time the tanking account was in his name—each of these cheques was paid into my account at the South Norwood Branch of the London and South-Western Bank except the first; the account was then in my husband's
name—having paid them in I drew a cheque on my account for the same amount, payable to the prisoner—my husband drew the first cheque I believe; but at all events I drew the last four when the account was in my name—I gave the return cheques as I received them myself, gave them at once—the first two I am sure I gave to Kentish—I burnt all my old cheques and books when I went to Eastbourne three years ago—I gave my cheques either to Hobbs or Kentish—I wrote this letter of September 8th, 1885, to the prisoner (This contained the passage, "I wish there was a chance of adding the balance over the £1,000 on to that other account, you know; it would be a very easy way of settling it"—I don't re-member what that meant; it had nothing to do with the £2,400, but it had something to do with the shops—I saw the cheques which I paid to Hobbs after they were returned from my bankers; they had then all been endorsed by Hobbs—I did not know I had been entered in Hobbs and Company's books as a creditor for £2,405 till after I had received about the third cheque, and then I understood that it was simply to be an exchange of cheques; I had no idea of our appearing as creditors.
ALFRED AXAM HOBBS . I am husband of the last witness—I had an account at the South Norwood Branch of the London and South-Western Bank, which on 13th August, 1885, was transferred into my wife's name—shortly before the incorporation of the Company into which Hobbs's business was turned Kentish came with a document which I signed—about a month before that Hobbs had said to me, "I have got a little affair on; it will make no difference to you, and it will simply be an exchange of cheques, Mr. Kentish will call upon you and give you further details"—after that Kentish called with a paper, which I signed and he took away—he said, "You have seen Mr. Hobbs; I have called in reference to that affair Mr. Hobbs has spoken to you about," and he produced the paper—I never could remember what was on the paper—I did not read it, I did not ask for an explanation; he told me to sign this paper as it referred to what Hobbs and myself had talked over—Hobbs told me what I was to do—Kentish said he brought this paper for me to sign, that is all; I signed it—I believe the paper had reference to money; that came out from Kentish I believe—it had reference to £2,000,1 believe; I don't know what it was, I never read it—I am not a business man, or else I should not have been so foolish as to sign it—Kentish did not tell me what was the object of my signing it—Hobbs told me he had got this little scheme on; it was a scheme for his own benefit I suppose; my signing the paper was helping in his scheme, I believe—I did not explain the thing to my wife after Kentish had gone—I got this cheque—my writing is at the back—I gave a receipt, and paid the cheque into my banking account at South Norwood—I believe I signed the receipt when I got the cheque which Kentish brought me—the receipt says, "July 31, 1885, Received from Messrs. J. W. Hobbs and Co., Limited, the sum of £500 on account of £2,405 9s. 9d., due to me by Mr. J. W. Hobbs for cash advanced, with thanks"—that was not true; Kentish dictated to me what to say—I wrote it knowing it was not true—I had great confidence in Hobbs at that time—I did not know all about it—I knew very little about it—I paid the cheque into my banking account and drew a cheque for £500, payable to J. W. Hobbs—the cheque came back from my bankers, endorsed by the prisoner—these receipts for two further payments of £500 ach are mine; they both bear my signature—Kentish wrote this one and I signed it—I knew nothing about interest and nothing at all about it—
there was not a farthing of interest due to me that I know of—I did not know what was on the back of this receipt, and I did not ask; Kentish brought that paper worked out, and I signed it—about Christmas last, after the prisoner had been arrested and while he was out on bail, I went to his house at Norbury Hall and had some conversation with him in the library—he said, "If that little affair is brought up you can say that you have been in the habit of lending me large sums of money at the time that little affair of ours was arranged"—I did not reply, I did not know what to say to the proposal—after that we broke into general conversation.
Cross-examined. The prisoner at times had in his possession considerable sums of money belonging to my wife, as much as £1,000—the conversation I have spoken of was at the death of his child—I did not tell him that I should tell the officials what I have said to-day—I only told them last week—I had not. been threatened with prosecution with reference to what had passed between me and the prisoner—on that day Tunbridge called on me in the Treasury room, and said, "I hear you were at Norbury." I said "Yes, I had a letter from Mr. Hobbs asking me to attend the funeral, to keep the boys company, and I went."—I don't know if the Inspector had his eye upon me—I have seen him a good many times—I did not anticipate that I might possibly be prosecuted; it has never been suggested to me.
Re-examined. I went to the Treasury as a witness to give a statement when I was spoken to by Tunbridge—I do not think Mrs. Hobbs was owing the prisoner money in 1885.
WILLIAM STIMSON . I am a clerk in the South Norwood Branch of the London and South-Western Bank—Alfred Hobbs had an account there up to 13th August, 1885, when it was transferred to his wife's name—on 1st August, 1885, this cheque for £500, drawn by Hobbs and Co. on the London and General Bank, was paid in to the credit of that account—on 8th August, 1885, the account was debited with a cheque for £500 drawn on that account—on 14th September, 1885, a second cheque for. £500 of Hobbs and Co. was paid in to the account, and on the 21st the account is debited with-£500 11s. drawn out—this is a copy of the account certified under the statute (The items were here read.)
CHARLES DOUGHTY . I am a clerk in the Croydon Branch of the London and South-Western Bank—I found a certified copy of Hobbs's account there in 1885 and 1886—on 7th August, 1885, a cheque for. £500 was paid in to his credit, and on the 19th a similar cheque—on December 13th another similar cheque, and on 7th April, 1886, a cheque for £416 8s. 2d.
WALTER BRAMALL . I am an examiner in the Official Receiver's office—I find in the minute-book of J. W. Hobbs and Co. the appointment of Hobbs as a director on April 15th, 1885, and on April 20th I find him appointed managing director at a salary of £1,000 a year on the terms of the agreement of 1885, and that he be an ex officio member of all committees—in the agreement read yesterday, he is to be a director for seven years at a salary of £1,000 per annum—I found an old ledger of Hobbs's business before it was turned into a Company; it contains a ledger account in the name of A. A. Hobbs, from whom £2 0s. 5d. was due at the date of the formation of the Company.
254. HENRY GRANVILLE WRIGHT was again indicted for that he, being an officer of the Houses and Lands Investment Society, made certain false entries in the books, and GEORGE NEWMAN aiding and abetting him in the same. Other Counts for obtaining. £4,000 from the liberator Building Society, also to conspiring to obtain £10,000 from the liberator Building Society, Limited, and £10,000 from Newman and Co., Limited.
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS and MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; Sir E. CLARKE, Q. C., and Messrs. BESLEY and SPOFFORTH Defended WRIGHT, and MR. WILLIS, Q. C., and MR. BODKIN Defended NEWMAN.
GEORGE WILLIAM FINCH . I am a solicitor and a clerk in the office of Messrs. Fladgate, of Charing Cross, solicitors to the Exhibition Commissioners of 1851, on whose behalf at the end of 1889 I prepared a building agreement between them and Mr. Sari—I produce a copy of the draft agreement—it was signed by Sari on April 15th, 1889—it is an offer by Mr. Sari to take lands from the Commissioners at a ground-rent beginning at £7,500, and an ultimate agreement for four plots of land mentioned, for 98 or 99 years, with the proviso that the first year's ground-rent is to be paid down as a deposit—shortly before December 18th, 1889, in consequence of a communication from Mr. Sari's solicitor, George Newman was sub-stituted in place of Mr. Sari, and an agreement was completed on 18th December between the Exhibition Commissioner and George Newman personally, of which I produce the counterpart, signed George Newman, and on that day. £7,500 was paid down for the first year's ground-rent—the costs would be paid by Newman—we also received the surveyors' fees—the Commissioners never had any assignment to George Newman and Co., and as far as I know no such assignment was ever made.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. By the third paragraph the houses to be erected were to be specially approved by an architect of eminence to be appointed by the lessors—I know nothing about one being appointed—Mr. Hunt was the Commissioners' surveyor and I have no doubt he acted as surveyor of the buildings Mr. Newman proceeded to erect—I know that Mr. Hunt was the person appointed to act in respect of that agreement; we received our instructions from him.
RICHARD BYRON JOHNSON . I am a solicitor of 49, Parliament Street—at the end of 1889 I acted as solicitor for Mr. Sari in selling an agreement from the Exhibition Commissioners to him and from him to George Newman and Co.—Sari had sent in a tender in April, and to the best of my recollection Messrs. Bonner, Wright and Thompson were the first persons with whom I came into communication—I saw the defendant Wright as representing that firm—on 27th November, 1889, the heads of agreement were reduced into writing, showing the conditions under which Sari was to sell his interest under the Commissioners to George Newman and Co., Limited—it appears that Mr. Sari agrees to sell all his rights in respect of certain lands for, £16,000, payable at different dates, and some of them at considerable dates after the agreement—the deposit was £7,500, representing a year and a half's ground-rent payable in advance—it was agreed on behalf of Mr. Sari for and on behalf of Messrs. George Newman and Co., Limited—while I was in communication with Bonner, Wright and Thompson, the defendant Newman was I think present on one or two occasions when it was under discussion—I cannot speak quite positively—this (produced) is my copy of the original document (This was not produced)—whatever documents I had I handed to the Treasury—I think the original was
retained by Wright because the receipt for the amount was written across it—I was present at the date of the completion, (December 18M, 1889) with Mr. Sari, Mr. Newman, and someone from Mr. Bonner's office either Mr. Bromill, the managing clerk, or Mr. Wright, or both—the meeting took place at Mr. Fladgate's, and. £4,000 was stipulated to be paid to me in bank-notes, or Mr. Sari's account, which was paid in two notes of £1,000 and four of. £100, and the acceptances under the heads of agreement to the amount of £12,000 by George Newman and Co., and endorsed, were handed over to me—those acceptances were all met at maturity, to the best of my belief—there were no other cash payments, and the full bill payment was £12,000—I have not heard until this trial of a contract or any interest under it being sold to George Newman and Co. for £26,000, or of any payment of balance in cash being made on account of it.
Cross-examined by Sir EDWARD CLARKE. I had nothing to do with it after the money was paid—a question was raised as to whether a Limited Company should be substituted for Mr. Sari, (A letter from Mr. Sari to the Commissioners was here put in authorising them to substitute for his name that of Mr. George Newman, of Budge Row, Cannon Street)—the Commissioners asked for Mr. Newman's references, and they were given, and on that Mr. Newman's name was put in as the substitute, and after that another name was put in—the negotiations lasted nearly a year between his applying for the bond and it being settled, and ultimately a sale was proposed as he was a very old man—I originally asked. £30,000 for the sale of the interest—while Mr. Sari was in possession, a valuation was obtained from Messrs. Virgo, Buckland, and Garrod, but not on Mr. Sari's behalf; but whether he negotiated with other people I cannot say—it came to Mr. Newman and Mr. Wright through Mr. Steele's agency, a commission agent; he had no interest in the matter; we paid him on commission on our side, and I believe Steele told me that he was paid £1,000 commission on the other side, by the purchasers.
By the COURT. We pay him £1,000 to get as much as he can, and the other side pay him £1,000 to get as little as he can—we paid him the £1,000 out of the, £16,000, it was quite immaterial to us whether we paid the whole £16,000 into our bankers or drew a cheque for it.
By MR. MATHEWS. That £16,000 received by Sari was a clear profit subject to survey; they let it at the ground-rent, and Sari sold it at £16,000 profit, subject to commission, and the clear profit was what was left.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. Mr. Sarl considered it a very valuable site—I got a valuation from Mr. Garrard; he valued the rent at 50 per cent, more than was paid for it; Mr. Sari's hope and calculation was to make something like a quarter of a million if he carried it out himself; there was about a million of money involved—he afterwards decided to sell his interest; he was a very old man and very sanguine, and I advised him rather to sell it than try to work it.
Re-examined. He died at the commencement of this trial; he had been ill for a long time.
JOHN GEORGE COLDWELL . I am in the employ of the Official Receiver in the liquidation of the Liberator Building Society—in November, 1889, I was employed in the mortgage department of the Liberator—that department had the management of the advances made on security—the defendant Wright was at that time the financial manager and his
firm were the solicitors—the defendant Newman was one of the surveyors employed by the Liberator—I was not present at the meeting of November 20th, 1889. (Sir EDWARD CLARKE objected to the minutes of the meeting being put in. MR. A VORY contended that they were evidence, as they purported to be tinned by the Chairman. The COURT declined to admit them.)—the minute-book came from the office of the Society—I had been four months secretary at the date of winding-up, and as such, had charge of the minute-books, of which this is one—I find here a copy of a letter pinned to the book—the original of the letter cannot be found—I knew Newman's signature—this purports to be the minute-book of George Newman and Co., Limited—I find here the minutes of a meeting on 6th December, 1889, and the minutes of the previous meeting are signed by George Wright. (The minute of 6th December was read; it referred to the Albert Hall land, any was to the effect that certain resolutions were carried with regard to the purchase of the land.—The first stood originally, "Mr. George Newman of this Company," but was altered to "That this Company do purchase of Mr. Newman" an agreement relating to certain lands near the Albert Hall for£16,000, payable £8,000 in cash and the balance in bills; that the rent of£7,500 be paid in advance, and that Newman be indemnified against any liability in respect of the agreement. Wright reported that he was interested to a certain moderate extent in the sum paid for acquiring the contract; and this the Board recognised and approved. It was resolved that application be made to the Liberator to advance the money necessary to carrying out the buildings contemplated, and also £41,777 10s. necessary to be paid at that time; that the Liberator be offered a bonus of £25,000 for making such advances and 6 per cent, interest, and that the Liberator should be asked to endorse bills for £12,000 given by the Company to the vendors and to offer them a bonus for so doing.)—I find a minute of another meeting on 20th December, 1889, signed by Newman—it contains a report by him that the agreement relating to the Albert Hall land has been signed—on 9th December, 1889, the Liberator drew a cheque for £41,777 10s. payable to George Newman and Co.—Wright at that date only signed cheques drawn on the mortgage account; this is a cheque drawn on the current account—it was the practice to make a requisition to the Liberator for the cheque before it was drawn—this is the requisition for the cheque coming from the solicitors, Bonnor, Wright, Thompson and Co.—the requisition is headed Mortgage Account—I can only assume a reason for its not being drawn on the mortgage account, it ought to have been in the ordinary course of business—the figures are Mr. Herbert Temple's, who was secretary at that time, and head of the mortgage department, and he was promoted about that time—before advances were made on mortgage it was usual for the solicitor to report as to the title—I have searched but cannot find any report made by the solicitor as to the title in this case—the cheque for £41,777 10s. was paid on the 9th, and on the same day the Liberator received from George Newman and Co. a cheque for £25,000—I find on 18th March, 1890, a further sum of £4,000 advanced by the Liberator to George Newman and Co.—this is the counterfoil cheque-book—I find attached to it the requisition for that amount from George Newman—there is a letter of 18th March, 1890, signed by Newman to the Liberator. (This was a reference to the Albert Hall estate, and stated that on the 18th the acceptance for£4,000 would become due, and asked for a cheque to be able to take it up)—Newman and Co. had that amount from the Liberator less £22 for fees;
the cheque sent to Newman was for. £3,978—after that further sums were advanced to George Newman and Co., amounting to either £15,200 or. £13,500—I had letters from Newman and Co. from time to time asking for further amounts on account of the purchase—if the letter did not specify for what the money was wanted instructions would be taken from Wright, the financial manager, as to whether the amount then advanced was to be charged to purchase or building account—I have been through all these accounts frequently—I cannot swear that all the papers are here; most of the requisitions are pasted in the book—the ledger would show whether the money was advanced on purchase account, or on building; a separate account was kept of money advanced on buildings, and by comparing that with the general indebtedness you would get the amount—all the advances were made under the superintendence of Wright as financial manager, and by cheques which would be payable to Newman and Co.—the alteration in the minute-book is in Newman's writing, I believe.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. The list of moneys advanced by way of mortgage are all passed through one ledger account against the mortgagor—there should be a document on which all advances made to New-man and Co. were entered; it was produced at an audit, but not in this case.
Re-examined. In June, 1891, I was head of the mortgage department—at that time the Liberator was in the habit of making a weekly advance of £1,000 to George Newman and Co. for building on the Albert Hall estate, and in the ordinary course I drew a cheque every week for £1,000 for Newman and Co., or two cheques amounting to that sum—on 12th June, 1891, I drew two cheques for. £500 each for theadvance—Wright in the ordinary course of business would come and see what advances were to be made and authorise any particular advance—Wright came on that day, and he and Newman came into the office within a very short time of one another—Wright asked me how much had been drawn, and I said £1,000; he said that would not be enough that week—Wright and Newman discussed the matter, and left the room together; they may have seen some other people about it; I was not present the whole of the time—Wright returned and told me I should have to draw a further £4,100—I commenced to draw a cheque for that amount, and filled up the counterfoil for that amount, and Wright then told me to draw it in two amounts, £2,500 and £1,600, and I drew two cheques for those amounts, making a total of £5,100 with the first £1,000, all payable to Newman and Co.—in the ordinary course cheques drawn in that way for advances would go to the offices of the solicitor to be fetched by the borrower; in this case the £2,500 was either taken away by Wright or handed to someone on his instructions, and the other one sent to Bonnor, Wright and Co. 's office to be fetched by Newman—that would be for the purpose of the solicitor preparing the necessary security—I was told the £2,500 cheque was paid into the London and General Bank by Wright—all these Companies banked there—I cannot say whose account he told me it went to—on instructions or information given me by Wright on 12th June, 1891, I wrote this letter of instructions to Bonnor, Wright and Co., with reference to this cheque—I don't remember seeing Newman endorsing the cheque; I don't remember where I got the information from that he had endorsed it—I gave instructions for an entry to be made in the mortgage
ledger of the total advance of £5,100 on that day to Newman, and it appears here "12th June, £5,100"—it is also entered in the advance register as a total sum of £5,100—these are the cheques for the £2,500 and £1,600.
Friday, March 24th.
I desire to amend my yesterday's evidence; I stated that the instructions for all the purchase cheques for the Albert Hall estate were issued under the supervision. of Mr. Wright; I cannot prove that as to the last four or five cheques—I have now made out a list of the cheques which were drawn on account of the purchase of the Albert Hall land and given by the Liberator—I find requisitions from Newman and Co. for those amounts with seven exceptions—I have shown the details—the counterfoils of the cheques are here, and show that they were drawn for purchasing advances apart from building advances, except one of July 22nd '90, for £500; they make a total of £19,500 over and above the cheque for £41,710 spoken of yesterday—I find in the minute-book of the Lands Allotment Company a minute signed by Newman and dated December 3rd, 1889, annexed to which is a letter dated December 4th, 1889, of George Newman, chairman of Newman and Co., Limited, requesting the Lands Allotment Company to endorse the bill and proposing to pay £1,000 for doing it, by draft at nine months from that date—I find in the-books of the Liberator on 6th March, 1876, "Resolved that Mr. H. S. Wright be appointed solicitor, and that an annual sum of £1,600 be paid to him," and on December 20th, 1887, I find a minute appointing Wright manager of the Liberator; the word "Official" being written in his own writing in pencil—the firm of Bonnor, Wright and Co., are appointed solicitors by a minute of January 9th, 1888—I find in the minute-book of the Lands Allotment Company of March 13th 1876, a minute appointing Mr. W. G. Wright, solicitor, at a salary of £350 in the place of Mr. Pattison, resigned; and in the minute-book of Newman and Co., of March 13th, 1886, when Wright, Newman and the secretary, who was another Newman, were present, I find a resolution that Bonnor, Wright and Co., be the solicitors for the Company.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. Before Mr. Wright was appointed solicitor he was financial manager, and his firm were the solicitors—in the requisition which makes up the £41,710 there is an item of £202 10s. for solicitor's charges—payments for solicitor's charges go out and remain with the Society, except payments out of pocket—they would be kept by the Society, the Society paying the solicitor—I had nothing to do with the receipt of the requisition or the dealing with it; Mr. Herbert Temple made the alterations; he was the head of the department, and became secretary in 1890—I do not know of my own knowledge on what information he made these figures; he is in Court—I used to see Mr. Wright almost every day: his duties were to attend to financial duties generally; he only had to do with me if I took his instructions for cheques to be drawn—I drew most of the cheques for the Albert Hall from his instructions—I did not attend the Board meetings; there was a summary showing what cheques had been drawn—I have not got any of them here—they were usually prepared by the secretary or by Mr. Temple—Mr. Brock was secretary then; he was here yesterday—I used to see the cash statements in the way of business; they showed the various receipts and payments—they are handed over to the Official Receiver—of £41,710 £25,000 went back as
bonus to the Liberator—that was bonus on the general undertaking to finance—I presume the secretary would know whether there was any arrangement as to what amount that bonus of £25,000 was to cover somebody must know, I do not of my own knowledge—an account was kept in the book of advances made on the Albert Hall estate; I do not think I made any of the entries, or a very few of them, but when I drew cheques the instructions went from me in order to make up the mortgage account—I saw the account every day, it included every payment made on this account—I do not suggest that any advance was made which was not fully placed on the books of the Liberator—there were two committees, the finance committee and the survey committee—I used to attend the survey committee, because I was in the mortgage department, but not the finance committee—the survey committee used to report to the Board from Board meeting to Board meeting—Mr. Wright did not take any supervision of the books, the secretary had that duty—there were surveyors' certificates for £6,900 on the building which Newman was putting up after deducting the. £5,100—at the time this matter took place a balance of £12,000 was due to Newman and Co., which had to be met sooner or later.—I should take no instructions from New-man in drawing the cheque; he was there—I drew two cheques mak-ing up the. £1,000, and was then instructed to draw for. £4,100 more in two cheques—I had written the counterfoil of a cheque, and that was corrected, and it was divided into £1,600 and £2,500—on June 15th £1,594 8s. came back to the Liberator on account of repayment of other mortgages; that lessened the indebtedness of Newman and Co. to the Society, and on the same day £50 more was paid to the Liberator for interest on the Albert Hall and £2 10s. for law charges—Newman and Co. got their money, and the £1,600 practically came back to the Liberator as another advance—the £1,600 cheque is signed by Mr. Booth, one of the directors, and by the solicitor, and this is my pencil writing on the back; "Albert Hall £1,600, please exchange for cheque value £1,594 8s. to the order of the Liberator Company"—that was written before it went to the secretary, and before it went to Bonnor and Wright—the paying of that money out and in. was practically one transaction I believe—Newman got £1,600, and paid back £1,500 on other accounts—the £1,600 cheque was actually delivered over by me; not to Mr. Newman, we sent it to Bonnor and Thompson—the endorsement was put on on June 12th—the solicitor acting on the instructions in pencil, would hand over a cheque for £1,594 8s., which would go to various mortgage accounts on which Newman and Co. were indebted to the Liberator—I cannot remember whether Newman endorsed the cheque in my presence; I understood the solicitor that it had been paid into, the London and General Bank, by the letter which was read yester-day—I did not know to what account it was going.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I have seen the instructions by which the cheque on account of the Albert Hall estate was conveyed to the Liberator Society, but I have not gone through the particulars—the total amount by the Liberator was £123,231 18s. 2d.; I am content to take that sum; I have not looked on the endorsements on the mortgages to see whether they are all in order—the £123,000 did not include the £25,000 bonus, that amount is due to the Society after crediting the £25,000 received by way of bonus—I do not know whether I can say that the amount advanced was not advanced as bonus; the £123,000 includes the £25,000
paid for premium; the £123,000 includes the 7 per cent, interest—Mr. Newman had many transactions with the Liberator, some of them were of large amount; and this £1,594 went in reduction of moneys that had been advanced by the Liberator for other purposes—the certificates given by Mr. Bird were on the Albert Hall estate—some of the directors of the Lands Allotment Company were directors of the Liberator—the £1,000 to be paid to the Lands Allotment Company for endorsing Newman's bills was to be paid by bills—I believe that was afterwards altered to a payment of £1,000; I think it was just immediately after the date of that minute of 4th December that £1,000 was paid to the Lands Allot-ment Company—I supposed that the £2,500 was to be placed at the Lon-don and General Bank—I certainly did not know that it was going to be used for the debt of Mr. Wright—I do not know that £50 covered the whole of Newman's payments as surveyor to the Liberator—I have not calculated it, but I should think he took altogether several hundreds—I cannot point to entries, I may be mistaken—letter No. 30 probably went with the cheque to the solicitors, Bonnor, Wright and Co.—I did not know that it was the practice at Newman's for the secretary to go and get the cheques.
Re-examined. The office of the London and General Bank was in the same building and on the same floor as the Liberator; the Lands Allotment Company was also in the same building—I understood from Mr. Wright that the £2,500 cheque was going to be paid into the London and General Bank—I supposed it was to be paid into the account of Newman and Co.—Wright did not tell me so; he told me simply that it had gone into the London and General Bank—the cheque had been already drawn as an advance to Newman and Co.—he said nothing to indicate that it had gone to anyone else's account—the letter of 12th June was written in consequence of something that was told me by Wright—I should have to ask Wright what had become of the cheque, so as to enable me to inform the solicitors that they were right in getting a charge for it—it was in consequence of what Wright said to me that I wrote the letter of 12th June, 1891—Stocks was secretary to Newman and Co.—the whole of the £12,000 for surveyors' certificates was subsequently liquidated, partly by the £5,100; but fresh certificates were coming in, and fresh payments—the £2,500 was not paid twice over to Newman and Co., only this one of 12th June, 1891—this memorandum attached to the requisition for £41,000 is in Wright's handwriting; the increased amount is entered.
HAREY STOCKS . I am now in the service of the defendant Newman—I was formerly secretary to George Newman and Co., Limited—in November and December, 1889, I was bookkeeper to the Company—I remember the purchase of the Albert Hall land—in this mortgage ledger of Newman and Co., at page 34, there is an account headed" Albert Hall Purchase Account; there is one account showing the moneys received, and another showing the money paid—on 18th December, 1889, I find the receipt of a cheque for £41,770 10s. from the Liberator Building Society; on 24th March, 1890, a further sum of £4,000, and further sums up to 20th March, 1891, amounting to £12,400; altogether the total is £58,177—in September, 1891, there is a receipt on the purchase account from the Liberator in four amounts: September 4th, 11th, 18th, and 27th, for £2,000 each—all those entries are made without showing whether they are for purchase
account or building account—the total amount received from the Liberator on the purchase account of the Albert Hall is. £54,177 10s.—it was booked to the building account—there is nothing here to show that it was on the building account, it is simply "cash"—if it was for purchase I should put it down "Purchase," so I took it for building account—"Cash" means building account—whenever "Cash" is found in this book it means build-ing account—the cash-book would show how the £41,177 was disposed of—my pencil entries are in this book (the mortgage ledger)—this has an entry showing how the £41,000 was disposed of—I made these pencil entries from the cash-book, for my own purpose, only so that I should see at any time how this account was made up; special minutes to show that—£25,000 was paid back to the Liberator, and £1,000 was paid to the Lands Allotment Company for backing the bills, £7,500 for the ground-rent, and, £277 10s. for costs and fees, leaving a balance of. £8,000 entered as cash paid for the purchase of the premises—turning to the cash-book at page 260 the entry shows how the, £8,000 was dealt with: "Johnson and Steele, on account of purchase, £8,000," under the heading" Albert Hall, 18th December"—going back to the mortgage ledger, at page 141, December 10th, 1889, the. £8,000 is entered under the heading "K. B. Johnson Bartleet, to purchase money. £26,000, made up by £8,000 cash, and £18,000 bills—that is under the heading of "Albert Hall land"—there is no record in our books of the disposal of £4,000, the difference between the £8,000 and the £4,000 paid in cash—my instructions to make these entries in the cash-book, which I copied in pencil from the mortgage ledger, would be either from the solicitors of the Company or the chairman, Mr. Newman, the defendant—a cheque was drawn by Newman and Co. on the 18th December for the £8,000—this is it, it is an open cheque payable to R. B. Johnson, bearer, signed George Newman and Charles Newman—after that date Newman and Co. accepted bills on account of this purchase to the amount of £18,000, making a total, with those cheques, of £26,000 out of the coffers of Newman and Co., on account of this purchase—two of those bills were discounted by Newman and Co. them-selves, the rest were met at maturity—this cheque for £1,000 was paid to the Lands Allotment Company—in June, 1891, I was secretary to the Compay—at that date we were in the habit of receiving an advance of £1,000 weekly from the Liberator—on 12th June, 1891, I received two cheques of £500 each, and another for £1,600, all marked "Albert Hall"—I went to the office of Bonnor, Wright and Co. to fetch them, in accordance with the ordinary practice, I there saw the letter (Exhibit 30) written by Coleworth referring to a further advance of £2,500 made to us that day—seeing that letter I did not ask for the £2,500 cheque, because the letter states that it was delivered into the London and General Bank—I spoke to Mr. Newman about it the first time I saw him, not the same day, within a day or so—to the best of my recollection I brought the letter away from Bonnor, Wright and Co. 's, and showed it to Mr. Newman, and he instructed me it was to open an account in the bank in the name of New-man and Co.—I thereupon made an entry in the mortgage ledger, deposit folio 33, "To cash £2,500"—I kept that book—by that entry that £2,500 appears to be paid into Newman's account—when the pass-book came back from the bank I looked to see whether Newman and Co. had been credited with that amount—I spoke to Newman about it at various times; when making up the accounts, between June and December, I called his
attention to the fact that I had not had the money; he said he would see to it—in December, 1891, I spoke to him again about it, and he told me to write it off into the fees account, as he could not get the money—I then made the entry in the mortgage ledger, "Amount charged to fees," under the date of 21st December, 1891—my book showing the total advance of £5,100 would not have agreed, unless I had made some entry of that kind—December, 1891, was the end of our financial year—the audit was con-ducted by Mr. Newman; he was his own auditor—the accounts were audited weekly—I also entered the. £2,500 into the fees account, in the private ledger under date 31st December—the London and General Bank were our bankers—the fees account means statement of fees paid by us to surveyors—the £2,500 is entered in the cash-book on 12th June, 1891, as a sum received that day—we had not actually received it in cash; it is entered as a receipt on the other side.
By the COURT. The cash-book is supposed to contain entries of cash received; we had not actually received that £2,500—no one gave me instructtions to make that entry in the cash-book—it would go through in the ordinary way—I can't say that I had definite instructions to enter the money—we had instructions from the solicitors—I have no doubt of that being the case—I have said that I myself had not received the cheque, but I expected to receive it every day—I really cannot remember receiving any definite instructions about it; I knew it had to go into the accounts of the Company. By MR. AVORY: Newman gave me instructions to make the entry in the mortgage ledger—a question arose either to take it into the ledger from the journal or the cash-book; the cash-book would come first—Newman gave me instructions to put it into the books of the Company, as a sum received—I have not got here the cheque-book of Newman and Co.—I have the ledger—on 7th March, 1890, a cheque for £500 was drawn by Newman and Co. on the Albert Hall purchase account, entered as paid to Johnson Bartleet—on 11th April another payment is entered in the ledger of £450 as paid to the same—on 15th May there is an entry of £500 as paid to. the same, or Albert Hall purchase, in the cash-book it is to "Albert Hall purchase"—Wright had an account with us; I have it here—in that he is credited with £1,000; in 1890 on 4th July there was a further payment by Newman and Co. of £500 on account of this purchase—in the cash-book it is entered to "Albert Hall purchase"—there is nothing in the cash-book to show to whom that went—in the ledger it is "Johnson Bartleet"—these three are the actual cheques I speak of: March 9th, April 4th, and May 15th—they are all "Payable to bearer"—on the back of one of them is entered "May 15th, pay to Dimsdale Bank 16-5-90"—the £1,000 credited to Wright on 27th June came from H. G. Wright—he drew a cheque for £1,000 on that day and paid it in to Newman; we sent the cash; I can't say as to the cheque; I don't say it was paid in gold; I can't say if it was paid in notes; it is not taken through the cash-book; if it was paid into the bank in cash it would appear in the cash-book; probably it never came into the office; from the entry I believe it did not come through the office—we have credited Wright with £1,000, and it had been paid away in part purchase of the Albert Hall land; it was simply brought through the journal, crediting Wright with money advanced on account of the purchase of Albert Hall—I see that, by the book—I should have instructions from the Chairman to make that entry
—I must have had it from him; the Chairman instructed me to make the entry crediting. £1,000 to Wright—if Wright had in fact paid over a cheque or cash for £1,000 to Newman and Co. it would have appeared in our cash-book, if paid into the bank—if we kept it in the till it would be entered in the cash-book—it does not appear in the cash-book; it is in the journal—I say I do not believe we received. £1,000 from Wright that day—I say we did not receive it in cash—on the mortgage which was executed to the Liberator, I signed a receipt for this total sum of £5,100 on 12th June, 1891.
Cross-examined by Sir E. CLARKE. I have been dealing with accounts appearing in the books of Newman and Co., Limited, which I kept—Wright had nothing to do with those accounts, and so far as I know he never saw them—I had no conversation with Wright about the credit of. £1,000 given to him on the 27th June, 1890—so far as I know he knew nothing about these entries—at the time the account was opened, it would be advances by Wright to Newman and Co. on the different properties; everything was merged into one account—under date of June 19, there are repayments by us to Wright on the loan account—the entry £1,000 for money advanced on account of purchase money of the Albert Hall, two bills due March 21,1891, of £500 each, means, according to the entry, that Wright advanced us that money to take up those two bills—I know nothing about it except from the entries; according to them Wright advanced £1,000 to take up those two bills—Wright is credited with £1,000—he is not debited on the other side with the same £1,000—we still owed Wright £1,000 at that date—that is the effect of the books—it appears from the books that that £1,000 was paid in smaller sums—£1,000 was not given, but we used to pay £200 a week, up to October 2nd, 1891—the account was not balanced until the end of the year—there were other transactions—it was never balanced by cash payment, but amounts were cancelled—Newman's debt to Wright was cancelled by Wright and Newman, because one party could not do it alone—no instructions were given to me about it by Wright.
Cross-examined by Mr. WILLIS. I have been connected with Newman and Co. since the formation of the Company—nearly the whole of the capital was held by George Newman—some of his brothers were directors, and they took part in the conduct of the buildings, and did the mercantile portion of the concern—the chairman (Newman) attended to the financial portion—matters to a large extent have been left in his hands, to deal with advances, and make arrangements for carrying on the Company's business—all the directors would generally attend the Board meetings, unless they were away in the country looking after the buildings—the practice was for the directors themselves to sign an attendance book—such a book has always been kept—the books have been taken possession of by the liquidator of the Company—I became secretary in April, 1891—I did not write the names of the persons present at the Board meetings in the minute-book, because we had a separate book, solely for the purpose of the directors writing their own names—I never noticed on the minutes the names of the directors who were absent—meetings were held at the Company's office weekly—on Friday it was the rule for most of the directors to attend, and each of them reported on works and land—each director having charge of a business came and reported the state of the business to the directors present—I was not secretary on December
6th, 1889, and I know nothing about the resolutions of that date—I find in that minute a report as to various building transactions in which the Company was engaged—there is the Albert Hall land, upon which the chairman would report—Wright also reported on that date on the Albert Hall land—there is a report as to Billiter Street—it does not say by whom; but it was by one of the directors who had charge of it—that was Mr. William Newman—there is a report about Walbrook—it says. nothing about who had charge of that j-but it would be Mr. William Newman—there is a report as to Chingford of which William Newman had charge, also of Catford, of which Mr. Daniel Newmam had charge—there is also Sherringham and Bognor—wherever I find reports made and nothing said about their being absent, those persons were present at the meeting—on 18th March, 1890, there were bills maturing in respect of the Albert Hall—under the heading "Johnson" there are three bills of Sarle of £666 13s., and each maturing on 21st March—they were met at maturity—I also find on that day two bills for £5,000 each, due in respect of the purchase, also given to Newman—they were bills of Sarle and Johnson, endorsed by the Lands Allotment Company—it is reported that they did not endorse all the lot—the Lands Allotment did hack all the bills that Johnson and Sarle had—the £2,000 was a portion of those bills—I do not find £1,000 worth of bills entered as given to George Newman at that time—I find maturing on 31st March two bills of Newman and Co. for £5,000 each, drawn by Byron and Johnson—I have not got who was the actual drawer of those bills—in the bill-book two bills are entered as maturing on 21st March of £600 each—that is in my writing—I have no doubt that those bills were drawn payable on that day—there is no sum received from the Liberator Building Society on account of the Albert Hall estate that is not entered in these books that I kept—I have made no distinction between the way in which the money was applied, whether by way of interest or the building of the houses—every farthing is entered which the Liberator Society advanced in respect of the Albert Hall estate, and since I became secretary all the moneys I received have been endorsed on the mortgage securities, signed by me and then entered in the books—on Friday, 12th June, I knew I had ✗ cheques, two for £500 and one for £1,600—I signed also for £2,500, as having been received by Newman and Co. from the Liberator—I did not get that myself, but believed it would be paid into the London and General Bank-r-having signed for the £5,100, I credited the Liberator Building Society as having paid £500, £500, £1,600,. and £2,500, and they' are on the debit side of my cash-book—I credited myself with the £2,500 in the London and General Bank account, and then posted it to the debit of the London and General Bank, assuming that amount was at the Bank, and that in due course it would be credited in the pass-book—I did not suppose it was put on deposit—when I spoke to Newman of this transaction, lie said he was trying to get the money—at the end of the year he said he could not get it, and it must be written off—This is the entry relating to the £1,000 in my writing. (Read.) "£1,000 for moneys advanced on account of purchase money Albert Hall, two bills due March 21st, 1891. £500 each."—I suppose I wrote it at the time, 30th June—I take it according to this, that Wright advanced us £1,000, taking these two bills. In the new bills book the entry of the two bills is "£500 each, due 21st March, 1891. Discounted 27.6.90."—I have no doubt Wright discounted
those two bills on 27th June, which were due the following March, and on the 30th I made the entry.
Re-examined. The entry only shows that Wright had two of Newman's bills for £500 each—the entry from the journal into the ledger shows that Wright paid £1,000 to Newman—the cash-book does not show it—I did not understand that the £2,500 was on deposit in the ordinary sense—the entry in the mortgage ledger is London and General Bank Deposit £2,500—there is no entry of these sums in the books of George Newman and Co. to which the word deposit is not attached—I said before the magistrate, speaking of this entry in the mortgage ledger, "That represents that the £2,500 has been deposited at the Bank to our credit." I looked for it in the pass-book, because I expected to have it returned out of the Bank and placed to our credit—I did not find it, and spoke to Newman about it—there is a declaration of interest by Henry Granville Wright in George Newman and Co.—William Newman reported on a Building Estate at Chingford—he is another director, also Daniel Newman and Charles and John Henry Newman—George Newman, junior, was secretary at this time, and George Newman, senior, was chairman—he held nearly the whole of the shares—the total issue was 2,500 shares at £10—at the date of the liquidation he held 818—from 1889 to 1891 he held them all—he did not pay any cash for them—there was an attendance-book of the directors which was handed over by Newman to the Official Receiver—I did not see it handed over, nor did I attend afterwards at the Official Receiver's to see if there was such a book—I have not seen it since—the books were always under my notice (A copy of the transfer of 31st December, 1891, of George Newman's interest to George Newman and Co. was here put in).
GEORGE DIBLEY . I was a director of the Liberator Building Society, and believe I so acted in 1889, when Wright was acting as solicitor and financial manager of the Society—he advised the directors as to making advances on property and reported, as solicitor on the title—the minutes show I was present on 20th November, 1889, when the proposal of George Newman and Co., came before the Board—Wright was there and, to the best of my recollection, Newman—the proposal was that the Liberator should finance George Newman and Co., in respect of the Albert Hall property, and the resolution come to on that day was, that the proposal of George Newman and Co. should be formulated by Wright and that George Newman and Co. should be encouraged to proceed with their proposal—I was present at the Board meeting of 4th December, 1889, and Wright was there—Mr. Binfield Bird, deceased, the surveyor would be there, and, to the best of my knowledge, Newman was present, when a letter was read from George Newman and Co.—the formulated proposal of the previous meeting—it was then announced that George Newman and Co. had arranged to take over the building agreement for the Albert Hall land, and that £7,500 was to be paid in advance and £40,500 would be required immediately to commence operations—I certainly believed it was genuine—"It was resolved to grant the application now made on the terms that the loan be for twelve months, subject to further stipulations as to future bonuses in case of agreement to renew—interest on the whole loan to be at the rate of 7 per cent., per annum"—that resolution had reference to the letter of 3rd December, attached—I knew nothing of the sale of this contract to George Newman and Co. for £26,000—I am not
aware of any minute authorising an advance in regard to the purchase of this property beyond the £40,500—the next date I find in the minutes is 12th December—this cheque for £41,777 10s. is signed by Davis and Brock, directors, and Mr. Koch, secretary—it is not countersigned by Wright—it was his duty as solicitor to countersign all mortgage cheques—this is not a mortgage cheque—I am surprised to see it—this is the first time I have seen that these figures in this resolution have been scratched out—I had no knowledge that the authorised advance of £40,500 had been increased, on 9th December, to an advance of £41,777 10s.—looking at this counterfoil and requisition attached it appears that a further sum of £3,978 was paid by the Liberator Society on 18th March, 1890—it is recorded that J. T. Wright, the secretary and the surveyor were present at the meeting of the 26th March, 1890, the minute is, "Newman and Co., Albert Hall, advance of £4,000 to pay deposits on this purchase approved"—if my name does not appear I should say I was not present—I know of no division of money under which £3,000 went to George Newman and £5,000 to Henry Granville Wright.
Cross-examined by Sir EDWARD CLARKE. I was present at the meeting of the 20th March, 1889, when the matter was first introduced to the Board; Mr. Pattison in the chair; present Mr. Brock, Mr. Binfield Bird, surveyor and director, Mr. Davis, Major Wright, and the financial manager, Wright—the surveyor at that time would be either Walker or Barnes—I was thinking of another society—I cannot state the details of the proposal—on 4th December, new proposals were made—probably Newman took it on his own account so as to satisfy the requirements of the commissioners, but we never considered that we were to pay more for that—it was merely for the convenience of all concerned—we were not going to buy the property—I do not suggest that in the letter received at the meeting of 4th December—Newman was stating the matter inaccurately—it does not state the amount to be paid by Newman or Newman and Company for this agreement, but it says the agreement in question will be between the Exhibition Commissioners and George Newman—i.e., Newman personally, who agrees to assign to the company—it does not say" for certain considerations," if it said that we should not nave done it—there is a resolution giving details—"the application now made" is for £150,000 upon the surveyor's certificate, an immediate advance being granted of £40,500—that is divided into portions, £25,000 was to come back immediately as bonus to the Liberator—the advance is to bear 7 per cent; £7,500 is required for deposit—£32,500 leaving £8,000—it never occurred to me that this property was going to be bought for £8,000—in September 1890, I was appointed joint financial manager for perhaps a month or two—I had left the Liberator some time and was asked to come back and to assist in the financial managership, as Wright, I understood, was going to Ireland—I think I got £250 a year for it—there was doubtless a deed in respect of the advances made, which would be in the hands of the solicitor—I don't remember seeing it—I will not say that I ever heard or asked how much was given for this property by the persons who were carrying on the building operations.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS, A minute was not passed every time £1,000 was paid by the Board—the important matter of making advances generally would be brought before us, and we should approve or disapprove of the proposal, and the minute would be passed on the original amount
Voted—I knew that large sums were going to Newman and Co. on this Albert Hall speculation, and it was not long after that that I retired altogether—I know we accepted the proposal to give them £150,000 at call in respect of the Albert Hall speculation, and they were, therefore, entitled to have that amount from us on the surveyors' certificate—doubtless Bird's report was read to us before we decided to entertain it—I heard this passage read: "I have no difficulty in advising the Society to make the advance to the builders that they require, and I consider that should the event ever occur of the Society having to take over the property that it would form one of such a valuable character that they would readily find a purchaser at a price the Company could properly sell at. "We considered it a very good speculation, or we should not have carried it out.
Re-examined. I undoubtedly believed the letter of 3rd December, and that the £40,500 included all that was necessary for the acquirement of the building agreement from the holder.
"WILLIAM JOHNS . I was secretary to the London and General Bank in 1889—it went into liquidation on 1st September, 1892, just before the Liberator—I was also connected with the Lands Allotment Company which has also liquidated—on 18th December, 1889, I cashed two cheques purporting to be drawn by George Newman and Co. and paid in exchange ten £1,000 Bank of England notes, numbered 06795 to 067800 and 08301 to 08304, and eleven £500 notes, 17374 to 17383 and 22474, making £15,500 in all.
GILBERT LANE . I am clerk at Cox and Co. 's, bankers, Charing Cross—in December, 1889, Wright had an account with us, and on 19th December he paid in two Bank of England notes, one for £1,000, No. 06795, and one £500 note, No. 17383.
GEORGE WILLIAM ROGERS . I am clerk at the London and County Bank, Deptford Branch—in December, 1889, George Newman, junior, the prisoner's son had an account with us in that name—on 21st December there were paid in three Bank of England notes for £500 each, numbered 17378, 17380, and 17381.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I have a certified copy of the account—I have examined the book—the authority is for "George Newman" to draw, and "George Newman, junior"—I don't know whether the work of George Newman and Co. were at Deptford.
Re-examined. The date of the authority is 1st November, 1887—the account was opened the prior June—up to 1st November the only person authorised to draw on it was George Newman.
JOHN TUNBRIDGE (Inspector Criminal Investigation Department). On 16th inst. I saw Newman outside this Court at about 10. 15 a.m.—two days previously I had been in communication with George Newman, junior, his son, relative to this banking account at Deptford—the prisoner called me, and said, "I want to speak to you about the money you spoke to my son George about on Tuesday"; I said, "Yes; what is it you want to say?" he said, "The £1,&00 you named to him was paid in by me—I am not going to dispute that"; I said, "The bank people say it was paid in to the account of George Newman, junior"; he said, "I suppose they are right, but I thought at that time that the account was in my name, and that my son George had power to draw upon it; but I suppose it had been transferred to his name when I paid the £1,500 in."
Wright had an account there in 1890—on 4th March £500 is credited to his discount account by a cheque on the London and General Bank—it bears Dimsdale's stamp—on 11th April there is a credit of £450 on the same bank, "Henry Granville Wright—current account"—on 16th May, a cheque for £500 on the same bank to the same account, and 4th July the like.
WILLIAM PERCY BOWYER . I am clerk to Mr. Stewart, the Official Receiver in Companies' liquidations, and have assisted in the investigation of the affairs of Newman and Co.—I saw Newman at the office on 24th January last, when I enquired of him as to the purchase of the Albert Hall land by Newman and Go.; I took his statement in writing—he signed it, "As regards the Albert Hall, I was vendor to Newman and Co.; I got the contract from the Exhibition Commissioners—it cost me £23,000; I sold it to G. Newman and Co. for £26,000, taking £3,000 as my profit and as being personally responsible to the Commissioners—I gave Wright nothing, but I believe he got £5,000; all moneys passed through his hands—I do not think my taking the profit is recorded at the Board meeting, but it was certainly well known—beyond these two eases, I never had any personal profit as vendor, nor do I personally know of Wright or any director of G. Newman and Co. taking any commission. George Newman. "
WILLIAM JOHNS (re-examined). Wright's firm were solicitors to the London and General Bank, and he had a current account with us for some years. The bank commenced its operations in November, 1882, and lasted till September, 1892—He also had a deposit account at different times—I find in the minute-book, under date 6th March, 1889, a minute agreeing to lend H. G. Wright £7,500 at 5 per cent, and a premium of £375—by way of collateral security he deposited an acceptance of Jabez Spencer Balfour, chairman of the bank, drawn by Wright for the same amount as well as some Brighton Electric-Supply Company's shares of the same nominal value—£7,500 was then placed to the credit of his current account—there is on the same day, on the other side of the account, a payment out of £7,500 to Mr. Balfour—interest accrued on the loan, and under its conditions it was subject to renewal—we debited the current account with the in-terest and commission which accrued on renewals from time to time—it was renewed in June and September, 1889-r-on 16th November, 1889, £5,000 was paid off by Mr. Lumsden, private secretary to J. S. Balfour, by these two cheques paid in to Balfour's current account—the balance* £2,500, was renewed quarterly, commission and interest being charged to Wright's current account—I used to see him almost every day—I would ask him about it, and he would say that it was Mr. Balfour's matter entirely and not his; but I said I could only look to him, as it was put to his name in the books—about November, 1890,1 applied to Wright for payment, and received this letter," Reloans of £2,600 and £550. The first belongs entirely to Balfour, and had, I thought, been discharged—it was connected with the Electric-Lighting Company; I should be glad if you would apply to him for amount of interest and commission," Ac. "H. G. Wright"—at the time the £5,000 was paid Balfour, or Lumsden on his behalf, withdrew the shares in the Electric-Lighting Association to the amount of £5,000, but left the acceptance with us—even after that letter the balance of loan was renewed in December, 1890, and in March, 1891. Dibley was one of the directors of the London and General Bank—in June, 1891, he called
my attention to the loan, and gave me certain instructions, upon which I wrote him, and received this reply on the 5th "Dear Sir,—I was rather surprised at Dibley asking me yesterday when I went in if I intended to pay you the sum of. £2,500, which he said was owing to the bank," &c. "H. G. Wright"—that was not answered, but within a short time of receiving it I saw Wright at the bank, when I believe we had a conversation of the same purport as before—he said the loan was not his, and I again said I could not treat the account in any other way than as a loan owing by him; that I did not know then, and I do not know now, what his arrangements were with Balfour, and that he must pay it—on 12th June, 1891, he brought me this cheque on the bank for. £2,500 by the directors of the Liberator Building Society in favour of George Newman and Co., and endorsed "George Newman and Co."—he said, "This is to pay off the balance of that loan in my name"—I credited and closed his loan account with it, debiting the interest and commission due to his current account, which account was already overdrawn by between £200 and £300—he said nothing about the Brighton Electric-Light Supply shares, and we retained them—I think Balfour's acceptance was returned—George Newman and Co. banked with us at that time—their account was overdrawn to the extent of £25,837 current account plus £47,000 on loan account—the £2,500 was never placed to the credit of George Newman and Co.
By Sir EDWARD CLARKE. This account in our books is a loan to Wright, absolutely, and the resolution so refers to it—we should have no authority to deal with it in any other way—the same day the £7,500 was credited to Wright—it went out to Balfour to whom the securities belonged—the bills were also his acceptances—I don't know when the pass-book came to the bank—we could tell when it was left and made up—I don't think there were any transactions with the account between May, 1890, and June, 1891—in May, 1890, there was a balance in Wright's favour Of £8 10s. 10d.—I see there are two little items of interest credited—he had also a loan of £550—that he considered he was responsible for—the interest on the £7,600 was always charged to his account—I do not say he acknowledged his liability in respect of the £7,500, but it always appeared in his pass-book, and he must have known it—I do not know that he always disputed the interest and commission—he did, I think, shortly after the commencement of the loan—I said at the police court" he always refused to pay this commission because he said he was not liable"—I am aware that the Official Receiver of the Bank called on him to pay, that he refused and that the matter is still open—I see in the minute of the 15th April, 1891, referring to renewal of loans, "H. G. Wright, £2,500," and between the name and the amount, in parentheses, "J. S. B."—then comes "H. G. Wright, £550."
Further cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I am afraid there is some confusion as to date—in this loan account there are three accounts open there—some portion of it is marked "House and Land Investment Trust" because it was a joint loan—the money went to Newman in each case and was all put to his credit.
Re-examined. We placed the interest and commission in respect of the £550 loan also to the current account—in December, 1891, I found considerable payments in the credit balance at the beginning of 1892 was £292, the old overdraft having been wiped off.
By MR. WILLIS. The overdraft on current account of £25,000 odd in June, 1891, was reduced in the following October to £5,000.
WALTER BRAMALL . I am examiner in the office of the Official Receiver—on 1st December, 1892, Newman attended at the offices of the Liberator Building Society where I was temporarily stationed, and made a statement, in answer to my questions, which I took down respecting the cheque for £2,500—this is a correct copy of it (Read) "the cheque dated June 1st, 1891, was received from the Liberator by G. Newman and Co., limited, on account of the works on Albert Hall, endorsed by the Chairman—it purports in the cash-book to be placed on deposit with the London and General Bank," &c. "George Newman. "
FRANCIS JOHN SIMS . I am in the office of the solicitor of the Treasury—Newman came there on 20th December, 1892, and made a state-ment which I dictated to a shorthand clerk directly after he left; this is it—(MR. "WILLIS objected to its being read.) I said I had seen the statement which Mr. Newman had made to Bramall—that we desired him if he could do so to give us any further information he could in reference to the cheque for £2,500—He said that was in June, 1891, and before that the Liberator Society was advancing him 11,000 a week; that Wright brought him this cheque for £2,500; that he did not expect it and did not know it was coming and made no request for it; that Wright asked him to endorse it, seeing it was to be paid in to strengthen the Liberator account at the London and General Bank. I said, "I could not do that, for the London and General Bank was the Liberator's own bank"—he said, "I relied entirely on what Wright told Mr. I signed the cheque and he took it—subsequently I found I could not get the money. I applied to Wright several times on the subject, and he said the money had been applied to the purposes of Balfour, and suggested that I should draw upon him. I did so by a bill for £2,500. It was presented and dishonoured. I spoke to Wright again on the subject, and suggested that I should again draw on him. I drew two bills, one for £1,500 and one for £1,000, and they were both dishonoured. Ultimately I found I could not get the money and I advised the directors, to write it off in fees, but I did not abandon the hope of ultimately getting if—I asked him where the bills were—he said they would be amongst his effects taken possession of by Balfour—I have seen nothing of them.
Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I read the statement over last when I was preparing the papers for counsel, three weeks ago, perhaps—it has been in the possession of the Court—I had seen the statement Newman made to the Official Liquidator—Newman was with me perhaps for half-an-hour—he told me the bills were dishonoured—I had not heard of the drawing of the bills before—I think he said Wright told him to draw on Balfour—I did not ask him to read the statement over and sign it.
Re-examined. At the time the statement was made I did not know that Newman was present in June, 1891, when the cheque for £2,500 was drawn.
were nine shareholders, seven of whom bore the name of Newman—of the 2,500 shares issued, George Newman held 2,468.
Saturday, March 25th.
WILLLAM BINGHAM . I am employed in the office of the Registrar of Building Societies—the Liberator was registered on the 10th July, 1868, incorporated under the Building Societies Acts, on 11th December, 1874, and wound up by order of Court on 13th September, 1892.
BRAMALL (re-examined). The gross liabilities of the Liberator as regards creditors are. £1,797,533, and the liabilities to shareholders, £1,639,213—at present the only, valuation of the assets is that placed on them by the directors, and that is £3,472,000—there is not the slightest chance of their realising anything like that sum; it is not a reliable valuation in any way—I have formed no estimate of what will be realised; they consist of first and second charges on unfinished properties on which very heavy charges exist.
WRIGHT and HOBBS 12 years penal servitude each upon the felony indictment, and 5 years' penal servitude upon the misdemeanour indictments, these sentences to run concurrently; NEWMAN, 5 years' penal servitude.
255. LEON BLOCK (40), AUGUSTUS TALLETT (59), ERNEST CHEVALLIER (36), GEORGE AUGUSTE BONDET DUSAN-LIER (45), and MARIUS OUDET (29) . Conspiring to defraud divers liege subjects of the Queen. Other counts for obtaining a gold watch by false pretences with intent to defraud.
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS, MR. BODKIN, and MR. ELDRIDGE, Prosecuted. MR. SANDS appeared for BLOCK, MR. PURCELL for TALLETT, MR. ISAACS for CHEVALLIER, MR. DRAKE for DUSANLIER, and MR. GEOGHEGAN and Mr.
PIGGOTT for OUDET.
WILLIAM PAUL AUGUSTE CROOG . I am one of the firm of W. Croog and Co., of Amsterdam—on 11th November, '92, I received this letter (Signed L. Block & Co., 192, Bermondsey Street, asking for samples of peat and haricots.)—I answered that, and all this correspondence passed (produced)—I then wrote to the references, Sandoz and Co., and the Foreign Produce Agency—I got no reply from the Foreign Produce Agency, which is mislaid, and I produced this copy of it before the magistrate—(Stating that Block and Co. were trustworthy to the amount mentioned.)—I got no reply from Sandoz—(Other letters were put in ordering goods to the amount of. £97 5s.)—those goods were marked H. K. and P. K., and shipped—I drew a bill of lading and sold it to an Amsterdam banker—it was returned dishonoured with this protest, dated 30th November—I had to pay it (It was for £97 5s.)—that represents the first consignment of beans and peas—I lost my goods and had to meet the bill—this is a letter from L. Block and Co. to us. (Ordering 80 cwt. of beans.)—in reply to that we forwarded beans value £108 8s., and sold the draft to a banker, it was protested on
8th December, and we had to pay it (A letter was here put in signed "Burdett and Dusanlier," November let, 1892, asking the price of beans, and proposing to do business with Croog and Co., also an order for 50 cwt. of beans at 30 days' draft, also an order for 85 bags of beans, and referring to the City Bank.)—the beans were shipped marked T. K.—their invoice value was £54 2s. 6d., for which I drew a bill on Burdett and Dusanlier, which I sold to a banker in the same way—I drew it on 16th November at thirty days, payable at the City Bank—it came back protested on 19th December and I had to pay it—here is another invoice for fifty bags of white, £78 11s. 11d.—I sent them and drew for acceptance on 14th December for fourteen days—that was not protested but it was dishonoured at maturity and we had to pay it—(Letters were here put in from Croog and Co. to Burdett and Dusanlier, acknowledging their order for 60 bags of ternary seed at 20s. 6d., but declining to deliver it till the other two payments expired, and a reply stating that they were prepared to send a cheque.)—they never sent the cheque—the first bill was protested and returned by December 1st, and the other protests followed in order on December 14th and 16th—the value of the goods we parted with was about £360, and we had to make up the defendants' acceptances—I came to London in December and saw my agent, Mr. Froment—we went to Monument House and saw Dusanlier alone, but two clerks were in the office, Hoods was one of them—I was introduced as Mr. Waller, from Antwerp, and showed the letter—I made an offer—Dusanlier said he was pleased to see me, and wanted to do business with me; he asked me for some samples—nothing came of the interview—I sought it for the purpose of knowing him by sight—I think Oudet was a clerk, as he brought in a letter.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Block gave me some references in France; I did not write to them—the first lot of goods went on the 22nd; 1 do not think we stopped them, but we stopped the second lot; they are still at the docks, but they are claimed by action by Block—we received information from the shipping company, but they could not stop the goods—we tried to stop them in transit, and found they were claimed by the holders of the bill of lading—we have never got our goods—I do not know who has the bills of lading—I only gave orders to stop the second lot—I do not know when the second bill was presented; I tried to stop it just before December 8th.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. The first letter I received from Dusan-lier was I think in November, upon which I wrote to him for references, which he did not give me; but I was satisfied with the references to the City Bank—I supplied him with goods and did not stop the goods which were coming over, and after that I supplied him with other goods—I also got information from our London agent, and instructed him to make enquiries, and he did so—I made enquiries as to Dusanlier through Stubbs' agency at Manchester, and sent my agent to Dusanlier, who had an interview with him; bills from him became due on December 14th and 16th.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. When I went to Monument House Dusanlier was in a room by himself and Oudet came in, carrying a letter; he was simply a clerk as far as I could see.
Re-examined. I thought they were doing a bona-fide business—I did not know that Sandoz and Co. was the same as Dusanlier, or that the Foreign Produce Agency was the same as Block.
FRANCIS WILLIAM HARRISON . I am secretary to Hodges and Co. of Seething Lane and of Sufferance Wharf—Block and Tallett came and wished to land some beans and potatoes at Sufferance Wharf—Tallett did the speaking, and then there was a conversation in French between him and Block—they came again later in the day, bringing 60 bags of beans and 19 bags of peas—I saw the name of Craig on the bill of lading—on November 25th they came to the Corn Exchange, where we have a stand, and asked if we had landed the goods; I said, "Yes"; they asked for the warrants; I said we could not give them till our landing and wharf charges were paid—Tallett said, "Well, if you cannot give us the warrants, can you sell these goods for us?"—I said we would get them a bid—next day they both came to the office in Seething Lane, and Tallett asked me to advance, £10; I agreed to do so, and gave him this cheque for £10 (produced), payable to R. Block and Co. on order—it has been returned to us by our bankers; is is endorsed—on 28th November, I saw them again at the Corn Exchange; Tallett asked if we had had a bid for them; I said "No"—I wrote to them that night, and on November 30th they came again; and Tallett asked if I had disposed of the goods; I said "No"—I wrote again that evening, as I had sold a portion of the peas for. £19 2s. 8d.—they had got £15, and next day they came to Seething Lane and Tallett wanted £5 more—this is my cheque for. £5 similarly drawn, endorsed and paid—next day, December 2nd, I saw them at the Corn Exchange, and Tallett spoke about bringing another bill of lading to us for 80 bags of beans, and asked me to land them in the same way as the previous parcel—I agreed, but they were not landed; our barge was too late getting to the ship, and they were landed at Brewers Quay instead—Tallett said he should like some money on the bill of lading, could we do it; I said I did not know—next day they came to Seething Lane, and I made them an advance on the 80 bags by this cheque, which was similarly drawn, endorsed and paid—that was the last transaction I had with them—the 60 bags of beans are still at our wharf, and the 80 bags at Brewers Quay—the 60 bags were marked H. K., and the 19 bags of blue peas P. K.—I never heard from them the name of the consignor.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. It was an ordinary transaction—we got a fair price for the peas—we claim both' lots of peas for an advance of 35—the first advance was not deducted; we never rendered an account. Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I did not see Tallett by himself—I took him to be an interpreter for Block, who could not speak English, and I cannot speak French—the whole conversation was carried on through Tallett—when he said "We," I understood him as speaking of Block and Co.; I looked upon him as an interpreter—on every occasion that I saw Block I saw Tallett, until after I received the injunction restraining me from parting with them—I got the injunction on the first lot of goods on December 5th.
THOMAS PHILPMAN . I am one of the firm of Woolf and Philpman, of 37, Stewart Street, Bishopsgate—on 18th November, Dusanlier came alone I knew him previously as Sandoz—he said he had a consignment of beans and required money for immediate use, and asked me to make an advance—I knew he had joined a firm of Burdett and Dusanlier—he gave me a sample of the beans—I knew nothing about beans, and had to make enquiries about the sample—next day he came and said that the beans were delivered, could I give him an answer—he showed me the bill
of lading, which I said was no security, and then he gave me this document "35 bags of beans, we cannot deliver above to Messrs. Woolf and Co., before Monday morning, which we shall do"—I was satisfied and advanced him £10, because I saw they were going to deliver the beans—it was past banking hours, and I gave him cash—on November 1st he came again; I told him I had not sufficient information, but I would let him have another £10, which I advanced by this cheque, which was paid by my bank—on November 28th he came again, and I gave him another £10 by the cheque which has been paid—he came several times after that—he said he had another consignment of 50 bags of beans, and asked me to make an advance just to tide him over for a time—he gave me a sample—I advanced him on those two consignments £34 in cash, and I paid £3 or £4 for expenses, his charges and so on; altogether I paid him £37 3s. 6d.—those goods are now lying at Mr. Burgoyne's, wharfinger, and produce warehouse, Commercial Road, East—there was some injunction or something to restrain them from parting with them—this is Burgoyne's receipt for them—on November 19th this document was signed in my presence: "Burdett and Dusanlier," by Dusanlier, "25 sacks of beans marked P. K., and a bag P. H., on account of which we have received advice from you"—this invoice was given to me by Dusanlier subsequently—I had no other transactions with him—Oudet came occasionally, I under-stood him to be Dusanlier's clerk; he came sometimes with Mr. Sandoz, and sometimes alone—I should say he came in reference to both these bean transactions when we advanced money to Dusanlier.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. This is the only transaction I had with Dusanlier as Burdett and Dusanlier—I should say I have known Dusanlier two years—I generally deal with principals—it is customary for managers of firms to carry out transactions, but I generally do business through principals—I knew him to be Sandoz; I never called him by any other name—he did not tell me he was anyone else but Sandoz; I do not remember that he told me he was manager for Sandoz—I was trading with the firm of Sandoz and Co.; I never met any partner of that firm—he told me that Burgess and Dusanlier were a large firm with connections in France and Italy, and he would do much better with that firm—that was the firm he had connections with—he did not tell me he was Dusanlier, the junior partner—I did not think it strange for the man I knew as Sandoz to become a member of Burdett and Dusanlier—I made him the advance to tide him over for a little time—I understood it was a firm established in France and Italy, and they were opening here—there is nothing very unusual in getting advances; I did not consider there was anything suspicious in the transaction when I advanced the money—I did not want references, having known him some years—when these goods were stopped I sent for Dusanlier, and he came the following day, I believe—I said, "You must come to the solicitor "; he went to my solicitor, and said that it was perfectly bona-fide, and he had given bills for those goods, which had not yet matured, but which he would pay at maturity—he brought an invoice, and assisted me and my solicitor to enquire into the matter.
Re-examined by MR. BODKIN. I had dealings with chocolate with Sandoz; he brought it to me—it was only a small case of chocolate; I believe he asked £3—I should say it was August or September last year—I advanced him £3—he said he wanted a few just for a little while; he
afterwards took it away, and paid me my money—I never opened it to see if it was chocolate; I took his word.
By the COURT. I knew him as Sandoz for two years—he was introduced by a very old acquaintance as Sandoz, and I had business dealings with him—I always spoke of him as Sandoz.
ALBERT TRONMER . I am a commission agent of 47, Mark Lane—I act as London agent for Mr. Kruger—at the end of November or the beginning of December I called at 192, Bermondsey Street, Block and Co. 's premises, and saw Block, and I think Tallett and Chevallier—I spoke to Chevallier—I did not know his name; he said he was a clerk in the firm—I asked him where Block was; he said he was not in town, but at eleven o'clock perhaps he would come in—later on he said, "To-day is Saturday; he is a Jew, perhaps he will not come at all"—Block left just before the conversation, immediately he saw me and did not come back—I think I went next day again—I only saw Chevallier who said that Block had left for the Continent, or made some excuse; he did not say what his position was—I waited till eleven, most days, for Block—I went to Brewers Quay and saw some beans there, marked with a K—I have also been to Burdett and Davis's premises, Monument House; I have seen Chevallier there I think, and Oudet and Davidson I think—I said to Oudet, "Where is your principal?"—I gave no name—he said, "If you wait he will be in"—an appointment was made, and Dusanlier came to my office; he said he had some business with Kruger, and was I able to offer him beans or other articles—I said I would do it, and after that he left—I never saw Oudet again.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I had never seen Block—I called about a dishonoured Bill of Exchange which Kruger had sent me, and asked me to see about—when I went about it I had never seen any of the men before—we talked the first time in English; he said he did not understand English, and I talked in French—Block was in the room a few minutes, and immediately I began to talk about Kruger's letter he left—whatever was said in Block's presence was in English—when I asked him what was the matter with Kruger he said he did not understand English, and then I commenced it all in French—I spoke to Chevallier as Block's clerk—I did not speak to Block—I noticed him because I was suspicious—I asked the clerk who he was, and he told me he was only a broker—I did not take particular notice of the man who went out of the room; Block is the man—I do not know Block at all, and I only know the others by sight.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I waited outside Block's place for some minutes, and afterwards saw both men, who arrived from the street, opened the office with a key, and went in—I addressed myself to Chevallier, who was opening letters at a desk—he told me he was a clerk who attended to the correspondence—I saw Dusanlier at Monument House—it was at Bermondsey Street I saw Chevallier a few days before that—I went there because I had received information from Kruger.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. On the second occasion that I went to Bermondsey Street I saw Chevallier, and asked him about the bill being dishonoured; he said he was not a principal, he only did French correspond-dence and knew nothing about it—I went three or four times to Monument House, and saw Oudet there—Dusanliner has been twice to my office; he said he knew I was Kruger's agent in London—I once saw Dusanlier later and he was alone.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. On each occasion I went to Monu-ment House I saw Oudet—he was writing in an outer room with Davidson—I came to the conclusion that he was only a clerk—I saw him once ordered by Dusanlier to bring in a letter-book, and he brought it at his principal's bidding.
HARRY REED . I am clerk to. Mr. Scoles, solicitor, of High Street, Borough; he is landlord of 192, Bermondsey Street—Block and Tallett came to Mr. Scoles' office in reference to that house—I gave Block the key and got this receipt from him—I heard no question about any reference—I remember a letter of September 16th from my principal, who was at Lowestoft—it was an authority to hand over the keys to Block should he ask for them—the premises were let to Block on 26th September; this is the agreement in my writing (In this agreement Block woe described as of 28 st. John's Street the Witnesses to it being A. Budden, 130, Gower Street, E. Chevallier, 45, Sidmouth Street, Regent Square; it was an agreement to let the premises for three years, from September 29th, at £45 a year.)—132, Bermondsey Street had the appearance of a private dwelling-house; it was used by my principal formerly as an office till he removed to High Street, Borough; I have never been all over it; I think we occupied three rooms—there are lofts and one thing or another that might be called rooms—they took possession about 26th September—I subsequently received this letter, dated October 10th (This was signed A. Sudden, and stated that since he signed the lease as a witness for Block he had ascertained that his name was not Block but L'Enfant.)—no rent has been paid for the premises; we have not taken possession yet, but I understand they are at our disposal—the prisoners were in occupation when the arrest "took place.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Block was arrested before the rent became due—he and Tallett had a conversation with me when Block took the premises—Block was accompanied on his first visit by another man—Block did no talking; I understood he was a foreigner who had only just come to England.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I saw Tallett twice; he acted as interpreter between me and Block.
MARK VAN BULLEN . I am clerk to Tubbs and Co., agents for 49, Milton Street—Dusanlier, who gave the name of Alexander Sandoz, came to me about that warehouse; I do not remember what references he gave, but subsequently it was let to him at £110 a year—Dusanlier signed this letter at Messrs. Charles and Newton's office (This stated that he was willing to take the premises for three years, from September 29th, at £110 per annum, provided that the opening in the basement was made capable of taking in certain sized cases.)—he did not take possession of the premises; I do not know when he left.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. Dusanlier did not speak to me; he apparently did not speak English; the interview was earned on between the other man and me—Dusanlier did not give me his name, but he signed the paper; the other man acted as interpreter; I am not sure if I saw him after that; I should say I saw him about a fortnight afterwards, but not after that, so that I have not seen him for about a year—I had not thought over this transaction in the meantime, but when the Treasury sent to me I began to think of the conversation I had had—the man who spoke to me said that the other person's name was Sandoz, when I asked for the name—I do not know who took possession of the premises.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The man who was acting as in-terpreter was not Tallett.
EDWIN SPURR . I am an executor of the late Mr. Lewis, a member of the firm of Lewis and Tubbs, to whom 49A Milton Street, belonged—on one or two occasions Oudet brought money on account of the rent to our office, 29 and 30, Noble Street—Sandoz was the tenant of 49A—this bill was sent to us to collect at the due-date for the rent (This was a bill of 15th September, 1892, for £98 16s., drawn by Sandoz and Co. and endorsed "Pay to the order of Tubbs, Lewis and Co. A. Sandoz and Co. ")—it was passed through our banking account and was dishonoured.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I never saw the man who represented himself as Sandoz.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I considered Oudet the clerk to the person who sent the money.
ELIZABETH COCKS . I live at 45, Sidmouth Street, and let apartments there—about June last, Chevallier came to lodge with me, and Block (whom I knew as L'Enfant) came about the end of August—they occupied one large double-bedded room between them, as bed and sitting room—Chevallier occupied the same room by himself previous to Block's arrival—they remained there till their arrest on 14th December—the rent for the room was 12s. a week for the two—no business of any kind was carried on there—several letters came in the names of Chevallier and Thompson—Chevallier asked me to take in letters coming in the name of Thompson—I have seen a few bill-heads marked Thompson.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. They took their meals outside, but a few Sundays they dined at home.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. During the two or three months that Chevallier was there before Block came he conducted himself as a respectable man and was thoroughly satisfactory, and paid his rent regularly—he conducted himself well all the time, but he did not pay his rent for the last fortnight; he would have paid it I believe on the day he was taken into custody—two gentlemen called to see him; I don't know their names.
ANNIE ROUND . I am married—I live at 130, Grower Street and let one or two rooms—Bodet (Dusanlier) lodged at my house from the end of July or beginning of August till just before Christmas, when he said he was going to Chicago—he left owing me £5 in all—Oudet came several times a week as his clerk to see his master—Bodet told me he was his clerk—letters came from Hamburg and Paris addressed to Bodet—I do not remember seeing letters addressed to him in any other name—the servant might have taken them in.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. He may have left about 14th Decem-ber—I did not know he was arrested till Sergeant Bradshaw called and told me—Bodet left by night, and I had a letter from his clerk, Oudet, saying he was going to Chicago, and would pay me on his return.
WILLIAM CONNOLLY . My address is Botolph House, 10, Eastcheap—at the end of October, Dusanlier called with a clerk named Davidson—he wanted to take an office in Monument House, Monument Yard, which I had to let—I asked for references, and he gave Sandoz, of Milton Street, and Woolf and Co., of Brushfield Street, Spitalfields—I wrote to those people; I received this reply from Sandoz (Stating that they were acquainted with Dusanlier; that he had done business with then for some
time, and they thought he could be relied on a* a good tenant.)—I let the premises to Dusanlier—this was the agreement we entered into—I saw Dusanlier sign it at my office.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. Woolf and Co. sent a manager to me, but I was out when he came—the conversation was principally carried on by Davidson.
HOWARD JOSEPH WHITE . I am in partnership with my father as wholesale watchmakers, at Earlsdon, Coventry—about 26th January I received this letter. (This was headed 49a, Milton Street, asking for a wholesale price-list to be sent, and was stamped Sandoz and Co., with Laurent underneath. Printed on it was Alexander Sandoz and Co., Importers and Exporters) —I answered that, and received this reply of 5th February (This stated that the house here had only been established a few months, but that it was in connection with the house of Sandoz, which had been established for fifty years in Valparaiso. It gave as are reference Messrs. Benjamin, Field and Large)—I wrote to Benjamin, Field and Large, and got an answer, and we also enquired of Messrs. Franklin—I received this letter of 18th February, signed Sandoz and Co. (Acknowledging receipt of a sample hunter, but regretting that their customers found the price too high, and they could hardly get any profit out of them.)—I also got another letter giving H. Franklin and Co., of Holborn Viaduct, as a reference—on February 12th we sent three gold and one silver watches, amounting to?33 15s., to Sandoz and Co.—of those we have received back one silver and one gold, amounting to £13 15s.—on February 16th we sent a fifteen-guinea watch; we did not receive that back—I received this letter from Sandoz and Co. of 20th April (Stating that they had advised Lloyds Bank, Coventry, to pay £10 to Messrs. White, and that they would send more soon)—we made repeated requests for the watches—we got the £10 and no more—eventually we put the matter into the hands of Messrs. Kemp and Co., Mercantile Offices—we have not been able to trace the watches we sent to London—the watches first sent were on approbation, and not being returned were deemed to be sold.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I believe we enquired of Messrs. Kemp when we got the letters; I cannot say from memory, but we probably should do so—we should have their information and act upon it.
JOSEPH NEWSON WHITE . I live at 1A, Trinity Street, Borough—I received a letter from my brother in which Franklin's name was mentioned, and in consequence I went to 49, Holborn Viaduct, about 22nd or 23rd February—I saw there Dusanlier—I asked for Mr. Franklin—he said, "Yes, is there anything I can do for you?" or some-thing to that effect—I said I had been asked to apply for a reference on behalf of my brother, as Messrs Sandoz had given Franklin as a reference for them—he said, "We have been doing business with them for some months, they paid cash at first; then, afterwards, sixty days' credit was come to, and they have been paying promptly on that; they have always paid promptly: we have done business to the extent of £250 in a month, we should not hesitate to credit them for double that amount"—I communicated that to my brother—Franklin Appeared to have two rooms on the second floor of 49, Holborn Viaduct; they gave me the impression of being part dwelling-house and part business—I did not learn what the business was.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I have a bicycle business at 15, Holborn Viaduct—I believe it was about six weeks ago that someone called on me from the Treasury, so that a year had elapsed from the time I had the interview with Dusanlier, and in the meantime I had never seen him—I do not speak French, and our conversation was in English—no one else was present—I can swear to the best of my belief that Dusanlier is the man; I should be astonished to hear he could not speak English—he spoke English as if he was a foreigner, but I could understand everything he said—he had no beard, he had a moustache, but not much—I believe he is the man I saw there—it is difficult to judge whether it is a business office.
CHARLES HOMAN . I am bookkeeper to Stollwerch Brothers, chocolate manufacturers—on 27th July I got this letter on a printed form from E. Chevallier and Co., 28, St. John Street, West Smithfield, ordering 102 lbs. of chocolate, which we supplied, and then received this letter, dated August 11th (Stating that they paid through the London and North-Western Bank, but could not give them as references, and referring to Sandoz and to Hereford Brothers.)—on 16th August we got this letter from the tame (Stating that they were awaiting sample orders.)—on August 18th there was an acknowledgment of the invoice, and on 3rd September there was a further order for 110 lbs. of chocolate, which was not executed—we wrote to the references and got these answers (From Sandoz and Co.: "We had several transactions with E. Chevallier and Co., and all came out well; we think you may trust them."—From Hereford Brothers: "The parties were well recommended to us by our Paris agents; we have no objection to give them credit for a similar amount to what you mention.)—we have never been paid for the chocolate we supplied; I believe the value was over £10—we have not been able to trace it—it was done up in cases. There was nothing on the cases to indicate that it was chocolate, but persons accustomed to it would know.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Mr. Chevallier became bankrupt at the end of October, and we have proved our debt—that was after we received the affidavits from the Official Receiver.
LOOTS GEORGE. LAWTHON . I am agent to Mr. Henry Ibela, a wine merchant of Rheims—my office is in Mark Lane—at the end of last November Block came and said he was a provision and general merchant, of 192, Bermondsey Street—he ordered 25 cases of champagne, value from £26 to. £30, and referred to Sandoz—I wrote to them, and received this answer (This stated, "We know the parties you mention; we think that they are respectable people")—there was carriage from Rheims and duty to pay—we despatched the goods, but stopped them the day they arrived in London on account of something we heard—we have not lost anything.
By the COURT. We knew Block about a month before, and it was then that we got the reference—that was for some claret.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. One of our travellers called at his office once or twice to ask for an order, and I called afterwards to see what kind of people they were, and I did not trouble myself about the small order for claret—payment was to be made at a month—the wine arrived on December 16th; I do not know that he was arrested on the 14th.
CHARLES L'ENFANT. I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court, and produce the file in the bankruptcy of Ernest Chevallier—he was adjudicated bankrupt on 31st October, 1892, for £81 16s. 4d.—that was the petitioner's
debt—the public examination was fixed for November 24th, 1892—he did not attend, and it was adjourned sine die—no accounts have been filed.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The Official Receiver sent him papers to fill up—a duplicate form was sent by registered letter on October 27th, to attend at the Court to be adjudicated bankrupt—he was not adjudicated till after that—the petition was presented on September 2nd.
MR. BODKIN here withdrew the, cote against
TALLETT.— NOT GUILTY .
JOHN TRIMLETT . I am clerk to Duellen and Sons, shippers and forwarding agents, of 23, Great Tower Street—they received a letter, in consequence of which this post-card was written in my presence: "We beg to inform you that the above are now at Boulogne-sur-Mer; kindly say if you wish the same delivered at your warehouse, duty paid, or sent to a bonded warehouse"—I know Block—I am not certain about Dusanlier—they called at my office together, and produced this post-card—they spoke in French, and I called our French correspondent, but I understood enough to understand—they said, "Have you got twenty-five cases I when will they be in London?"
EMILE DAUBERCIES . I am foreign correspondent of the firm of Duellen and Co.—I recognise Block; I saw him at their office on December 13th, 1892, and they brought this post-card (Block here Hated that it was Tallett who was with him.)—they said they called respecting a parcel, and asked when it would be delivered—I said the following Thursday or Friday—I asked whether we were to deliver them to them or in bond, and to the best of my belief Tallett wrote on the post-card," Fresh Wharf. "
WILLIAM HENDERSON . I am manager to Badget and others, provision dealers, of Bristol—in July last I received a letter from Chevallier and Co., 28, John Street, West Smithfield, which is lost; I sent them prices of ham and bacon in consequence—I then received this letter (Dated August 19th, ordering twenty-five hams stating that they paid through their bankers at seven days, less 11/2 per cent for cash, and giving references.)—I wrote to the references, and received this letter from Sandoz (Stating that Chevallier and Co. were good for reasonable credit.)—I received this telegram from Hereford Brothers: "We trusted them to £100: were paid"—we then began to supply Chevallier and Co. with goods—on 7th August we sent ham and bacon value £7 8s. 4d; and on August 30th goods value £32 3s. 4d., £7 13s. 7d., and £14 13s. 10d.—I got this letter of September 2nd from Chevallier and Co. (Acknowledging the arrival of the goods.)—on September 5th we sent further goods value £10 19s., and on September 6th goods value £13 19s. 10d., and on September 7th goods value £33 5s. 2d.—on September 9th we received this letter (Acknowledging the receipt of fifty hams.)—on 17th September we sent further goods value £10 0s. 7d.—the total value of the goods we supplied was £129 Os. 11/2d., all despatched to London by the Great Western Bail way—we have never been paid anything—I received this letter of 16th September (Apologising for not tending a cheque, as their arrivals of damaged butter and eggs were heavy, and promising to send one next week.)—on September 22nd we got this letter: u We have your wire; surprised no letter; we think you are under a misapprehension about sending 100 sides on Tuesday and 100 afterwards; we are quite prepared to send you a cheque on delivery; any further delay will complicate matters and cause unpleasantness"—I have never seen any of the prisoners—I believed there was a genuine firm of Chevallier and Co. 28, St. John Street, and that the references were genuine.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I have not discovered that there were any transactions between Sandoz and Chevallier.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I did not make enquiries through any other source—we applied to an agency; but not till after we supplied the goods.
GEORGE PAUL . I am a carman in the employ of the Great Western Railway Company—I produce the delivery-sheets of the 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 13th December—I delivered goods from Bristol on those sheets; they are signed by Chevallier and Co.—on September 3rd I delivered a box of hams at the Central Meat Market to Mr. Webb—I took them first to 28, St. John Street, where they were consigned to—I saw two persons there, but cannot swear to any of the prisoners—one of them spoke English, and I think it was French that the other spoke—one of them went with me to Mr. Webb's—on September 6th I delivered hams and bacon at the Meat Market—again I saw the same man, having taken them to 28, St. John Street, previously—on September 15th I took two bags of bacon to 28, St. John Street, and was told to take them to Harris's in the Meat Market.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. 1 remember the transaction—I am not speaking from the notes—I often took the bags first to one place and then to another.
JAMBS HARRIS . I am a provision merchant, of 1, West Smithfield—Chevallier came to me with an interpreter last August, and said he was a wine merchant in John Street, and had friends in France who were sending him eggs and butter, and asked if I could dispose of them—on August 2nd I sold 50 firkins of butter for him for about £70, that was a fair price—I gave him a cheque for the money—on September 2nd I sold some eggs in the same way for £10 or £15, and on September 15th some sides of bacon; it was not branded; but when it was unpacked a small label was found, but so greasy that the writing was indistinct—I cannot find it—I imagined the name on it to be Badget—I know that name in the trade—the goods were delivered by a van; I did not notice the name on it—I paid about £10 for them—I sold them on commission at a fair market price, I did not buy them out and out—in consequence of the label, and there being no consignor's name on them, I communicated with the police the same day—I did not know Budget as carrying on business on the Continent, but at Bristol.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. A very small quantity of bacon is got from France—I did not think of any concealment of where the bacon came from till I found the label—I did not hear the last witness's evidence.
HENRY JOHN WEBB . I am a poulterer and provision merchant, of 376, Central Market, Smithfield—early in last year Chevallier came to me and said he was in the provision business in St. John Street—he afterwards came again and asked me to sell some bacon on commission, and about September 4th I sold some sides of bacon for him for about £40, and about £17 worth on September 7th—some of the goods were a box of hams and two sides of bacon—from time to time I made payments to him by these cheques (produced) against the prices I had obtained on commission—they are all drawn to Chevallier's order, and endorsed by him; the total of them is £82 4s.—Chevallier himself brought them, and sometimes he came with the lad—I did not learn the name of the consignor.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I sold them at a fair price.
ROBERT GRANT . I am clerk to Farmiloe and Sons, lead and glass merchants, of East Smithfield; they are the landlords of 28, St. John Street—I called there early in September, and saw Chevallier in his private office—I applied for the water-rate, about £2 10s.; he said he did not think he was liable to pay it, according to the agreement—"E. Chevallier and Co., provision Merchants," was on the facia—he went there in May at the half quarter, and left without notice before September 29th—I think he paid a half quarter's rent.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I am not aware that he paid six months rent in advance—he became bankrupt—I do not know that he gave up his house just before that.
By the COURT. The shop Was very empty when I called; one or two cases were lying about, but there were no signs of business.
CHARLES HENRY LAVENDER . I am manager to Messrs. Farmiloe and Sons—in April last 28, St. John Street, was to let—a person came about it, and referred to Hereford Brothers, of 3, Fore Street Avenue, and Messrs. Sandoz and Co., of 49A, Milton Street, of whom enquiries were made by one of our clerks, and the premises were let to Chevallier and Co. under this three years' agreement at. £105 a year, from May 2nd, 1892—Chevallier is described as of the Market Hall, Paris—it is executed by Chevallier—I delivered the key to the person I first saw; I do not recognize him among the four prisoners—£10 was paid for office furniture and about. £13 15s. for rent up to Midsummer Day—no rent has been paid since—we received possession from the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in November.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The office furniture was not there when we took possession again—I only knew he was in difficulties by the place being closed—I knew he was bankrupt in September—he did not explain to some persons in my employ that he would be ready to give up possession—I heard nothing about it.
THOMAS MARSH . I am clerk to Bolton, Sons and Sandeman, solicitors, of 2U, Northampton Square—I prepared this draft agreement, and on 28th April, 1892, took it to 3, Fore Street Avenue, and left it with a man whose name I do not know, for Mr. Chevallier's perusal—on 29th April it was returned to me by hand with a few pencil alterations which still appear upon it—the agreement was engrossed from it—which I gave the same day to the same man at 3, Fore Street, and subsequently received it back signed.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. It was signed by Ernest Chevallier in Paris, and witnessed by a man resident in Paris, and left to be forwarded to Paris for execution.
ERNEST GOSLING . I am a clerk to Farmiloe and Sons—in April last I went to Alexr. Sandoz and Co., 49A, Milton Street—I did not see any of the prisoners—I saw small cardboard boxes in the passages, such as contain soft goods—I had a conversation with someone, in consequence of which I went to Hereford Brothers, at Fore Street Avenue—the same kind of business seemed to be done there—I did not see either of the prisoners—I had a conversation with someone—I reported the result of these interviews.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I did not ask to see Mr. Sandoz; I handed in a card, and said I had called for a reference—I saw a clerk about thirty years of age.
HENRY THOMAS WATKINS . I am a clerk to Charles and Tubbs, 1, Gresham Street; they have the management of 3, Fore Street Avenue, and I let, and collect the rents—in March last I let a room to J. F. Hereford Brothers at £60 a year and £15'rates and taxes—Mr. Hereford was not one of the prisoners—this was the agreement—they entered on March 9th, and I received a quarter's rent up to June—about the middle of September we heard that the premises were empty—we did not go in because the doors were locked—we did not find Hereford, and have received no rent—about three weeks ago we got a key to fit the door, got possession, and found the premises quite empty—on October 24th we wrote for the rent to 174, Queen's Road, Dalston, the address given in the agreement, and the letter came back through the Dead Letter Office marked "Not known. "
PAOLO SERRAO . I am a commission agent, of 5, Water Lane, Tower Street—we received a communication from Arthur Derico, our traveller, in June, and on June 22nd we wrote this letter (Stating that they amid not supply oil at 6s. 6d. per gallon, less discount.)—several letters were written, and on June 27th we received this letter, signed Chevallier and Co. (Offering to bug 20 eases and two cash of olive oil at 5s. 9d. per gallon.)—on 10th July Chevallier came to my office, and I refused the order unless it was for cash—he said he could not pay cash, he would give me a cheque post-dated for July 25th—I agreed for eight cases and two casks, and he gave me the cheque for £37 2s. 3d., but before it became due I received this letter from him stating that he had stopped the payment of the cheque because the oil was rancid; but I had another part of that parcel—I wrote this letter (Stating that the oil was perfectly sweet, as per sample, and that the cheque was paid in.)—the cheque was returned, and I wrote, "Your cheque has been returned marked 'Ordered not to pay,' which I consider dishonest"—appointments were made to meet him, and we then got a letter, of which this is a transation: "It is impossible to quit my shop for an instant, I have had company all day long; I shall be with you to-morrow at eleven o'clock"—on 10th August he offered me a bill for 1,220 francs, which was above the amount—I did not accept it, I thought it was not in order—I sent it to some of my correspondents to find whether the acceptor was a reliable man, as I took it on the condition that the acceptor turned out a satisfactory person, and it was agreed that he would not dispose of the oil in the meantime—the reference was unsatisfactory, and I wrote to Chevallier and told him so, and called on him to return the oil or pay me the amount in cash—he took no notice of that, and as the bill matured on 15th November I wrote again; I received no answer; it was dishonoured and protested—I never got my oil or my money—the acceptor was Godar fils, 57, Rue de Tannerie, Dijon.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Chevallier was ready to give me a bill if somebody else would accept it—I refused to take it—I do not know whether he was bankrupt before it matured.
WILLIAM LOVEGROVE . I am a general provision agent, of 22, St. Mary Axe—in July, 1892, I saw someone who gave the name of Chevallier—a day or two before that a quantity of oil was left at my premises without my ordering it, two barrels and eight cases containing tins—after that I received a telegram demanding payment—I wrote in reply that I had not ordered the oil, and a man named Lavender and Chevallier came to my office—they spoke together in French, which I did not understand, and
made a great noise—I told them to leave the place—I afterwards received this letter (Signed by Chevallier, and stating that Mr. Lavender had instructed him to send the oil thinking the witness had bought it, and hoping to do business in future.)—the oil was offered at six shillings—I declined to keep it.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I do not know whether the man I saw was Chevallier, as the office was dark—I said 1 never ordered the oil, and then there was a quarrel—I told them to settle their differences elsewhere. JAMBS HUTCHINGS. I am a clerk in the London and North-Western Bank, Limited—we had an account last year of Ernest Chevallier and Co.—I produce a certified copy of the account by the manager, covering the month of July—there was not £37 16s. 3d. to the credit of the account on 18th July, the balance was 4s. 3d., and the account was closed, and we charged the is. 3d. for keeping it—I find Lavender as the payer of several cheques, and also Laurell—£100 was paid in in four sums, and all drawn out by July 18th except 4s. 3d.—we had no cover to honour the cheque when there was not cash to meet it.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. On July 1st there was £50 to his credit, which he opened the account with, and he paid in £15, £13, and £25—there was not £110 to credit on July 9th.
JOSEPH WILLIAM MANDER . I am a clerk at the London and Midland Bank, Clerkenwell Branch—there was an account there in the name of Chevallier and Co., 28, St. John Street, of which a certified copy is in Court, and I have the pass-book—the account was opened on 29th April, 1892, with £300—a cheque-book was given on May 2nd—from that day to June 29th, £123 8s. was paid in—on the same day as the £300 is credited £100 was drawn out, payable to Sells—four cheques were drawn in favour of Sandoz and two to Lavender—the account was exhausted on July 2nd by a cheque for £10 18s. 1d., when we requested him to close it because we were not satisfied, and also in consequence of numerous enquiries we had made about them.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I see on page 3, "Continental Egg Company, £18 3s.," and there are other apparently trade payments.
Re-examined. I recognise Dusanlier; he signed the signature-book as Chevallier.
JOSSPH HARRIS . I am a clerk in the Loudon Trading Bank, 12, Coleman Street—I produce a copy of the account of Alexander Sandoz and Co., certified by the manager, which shows that on April 2nd, 1892, £50 was paid in and no other sum whatever—the account was open from April 2nd to June 8th, and between those dates the whole of that amount was drawn out—eleven days after the opening of the account there was only £2 13s. lid.—the account was closed and 4s. 3d. was charged for commission—I do not recognise either of the prisoners coming to the bank—these cheques signed E. Chevallier and Co. are in the writing of the customer in whose name the account was opened—on that cheque being produced I should cash it, and place the debit to E. Chevallier's account.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I only saw Chevallier once for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, when he came to open the account; that was last April—I am speaking of the second man from the other end—I am sure Dusanlier is the man who opened the account.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. The account was opened eleven months
ago—I see a great many people every day, but not people who open accounts; the manager does that—the person who opened the account was introduced by a gentleman who spoke for him, and who said he could not speak a word of English—it was opened in the name of E. Chevallier; he had no beard—I was in the manager's room when the account was opened—my duty is to cash cheques across the counter, but I opened this account in the absence of the manager as I always do—I saw the person who opened the account ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—he signed the name in the bank books, and from that I passed the cheque—he has grown a beard since.
HENRY MURRAY . I am a tailor, of 68, Fore Street—I know Dusanlier as Sandoz and Oudet as Henri Guinat—Sandoz came first, and ordered clothes value £9. Mullor came with him—in a few days Sandoz brought Guinat, who gave an order for £4 or £5—the goods were supplied, but I have only received £2 which Guinat paid on account a little time afterwards—Sandoz agreed to pay cash; I understood him to be clerk or traveller in a small way; he gave his address 49A, Milton Street—I have been there repeatedly and found the door fastened, and a notice on it "Return presently."
Cross-examined. It was after July that I went to Sandoz's house.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. Muller came about the first week in May, 1892; he had not been introduced to me—Muller spoke English very well, and Sandoz spoke sufficient English for me to understand—Muller owes me some money, and I went to 49, Milton Street, to get paid—he had left there, but when he came first he represented himself as Sandoz's clerk or traveller. Muller introduced Sandoz as his governor, not as his manager, and said he was coming home from Paris next week and would be a good customer to me—I did not mistake Guinat for Oudet; I had his card, printed.
Re-examined. Oudet gave me an order for £5 6s., of which £2 has been paid—I have not given a receipt for the balance of £3 6s.
JOHN DAVIDSON . I am a clerk out of employment, and live at 39, Genera Road, Brixton—I understand French—I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph early last June, which I answered, and received this postcard, the English of which ix, "If you are still free in time and occupation have the kindness to pay us a visit on Monday next between two and four.—E. Chevallier and Co."—I went to that address, and saw Chevallier and Dusanlier—Chevallier said, "This is a friend of mine," and that he assisted them with his advice—the business was a provision merchant's, and was engaged as corresponding clerk, my salary to commence at 25s. a week, and I remained till the first week in October—I attended daily from nine to five—28, St. John Street, is a three-floored house, and three rooms on each floor, and cellars which were not occupied—they were the only tenants—the front room was used as a store; there were some empty bottles and cases there and a few tins of vegetables—the office furniture was a small desk and a stool—there were empty cases and boxes standing about the place, and anybody coming in might suppose they were full—during the whole time I was there no goods were stored there—room No. 2 was the office where I sat, the room behind that, No. 3, was kept as Chevallier's private office; he attended there from eight a.m. and throughout the day—he used to take the letters in the morning—Dusanlier occupied the private room, the door of which was kept shut—Chevallier
wrote letters throughout the day—Dusanlier remained sometimes an hour; he came two or three times a day—Auguste was his Christian name; I understood his name was Bondet—I have seen him reading letters to the firm and correcting letters sent by Chevallier to customers, also give Chevallier money—in the private office there was a double desk and sort of lifting table, on two legs—Dusanlier used to come and sit opposite Chevallier—Oudet called at 28, John Street, two or three times a week—he went into the private room, and sometimes passed the time with me outside—he has been in the private room when Dusanlier and Chevallier were there—he sometimes remained there a quarter of an hour, no more, often less—I did not hear their conversation—he appeared to be a friend—I gathered that he came to pass the time—I have seen Block at 28, John Street, two or three times a week—he was in the private room when Eevahter Dusanlier, and Oudet were there—goods were ordered by letter—I did the writing-goods came to the door; once or twice they were discharged there and immediately taken away—I recollect Paul, the Great Western carman, coming five times—I went once or twice with him to Mr. Webster with bacon and ham in accordance with Chevallier's instructions—Chevallier went also, and I went to pass the cart over the weighbridge at West Smithfield and pay the tolls, which, being a Frenchman, he could not do—I have also been with goods from John Street to Mr. Harris's—I remained at John Street till the first week in October, when the prisoners left—on the Saturday they left, Chevallier saying he was unwell and would be better away for a day or two—on the Monday I opened the place and did not find them there—Dusanlier called in Chevallier's absence—letters were delivered and taken away in the morning before I got there; I know that because Block asked me to come and meet Chevallier, and he had the letters in his hand—on the Monday morning Block came and asked me to go to Chevallier at a public-house near—I went there, and found Chevallier—he said he wished delivery of goods from Thompson Brothers, of Dundee, which were at Willow Walk, he had a letter from them that morning addressed to John Street—on the Wednesday I went to Willow Walk—on the way I called at 192, Bermondsey Street—Chevallier asked me to call as they were going to see the goods and telegraph for a delivery order—I saw Block and Chevallier at Bermondsey Street—Chevallier told me to telegraph to Thompson Brothers that he agreed the price and would thank them to send the delivery order to Willow Walk—I did telegraph—about three weeks after I left their employment on the Wednesday I saw Dusanlier, who said he had capital that he intended to bank, and start a business in the orange and provision trade—he asked me to become corresponding clerk on the same terms as I had been withe Chevallier, 25s. a week—offices were taken at Monument House on 25th October—the name put up was" Burdett and Dusanlier"—I never saw Burdett—I saw Oudet, the other clerk, who began his duties there at the same time as I did—we wrote letters there—there were two rooms, a private room and an office—Oudet sat with me in the office—an india-rubber stamp was used to sign letters per procuration—Oudet added the initials "E. P."—I cannot explain that—I remember goods coming from Kruger—Oudet asked for his salary oftener than he got it—it was about 25s. a week, but he got it a few shillings at a time—I have been to Hereford Brothers, of Fore Street, Avenue—I saw nobody named Hereford—I have written letters to Hereford—I never came across Mr. Franklin—I did not
know before this morning of Franklin's place, 49, Holborn Viaduct—I know Dusanlier's and Chevallier's writing, and Oudet's, but not Block's—I have been twice to Sandoz and Co., 49A, Milton Street—I saw Oudet there—that was when I was clerk in Monument Street: once he was waiting there by appointment—he was sent there by Dusanlier—he was writing when I got there—to the best of my belief Dusanlier wrote some of these signatures, "Sandoz and Co."—the body of some of the letters is Oudet's writing—others are written by me and signed by Chevallier—I recollect the type-writing machine coming to Monument House—some of these letters signed "Burdett and Dusanlier" were type written, and signed by Dusanlier—Chevallier signed the agreement for 28, John Street—the North-Western District Bank cheque signed "E. Chevallier" looks like his writing—the endorsements on the Midland Bank cheques I believe are Dusanlier's—Dusanlier asked me to write this letter from 130, Gower Street; I refused; he said if I would write an English copy he could write it, and when he got the copy he signed it—I knew Block as La Font—I heard of Gaudet fils as merchants who had given them bills and from whom they were trying to get money—I knew of no business done by Gaudet fils.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I went to John Street on 15th August—I saw Block there the next day or so as a visitor—I believe he was an acquaintance of Chevallier, who told me he had lately come from France—Dusanlier quarrelled violently with Block in October, just after I left John Street—I did not know La Font was Block until he started in business as Block—I said at the Police-court that he had taken the name of Block, not that his name was Block—they came to blows, and I do not think Dusanlier would give Block a reference of character after that.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I came to Chevallier in answer to an advertisement as a clerk—he did most of the French correspondence—he does not speak much English—I heard that Chevallier came to England in April or May—he did not consult with me as to his business, only as to the turn to give a letter—he was very attentive to business from morning to night, being very seldom more than half-an-hour away to lunch—he was at business before 8 a.m.—he said he intended to turn his business into a half-retail,-half-wholesale business of a provision merchant—goods came about a dozen times to John Street during the six weeks I was there—that includes Budget's goods—Budget's goods were not deposited there—I knew the goods were to be sold—I did not know there was anything wrong, I did not even know the trade—the premises at John Street consisted of three storeys with rooms on each flat—the street is broad there and the front light—there was plenty of sun, but it was not hot with the blinds down—I understand that Gaudet, of Dijon, owed Chevallier money for goods for which bills had been given.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I never saw in Chevallier's office Dusanlier write—he dictated letters to me more than once—I mean he read and told me to alter letters I had written—he did not otherwise interfere—he understands English better than he speaks it—I spoke to him in French—he only said "Good-morning" in English—he said he was going to put £200 into the bank to start business with—my wages were paid pretty regularly except once—Block, Chevallier, and Tallett were not at Monument House—I never saw the merchant La Font—I do not know Muller—I have seen Dusanlier sign "Boudet" to letters—he never told me he
was Sandoz—I concluded he was Sandoz—I have heard people come and ask for Sandoz, and I told them to go to 49A, Milton Street.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Oudet was paid by driblets, three shillings at a time—Oudet wanted to get another situation, and I pointed out one or two advertisements in the Daily Telegraph that I thought would suit him—he showed me a written character, which he asked me to put into English—I heard him tell Dusanlier he was dissatisfied with the situation, and wished to leave it—he brought the letter to me, which I understood was signed by Sandoz—I heard Dusanlier, when arrested, say to Oudet, "My dear fellow, I am very sorry I have brought you into this mess, and for taking your name"—Oudet seemed astonished and astounded on being arrested—he understood, I do not say fully—I understood the charge was a conspiracy to defraud.
By the JURY. When Oudet went to John Street, Chevallier spoke to him in a friendly way as an acquaintance.
ROBERT LEMAN (City Detective Inspector). I was with Sergeant Sexton when the prisoners were arrested—I went to Brewers Wharf, where 60 bags of white haricot beans marked "M. K." were pointed out to me—I went to 49A, Milton Street, on 15th December, the day after the prisoners' arrest—with keys found upon Oudet I undid the padlock of the ware-house door—the ground floor was about 20 feet by 15, the basement was completely empty with the exception of a lot of broken bottles; the ground floor was fitted with racks round it, on which were cardboard boxes done up like this one (produced), so that from the street they would look like goods on racks—there were also some pieces of linen and leather, and remnants of cloth—the first and second floors had been fitted up, but were completely empty—after the arrest of Oudet and Chevallier, Sexton, a policeman, Ottway, Sergeant Mill, and I, went to 192, Bermondsey Street—on the first floor I saw Tallett, who was handed over to Sexton—I further searched the premises—I found Block concealed in a cupboard behind the door—I spoke to him but he apparently did not understand me—I brought him downstairs, and Sexton spoke to him in French; he then said his name was Block—he was taken to the station—the ground-floor front room of 192, Bermondsey Street, is fitted as an office, with a large table or desk in it; the back room was occupied as a bedroom, the upper portion of the house, with the exception of one chair and a table, was completely empty—the name put up was "L. Block and Co. "; no description—no goods were on the premises, but there was a large quantity of papers and boxes similar to those at Milton Street—I afterwards went with Sexton to 44, Richmond Road, Barnsbury, where Dusanlier lodged, a private house—I searched the room he occupied, where I found a bunch of keys similar to the keys found upon Oudet, and which open the ware-house at 49A, Milton Street, also number 3, Fore Street Avenue, premises lately occupied by Hereford Brothers; that warehouse was completely empty—we also searched the premises occupied by Burdett and Dusanlier at Monument House, two rooms on the third floor—in the room marked "Private," which was pointed out as being occupied by Dusanlier, were a table, a letter-press, two chairs, and a desk—in the clerk's office was a type-writing machine, one desk, two chairs, and a large quantity of delivery notes and books, some of which, with fine press letter books, apparently belong to Sandoz, of 49A, Milton Street—those were in a cupboard at Monument House, also two letterfiles,
full of correspondence, and some letter-paper with the name of Sandoz on it, a paying-in book of the London and Midland Bank, and another of the London and North-Western District Bank, 85 blank Bills of Exchange, except that one of them was partially filled up and marked "Alexander Sandoz and Co., 49A, Milton Street"—also these five Bills of Exchange of Gaudet fils, Dijon, drawn by E. Chevallier and Co., in a cupboard—there was a lot of stationery bearing the name of "Alexander Sandoz and Burdett and Co.," also stationery relating to Dusanlier, at Monument House—before the prisoners' arrest I had seen Oudet at 49A, Milton Street, where I went to enquire about a letter I had received from the country—I asked him if he was Mr. Sandoz; he said "No"—I said, "Do you know anything respecting this letter?" and I showed him a letter which had been received through the police from Manchester—he said "No"—I said, "When will Mr. Sandoz be in?"—he said, "I cannot say, later on in the day"—I then left—for two months previous to the arrest I was keeping observation to see who was using 49A, Milton Street, when on a Tuesday I saw Oudet open a warehouse door, go in, and come out again with letters in his hand—he locked the door up—on other occasions I have seen him go from there to 3, Fore Street Avenue, Hereford Brothers; he went upstairs—after that he would go to Monument House—on other occasions I have seen, him go direct from Milton Street to Monument House—I have tried, but have not been able to find, Hereford, or Hereford Brothers, or Franklin, or Benjamin Field, or Large—I found a person who represented himself to be a clerk, who knew nothing whatever about the business—this book, which was recovered at Monument House, with leaves torn out, is a kind of day-book—this is an invoice-book showing transactions and fictitious entries—in the desk at Monument House I found these two keys, which have been identified as two of the keys of 28, John Street.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Chevallier was arrested the same day at 9 p.m. at Bermondsey Street, a few minutes prior to Block—I knocked at the door, Dumond opened it—we had a scuffle to get in, after we passed Dumond—Chevallier was on the ground floor—the cupboard in which Block was, was on the top floor, behind the room door, not a wardrobe; the room was empty of furniture—he was on his hands and knees in the cupboard—he could not have got away—feeling confident other people were in the house I searched from top to bottom.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Chevallier was in the clerk's office when arrested—there was no clerk there, and it was in a dirty state.
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. The pencil notes in this book are mine—I did not mutilate the book.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I have been in the force some time—I put notes in the book to refresh my memory—I found two keys in Oudet's pocket and two in the desk at 28, John Street; Oudet was writing at the desk when I went there—there was only one desk in the office—it was not locked at the time—I never saw it locked—the keys were inside with papers—I have not seen Oudet open letters.
Re-examined. There was room for more than one at the desk; it ran nearly the width of the room—Davidson was sitting at the type-writer—I found the keys in the desk opposite to which Oudet was writing.
CORNELIUS SEXTON (Detective Sergeant). On 14th December, I went with Leman to Monument House about 4. 30 p.m.—I met Dusanlier—I asked him his name—he said "Oudet"—I said "Oudet, will you kindly write it?"—he wrote it on this paper—he said, "Why do you ask? I do not speak English"—I told him he would have to go to the Police-station; he accompanied me there—I then asked him in French his name—he said, "Dusanlier"—I then read my warrant to him; he made no answer—leaving him at the station, I went back to the offices at Monument House, where I found Oudet and Davidson—I told Oudet I should charge him with being concerned, and I said, "If there be a Burdett, I presume you are Mr. Burdett"—he said that he only wrote letters and Dusanlier signed them—I returned to the Police-station and brought Dusanlier back to the office, when he said in French to Oudet, "My poor boy, I am sorry I have given your name; I suppose the police have found it out"; and to me, "If I could get the money would not Mr. Brooks cease to prosecute?"—they were arrested in connection with the haricot beans—they were taken to the station and charged—Oudet made no reply—he seemed astonished that he should be charged with conspiracy, quite amazed and astounded—Dusanliner said, "I will try and get the money by Saturday and settle the whole thing; I know I have done wrong"—the same evening I went to 192, Bermondsey Street, the premises of Block and Co.—upon pushing past Dumont I found Chevallier immediately behind the door in the office on the ground floor—I asked him his name—he said "Chevallier"—I said, "Oh, I am pleaded you are Chevallier; I am a police officer; you will have to accompany me across the road to the Police-station," which he did—I first asked him if Mr. Block was in—he said, "No, he is not in town"—I conveyed Dumont and Chevallier to the Police-station—on returning, Block was standing downstairs talking to a Sergeant of the M division—he was taken to the station and charged—he made no reply—I searched the rooms at 192, Bermondsey Street—I found the documents produced marked C1 to C30—they appear to be letters and telegrams from Kroger and Co.—I found a number of press letter copy books, and a quantity of correspondence and banking accounts referring to the business of E. Chevallier and Co., 28, St. John Street, West Smithfield—at Monument House I found the documents marked B1 to B25, being letters from Kroger to Burdett and Dusanlier—I searched Oudet, and found on him the documents produced, including four cards of "Dusanlier and Co., Export and Import Produce Merchants"; six cards of Alexander Sandoz and Co., Exporters and Importers, 49A, Milton Street"; this top of a piece of note-paper with a printed heading, "E. Thompson, The Foreign Produce Agency, 45, Sid-mouth Street, London, W. C. "; a memorandum form from Sandoz and Co., London, to Messrs. Dickens and Co., of Coventry, signed "Sandoz and Co.," of 14th December, '92; two addressed envelopes, another envelope torn open and addressed to Sandoz and Co., 49A, Milton Street, with a letter inside. (Applying for references of Dusanlier and Co.), and a stamped envelope for reply to H. C. Webster, four pawntickets in the names of James Pyhe, Marius Oudet, and James Morris; a type-written letter from Manchester, of 14th December, signed "A. Sandoz and Co. "; a billhead from Manchester, with "Messrs. Sandoz and Co., debtors to Ralph Hurdle, tanner and leather factor, £6 15s. 2d." on it; a similar in-invoice for £38 10s. due to Bateman Brothers, of 9th December; a letter
from 49A, Milton Street (The one translated), a letter from the Netherlands Steam Distillery Company, addressed to Burdett and Dusanlier, which Oudet tore when I was speaking to him at Monument House—he had appeared distressed, but was cooler then—Leman picked up the letter, and I put it together—I searched 192, Bermondsey Street, and found a large amount of correspondence referring to the business of E. Chevallier and Co., 28, St. John Street; a large number of letters addressed to Messrs. Bondet, 11, Beauchamp Place, Brompton Road, S. W., and signed by Gaudet, of Dijon; a lot of correspondence with the name cut out and "28, St. John Street" still remaining; letters addressed "My dear La Font," cheque-books, banking accounts, &c., of Chevallier; a parcel of blank bills of Chevallier, 28, St. John Street; and note-paper headed "The Foreign Produce Agency," &c.—45, Sidmouth Street is Mrs. Cox's address—I found a number of unpaid bills, and press letter copy books—I found on Dusanlier ten pawntickets, one being for £6 10s. on two diamond rings pawned by Marius Oudet; a card "Chevallier and Co., West Smithfield"; receipts, registered letters, and a letter from a Mr. Wolf—on Chevallier I found a card, "Mrs. Cox, 45, Sidmouth Street," six pawntickets, some cards of Block and Co. and of Chevallier and Co., and note-paper with Block's name on it—I saw Block sign this authority to give up the type-writer.
Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. Four officers went to arrest the prisoners and search the premises—Chevallier's papers were in the front office and separate from Block's papers—the "Foreign Produce and Agency" papers were found in the pigeon-holes in one desk.
Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I asked Chevallier in English his name; he could not understand; I asked him in French; he said "Chevallier"—I asked him where Block was—he said "I n'est pas en ville," not "Il n'etf pas chez lui. "
Cross-examined by MR. DRAKE. I spoke to Dusanlier in English till I told him who I was—Monument House seemed a fairly successful office.
Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. This prosecution is not by the Treasury, but by Hatchett Jones; I drew up the information—one pawn-ticket found on Oudet is dated January 7th, 1892; one was for a mackintosh, 7s.—I also found on Oudet, receipts for two suits of clothing—Oudet said, "I am only a clerk, I write letters. "
(BLOCK produced a written defence in French, stating that he had not been mixed up with any business but his own, that he was unable to pay his quarter's rent on 21st December, owing to his arrest on the 14th, and he used his mother's name La Font as "Block "was German, and consequently injurious to his business when he was a traveller).
BLOCK, CHEVALLIER, and DUSANLIER— GUILTY of conspiracy and false pretences.
BLOCK— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
CHEVALLIER —Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
DUSANLIER— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
OUDET— NOT GUILTY . The GRAND JURY made a presentment commending the conduct of the police, in which the COURT concurred.
256. WILLIAM JACKSON ** (35) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously having counterfeit coin in his possession, with intent to utter it, after a conviction of a like offence on 23rd May, 1887— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
257. SUSAN COUNSEL**(68) , to feloniously having counterfeit coin In her possession, with intent to utter it, after a conviction at this Court of alike offence in 1888— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Three Years' Penal Servitude, and JOHN SYDNEY STOTT (19), and GEORGE TAYLOR (17), to unlawfully attempting to steal divers post parcels and to placing bird-lime in a letter-box with intent to injure the box— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Three Years* Hard Labour each.
MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted.
JAMES TURNER . I am an assistant to Messrs. Hollington, 25, Walworth Road, pawnbrokers—I know the prisoner as a customer—on the 5th December, 1891, he pawned a bicycle for £3—this is the special contract note for six months—on the following 5th April he came and said he had lost the ticket or mislaid it, and he wanted a declaration to be made because he wanted to redeem the bicycle—I prepared this declaration form for him, and it was given to him, and next day he brought it back signed E. A. Hopkins, and with the seal of the Court—he then paid me the principal and interest of the loan, and took the bicycle away.
Cross-examined by prisoner. Jones did not come to redeem the machine—the original ticket was never produced during the time the article was in pledge—I have seen Jones—he called about February at our place, after business hours, and asked if the bicycle had been redeemed—that was about four months after the contract note had expired—in May, 1892, Jones never saw me with reference to the machine until after the time had expired—the machine was a fairly good, one—I had nothing to do with giving you into custody.
Re-examined. I first saw Jones in February this year, long after the machine had been redeemed.
ALBERT JONES . I am a builder, of 149, Kimberley Road, Nunhead—I purchased this contract note from the prisoner two or three days after the 5th December, 1891—he asked and I gave him £3 for it, so that if I had redeemed the bicycle it would have cost me £6—I kept the contract note until I handed it over to the police—some time afterwards I went and saw the prisoner about other money matters at the South Peckham liberal Club—that was a little time before the ticket ran out—he said, "Let the bicycle go and I will give you the money, it is no good"—that was on Saturday, 21st May, 1892, about three weeks before the contract note ran out, I think—I knew the time was running out—he never told me he had taken the bicycle out himself, and I did not know that he had done so some time before that—on the 14th of last month I got information that he had taken the bicycle out, and then I gave him into custody—after going to the pawnbrokers, I swore an information, and a warrant was issued—he never paid me the £3—if he had not promised to pay me the. £3 I should have redeemed the bicycle—he did not tell me he had made a declaration stating it had been lost, and I never told him that I had lost or mislaid the ticket.
Cross-examined. I first took possession of the ticket in my own room—Mrs. Newman was not present—I cannot tell you the date—it was a little while after you pledged the machine—I cannot say if it was on Sunday night—to the best pf my belief it was on a Tuesday—I also lent you £10, nothing besides—I did not receive £5 from you in March—I did
not come to you on a Saturday morning and ask for five sovereigns in Arthur Street, and you did not pay me five sovereigns in the bath-room at 9, Arthur Street—I saw the bicycle—I went for a ride with you once—I never rode that bicycle; I was on my own—you said it was no good—I said nothing about its being broken, but to the best of my belief the handlebar was broken—I did not tell you at the South Peckham Liberal Club garden party in April that the ticket was lost—I never received the balance of the; £10 I lent you—I do not know if that was in September—I did not tell you at the garden party that I had mislaid or lost the ticket—I did not say anything about it.
WILLIAM LEONARD (Police Sergeant, Peckham). This signature, A. A. H. to this declaration, is in the handwriting of Mr. Hopkins, one of the presiding magistrates of Lambeth Police Court, and it bears the stamp of that Court—I saw the prisoner at the Peckham Police-station, where he was detained on Saturday night—I read him the warrant charging him with perjury—he said, "What does it mean?"—I said "For making a false declaration at Lambeth Police-court for a bicycle pledged at Hollington's, in the Walworth Road"—he said, "Jones told me he had lost the ticket; I made the declaration, and got it out again before the time was out"; I said "Jones said you sold it"—the prisoner said, "I can make that all right." ALFRED HEATHFIELD. I am chief booking-clerk at Deptford Station—I know Jones—I have often seen this pink contract note in his hand.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I made the statement, but I was misled by Jones stating that it was mislaid—I will call my witnesses at the trial."
The prisoner called the following witnesses.
MARY ANN NEWMAN . I am married, and my husband is Samuel White Newman, a stonemason—we live at 127, Linden Grove, Nunhead—on the second Sunday in December, 1891, you were at my place to tea—the witness Albert Jones was my landlord—you asked Jones if he would sell for you a pawnticket—Jones said, "Yes, he did not mind, he would try and sell it if he could"—that is all that passed—I saw you give Jones the ticket that night—he gave you no money for it—I was serving mineral waters at the garden party at the Liberal Club in July—Jones is a teetotaler, and you and he came for some mineral water—I cannot say whether you had soda-water or lemonade—I stood close by and overheard your conversation—there was nobody else there—you two were the only persons—Jones said he was very sorry he had lost it; he did not know whether he had lost the ticket or mislaid it, he could not find it—I did not hear you say anything, I only heard Jones's answer—I heard nothing else.
Cross-examined. I cannot say how long ago the garden party was—I cannot remember the month—I cannot remember whether it was in Spring, Summer, Autumn, or Winter—I am not employed permanently at the Club—I was only assisting that day—that was the first time I had served mineral water there, and I have not served since—I have no recollection whatever when it was—it was in 1891 to 1892; I should think it was in 1891—it was in 1892—I cannot recollect the month—I cannot in the least say what part of the year it was in—this is the document I saw the prisoner hand to Jones—it is like the one—I never looked at the paper, but it was a bit of pink paper—I did not go out and leave them together in the room—the prisoner did not leave our room till we saw
him off by train—no money passed—I knew the prisoner had a bicycle, and Jones knew and saw it—I knew Hyde had pledged it—I never saw it after it was pledged—he did not bring it back to the house—I lived in the same house with Jones, who was my landlord—Hyde did not lodge in the same house—he was only there casually as a friend.
MARY LILLIE JOHNSTONE . I live at 20, Lugard Road, Peckham—lam single—on the"second Sunday in December, 1891, I went with you to have tea at Mrs. Newman's, at Mr. Jones's house—I remember Jones having the pawnticket from you—I saw no money pass—in March, 1892, Jones came to 9, Arthur Street, Camberwell Gate—he and his wife came there several times; that is where the prisoner Was lodging—on the Saturday morning in March when Jones came, he asked for you and said, "I have come for some money," and your brother went to the bank and got £6, and gave it to Jones—I did not see him give the money, bat I saw you give your brother a cheque for £5—that is all I know about it—I was not there when your brother came back from the bank—a Sunday or two following that Jones came and asked for some money, and he and you went out together—I was at the garden party in April, 1892—Jones and you were there—I cannot remember what year it was in, but it was in April—I remember that from my own memory—there was conversation between you and Jones—you asked Jones for the ticket—Jones said, "I have lost or mislaid the ticket. "
Cross-examined. Before living at Lugard Street I lived at Arthur Street for two years—I have known Jones for two years—I have known the prisoner for twelve years, and have been extremely friendly with him—I lived in the same house with him at Arthur Street for two years, and we both have since been living at Lugard Street—the prisoner left Arthur Street a fortnight before I did, and then I joined him there—before living at Arthur Street we had lived in the same house in Mortlock Gardens. (The prisoner here stated that he and the witness could not get married, but had lived together for twelve years.)—you have not got a banking account—I cannot tell you whose cheque it was I saw—you had sent stuff out that came to £10 and had this cheque, and you sent your brother to get it changed—I saw it was for. £10—I did not see Jones receive the money—I know Mr. Newman to speak to—I have not spoken to him since the case was sent from the Police-court—I have seen the prisoner since he was committed for trial—I have visited him in prison—I have not talked the case over with him—I and Mrs. Newman were selling behind the bar at the garden party—the prisoner told me he had taken the bicycle out of pawn—I did not see him then—he did not bring it to the house; it was just before the garden party—he did not tell me what he did with it when he took it out—I did not know he had got an advance on it.
Re-examined. You used to draw cheques from Ayre and Co., paper merchants, Great Dover Street, on Friday nights—Jones waited in the house till your brother came back with the money—I did not see the money given, but you all three went out together.
ALBERT JOKES (Re-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS). I lent the prisoner £10 in addition to the £31 advanced on the bicycle—he repaid part of the £10 by giving me £2 and another £2 afterwards, and £1 after that, leaving £5 balance owing, which I am suing him for in the County-court—this is the plaint note—Miss Johnstone and Mrs. Newman were not in the house when
the money was passed—neither of them were in the house when the transaction occurred—it is not true that I went and got money from the prisoner' brother.
By the prisoner: I received £2 on the Saturday when I came and said I wanted money to pay my men—I cannot give any date for that—these are two receipts—I had a lawyer's letter written to you, and you promised to pay me £2 a month.
(The prisoner in his defence said that he handed the ticket to Jones, who said, knowing people in the athletic world, he would be able to sell the ticket for him, that in the following April Jones told him at the garden party that he had lost or mislaid the ticket, and that if it was not found in a day or two the prisoner had better get another.)
NOT GUILTY .
MR. SHERWOOD Prosecuted.
MINNA MAIZEY . I am a widow, of 17, Strathblaine Road, Clapham Junction—on Sunday, 19th February, about two p.m., or soon after, I locked up my house and went out—I returned soon after ten p.m., and found the place had been broken open—the police were there—I had left no one inside my house—it was securely fastened up—in the front room on the ground floor the things had been turned over and this clock on the mantelpiece had been moved as though someone had tried to lift it, but I should say it was too heavy—I could see something had been put to force the lock of the door back—I found nothing wrong only that the things downstairs had been moved.
JOHN PONTING (540 V). On the evening of Sunday, 19th February, I was on duty near Battersea Rise with Stephens and Hopkins—I saw the prisoner pass the front of the Freemasons' Tavern, which was well lighted—we followed him—he went through Strathblaine Road—I followed him about sixty yards off—I had india-rubber-soled boots on and plain clothes—he paused opposite a house about the centre of Strathblaine Road, and examined it up and down—it was well lighted—he then went to No. 17, and gave one loud knock at the door—there was a small garden—perhaps it was six feet from the gate to the doorway, and a rather wide path—there appeared to be no answer to his knock—shortly after he gave two knocks louder, and the next I heard was a noise as of a door being opened—there was not more than half-a-minute between each of the noises I heard—I was within 30 yards of him—I got down the other side of the road by climbing from one front garden to another, and got within thirty or forty yards of him—I then saw the prisoner rush out of No. 17—he came straight out through the front door; the gate was open—he turned short to the right, and ran away, and as he did so there was a noise of something like metal being thrown away, and his right hand went like that—I gave chase—he turned to the left into Strathblaine Terrace, and then into St. John's Road, where I lost sight of him—I ran round in the opposite direction, where I knew the prisoner would be likely to come, with the view of meeting him in the tunnel of Clapham Junction—I just had time to get through and on the top of the steps leading to the platform, where I met the prisoner among ten or a dozen people, who were evidently just leaving a train—that was perhaps five minutes afterwards—I told the prisoner I was a police-constable and took him into custody
for loitering in Strathblaine Road—he said, "You are not going to lag me"—I said, "I am"—he said, "Well, if you take me this time, I shall get three b——stretches"—I then took him to the Plough Road, and there handed him over to Hopkins—I went back with Stephens to examine the premises—the door was wide open—there were marks as of a jemmy or instrument having been used to prize it open—the marks were quite fresh—I did not search the house—I first saw the prisoner shortly after nine.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. When I caught you I seized you by the left wrist and the back of your neck—I should say it was about a quarter past nine when I ran through the tunnel.
Re-examined. When I first saw the prisoner he passed 60 or 70 yards off in front of a well-lighted public-house, and I had a full opportunity of noticing him—I am sure he is the man I saw going to that house.
WILLIAM STEPHENS (186 V). On Sunday evening, 19th February, I was with Hopkins and Ponting—I was only ten or twelve yards from the prisoner when he passed us—Ponting followed him down the road, Hopkins and I keeping 30 or 40 yards behind—after a few minutes we heard someone knocking very loudly at the door, and a few minutes later we saw Ponting running after the prisoner—Hopkins and I ran in the direction of the prisoner's house—five or ten minutes afterwards Ponting brought him back to us in the Plough Road—it was then about twenty-five minutes past nine—I afterwards went to 17, Strathblaine Road, and in the front garden there I found this jemmy, knife, bit of candle, and a box of matches—the door was open—I went inside—I saw nothing wrong there till the lady came back and pointed out the clock to me—the marks on the door corresponded with the jemmy—when I showed this jemmy to the prisoner he said, "That stick is mine"—stick is the slang term for jemmy—he said, "The other things I have never seen"—that is all he said when charged.
Cross-examined. I did not see you throw anything away.
(The prisoner here stated that he was guilty of having the jemmy, but he was not guilty of breaking the door or moving the clock).
WALTER HOPKINS (Detective V). I was with Ponting and Stephens—I saw the prisoner pass the Freemasons' Hotel about 30 yards off—Ponting followed him, and I and Stephens went behind—we remained there about ten minutes—I saw two men running, and afterwards saw Ponting in the Plough Road with the prisoner, who was taken to the station.
The prisoner in his Defence stated that he had not broken into the house.
GUILTY. **† He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in August, 1891.
Eight previous convictions were proved against the prisoner— Five Years' Penal Servitude. The COURT commended the conduct of Ponting.
MR. WILSON Prosecuted.
into the garden, open; the catch was forced back—a quantity of soil had been taken from the garden and placed on the window-sill, apparently to prevent a noise when the window fell—I found footmarks from the back of 21, Camber well Road, and marks over the walls of the gardens to No. 1 and No. 2, The Terrace, which was found broken—I subsequently charged the prisoner with being concerned with another man not in custody with the burglary—he replied, "My pal who got away is a copyist, I have only known him two days; if I tell you anything about him I will give you every assistance in my power. "
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I took casts of the footprints I found in the ground—in my opinion the prints were not yours—I only found one set of footprints.
REBECCA REDFORD . I live at 2, The Terrace, Kennington Park, and am a housemaid—on 7th February the house was fastened up and all the windows and doors were secure and locked up when I went to bed at 10—when I came down next morning I saw one pane of the breakfast-room window was broken and the catch pulled down—things in the house were not disturbed—there was mud on the window-sill inside and out, but no one could get through, for the window was secured.
Cross-examined. I came down about half past seven in the morning—the police did not know about it before eight.
JOHN MARSDEN (213 L). At 3.15 a.m. on 8th February I was called by Ashton to Camberwell New Road, where I saw that the side door of No. 21 had been forced open—I went to the mews at the rear and saw the prisoner coming over the wall at the rear of 23, Camberwell New Road—I arrested him—he said, "Halloo! where did you spring from? As I never saw you coming down there I thought it was a cabman coming behind me. If I had known it was you I should have got over quicker, as I was watching two lights come over the walls. I thought my mate would be caught, little thinking I should be caught myself. Has anyone been down The Terrace, as that is the way my mate went with the tools"—I took him to the station, and charged him with being on enclosed premises—he made no answer—I found three handkerchiefs, a white cap, and a purse containing 1s. 63/4d. on him.
Cross-examined. You tried to get in at 21, Camberwell New Road, but that was not the-house where the burglary had been done—no tools or housebreaking implements were found on you.
JAMBS ASHTON (214 L). About 3 a.m. on 8th February I was in The Terrace, and noticed the side door of 21, Camberwell New Road had been forced open, and that other things had been disturbed, and that someone had been on the side wall of the The Terrace leading to the wall on the Camberwell New Road—I obtained the assistance of the last witness, and placed him in the rear of the gardens No. 25, 26, and 27, Camberwell New Road—I saw the prisoner in charge of Marsden; he was then fifty yards from the wall—No. 23 is about 150 yards from No. 1—there is a high wall dividing No. I, Camberwell New Road, from No. 1, The Terrace—if you wanted to get into the garden of No. 2 you would have to go round or get over the wall.
Cross-examined. There would be quite ten gardens between No. 1 and No. 23.
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
MR. COLLINS Prosecuted.
OLIVE CABLING . I am the wife of Henry Casling, an oilman, of 1, Elsted Street, Walworth—on 28th January I went to bed about a quarter to one—my house was properly locked up—about twenty minutes to six I was awoke by the police—my place was all open—I found the catch of the kitchen window had been forced back—it was fastened when I went to bed—that window and the kitchen door were opened—a panel of the door was broken so that a hand could be put through and unbolt it, and a pane of glass in the shop door was broken, and someone had got through into the shop—the tills had been taken out into the yard and emptied—I had left about £1 in copper and silver in the tills the night before—there was also taken a lady's long cloak, two lady's jackets, an overcoat, a pair of trousers, a pair of boots, two hats, a silver brooch and earrings—these are the trousers—they are corduroy; they were hanging on the guard—they are a very old pair of my son's; but I had mended them and they have been cut down since—these socks were my son's too. WILLIAM BUTLER (30 LR). On 4th Feburary I arrested the prisoner in Phelp Street, Walworth, where he was loitering with two other persons—he was wearing these cord trousers—I charged him with loitering; he made no reply—the same morning we found out about the trousers, and Leonard brought the prosecutor and another witness up, and the prisoner was asked about them, and he said, "I bought them of another man for 1B. 6d."—that is as much as they are worth, no doubt—when I stopped him in street he took this ordinary table-knife from his pocket and threw it away—I picked it up and said, u What is this t"—he said, "Oh, that is my knife"—I said, What did you throw it away for!"—he said, "I didn't want you to see it"—the knife might be used for pushing a catch back—he was wearing these socks.
WILLIAM LEONARD (Sergeant L). About three p.m. on 28th January, the day this burglary was committed, I saw the prisoner at Rodney Street Police-station, Walworth; he gave his wife into custody for bigamy; he was then wearing these trousers—afterwards, when the prisoner was charged, I asked him how he accounted for possession of the trousers and stockings—he said, "It is no use knocking my head against you"—I asked for an account of whom he bought them of, or where he got them from, so that I could make enquiry; he made no reply; all he said was he had bought them—the burglary was effected by forcing back the catch of the kitchen window; it might have been done by this knife, and the panel of the door leading to the kitchen was broken, and a pane of glass in the door leading from the parlour into the shop.
Cross-examined. I did not recognise my trousers at first, but when they were taken off I did.
(The prisoner, in his defence, said that he bought the trousers about a week before the burglary was committed, and that the stockings and hat he bought of (mother man on another day).
GUILTY of receiving. He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in January, 1892.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.
MR. C. MATHEWS and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted; MR. W. M. THOMPSON and MR. J. D. A. JOHNSON Defended the prisoner.
MR. MATHEWS, in opening the case, expressed doubt whether the prisoner's distress of mind, owing to his wife's infidelity and his own consequent illness, would lead the JURY to say that the offence was more than manslaughter. The prisoner was admitted to be of excellent character. On the advice of his Counsel, and in the hearing of the JURY, the prisoner stated that he was guilty of manslaughter, and the JURY returned that verdict. Discharged on recognizances.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. CRICKETT Prosecuted. ROSE STIMSON. I am the daughter of Mrs. Emma Stimson, of 111, Oakley Street, Southwark—on September 11th my brother fastened up the premises, and the next morning at 4. 15 I was called, and the place was all in confusion—these clothes (produced) belong to my mother—they were safe on Friday night.
EMMA STIMSON . I am a wardrobe dealer, of 111, Oakley Street—on February 17th the place was closed about 10 p.m.—Mr. Stimson and my daughter went down about 4. 3 the next morning—I can swear to the prisoners coming to my shop on the Friday or Saturday—Jones came in and the others, remained outside—this handkerchief is one which my little boy wears; I saw it safe before I went to bed—the clothes stolen are worth quite £40—I recognise them all.
Cross-examined by DIMLER. I think this handkerchief is yellower than mine.
JOHN DAVIS (385 M). On 18th February, at 4. 15 a.m., I was on duty in Charlotte Street, Blackfriars Road, and saw Dimler wheeling a barrow with a quantity of clothes on it—I stepped up into the road, and he ran away—I chased him a quarter of a mile and lost him—I went back, and the barrow had disappeared—I saw it again just before six at the Police-station, and picked Dimler out there.
WILLIAM ROYLANDS (268 M). On February 18th I was on duty in Southwark Street, and saw Jones and Falby about 5.30 pushing a barrow—they let go of it and ran away—I ran after them and secured Falby—I asked what he had got in the barrow; he said, "I don't know"—
I took him to the station, where I found a lot of clothing in the barrow, which the prosecutrix identifies.
Cross-examined by JONES. I swear I saw you with Falby; I did not know you by sight before.
FALBY. It was Dimler shoving the barrow with me, not Jones.
JAMES STREET (333 M). I was on duty with Roylands—I followed Jones, and lost sight of him in Somers Street—I returned and assisted in taking the barrow to the station and sorting the things—I afterwards identified Jones from several others—I had seen Falby and Jones at 2. 15 that morning, and stopped them—I did not know either of them before.
Cross-examined by JONES. I did not pick you out by your muddy boots—there were seven or eight others with you when I picked you out. GEORGE KINGSLEY (6 MB). I remained with the barrow—I identify Falby as one who ran away from the barrow—I had never seen him before.
Cross-examined by JONES. I did not pick you out by your dirty boots.
THOMAS DYBALL (Police Constable 84 M). On 18th February, about 7. 30 am., from information I received, I went with Sergeant Gentle to 2, Harrow Street—went upstairs and found Jones dressed, and Dimler lying on the bed undressed—I said to Jones "I am going to arrest you for burglary"; he said, "Oh! all right. "Mrs. Dimler pointed to Dimler, and said, "What is this for?"—Dimler said, "Say I have been in bed all night"—she said, "This young man came in early this morning"—they were taken to the station, Jones was placed with other men, and was identified by two constables—there is no truth in the suggestion that the men had clean boots and Jones dirty boots—they were all men taken out of the street.
WILLIAM GENTLE . (Detective M). I was with Sergeant Dyball on the 18th—Dimler was undressed and in bed; Jones was dressed—I found a handkerchief on the bed, and said to Jones, "Whose is this?"—he pointed to a young woman in the room, and said it belonged to her—she said that it did not—he said, "You will make nothing of this handkerchief, for I bought it in Waterloo Road for 43/4d."—I told him the charge, he said, "That is all right. "
GEORGE BARTLETT (187 M). I was at the station on 8th February, when a woman brought in some food to the prisoners—Dimler said to her "There is only one who has picked me out; tell her to come up and swear we were in bed all night"—I took that down at the time.
PATRICK LEONARD (Police Inspector L). I examined Mr. Stimson's premises—the clothes had been packed up ready for removal—an entrance had been effected by taking down the shutter and breaking the glass.
FALBY in his statement before the Magistrate, said that he found the barrow in the middle of the street and waited by it two hours till the police came.
JONES' Defence. I was in Fleet Street till 4. 15 that morning; I know nothing about it.
DIMLER'S Defence. I was going to work and met Jones; we found the barrow, and were going to take it to the station when the police took us.
FALBY'S Defence. If I had not been the worse for drink I should not have done what I have done.
DIMLER** and FALBY** then
PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions
at this Court on January 11th, 1892. JONES— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. DIMLER— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
FALBY— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Recorder.
266. JOHN WILLIAM HORBELL (23) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously forging and uttering an undertaking for the payment of £5. Also another undertaking for the payment of £5. Also an undertaking for the payment of £7 10s. with intent to defraud.— Four Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
267. JOSEPH FERGUSON (18) PLEADED GUILTY to Burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles Reuben Gurnsey, and stealing a sheet and other articles his property, after a conviction of felony at Maidstone, in October, 1891, in the name of George Johnson. Also to unlawfully attempting to commit a burglary in the dwelling-house of George Edward Greengrass.— Ten Months' Hard Labour.
MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted.
NOT GUILTY .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1893.