CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
FOURTH SESSION, HELD JANUARY 28TH, 1895.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED BY
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, INCLUDING CASES COMMITTED TO THIS COURT UNDER ORDER IN COUNCIL, PURSUANT TO THE WINTER ASSIZE ACT OF 1879, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, January 28th, 1895, and following days.
BEFORE the RIGHT HON. SIR JOSEPH RENALS , Knt., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir ALFRED WILLS , one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., M. P., Sir STUART KNILL , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; Sir CHARLES HALL , Q. C., M. P., K. C. M. G., Recorder of the said City; Sir JNO. VOCE MOORE , Knt., Lieut.-Col. HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., Sir JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE , Knt., WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., JOHN CHARLES BELL , Esq., other of the 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.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
RENALS, MAYOR. FOURTH 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, January 28th, 1895.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MESSRS. C.F. GILL and BODKIN Prosecuted.
JOHN PITMAN . I am a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce a file from Somerset House relating to the National Provincial Press Company, Limited—that company was registered in 1893—there appear to be the names of eight signatories; Mr. Dawson, Moss, Miss Moss, F. H. Moss, Joseph Moss, Berry L. Horton and W. C. Gourley—there is a notice on the file dated July, 1893, giving the address of the company, 53-4, Chancery Lane—there is a minute of the articles of association—there is a file kept at Somerset House with an official index—I find no registration of the Brighton News Company, Limited.
CHARLES L'ENFANT . I am an officer in the filing department of the Bankruptcy Court—I produce a file of the proceedings in the bankruptcy of B. F. Nash, dated 1893—the act of bankruptcy was failing to comply with the notice—the amount is £567 19s. 2d.—the receiving order is dated 9th March, 1893; the adjudication was on 11th April, 1893—there is no statement of affairs—the bankruptcy still exists; there has been no discharge—he never attended his public examination on 17th April, 1893.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. There was no private examination; you were before the Official Receiver—I believe a warrant was taken out against you—I have no notice of your having appeared; that would appear on another file.
THOMAS HEWITT . I live at 8, Ashborne Road, East Dulwich—on 7th August I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph—this is it. (This required a young gentleman as secretary, application to be made to 534, Chancery Lane)—I answered that advertisement, and got this reply, dated 19th August, 1893, from 53-4, Chancery Lane. (This stated that the employe would be under the direction of the managing editor, that£100
would have to be invested, secured by 100 preference shares; signed NASH, managing editor)—on 12th August I went to 53, Chancery Lane—I there saw the defendant—I had a conversation with him—he told me this was a limited liability company—he showed me a certificate from Somerset House hanging up in his room, which showed, as far as I could see, that it was a limited company—he said it had been in existence as a private company about two years, but as a limited company for a short period—he said it was a most prosperous concern; that it paid to the shareholders, I believe, 22 1/2 per cent.; that the whole of the shares were held by private individuals, it was not offered to the public; that it was such a good thing that the directors kept most of the shares themselves; that he had but a few shares himself—I had not had anything to do with newspapers or journalism before—I told him that I knew nothing whatever of the sort, but I wanted to get on and better my position—he said I was just the man that would suit him of all the candidates; that there were thirty, but I was the very man he could trust implicitly—I said if he trained me and at the end of twelve months what I learnt was of value to me, I would remunerate him out of my salary—he said he would not take anything himself for instructing me, but he proposed that I should become an articled pupil of the company, and pay a premium of £50, and I should receive instruction in journalism for the year—I agreed to become an articled pupil of the company—I was to pay the premium on signing the agreement as soon as my reference was taken up—I gave him some references—I was to buy seven per cent, preference shares—he said some few of the shares were reserved by the directors for the employes of the company—he said very little about the directors, but he described several guarantees and various things, which I took little notice of at the time; but about the £100, that was a positive compulsory order of the directors—I agreed to that, in an undertaking of 29th August at the same offices, to give my services for three years at a salary of £120 a year—on the same day I paid him £100 for the hundred preference shares—it was paid in Bank of England notes—I also got this memorandum, dated 28th August, acknowledging the receipt of £50 for the tuition, on behalf of the National Provincial Press—the receipt was signed by the defendant—I further got an undertaking to return me the £100 at the end of my period of service; that is signed by the secretary and managing director—that same day he gave me to understand that the company banked at the City Bank, and he had a private account with the National and Provincial Bank of England—I began my duties on the 1st September—I went to Chancery Lane and attended there day by day—I was set to work and made an extract from Sells' "Press Directory," taking out the names of country papers—the extract was used some little time afterwards in sending out circulars, on one occasion—the staff consisted of Mr. Barrett, the defendant's sister, and Miss Perry—I spoke to the prisoner about the absence of work—he said there would be plenty of work by-and-bye, and he should be glad if I would work overtime then—he said he sat up working late at night—about the 16th September I got some share certificates; they were green ones—there were others of a sort of pink colour—I attended a meeting of the directors—I was not the secretary, I was secretary to the secretary; I had no right to be present—the meeting was held upstairs;
that was the only one I know of—there were no books of account for me to look after; there was only a very small one about Sells' business for two weeks; it was a very small, thin book, about a sixpenny one; that was the only book I saw—about the end of September the defendant spoke to me about another company; he showed me dummies, and said he was getting up an article for a Brighton paper, called Brighton Life; he said it was to be started by the Agency, guaranteed by the Press Agency, and he suggested that I should become secretary to that company, with a rise of pay; he would give me the first opportunity of becoming secretary—he said the paper would be published in the first week in October; that he had been to Brighton and seen some people, and he had made arrangements with Mr. Baker, a solicitor, and one or two private gentlemen, that I was to be the secretary, and my salary was to be £80 a year in addition to the £120, bringing my wages up to £200 a year—he asked me to invest £100 in 10 per cent. preference shares in the Brighton company—I think I told him that I had not sufficient money, that I had not got £100—he asked me to give him a few days to think it over—I told him I had £25, and I would try and raise the balance—he said he had taken an office at Brighton, and he had made all the arrangements with the local printers—I only saw this prospectus of the Brighton Newspaper Company; it passed through my hands—it seemed to be in type; there were only two dozen of them—I had seen it before I parted with my money—the capital was to be £2,000 in preference shares, guaranteed by the National Provincial—there is a list of directors of that company, Mr. Chester Dawson for one; I knew him as holding that position; Mr. Evan Jones, I have seen him at Chancery Lane; I never saw Mr. Crawley—on the 23rd September I paid the prisoner £25, receiving in return this receipt: "Received from Thomas Hewitt £25, being the first call of 5s. per share"—after that I endeavoured to raise the balance, £75, but I could not do so—I was out of health, and remained at my lodging till 13th October—the prisoner paid me a visit on that day—he told me that the Brighton Newspaper Company had been registered at Somerset House that day by himself, accompanied by Mr. Lewis; that he had been to Brighton, and had caused Brighton to be plastered all over with bills with a large "B. L."; that was the Brighton Life, and there was £100 in the bank after I had put mine in—he was very anxious to get some more from me, in order that the new capital might be used to come out clean—it was upon that that I paid him the £25, and received the receipt—my salary was not regularly paid; I had received none up to that date—on the 25th October there was some salary due to me, and I said I was out of funds, and should like my first month's salary—he said he would give me back £10 of the money I had paid, him, and he would send on the balance by the company's cheque, which I was to return to him—I got that cheque, endorsed it, and sent it back to him—two or three days afterwards I went back to my duties—I found no work to do, less than before—I said I thought it a great pity that these things of G. A. Sala's had not gone out—he said he was paying Mr. Sala a lot of money, but he could do the same thing himself better—Mr. Sala wrote an article for two weeks—the Wednesday I was at home ill I spoke to the prisoner about it, and he said he had dropped those of Sala's and should write them himself, but
that was never done—my salary did not continue to be paid; he said he was waiting for the directors, and made various excuses—in November, 1893, I had to go to Plymouth—he promised me money for the journey—on 20th November I wrote to him from Plymouth, asking for money—I got none; I got a telegram—I kept on pressing for money until about the middle of December, and on the 29th I got this letter from him. (Promising £25 at the end of the month and£25 on the 31st)—I got some money from a gentleman in Yorkshire, and did not get any from the prisoner—I afterwards went to Chancery Lane and saw the prisoner, but I never got any of my money back—on 10th April, 1894, I received this letter. (This was dated from the National Provincial Press Agency, expressing the assurance of its becoming one of the most complete press agencies in the world.)
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not say I could not find £100 at present, because I could not realise £500 worth of shares I held in the Stores—I never held £500 worth of shares in any stores—I copied out the draft for the prospectus of the Brighton newspaper—I have no means of fixing dates—I took down from you certain particulars which were the subject matter of the prospectus, which has been put in—you showed me a dummy copy of Brighton Life, the size of Truth, when I went in—I forget our first conversation on the day I paid £150—you showed me the dummy copy that day—I understood that the Agency was going to bring it out at a later date—we had several conversations about the paper—you wanted the second sum from me to pay a deposit to the printer in order that he should use new type on the first number—probably you said something to me about preliminary expenses in reference to my first payment—I know nothing about company matters—you said the company's money was put in the bank, and you could not draw it—I agreed to buy some shares and take the secretaryship—this draft prospectus was in existence before I paid you any money, but not before we discussed it, because you talked about it to me many times, and I cannot fix the date of any particular conversation—we discussed it almost every time I saw you, from the time I paid my first money and till I gave up the thing as a bad job—I believed you Had registered the company when I parted with my second £100; I had implicit trust in you—you showed me an extract from the minute book giving you power to make this agreement with me—you said the ordinary shareholders had received a dividend of 22 1/2 per cent.—I understood that the private company had paid 22 1/2 per cent.—for a few weeks after I was engaged by the Press Agency there was next to nothing to do, and then numerous replies began to come to advertisements which had been appearing in prominent newspapers—by Christmas a large number had been received, requests for copy and different things—I was under the impression that it could be made a very good business—if you worked I thought the thing would be made to pay—the work could not be executed without money, but previous to Christmas you had money—I don't think you had money when you had no work and no money when you had work—I think if you had worked as you ought to have done the thing might have been made a success—you said that you paid twelve guineas a week to Mr. Sala—two batches of it went out while I was in the office—I knew nothing about the company's business except what you told me, and what you told me I
believed—I knew nothing of the financial condition—I saw no books; you kept everything of importance in your own desk, and every time you left you locked them up—I saw nothing from which I could get any information as to the affairs of the company; I trusted and believed you right through—I was very short of money at Plymouth and pressed you very much day after day, and your excuse was you had none till the meeting of the directors—I know you tried to get money—I raised £4 to enable me to go to Plymouth—I believe you tried your best to get money at that period—when I came back from Plymouth you gave me £10—up to that time I believed in you, but you went away without leaving any address—I wrote for the paper called Notes ten or eleven weeks—it is not in existence now.
By the JURY. Before entering into this employment I did not make any inquiry about the prisoner in particular—I made inquiry about the Moss's, the directors at Brighton—I found that they were well spoken of and were apparently substantial people—the first company was registered, not the second—when I parted with my £25 I did not look at the matter as a mere speculation—I looked at the second company as being important because it was guaranteed by the first company.
CHESTER DAWSON . I am an artist, living at Hampstead—I was a director of a company called the National Provincial Press Agency, Limited—the prisoner in those days was a great friend of mine, and he asked me to become a director—I had no knowledge up to that time whether the business had been in existence—I had never been a director before—I had no idea of its duties or responsibilities—I knew nothing at all about it—I spoke to the prisoner about it—he told me what the duties were and so forth—he told me I should have nothing to do; that the duties were very simple, and the responsibility nothing at all—I did not invest any money in it, or take any shares; I never paid a farthing—on one occasion I got half a guinea, that was for signing some certificates; and I signed a book—I had the assistance of another director, Mr. B. Moss—I don't know how old he was, but he was not of age—I signed any documents that were put before me—I never saw any book of the company, no minute book—I never saw this book (produced) till I was at Bow Street—I never saw any banking account, or signed any cheques—I don't know whether there was any banking account—I did not sign certificates of any other company—to my knowledge I was not a director of the Brighton company—I did not guarantee the dividend of that company—I did not as a director make any rule that the people employed should invest in that company—the prisoner was managing director and secretary—I have not the least idea what the capital of the company was,—I never signed any cheque for the prisoner—I did not give him a cheque for £100 as petty cash; he never applied to me for one—he said if I became a director it would do me good in my profession; that probably I should supply the company with pictures—I thought of making money out of my sketches.
Cross-examined. I am thirty-five years of age—I knew you when you were at school at Brighton—I was a teacher at one time, later I took up Art—I had never acted as a director before—I was quite ignorant of the duties—I was not willing to become a director—I did so because of your inducements held out to me; the principal inducement was to get employment
as an artist—I was present at the first meeting of directors—you made several minutes, and read them over and signed in your room—I don't remember you saying they would be signed at the next meeting; I think I should have remembered them if they were the original minutes—I am perfectly certain that they contained more—I was in a hurry to get away—I remember the minutes being read to me—I showed you one or two sketches, and you said possibly you might be able to make use of them—I don't remember whether that was after I had become a director—I remember bringing up a portfolio, and you said if I was able to do as well as that you might be able to make use of them—it might have been before or after I was a director, I am not sure which—I remember a minute appointing you secretary to the company; you were empowered to employ any servants of the company that might be required—I know you made the clerks deposit some money, but I did not know that till I had signed the certificates—I never heard that they were for the persons employed—I remember signing two certificates for Mr. Hewitt—I received half-a-guinea fee as a director—I said I would be prepared to do that sort of work all day—I never saw the Brighton prospectus till I saw it at Bow Street—I am not aware that it was shown to me by Mr. Hewitt—I think I saw the articles of association, where my name was down as a director—I don't remember having seen a draft prospectus of the Brighton Life—Hewitt showed me the articles of association one day; he might have showed me other papers, but that is the only one I remember—I told you I was surprised to see my name appearing as a director in the articles of association of the Brighton Newspaper Company: I don't remember seeing my name in that capacity before—I objected to it; you said it would be all right, and I did not say anything more, but I never at any time considered myself a director of the Brighton Company—I was prepared to be a director of the National Provincial Press Agency; I expected to derive some benefit from it.
Re-examined. I took no part in obtaining any money from Hewitt—I made no representations to him.
BERNARD WILLIAM MOSS . I live at 22, Selborne Road, West Brighton—my name appears as a director of the National Provincial Press Agency, Limited—I knew the prisoner—I had taken a £1 share in the Concentrated Soup Syndicate—after that, in 1893, when I had just turned nineteen, the prisoner asked me if I would become a director of the National Provincial Press Agency, and I consented—nothing was said to me as to what my duties would be—I took no shares—I attended meetings—I never heard of the company having any banking account—I don't think I saw any books of the company—I signed certificates of preference shares, which were printed in green, and ordinary shares, printed in red—there were allotments of shares to my sister—I don't know if she had advanced money—I received one fee of 10s. 6d.—I made no representations to Hewitt to induce him to part with money—I did not to my knowledge make any rule as a director that the company's employees should hold preference shares—I attended at the office a good many times—the prisoner was always there as secretary and he placed before me the documents I signed—I never undertook to
guarantee the interest on shares in the Brighton Newspaper Company, Limited—I knew nothing about that company—I never had any money in it—all I had out of the matter was 10s. 6d.—I resigned in October.
VIOLET MOSS . I live at 32, Selborne Road, West Brighton—I have known the prisoner for some time—in February, 1893, he was lodging at Brighton—he told me he wanted to start a press agency; he hoped to be financed by a gentleman living in Yorkshire who had financed him before—from time to time I had conversations with the prisoner about the press agency—in July, 1893, he told me he had not been able to get the money from the gentleman in Yorkshire, and he had been disappointed, and he wanted to get some to start it before the Duke of York's wedding—I don't think he asked me, but I offered to advance him £50, and I lent him £50—I had previously lent him other sums—in all I had advanced him £320 of my own money—in July, 1893, he gave me this I. O. U. for £320, which is dated back to the first advance I had made, on November 5th, 1892—as security for some of my advances he gave me these 4, 000 ordinary shares in the National Provincial Press Agency, signed by my brother and Mr. Chester Dawson, directors—the prisoner said they were worth nothing then; he hoped they would be if the thing were a success—I pressed for payment of part of the money I had lent him, and eventually I put the matter in my solicitor's hands, and while in my solicitor's hands these share certificates were cancelled—I did not recover anything in the litigation—I did not know in July, 1893, when I advanced the £50, that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
By the COURT. He was an old schoolfellow of my brother's—my family have known him for a great many years.
LEONARD BARRETT . I am a clerk—in July, 1893, I made the acquaintance of the prisoner, who employed me at 53 and 54, Chancery Lane—he had then two rooms on the first floor and two on the floor above, where he lived—in the rooms on the first floor there were a couple of tables and two or three chairs—no work was going on there—on the door was painted "National Provincial Press Agency," and "Concentrated Soup Manufacturing Syndicate," and his own name, Nash—in September, Miss Perry came—I have seen her cutting slips out from the comic papers—afterwards Mr. Hewitt came—the brokers came for the first time between Christmas and the beginning of January; I was away at the time—Mr. Silver came there—he was to be secretary, I believe; I don't know of which company—I saw this book at the place; I recognise the writing in it as that of the prisoner's—I saw no bank pass-book—I was never sent to the bank—I only received £2 10s. and £1 all the time I was there, from about June, 1893, till 8th November, 1894, altogether——there was a re-engagement and at the end of the re-engagement I had some more; it would amount in all to about £3 10s.—this entry in the book,"£50, salary of B. F. N.," is in the prisoner's writing, I think; and this entry,"£18, nine weeks' salary as secretary, B. F. N.," is in the prisoner's writing—I see other entries of £2 10s. to myself, and one to "L. N. 9 guineas"—that refers to Miss Nash—lower down I see myself 4 guineas, and ". F. N. £25."
LENA PERRY . I live at Catherine Cottage, Hampstead—at the beginning of 1893 I was living with my parents at 53, Chancery Lane, and I came to know the prisoner through his having offices in that house—about
a day after the Royal wedding in 1893 I went into his office as clerk, and I was to have £1 a week—I addressed envelopes and sent off letters, and cut columns out of the Echo and old newspapers—the cuttings were threaded together in long strips and put on one side; I saw no more of them—I only got £1—I remained there for seven or eight months—I asked the prisoner for my salary once, and he said when he had some money which he was expecting he would let me have it—I did not see any work done by the National Provincial Press Agency while I was there.
Cross-examined. I had not been in any employment before—my mother was anxious that I should get office training, and you said I could come into your office and you would give me some work—I asked you once for money and you gave me a sovereign—I asked you a second time; that was after the brokers were in—you promised me £1 a week when I came to you.
EDWARD ROLAND CRAWLEY . I am a solicitor, of 4, Palace Place, Brighton—I have met the prisoner occasionally during the last four or five years—I had no conversation or communication of any kind with him about the Brighton Newspaper Company—I never consented to be solicitor to that company, or to my name appearing on any prospectus of the company, draft or otherwise.
Cross-examined. I know you through being at the Brighton Grammar School—I know very little about company work—in preparing a draft prospectus the names intended to become the officers of the company might be put down—I should not have consented to be solicitor of this company without knowing a good deal about it, and I should have made further investigations, and I might have acted, but I should have felt very shy of acting in any company matter—I should have wanted to know you better, too—I knew nothing against you at that time.
PERRY FISHER SPARKS . I am a clerk in the Union Bank, Brighton—in October, 1893, we received a letter from the prisoner—we never consented to act as bankers to the Brighton Newspaper Company, and no authority was given for the name of the Union Bank to appear on the draft prospectus of that company—there was never £150 or £160 standing to the credit of the Brighton Newspaper Company at that bank.
Cross-examined. You had been in correspondence with the bank in connection with the company—you were asked to send the articles of association and other papers of the proposed company—you proposed to open an account there, but it was not accepted—no authority or permission was given you to use the name of the bank.
THOMAS GEORGE JOHNSON . I am a clerk to Mr. Phillips, of the Printing and Advertising Company, Limited, 121, Fleet Street—from time to time that company has done printing work to the prisoner's order—on December 15th, 1892, and from time to time since, we did printing on his behalf in relation to the National Provincial Press Agency—in October, 1893, we did some work on his behalf in relation to the Brighton Newspaper Company—various amounts were paid to us from time to time—at the present time a balance of £48 17s. is due from the prisoner; we gave him credit, not knowing his position as a bankrupt.
Cross-examined. Mr. Philips, the managing director, would have the giving of credit more especially—the orders did not go through my hands
I had the collection of the account—I first heard that you were a bankrupt after I was at Bow Street; I mentioned it to Mr. Philips—he said he saw it from the public announcements, so I suppose he was aware that you were an undischarged bankrupt.
JOHN BERNARD ATKINSON . In August, 1893, I was the proprietor of the Journalist—in that year I saw the prisoner at Chancery Lane, and he spoke to me about putting an advertisement in the Journalist—the result was that the following day he brought to my club an order for a full-page advertisement in the Journalist—I inserted it—the price was £2 5s. or £2 12s. 6d.—it was to go on for twelve or thirteen insertions—he became indebted to me £16 1s. 3d., I believe—the notice of the National Provincial Press Agency, which appeared in my paper, was written in my office—the prisoner supplied a paragraph that he wished to be inserted—I had no knowledge of the company except from what he told me, and from that the notice of the company was written—I was never paid the £16.
Cross-examined. I received the order for the advertisement as from the National Provincial Press Agency; I took it to be a bona fide concern—I think the order was signed managing editor and secretary, or manager—I took you to be an honest man—I gave credit to the Agency in my books.
Re-examined. I knew nobody in the matter except the prisoner—I did not know he was an undischarged bankrupt—this is the original paragraph he gave me.
DORRINGTON. I am part proprietor of the Press News—I inserted in that paper an advertisement for the National Provincial Press Agency which I got from the prisoner—it was one and a half pages, to be inserted for five months—he became indebted to me ten guineas—I knew nothing about the company or the prisoner—I did not know that he was an undischarged bankrupt—I took this notice about the company from the office in Chancery Lane and inserted it as it came.
Cross-examined. I took the order from you as manager and secretary of the Agency—I imagine I gave the Agency credit.
Re-examined. This is the order I got—I believed it was a bona fide company.
WALTER DINNEY (Detective Inspector, Scotland Yard). On November 2nd, 1894, I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest, and went to 14, Granville Street, Brunswick Square, about two p. m.—I found the prisoner in bed—I read the warrant to him, and told him he would have to go to Bow Street with me—he said, "You know I cannot get out of bed"—I said, "I have just seen your doctor who attended and examined you, and he says there is no reason why you should not attend the Court"—he said, "Very well then, I suppose I will have to go"—he got up and went to the station—I looked in the first floor sitting-room and office combined occupied by him, and found a number of books, papers, and documents, of which I made this list—I found a great number of prospectuses relating to twenty-three different companies, the Honduras Government Banking and Trading Company, 13 and 14, Abchurch Lane; the Brighton Newspaper Company, the Quadrant, North Street, Brighton; the Market Syndicate, 13, Cannon Street; the West Australian Promoting and Prospecting Syndicate, 90, Cannon Street; the Gadfly, 54, Chancery Lane; the Federation Pick
Company, 11, Queen Victoria Street; the Coolgardie Mines Syndicate, 20, Abchurch Lane; the Eastern Counties Bank Trading Company, 11, St. Helens Place; the Melbourne Brewery and Distillery Company, 30, St. Swithin's Lane; the International Electric Subway Company, 39, Victoria Street; the West Australian Gold Concessions, 33, Old Broad Street; the City of Buenos Ayres Mortgage Bank, 39, Cannon Street; the Gotha Breweries, 55 and 56, Chancery Lane; the Globe Tanning Company, 75, Great Manchester Street; the Union Pick and Tool Company, 12, Pancras Lane; the Queen's Hill Gold Mines; the Californian Gold Mining Company, 110, Cannon Street; the Cuthbertson Exploration Company, 46, Queen Victoria Street; the West Australian Minerals and Finance Company, 46, Queen Victoria Street; the Music Halls Corporation Company, 12, Pancras Lane; the Cardigan Stone Company (Limited); the Mount Minnie Gold Mine, 3 and 4, Great Manchester Street; and Bayley's West Gold Mining Company, 33, Old Broad Street—some of these different addresses in the City are at the same place; the Market Syndicate, 39, Cannon Street, and the Coolgardie Mines, 20, Abchurch Lane, are at the same office; there are entrances in both streets—I went to Brighton and inquired in the Quadrant as to the Brighton Newspaper Company—I found no trace of any office taken in the prisoner's name, and I could not find that he was known by anyone who let premises there.
Cross-examined. The summons was first issued against you to appear at Bow Street twelve months ago—it has been adjourned from time to time on account of your illness—I visited you about once a fortnight—our divisional surgeon had examined you as to the state of your health—his report led to the case being adjourned sine die—I am not aware that our doctor had examined you again, and told you to keep quiet for a day or so—you told me he had, but he said you were in a perfect state to be removed to the station—you were not well; no doubt you were recovering from a long illness—I had no search warrant, but I took your papers away—you have applied for a few, and copies of those you have had—I don't insinuate you were connected with all the companies I have named—I found the propectuses in your room; that is all I know.
The prisoner in his defence stated that when he asked Hewitt to subscribe to the Brighton Newspaper Company he believed the paper would be produced and would be a success, but that he did not procure enough money to bring it out; that Hewitt knew it was a risk and elected to put his money into it without being persuaded to do so; that he thought Hewitt was a man of means who wanted to learn journalism, some knowledge of which he had acquired; that it is owing to his illness that his plans had failed, and that he had had no intention to defraud.
GUILTY on the ninth and twelfth Counts, as to the charges as to both Companies. — Fourteen Months Hard Labour.
182. ALEXANDER GEORGE (21), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a dressing-bag, the property of John Pound; also to stealing a dressing-bag, the property of Norman Marshall, and to a conviction of felony in May, 1894.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
183. WILLIAM ELLIOTT (24), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a purse and 6s. 0 1/2 d. from, the person of Lily House; also to a conviction of felony in March 1894, in the name of William Harrison. Five other convictions were proved against the prisoner.— Fourteen Months' Hard Labour. And
184. ALBERT YOLLAND (19) , to stealing a mare, the property of James West; also to stealing a pair of traces and harness, the property of Baldwin Jackson, his master.— Eleven Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 28th, 1895.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
185. WILLIAM AYERS (38) , Stealing fifty-two pairs of boots, the property of George Frean Evans; he was also indicted for forging and uttering an order for the payment of 10s. with intent to defraud; also for unlawfully falsifying certain accounts of George Frean Evans, his master, upon all of which
MR. GEOGHEGAN, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
186. WILLIAM ROBERTS (53), PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining from Walter Dangerfield a cheque for £48 with intent to defraud; also to making a false declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths, having been convicted at this Court on September 8th, 1890.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
187. WILHELM GRAAFF (23) , to sending a parcel through the Post Office containing obscene photographs. He received a good character.— Six Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
188. JAMES RAMSEY (33) , to stealing a post letter, a purse, and other articles, and 7s. 6d., the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
189. GEORGE FIDLER (30) , to stealing, while employed in the Post Office, a post letter containing a postal order for 2s. 6d.; also a letter containing two postal orders, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— Three Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
190. JOSEPH TAYLOR (52) , unlawfully obtaining a bay gelding by false pretences from Frederick Reynolds. Second Count, obtaining a diamond and ruby ring from Mary Louisa Nicholson, with intent to defraud.
MR. PAYNE Prosecuted.
FREDERICK REYNOLDS . I live at Stroud Green—I had written to a person about a horse which I had for sale—the prisoner called on me, and bought it for £19, for which he gave me a Bank of England cheque, and said, "I hope a cheque on the Bank of England will satisfy you?"—I said "Certainly," and let him take the horse away—the cheque was returned marked—I have not got the horse back or the money.
MARY LOUISA NICHOLSON . I lived last year at 5, Hammond Square—I am the wife of Allen Nicholson—I keep a boarding-house now, at Dorset Square, and the prisoner was boarding there last February—I was in difficulties and wanted £20 or £30 temporarily—he gave me this cheque on the Bank of England for £30—I gave him two rings as security; one was a diamond and ruby ring—he had then lodged with me two days; he went out and I never saw him again—the cheque came back marked "No account"—I never got the rings back.
Cross-examined by prisoner. We had some refreshment together at Charing Cross—I did not ask you to come to my house to spend the evening with some friends—I would not have given you the ring if you had said that the cheque was of no use.
JOSEPH CLIFTON TESSIER . I am a clerk in the private drawing office of the Bank of England—these two cheques were issued to the Amaline Company, which was in liquidation, both in the same book—they are signed "J. Taylor" and "J. Roberts," neither of whom had an account at the bank—they are marked "No account."
----DAVIDSON (Police Inspector) did not appear.
WALTER ALEXANDER (Detective Sergeant Y). Inspector Davidson was not bound over—on March 16th I went to Frederick Street, St. John's Wood and saw Mr. Russell, and asked him for a ring—he gave me this ring (Produced).
Cross-examined. When I took you outside Chelmsford Gaol I said that I had been all over London to find you—I did not say I would make it better for you if you told me where the horse was—you said that when you had your nine months you thought that ended the matter.
MRS. NICHOLSON (Re-examined). This is my ring.
JAMES RUSSELL . I am a horse dealer, of 23, Frederick Street, St. John's Wood—I know the prisoner, but I had not seen him for fourteen years till I saw him at Victoria Station in February last year—he came to my stable about the beginning of February and said, "I have got a bargain for you; it is a ticket of a diamond ring for 30s."—I gave him 10s. for it and took it out of pledge on the 22nd—this is it.
Cross-examined. I do not know on what day it was, but Dr. Reynolds wrote me a postcard saying that he had bought a horse at Southampton—you went with me to the doctor's place; he was out—I put my horse up and returned at 1.30 and saw him and came away, and coming along you said, "What sort of a horse is it?"—I told you, and you said it was for your business; you were a butcher—I wrote to you to send you some money—I did not ask you to buy the horse—I did not tell you my friend lived at. St. John's Wood; I never saw you—I did not give you a sovereign to go to the doctor's.
Prisoner's defence. I wrote three times to Detective Davidson to come here and he is not here. He is my principal witness. Mr. Russell told me to buy the horse; he said he would have it for himself. I should not have had anything to do with the horse had it not been for Russell. I took it to the stable and he gave me £4 for it. I was sent to Chelmsford Gaol for nine months, and on my release the detective took me again I told him what I knew, as I had suffered so much for other people. I met Mrs. Nicholson in an omnibus and we got out and had some refreshment; she took me to her house. She said she did not live with her husband; she allowed him 10s. a week. She asked me to lend her some money and I gave her the cheque. She took the ring out of her purse and gave it to me. She employed a lawyer to write to me, and I told him where the ring was.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction on April 4th, 1894, of obtaining goods by false pretences, after a former conviction.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 29th, 1895.
Before Mr. Recorder
192. JAMES GEORGE MARYON (40) , to forging and uttering the endorsement on a cheque for the payment of £2 5s.; also to obtaining by false pretences from John Cropper Denew £2 5s., with intent to defraud.— Eight Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted.
FLORENCE PORTER . I am an attendant in the employment of the British Tea Table Company—on or about December 28th the prisoner came into our Aldersgate Street depot—I had seen him before—I served him with things of the value of 11 1/2 d., and gave him this ticket on which I wrote 11 1/2 d.—after that a customer sitting at the same table as the prisoner was at spoke to me, and I, in consequence, spoke to Miss Carter, the cashier—she took this ticket off the file and showed it to me; the prisoner had then just only got outside—and saw that 1 1/2 d. was written on the ticket—I looked out for the prisoner after that—I next saw him on the day he was given into custody—I recognised him when he came in, and I spoke to Mrs. Barrett, the manageress—the 1 1/2 d. on this ticket is not part of what I wrote it is re-written.
EMILY HESTER . I am an attendant in the employ of this company—on January 12th I was serving at the Aldersgate Street depot—I served the prisoner with refreshments of the value of 7 1/2 d., and gave him this ticket with 5 1/2 d. and 2d. on it—this "G" is my signature; we all have a letter—the "G" on this is as I wrote it—after the prisoner was charged I was shown this ticket and I found it had been altered—I had been told something previously which made me careful to remember what ticket I gave him—I knew the man's appearance, and was on the look out—I had good reason for remembering the exact amount I wrote on the ticket.
ROBERT WINNOP . I am a counter hand in the employ of this company—on 12th January Mrs. Barrett spoke to me—I saw the prisoner sitting at the table—I stood outside the shop in case the prisoner came out, and I looked through the window into the shop, and saw the prisoner sitting at the table with a ticket in front of him in the attitude of either writing or rubbing out.
GRACE CARTER . I am cashier at the Aldersgate Street branch of this company—I know the prisoner by sight—shortly after Christmas he presented to me this ticket, "A C 5260"—I believe he gave me twopence; I remember taking three halfpence—after he had gone Miss Porter spoke to me, and I then took this ticket off the file, and I have carefully kept it ever since—on 12th January the prisoner came in again, and I was told to be on the look out, and my attention was directed to him—I
recognised him as the man who had given me the other ticket—he gave me this ticket, 7133, in its present condition—I said, "1 1/2 d.?"—he said, "Yes"—he offered me a shilling—I said, "10 1/2 d. change"—he made no answer, but took up the change I put down—I don't think he counted it—he turned away, and then Mrs. Barrett spoke to him.
Cross-examined. I cannot say what coin you gave me the first time, but I am certain the ticket only had 1 1/2 d. on it.
JANE BARRETT . I am married—I am the manageress at this depot—soon after Christmas Miss Porter spoke to me with regard to the prisoner, and I gave her some directions—on 12th January, as soon as he came in, she made a communication to me, and I sent Winnop for a constable—I spoke to Miss Carter, the cashier, and Miss Hester who was serving him—I was standing by the desk when he went to pay—he put a shilling down—the cashier said, "1 1/2 d.?"—he said, "Yes"—she said, "10 1/2 d. change"—I then called in the constable and gave the prisoner into custody—I don't think he said anything in my hearing—I had seen him served with goods to the amount of sevenpence-halfpenny—I remember everything he had.
JAMES SAVALL (221 City). On 12th January I was called to 28, Aldersgate Street and the prisoner was given into my custody—I said to him, "You will be charged with forging that ticket, by altering the figures from 7 1/2 d. to 1 1/2 d., and you will be further charged with altering the figures on another ticket on or about 28th or 29th December last"—he said, "I never altered any ticket"—I then took him to the station—I found on him this pencil and indiarubber—he gave me the name of Townsend, and absolutely refused to give any address, and I was unable to make any inquiry about him.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. After you had been put back in the cell you gave an address, Mrs. Wingfield, 16, Rochester Square, Camden Town—I saw her and she said, "I cannot understand why he gave the name of Townsend; he is my son, and I cannot understand unless he gave that name to screen himself"—she is here.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I wish to say I had not the slightest intention to defraud the company. I was going to catch a train. I took up the change quickly, but never knew what it was about till the constable was called in. As to the other time I went in it was before Christmas. I think what I had came to 10 1/2 d. I believe I paid honestly."
GUILTY .— Discharged on recognizances, Mrs. Wingfield undertaking to become a surety for him.
194. ABRAHAM VAPIANSKI (21) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Solomon Saratowski, and stealing a safe, two watches, and other articles, and £167 16s. 3d., his goods and moneys. Second Count, receiving the same.
MR. SYMONDS Prosecuted.
The evidence was interpreted to the prisoner.
Friday three weeks I went to bed about eleven o'clock, after seeing the shop locked up—in the shop parlour cupboard was the safe—I put some money in it, and locked it before going upstairs, and I took the key with me—in the safe was one parcel with £151 in gold, and another parcel with money and some watches and other jewellery—next morning at 6.30 I came downstairs and saw a key in the shop door leading into the street—the window from the yard into the parlour was raised, and a pane of glass broken—the window opened on to a lodging-house with a yard—I went to the cupboard, and discovered that the safe was gone—I afterwards saw it at the Police station, and opened it with the key, and found everything was still in it.
JOHN OWEN (349 H). A few minutes before four a.m. on 5th January I was in Spelman Street, and I saw the prisoner with a barrow—I asked him what he was doing there; he mumbled something and went along—I did not understand him—there was nothing on the barrow, I am certain—I am sure the prisoner was the man; I never saw him before—Spelman Street is about 400 yards from where this burglary took place, in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields.
ALBERT HAWKYARD (354 H). At 5.40 a.m. on 5th January I was in Little Montagu Street, Whitechapel, which runs parallel to Brick Lane; the turnings run from one to the other—I saw the prisoner pulling a barrow, on which was something covered with sacks—I went up and spoke to the prisoner, who tilted up the barrow; a safe on it fell to the ground—I could not say what made him tilt it up—I crossed over and was questioning him, and he lifted up the shafts, and I thought he was going to run away from the barrow—I said, "What is this you have got in the barrow?"—he said, "I move"—he spoke in broken English, and understood what I said—I said, "Where are you moving from?"—he said, "25, Black Lion Yard"—I said, "What have you in that box?"—he said, "My wife has the key"—I asked where he was taking it to, and he said, "To 124, Nottingham Place"—he did not say that the wife of the man who engaged him had got the key—he did not say anything about a man engaging him till I got to the station—I left the safe in charge of two men and went towards 25, Black Lion Yard with the prisoner, when he began to run fast—I ran after and caught him, and took him to the station—I understood from his conversation that his wife lived at 25, Black Lion Yard—at the Police-station he said, "I stood by Gardiner's coffee-stall. A man says to me, 'Abraham, have you work?' I say 'No.' He say, 'I give you 1s. to pull the barrow. I walk behind.' He afterwards say, 'Meet me at the corner of Black Lion Yard.' I know not the man who asked me to pull the barrow"—the safe was afterwards shown to Mrs. Saratowski, when she came to report its loss, and she identified it—she opened it with a key—it is about 20 inches square and 30 inches high, and weighs about 2 cwt.—it was as much as I and another man could do to lift it.
JOHN CRISPIN . I live at 11, Dunkley Place, Finch Street, Whitechapel—at 6.20 p.m. on 4th January I left my barrow in Finch Street and went home and had tea—when I came back at 7.15 the barrow was missing—I reported my loss at the Commercial Street Police-station on Saturday—on the Sunday the inspector showed me my barrow.
my presence since—there were three men, apparently, with the prisoner at the time—it was dark, and I was unable to identify anyone; they disappeared down the side streets.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am innocent, and I maintain my statement, that a man met me and offered me 1s. to wheel the barrow. I have no witnesses."
The prisoner in his defence stated that a man asked him to help him to remove, and that while he was wheeling the barrow for the man he was arrested.
GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
The GRAND JURY and the COURT commended Hawkyard.
MR. GRAZEBROOK Prosecuted.
ELLEN HOOK . I am a widow—on the evening of 8th January I was walking with my friend Miss Hammond along Oxford Street towards Hanover Square when I felt a terrific blow between my shoulders—I knew I had been stabbed—I was dazed for a moment, and on turning round I saw the prisoner—a crowd collected—I felt blood flowing from the wound—I hastened out of the crowd to get home—when I got back I was examined by Dr. Tweed—I was too ill to attend the Court until 23rd January—I was in bed the whole time—I am still suffering from the effects of the wound—the prisoner is an absolute stranger to me.
MARGARET HAMMOND . I live at Fortress Road, Kentish Town, and am a professional nurse—on 8th January I was walking in Oxford Street with Mrs. Hook, when the prisoner stabbed her in the back—we turned and saw him close to us after she was stabbed—he was quite a stranger to me—I went with her to the institution, where Doctor Tweed examined her—she complained very much of feeling faint by the time she got there.
WILLIAM CHOPPING (Sergeant 35 D). About five p.m. on January 8th I was in Oxford Street, and I saw Mrs. Hook and Miss Hammond and the prisoner in a crowd, and in consequence of a statement made to me I asked Mrs. Hook if she would charge the prisoner—she said "No, I do not want to charge him"—she walked away—I thought from her manner she was unhurt—I asked the prisoner for his address, which he gave me correctly—shortly afterwards O'Leary showed me this knife, with this blade open, and made a statement, in consequence of which I went to 8, Steven Street, Tottenham Court Road, where I saw the prisoner, and told him I should arrest him on a charge of cutting and wounding a lady in Oxford Street—he replied, "All right; tell my sister"—when placed in the dock at the station and charged, he made a statement, which Inspector Norman took down in writing—I saw the prisoner's sister when I went to the house—I have not seen her since.
feloniously cutting and wounding Mrs. Hook by stabbing her in the back with a knife in Oxford Street—he said, "With a knife it were"—he also said it had been taken away by someone in the crowd—when the charge was read to him, he said, "Quite correct; I may as well tell the truth. I was going home from 2, Dover Street, Piccadilly, and when crossing Oxford Street two ladies were in front of me, and it happened all in a moment. I do not know the ladies"—I made inquires and found out O'Leary, on the 9th, and he then handed me the knife.
JOHN O'LEARY . I live at 60, Eagle Street, Holborn, and am a fruit hawker—on 8th January I was in Oxford Street, and saw Mrs. Hook and Miss Hammond walking along—I saw the prisoner go behind one of the ladies and stab her in the back—I noticed him first about three yards from her—the lady called out—I closed with the prisoner, and took the knife from him, after a bit of a struggle; he did not give it up at once—I got cut in taking it away—he said, "What have I done?"—I said, "You know what you have done," and showed him the knife—I handed the prisoner over to two men, so as to look after my stall—a short while after I showed the knife to a constable, and afterwards gave it to Inspector Norman—this is the knife.
Cross-examined. I don't believe you were drunk at all.
REGINALD TWEED . I am a doctor of medicine, practising at 55, Upper Brook Street—on 8th January I examined Mrs. Hook, and found she had a clean incised cut about two inches in depth and half-inch across, crescentshaped, as if the knife had been turned after it had been put in—it was a serious wound, but did not injure the lung—had it been a little more to the side it would have injured the lung, and might have caused death—its proximity to the spine pointed to the serious condition of the wound—this knife might have caused it—she has been under my charge since—she was unable to go to the Police-court till 23rd January—she is suffering now more from shock than from the wound—the knife must have been driven right home with considerable force and then turned.
Prisoner's statement. I don't wish to say anything. It seems quite correct as far as I can make out at the time. I was by myself. I call no witnesses.
GUILTY. SERGEANT MOORE Proved nine convictions for assault and seven for drunkenness against the prisoner. In March, 1890, he had been convicted of stabbing a lady in the face, and in December, 1889, he was convicted of picking up a little boy in the street and dashing him on the pavement. He was a great drunkard and did very little work.— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 29th, 1895.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted.
ROBERT FORBES . I am housekeeper at 11, Lincoln's Inn Fields, which is solicitors' offices—on December 28th, shortly before twelve o'clock, I came home from a theatre with my wife, unlocked the door with a key,
and found the prisoner crouched down on the stairs—I caught hold of him, and said, "What do you mean?"—he said, "The door was open, and I came in to have a sleep"—I held him, and my wife gave an alarm—he had a knife in his hand, and I found he had forced the catch of the w. c. with it, which was shut and fastened when I went out—I found the window open, and the dust removed from the sill—the window is large enough to admit a man; there is no bar to it—he had evidently concealed himself in the cellar, because I left the key of it outside and found it inside; it is only used for rubbish, but that had been turned over and ransacked—I did not miss anything—I found this iron bar lying above where he was, on the stairs; it does not belong to the house—it would answer the purpose of a jemmy.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not tell the Magistrate about any marks, because I did not examine them—the men came to work next morning about seven, and my wife let them in—I found the iron at eight a.m.—the floor of the w. c. was up for a new drain—my wife took the knife from you—I did not think of mentioning that before the Magistrate on the first occasion, and if he had settled the case then nothing would have been heard about the knife.
HENRY ADAMS (462 E). I was called, and took the prisoner with his coat and boots off; he was detained by Forbes—he said, "It is all right, I have touched nothing, I came in to sleep; I got in through a little window. I thought it was an empty house."
Cross-examined. Forbes told me you had a knife in your hand, and his wife produced it at the station—there was a light in the hall when I took you in custody.
GEORGE LAUGHLIN (Police Sergeant E). I went to this house about twelve o'clock, and found the prisoner detained by Adams—there were marks on the stone window-sill of a person climbing in, and marks on the catch, such as would be made by this knife—after the dust was removed somebody's body had gone through the window.
Cross-examined. If you had not been charged with burglary you would not have been here—you asked me to go to your lodgings—I did not ask about the knives and forks, but they informed me that you had a locker with another man.
Prisoner's defence. The iron belongs to the men who were working there. I had to provide knives, forks and spoons at my lodging-house, and as I had no locker the knife was found on me. I went there to sleep, and intended to wash myself and go to work. I looked in, the place appeared empty, the flags were taken up, and I laid down and went to sleep. On the second occasion a detective who is not here told the prosecutor what to say. He went behind the witness-box, out of sight of the Magistrate, and spoke to him.
ROBERT FORBES (Re-examined). The w. c. window is about four feet from the ground, and if I was standing outside with this knife in my hand I could undo the catch—when he got the window open he could get through—there is an area gate which is not locked; he would walk down the steps into the area and the window would be in front of him—theer
was a light on the stairs—the repairs were only in the passage—he could look through and see deed-boxes—the basement is full of them, and the clerks come down, there was nothing to show that the drains were being taken up, but he might see a ladder.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Manchester, on January 25, 1886, when he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour, in addition to the remaining three years of his former sentence.
197. HARRY CONWAY (36), PLEADED GUILTY ** to burglary in the dwelling-house of Morris Bloomberg, and stealing umbrellas and walking-sticks, his property, after a conviction at Clerkenwell on January 17th, 1890, in the name of Henry Gardner.
Five Years' Penal Servitude.
198. JAMES JONES (26), CHARLES JARVIS (27), and WILLIAM McVETY (25) , Assaulting John Rood, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Second Count, assaulting him in the execution of his duty. Third Count, to prevent the lawful apprehension of Jones.
MR. GILL Prosecuted.
JOHN RODD (29 V R). On December 26th, about 7.30 p.m., I was on duty in uniform, in Bell Street, and saw an organ near the Golden Key public-house, and some women and children dancing—the prisoner Jarvis came up and put his left hand on my shoulder, and with his right fist struck me a violent blow on my face, which made me stagger—Jones came from behind me, and struck me three violent blows on my jaw and behind my right ear—nothing was said before I was attacked—I have known Jarvis eight years; I have had no dispute with him—I did not know Jones by name, but I had seen him before—they were both the worse for liquor—I closed with Jones, and took him in custody, and attempted to blow my whistle, but he struck a violent blow on my face, and knocked my whistle from my mouth; it was hanging on a chain—I then received a kick from Jarvis on my back and another blow on my head—I kept hold of Jones and we fell together, and Jarvis pulled my cape which I was wearing, over my head, with the assistance of a number of women, to prevent my seeing—I was then kicked about my body and rolled over on my bock, still holding Jones—I never let go of him from first to last—a man came up and undid my cape and tried to blow my whistle, but it was snatched away from him—I got on my feet and Jones knocked me down again—he struck me on my face and kicked me on my legs, and Jarvis kicked me on my side—I regained my feet and McVety came up—I had not seen him before—he got Jones by the arm and tried to get him away—he said, "You had better let him go; you will never get him to the station"—I said, "I will not let him go"—McVety then struck me twice on the side of my face with his fist—he was sober—May then came up and McVety was taken in custody—Jarvis kicked me behind in May's presence, who said, "It is all right, Mr. Jarvis, I will come and fetch you presently"—another officer came up and took Jones—I saw a surgeon the same evening and have not been on duty since—I was confined to my bed three weeks; two of my ribs were fractured and I still suffer great pain in my ankles and ribs and the back of my head—I was
kicked over my right eye when on the ground, I do not know who by—the divisional surgeon is still attending me.
Cross-examined by Jarvis. I did not come up to you about 7.30 and say, "Get out of it, you long beast."
DAVID HALLWELL . I live at 20, Rantzford Street, Haverstock Hill—I was in Bell Street on the evening of Boxing Day, and saw Rodd on the ground outside the Golden Key, struggling with the prisoners with his cape over his head—I drew the strap from under his neck and unloosened the buckle of his cape—they were kicking him on all parts of his body and legs—I cannot identify the prisoners; my attention was turned to the constable—I drew out his whistle, and while I was blowing it I received a kick from behind—I went to the aggressor and was surrounded by half-a-dozen roughs, who knocked me about, and one of them took my chain and bunch of keys—I had to fight my way to escape.
GEORGE MAY (157 V). On December 26th I was in Bell Street, Edgware Road, and saw a crowd—I found Rodd with Jones in custody, who was striking him in his face with his fist and kicking his legs, and Jones was striking him about his face and kicking him—I knew Jarvis perfectly well and said, "All right, Jarvis, I will fetch you presently"—I have known him for the past eight years, and knew where he lived—I saw McVety strike Rodd in the right side of his head—he said, "You had better let him go; you will never get him to the station"—I seized his hand as he struck the blow, and took him to the station—when I came up, Rodd's cape and helmet were gone altogether; they were afterwards found—I searched for Jarvis, and found him outside the Robinson Crusoe about 10.45 and arrested him—I said, "Jarvis, I want you"; and before I had time to tell him what I wanted him for, he said, "You have got this up for me, I am not Gouch"—I know a man named John Gouch.
CUMMING DUNCAN (Police Inspector). I was on duty at the Molyneux Street Station, Edgware Road, when Jones was brought in—before the charge was taken he said, "I wish I had kicked the b—'s gut out"—McVety was charged with him; he made no reply—Rodd seemed very exhausted, and complained of great pain and feeling very ill—I sent for a doctor, who examined him and found that some of his ribs were broken.
A. WERSFORD HEAD . I am a medical practitioner, of 15, John Street, Edgware Road—I examined Rodd and found him suffering from the fracture of six ribs—he was in a state of collapse, and had two contused wounds on the right side of his forehead and on his left shoulder blade and right leg, bruises on his jaw, and all over the lower part of his body and limbs—he had quite two dozen bruises—he has been laid up ever since, and will not be fit for duty for three months—I did not expect him to live; I feared pleurisy from the fractured ribs.
MRS. PETERS. I am married, and am a dressmaker, of 9, Homer Road, Edgware Road—I saw the constable assaulted by a short man—you were there but you had nothing to do with it—I saw May come up at eleven o'clock, and I saw him at eight o'clock—I saw him take a man in custody—I do not see the man in the dock—I did not see the man do anything, and do not know why they took him to the station—he did not strike the policeman.
Cross-examined. I saw the policeman on the ground—I saw him knocked down—I did not see him kicked when he was on the ground, but I saw him kicked by a tall man—none of the men in the dock did anything to him—I am no relation to any of the prisoners—I live in the same street with Jarvis' sister—Jarvis was there; he was the worse for drink—Rodd told him to go away, and he went—his mother fetched him, and said, "Come away, they don't like you; they will look you up"—that was because he was very drunk—I said before, "The policemen did not like him, and they might take him"—I did not know that he was known to the police—no one asked me to come and give evidence, but I told Jarvis' sister I knew he was not there.
By the COURT. There were about 200 people there; no one rendered any assistance to the policeman—I saw a man try to blow the whistle—the policeman was much knocked about—I did not go for assistance—I do not know Jarvis at all; I have never spoken to him; I was looking on.
JONES'S defence. I was standing at the corner, about 7.30., looking after the children, and the constable said, "Get away, you long tiling"—my wife said, "Come on, Charley, come away"—I went upstairs, and went to sleep, and about eleven o'clock I went down, and the policeman said, "I want you for assault," and took me to the station.
MCVETY'S defence. I went with my wife to a public-house and had a glass of ale; she said she would go and get the supper. I saw a crowd and saw a man rush through the crowd; the policeman took me, and all the people said, "You have got the wrong man." I said, "All right, I will go to the station."
JONES and JARVIS, GUILTY . They had both been before convicted of assaults on the police.— Three Years' Penal Servitude each. McVETY, NOT GUILTY .
The COURT commended Rodd's conduct, but had no power to reward him.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 30th, 1895.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
199. In the case of REGINALD TREHERNE BASSETT SAUNDERSON , charged with the wilful murder of Augusta Dawes, on the evidence of DR. GEORGE WALKER , Surgeon of Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway, and DR. EDGAR SHEPHERD , the JURY found the prisoner to be insane, and not in a condition to plead to the indictment. — To be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.
200. HENRY TURNER (20), PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for feloniously sending to Walter Hughes Silver letters demanding money, without any reasonable or probable cause, with intent to extort money. He received a good character— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted, and MR. GUY STEPHENSON Defended at the request of the COURT.
NOT GUILTY .
The prisoner was again indicted for unlawfully assaulting the same person, to which he
PLEADED GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January 30th, 1895.
Before Mr. Recorder.
202. DAVID EDWARDS , Unlawfully and corruptly asking for a reward of £3 in a matter in which the London County Council were concerned. Other Counts, for applying to Henry Sciance Souch for £3 in the same matter.
MR. H. AVORY Prosecuted.
DUNCAN LEITH MCKEY . I am head clerk of the department of the London County Council which has the superintendence of Music Halls and Theatres—in 1890 the Council passed a resolution authorising the Licensing Committee to appoint Inspectors of Theatres and Music Halls, and applications were received from various persons—I know this one to be in the prisoner's writing. (Applying to be appointed an inspector)—the applications were all considered by the sub-committee, and they recommended the prisoner among twenty-three other candidates—on November 7th the Council adopted their report—I have the minute here—a card of instructions and a printed notice was issued to each inspector. (The instructions stated that the inspectors were only to visit such places as they were instructed to visit.)—they were instructed from time to time to visit various music halls and theatres—no inspector visited and reported on his own account, but they may have called attention to a place—they were paid 10s. 6d. for each visit and their expenses—the prisoner is not still on the list of inspectors—he was employed on thirty or forty different occasions between July 1890 and 1893—these (produced) are the reports he made—in December, 1890, he visited the Rose and Crown public-house; I produce his report marked, "December, 1890"—it is a very adverse report; it was before the Licensing Committee in October, 1891, and they refused to grant the license—in October, 1892, the prisoner gave evidence before the Licensing Committee with reference to this house, and the license was again refused—he attended, I believe, at the Police-court in May, 1893, and gave evidence—the Council received from him this letter, dated October 13th, 1893, from Shirley, Thames Ditton. (This enclosed a list of his expenses in reference to licensing, and asked for instructions.)—that charges attendance at Clerk en well Sessions red Rose and Crown, 17s. 6 1/2 d.—that amount was paid him.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I think your last report was made on March 11th, 1893—I believe they subpœnaed you to the Police-court, but I cannot say why—I think you were too far away to receive instructions from October 1893 to 1894—I do not consider that your living at Thames Ditton disqualified you, but I thought you were only there temporarily; I believe you were not employed while you were there—there was no whisper of your not conforming to the rules while engaged.
Re-examined. Some of the inspectors have died and their names have been removed.
and he said, "How is Mrs. Femenia?"—I said, "I have not the pleasure of knowing your name"—he said, "Edwards"—I said, "What! Mr. Edwards of the London County Council?"—he said, "Yes; is Mr. Femenia in?"—I said, "No"—he said, "I wish to make a suggestion. I see you are going to apply for the license again; I will keep away from the Court if you give me £3"—I said, "I cannot without speaking to my husband; you have ruined my family by the evidence you have given"—I went to Mr. Child, my solicitor—my husband saw him on the evening of the 28th outside the bar.
Cross-examined. I said it was a pity the County Council took your evidence before that of trustworthy people—you paid 2d. for the lemonade—I did not offer you cigarettes, or give you a small packet; I had none—our conversation was not friendly; it was that of an ordinary customer—you said that you would call on the following Tuesday, which you did; but I did not hear the conversation between you and my husband, nor did I see him give you an envelope with the address of our house.
Re-examined. I am a little deaf, but I am quite sure I heard what the prisoner said.
PEDRO FEMENIA . I keep the Rose and Crown, St. George's-in-the-East—on August 20th the prisoner came, and Mrs. Femenia said, "There is Mr. Edwards;" I then remembered seeing him at Clerkenwell—he said "If you give me £3 I will keep out of the way"—I said "I can't do it, I will leave the case to my solicitor"—he said "Well, will you give me £1 in advance?" I said "No, nor 5s."—I asked him his address—he said, "I have got no particular address; sometimes I live in one place and next day in another; give me his name and address"—I gave him an envelope with it; he said, "I shall go to the solicitor myself"—I told him that Messrs. Child were my solicitors, opposite St. Paul's, I did know the name of the street, and said, "You will see Mr. Souch, the clerk."
Cross-examined. I expected you that evening—you did not expect to meet Mr. Souch there—you were not told that Mr. Souch was away on his holiday and could not come—I did not say, "If you will give evidence for me I shall be pleased."
HENRY SCIANCE SOUCH . I have been managing clerk for thirty-four years to Messrs. Child, solicitors, of Doctors' Commons—they had the conduct of the application by Mr. Femenia for a music and dancing license—on September 14th, the prisoner called; Mr. Child had told me what was going on—he looked at me and smiled, and said, "Don't you know me? My name is Edwards"—I said, "What can I have the pleasure of doing for you?"—he said, "Has not Mrs. Femenia spoken to you?"—I said, "Yes, I have heard something; what is it you require?—he said, "Well, I don't think £3 will hurt you, as I had two guineas on the former occasion"—I said, "What for?"—he said, "If I am wanted to give evidence I would be out of the way; I would go out of town"—I said, "Are you still in the employment of the County Council?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I will consider it and drop you a line"—he gave me his address, "Tollington Park," and left—on September 20th he called again—I met him at my office door—he said, "Have you anything to say to me?"—I said, "I have nothing to report," and he left—very soon
afterwards the Licensing Committee was held, and something was said about these facts.
Cross-examined. I was advised not to communicate with the Council—I wanted to see what the result would be—I thought the suggestion was wrong, but gave you no warning—you did not say that your fees and expenses amounted to £3—you said you had previously received £2, and you thought £3 was not too much—you did not say, "I don't want to make any money out of it; but I am that money out of pocket."
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "When I wrote to the Council I told them that having entered the service of another I was prepared no longer to allow their work to interfere with my legitimate business, and I considered my connection with the Council at an end."
Witness for the defence.
JOHN ALFRED EDWARDS . I recollect your coming home for good to Tollington Park about the end of July from Thames Ditton—you had at that time a ticket for a trip from London to Leeds, of the London and Edinburgh Steamship Company, on a Saturday—you took it back to the office on the previous Wednesday, and came home and told us that they had given you the money back.
The prisoner in his defence stated that neither did the County Council officials recognise him any longer as an inspector, nor did he consider himself one after sending them the letter, and that he received no instructions from them for nearly two years, as he had removed so far from London. He contended that he had a right to refuse to attend the Licensing Sessions when he was telegraphed for, and stated that as the County Council had refused to use him as an inspector since March, 1893, he not having heard from them for twelve months, he considered he was free from the Council; that Mrs. Femenia told him a pitiful tale of the loss entailed upon them by the action of the Committee, and he felt sorry for her; that he did not ask for£3, but offered to assist her by stopping out of the way, and was told that Mr. Femenia would make him a present, but he said that he did not want to make any money, only to get his expenses out of pocket; that Mrs. Femenia refused to take payment for his drink, and when he asked for a cigarette she gave him a packet, and refused to take payment for them. He contended that the words of the Act applied to any "member, officer, or servant," and that he was neither, and therefore the case fell to the ground.
The RECORDER ruled that it was unnecessary to prove whether the prisoner was a servant of the Council or not.
GUILTY , and the JURY considered that the London County Council should appoint persons of higher standing and experience.— Four Months' Hard Labour, and to be judged incapable of being appointed to any public office for seven years, and to forfeit the office held by him and any claim to any compensation to which he may be entitled.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, January 30th, 1895.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
203. EDWARD JAMES SHOEMACK (61), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining by false pretences a cheque for £100 from Robert Tomlin, £100 from Andrew White, and cheques for £500 and £200 from William Thomas Harris, and two stock certificates of Ordinary stock in the New City of London Brewery for £165 and £977 10s. from John Henry Snow and others, with intent to defraud.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
There were five other indictments against the prisoner for various felonies, upon which no evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. HUTTON and PARTRIDGE Prosecuted, and MESSRS. GEOGHEGAN and MORGAN Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Thursday, January 31st, 1895.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted; MR. HUTTON and MR. SANDS Defended.
MANUEL COHEN . I am a rag merchant, of 3, Artillery Street, Westminster—I know the prisoners by sight—I have often seen them in the street—I occupy the whole house—on the night of December 2nd I looked up my safe—my servant spoke to me about 6.30 a.m., and I went down and found the door of my front room broken open, and the bolt of the street door drawn—the door of the sitting-room was also open, and the safe in the sitting-room was broken open, and I missed £50 in gold and four £5 notes, Nos. 51373, 51374, 51375 and 51376, dated September 24th.
KAAFMAN SHLADOWES . I am a machiner, of 55, Poland Street—I know the prisoners—I met Muscovitch at a club at 59, Poland Street, either on December 3rd or 10th, at three or four a. m.—he asked if I would have a drink—I said "Yes"—he took me from there to Leftcovitch at the Alliance Club, and called for a drink—the governor refused, because he was not a member—he put a £5 note on the table—the governor said, "Be kind enough to put your name on that"—he said, "I can't write"—the governor asked me to put his name on it, and I did so—I wrote this in his presence. (On note 51373)—I got it changed and gave it to Muscovitch—Leftcovitch was there all the time.
Cross-examined. Gambling was going on at 59, Poland Street—I heard Leftcovitch say that he had won some money that night; he did not say where—they gave me nothing for changing the note, only the drink—I have known Muscovitch two years and four months—he is a tailor; he has always been a respectable man.
Re-examined. I have been to the house he lives in, 13A, Broad Street, Bloomsbury; it is a calling house—gambling goes on there—I do not know the name of the proprietor; he lives there.
men came in and Leftcovitch asked me if I would cash a £5 note—I did so—this is it, No. 51375; I put my name on it—Leftcovitch said nothing—they drank together, and a bottle of whisky was bought, which they took away with them; it was similar to this (Produced)—I paid the note into my account at the London and County Bank, Oxford Street.
Cross-examined. I did not hear Leftcovitch speak at all; the other man spoke, he was not Muscovitch.
CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a note inspector at the Bank of England—I produce two cancelled notes, 51373 and 51375—51373 was paid in by the London and County Bank on December 4th, and 51375 on December 7th.
GEORGE GLENISTER (Detective Sergeant). On December 31st, about ten p. m., I went to 13A, Broad Street, Bloomsbury, which are gaming rooms, and saw the prisoners there—Muscovitch lives there—I said to him, "I believe you have passed two stolen notes"—he said, "I never had them"—I said, "You passed one at the Alliance Club"—he said, "I was never there"—I saw Leftcovitch stooping down endeavouring to conceal himself—fifteen or sixteen persons were playing with cards—I told the officer to bring him to me; he did so—I said, "I believe you are Muscovitch's brother-in-law?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "You have also changed a note?"—he said, "No, no"—I took them to the station—this bottle was found in a cupboard in that house—the Alliance Club is two miles and a half from Mr. Cohen's house—Leftcovitch Jives at 79, Ellen Street, Backchurch Lane, Whitechapel—I have followed him there several times—that is about three-quarters of a mile from Mr. Cohen's.
Cross-examined. The house in Broad Street is let out in tenements, and a number of people live there.
DAVID ABRAHAMS (Detective H). I was with Glenister—fifteen or sixteen people were in the room when we went in, and four packs of cards were on the table—the prisoners were there, and Leftcovitch got down on his hands and knees—I told them we were police officers, and should take them for dealing with some bank notes stolen from Mr. Cohen's; Muscovitch for passing a £5 note at the Alliance Club, and Leftcovitch one at the other Club—I found this bottle and told them I should detain it as it was the identical bottle he bought when he changed the note—they wished to make statements at the Police-court—I cautioned them and told Muscovitch he had better speak in Yiddish that the other prisoner could understand—he said in Yiddish, "Leftcovitch gave me the £5 note; I changed it at the club, and he can't deny it"—Leftcovitch said, "It is quite right; I gave him the £5 note and a bottle of whisky for a present"—Muscovitch said, "I got this bottle from Goldstein downstairs"—the bottle was in a cheffonier in the room where the gambling was going on.
Cross-examined. That statement took place on the remand; I had not given my evidence then, and Glenister had only given his evidence for
a formal remand—it was a voluntary statement, and before any evidence had been given about the bottle.
Evidence for the defence.
GABRIEL ROSENBERG . I am a tailor, of 49, Gun Street, Spitalfields—I know this club at 59, Poland Street—it is a gambling club—I do not go there to gamble—I do not know Leftcovitch; I saw Muscovitch at 31, Gensen Street, nine or ten weeks ago on a Sunday night—that is another gambling club; I do not know who lives there—I came out at eleven o'clock—I did not see Muscovitch there then, but I saw Leftcovitch at eleven o'clock sitting at the table playing—he was winning—I was there all night; Leftcovitch was there from eleven till two or three o'clock—he had a couple of shillings by him—he lost his silver and took out some paper money—Muscovitch came in between two and three o'clock. (An interpreter was here sworn.)—the prisoners were in the club together a quarter of an hour—I saw Leftcovitch give Muscovitch a bank note—he said, "There, you have got the note; that is what I owe you for board and lodging; I shall soon come home."
Cross-examined. I have known Muscovitch two or three years—I do not know Leftcovitch, but I have seen him in the street—I am not a countryman of his, I am from Courland; I do not know whether he is a Pole, but Muscovitch is—he always came to see me when I was living at the West-end, but not at Whitechapel—I live a few yards from Mr. Cohen—I don't know where Leftcovitch lives—Gensen Street is in Moorgate Street and Broad Street.
By the COURT. I have been to the house in Poland Street with my master to have a drink—I don't know on what date this gambling took place, but it was on a Sunday night—I should know the man Leftcovitch was playing with if I saw him—the man who lost the note came at 11.5, and he kept drawing the bank all that time—Muscovitch sent me a postcard the same week that he was arrested, to come and give evidence.
Re-examined. It was a carrotty man who gave the note.
JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN (Interpreted). I live at 52, Heneage Street, Brick Lane—I know the club, 21, Gensen Street, and have seen the prisoners there; the last time was about eight or nine weeks ago, between one and two a. m.—Leftcovitch had money in front of him at the table, and he passed a £5 note to Muscovitch, his brother-in-law, and said, "I give you the amount I owe you"—I had seen him winning money that night.
Cross-examined. I am not the Mr. Goldstein who lives at 13A, Broad Street—I know Muscovitch well; he is a tailor—I was first asked to give evidence when I was in the Police-court at Worship Street, but they did not call me—I do not know Rosenberg, or Mr. Cohen, or Artillery Street.
GUILTY of receiving. MUSCOVITCH received a good character— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. LEFTCOVITCH— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MR. PASSMORE Prosecuted.
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, February 4th, 5th and 6th, 1895.
Before Mr. Common Sereant.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD, Q. C.) with MESSRS. SUTTON, CASSERLEY and H. C. RICHARDS Prosecuted. MR. PAUL TAYLOR appeared for Sturman and MR. CLARKE HALL for Holloway.
CHARLES GILES . I live at No. 5, Murray Street, Camden Town—I am a turf commission agent—I have a telegraphic address, "Shrimp, London"—I have known the witness Burman for some little time—I had an arrangement with him as regards bets by telegram, and the arrangement was that if he wished to bet anything, and if he wired, it would be all right—he used the name of "Ben" in the telegrams I received—on 31st October I received this telegram, marked "Q Q 3," backing a horse called Lady Normanton—she won the race; I could not say whether it was a race run at London; I forget—I lost on that ten guineas, I think—I sent that ten guineas to Mr. Burman—this is the message I received. (This purported to be sent from the West Central office at 3.35, received at 3.55)—on 16th November I received this telegram marked "V V," backing a horse called Mandragora—the word "Green" in the message denotes £5—on that bet I lost £48—I sent a cheque to Burman at the end of the week in a balance of account, crediting him with the £48—on the same day I received this telegram, "W W 1"—upon that bet I won £6—on 17th November I received this telegram "X H," backing Imperialism, and on that bet I won £6—on 19th November I received this, marked "XXX 1," backing Queen Bess Colt—on that I won £3—on 20th November I received this, "XXXX 1," upon which I won £6—when I settled up with Burman I credited him with £40, and he credited me with the amounts that I won—on 27th November I received this telegram backing a horse called Unionist—on that I lost £12 10s., I think—nobody has made any claim on me for that—I have never had any address but "Shrimp, London"—no one at Belfast has acted on my behalf—I know nothing about this telegram—I have no office in Belfast—I did not receive this message marked "U U" or any message like it—I have no other client but Burman who signs by the name of Ben—this account is dated November 19th—I sent an account, of which this is a copy, to Burman; it contains the names of the two horses.
BENJAMIN BURMAN . I am a fishmonger, of 343, Caledonian Road—I have known Holloway a number of years—he kept a hairdresser's shop, and before that a tobacconist's two doors off—I have known Mr. Giles a number of years, and have lately made bets with him—I was connected with him under his code name of "Shrimp, London"—I was "Ben"—about seven or eight weeks ago he said he often heard of something good when he was in the City, and if I did not mind sending it to Mr. Giles he would settle with me each night whether he won or lost—I gave him authority to use my name, "Ben, to Shrimp, London"—I have had betting tronsactions with him for several years—I had no benefit for the use of my name—he acted as a commission agent—I have heard of
the mare Lady Normanton—this "Shrimp, London. £3 Lady Normanton. Win. Ben" was not sent by me—I cannot tell you whether Lady Normanton won—I think I received a small cheque from Giles, something like £3—I gave it to Holloway—Giles sent it to me—I had no bet myself that I am aware of; I should not like to swear it—I handed it over because any horse that Holloway backed, if he came in that name and told me he had backed such a horse, he would receive the money which had been won, and if the horse lost he would give me the money or give it to Giles—I was not the go-between—I did not send this telegram, "Shrimp, London. Mandragora to win. Ben"—Holloway told me he had backed Mandragora with Shrimp, and Giles paid me £48; no, not so much; the account for the week is in Court; it was about £40—I gave it to Holloway—I don't think I could read the account—I am no scholar in horseracing, only just a shilling or so I have done through Mr. Giles—I do not understand adebtor and creditor account—to the best of my belief I had paid Holloway no money I received from Giles besides the Lady Normanton and the Mandragora money—the horse on Wednesday was Sweet Auburn—I cannot tell you whether that was a bet I made; it is not my writing; my man used to write them out—Holloway took away the receipts of horses which had lost £6 and £3—this document (Found on Holloway) is "Giles won"—I received that from Giles, and gave it to Holloway, who said he would come and pay me in respect of those two bets—the account also states "C. Giles. Queen Bess. Stephens. 3, 6, 9"—I do not know the writing of that—I did not send those two messages; my man might have—I gave it to Holloway because he came and asked me for it—they both lost, and Mr. Giles had the money for it—this is one of Mr. Giles's accounts furnished to me (3 X and 4 X)—here is "Mandragora, £48"—that does not mean that I received £48—there was a balance—I deducted £8 from the £48 and handed Holloway £30 1s.—these were horses which I had sent independent of Holloway—I sent £200 because he owed me a debt—there are no other transactions which do not relate to me—Sweet Auburn has nothing to do with me—I did not send "W W," and "X X" relating to Imperialism and Sweet Auburn, nor do I know who did—the account deals with two items, a loss of £2 on Imperialism and £6 on Sweet Auburn—R. Rose was one of the horses I backed—I lost on that.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I have known Holloway twenty years; he is a commission agent—a bookmaker would not make a bet with anybody he did not know, without an introduction; it is common for introductions to be given—when I gave Holloway permission to use my name of Ben I restricted him to £5 or £6—I knew him as a respectable tradesman—I looked to him for the balance of the loss—if there was any loss he would come and say so, and if there was any gain he would come and pay me every night—he might be acting on behalf of other persons—in transactions of this kind, going through the hands of a commission agent, a man may come without giving a name, or giving a turf name that is recognised—I did not write these telegrams—I gave instructions to my man to telegraph, but at this period I cannot say what I instructed him to do—I might have instructed him in some of these matters.
also do some business as a turf commission agent—I know Mr. Hurdle, of the Offord Arms, Caledonian Road—in October last I had an arrangement with him as to bets that he could telegraph to me, not in his own name, but in the name of Gough—on November 20th I received this telegram (Y Y 1) through the Post Office. "Wilde, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. Rabicano to win"—I understood by that that it was a bet—I stood to lose £30—I had an application by Holloway two days after that, but declined to pay the amount, by the authority of the Post Office—I had used my name Wilde for betting purposes before November 20th, and the name of Ward—the address to which telegrams in the name of Ward were sent was 19, Cree Place, Greenwich—this telegram (V V) is addressed to "Ward, Cree Place, Belfast"—it is" £6, J. T. Gough"—I never received a telegram in that form—I have no office in Belfast—I have never used the name of Gough except to Mr. Hurdle.
THOMAS HURDLE . I keep the Offord Arms, Caledonian Road—I have known Holloway some time—he asked my permission on November 5th or 6th to use my name in betting telegrams, and to send to my commission agent, Mr. Wilde, any money he wanted to back a horse—I limited him from £5 to £10—on November 21st he told me he had backed a horse and had won; of course I understood who it was with when Mr. Wilde was the commission agent—I do not think he mentioned the horse's name—on November 26th he came to see if the money had arrived from my commission agent—I had not applied to Mr. Wilde for it—I told him that nothing had arrived—the name I used in telegraphing to Mr. Wilde was Gough—Holloway came again the same evening—I said that it had not arrived, and he came again next morning, and I told him that nothing had come—he came again on the 28th, and was arrested—I did not send any telegram like this: "Wilde, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. £6. Rabicano to win. Gough"—I know nothing about it—this telegram, "T T" (Ward, 19, Cree Place, Belfast) has been altered from Greenwich to Belfast—I sent no telegram at that time—I know no one named Ward at Belfast, or anybody living at 19, Cree Place, Belfast.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I have known Ward nineteen years as a commission agent—this telegram "Y Y" is not in Holloway's writing; it does not resemble it at all—I do not see any telegrams in this bundle (produced) resembling his writing—on 26th November, when Holloway spoke about not having received the money, he said it would be very awkward for him, because the money was not his, and he had to pay it over.
WALTER MOSS . I am the tube attendant attached to the West Central Office—on 31st October last I was on duty there between three and four—that office has a communication by a pneumatic tube with the Central Telegraph Office; that tube passes through the Holborn branch post-office—this (produced, marked "Moss") is a time-sheet kept by me on that day, showing the telegrams despatched by tube through the Holborn branch office to the central office—I find one, "No. 227 Q Q," on the sheet and the time that was dispatched, 3.35; I made that entry at the time.
ALLAN MCKAY . I am a telegraphist attached to the W. C. district of the Post Office—on 31st October last, between three and four, I was on duty receiving messages over the counter at the office—there were no other telegraphists so engaged at that time but myself—I have the
telegram "Q Q" before me; it is divided into two parts—on the right-hand corner I find "227" and a stamp, "W. C. office, 31st October"—if the remaining portion of that message had been handed to me between three and four that day I should have inserted upon it the code time and my initials, to show that I had received it, the number of the words and the charge on the message—I find the code time on this form, also the number of words and the charge; the initials are omitted—there are no others in my handwriting—I do not find my initials on the left-hand part of it—there ought also to have been a stamp mark there, showing that it had been received at the W. C. office on that date—the two parts do not fit; they are not two parts of the original document.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. This is part of the original document; the missing part must have passed through my hands—I should put the code time, 227, the words, and the charge—I should read it, I should count it up—I could not say whether or not this is a copy of the original document—I should not enter it in any book; it would be handed to Moss for entry.
Re-examined. The endorsing of 227 on the left-hand corner is done by a machine, which commences at No. 1 in the morning, and proceeds as the messages are handed in—I stamp them with the machine, showing the particular number, in the order of the receipt; that is, the particular number of the telegram that went out that day.
ALICE MAUD HOWLETT . I am a telegraphist engaged at the branch W. C. office—there is a communication through the office by a pneumatic tube to the Central Office—in October last I had instructions to examine the telegrams passing hy tube through our office—I was engaged in that duty on October 31st—I kept the particulars on this sheet—I find on it an entry of a telegram, "Q Q, No. 227"—it was handed in at the W. C. office, passing on to the Central Office—the address on it was Cork—it has on it "227," it bears a stamp of the W. C. office—the document appears to have been in two portions, now joined together by gum—I do not remember whether the document "227," which I entered in my time-sheet was in two portions—if it came into my hands so I don't know whether I should have noticed it; I don't think I should.
ORLANDO ARMAND . I am a telegraphist in the Central Office—on 31st October last, at 3.49, I was engaged on the wire at the Lincoln Grand Stand—I received this message (Q Q 1) addressed "Diocles, London. Lady Normanton"—that is the Exchange Telegraph Company—the words "Lady Normanton" appear on "Q Q 3"—I get a signal and then get the name.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I am engaged in the racing department at times, not always—the number employed in the same department depends—on an average we have two race meetings at a time—if there are two meetings there would be double the number of employes, on a busy day there would be as many as fifty racing clerks in the same department—any one of them would be in a position to see the name of the winner immediately after—I actually received the winner on this occasion—the desk is so placed that about half-a-dozen persons would see the winner's name at the same time—the room this was received in would be about half the size of this Court; it is on the same floor as the provincial gallery, the floor above the metropolitan gallery—nobody would have to
pass through my room in going down from the metropolitan gallery to the provincial gallery—there is only one flight of stairs between them—the number of employes does not vary in the provincial gallery—the number would be permanent; perhaps fifty altogether in the provincial gallery—they would all be engaged at one time; they would be in different circuits—any one of the six persons in the vicinity of my chair where I received the message might be able to see it at the same time—there is a supervisor in the room—an employe would ask permission before he left the room; he is supposed to do so—there are three supervisors over the fifty; they do not always ask permission, if they want to go out for a moment—I have known them pulled up for going out without permission—they might go out to the avatory without leave—the racing-room is on the same floor as the provincial gallery—I can hardly tell you how many would be at work on the different instruments; a very large number—when I get a message with the name of the winner I write the name on the form—another telegraphist would send it on to Diocles—I only receive messages; another telegraphist would send it; I hand over the telegram to him—I cannot tell you the name of the telegraphist to whom I handed my telegrams on this day; I cannot read the signature; it must have been someone in the racing department—there is a rack supplied to put the messages in, and I might have put it in that, and a collector would take it out, and hand it to the other telegraphist—that is not arranged alphabetically—on a racing day the collector would be standing by to take the numbers, and he would hand it to the telegraphist; he would take it to the wire; that wire would be in the racing department—he would hand it to the other telegraphist engaged in the racing department—and he would take it to Diocles—Diocles has a permanent wire—I should say it could not be that Sturman could wire to Diocles; one of the three surveyors would see it—I can't read the writing of the telegraphist who sends to Diocles—there is one collection to each room—a messenger boy collected that day—I do not recollect his name—I should draw his attention to the wire, and should see him take it away—that is the system pursued daily through the racing season—I should think about thirty persons were receiving telegrams on that day in the racing department—on receiving the first message the name Lady Normanton would immediately appear, and a large number of other messages.
Re-examined. The Central News would get it at the same time—this came out as two addresses, one to the Central News, the other to Diocles, that is, the Central Exchange—when I receive it I put it in a rack, and call the messenger's attention to it to take it away—the person who has to despatch it sits in the same room as myself; in this case he would be immediately behind, and I should hand it back myself—I should receive the message, and hand it to the messenger behind me, and he would at once wire it off to the Exchange, and he would put the message in front of him, where anybody could read it—anyone walking down the room could read it if he passed within the Diocles circuit—anybody in the office would know that was the place where it would be exposed—it would be about a hundred yards from the gallery to the sender of the message, on the same floor. (A plan of the third floor was produced)—so far as I can say, this plan (produced) correctly represents
the galleries. (The witness pointed out the provincial gallery, the Diocles seat, and where Sturman sat, and copies of the plan were handed to the JUDGE and JURY.)
MABEL ELIZABETH CRAWLEY . I am a telegraphist in the Central Telegraph Office—on October 31st last I was on duty on the wire communicating with Camden Road—the telegram "Q Q" came to me in the ordinary course—I sent it off from the Central Office at 3.59 p. m.—I inserted upon the form "3.59" and "M. Crowley"—that is my writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. PAUL TAYLOR. I am not engaged on the same floor as the provincial gallery—in the ordinary way, a telegram is brought to me by someone whose duty it is to distribute; not necessarily by a messenger: a male or female—more than twenty or thirty messengers are employed in the gallery; I do not know the number—the person who brought it got it from the check table, which is close to my division—there are four check tables in the metropolitan gallery—the messages come to the check tables in a variety of ways—this form would come by tube, always direct from the office of origin—the tube attendant takes them from the apparatus that comes up the tube and deposits them on the table—another assistant distributes them to the nearest telegraphists—there is no direct communication between the provincial and the metropolitan gallery—it would be necessary to come upstairs from the provincial to the metropolitan gallery—the staff is a mixed staff—I have no idea of the number, but there are a great deal more than fifty or sixty.
Re-examined. My duties were to receive and despatch telegrams brought to me—where they came from I do not know.
FANNY CONSTANCE BAYLIS . I am a telegraphist at the Holborn branch post-office—on 16th November I had instructions to examine telegrams handed in addressed to places in Ireland, especially Belfast—"T T" produced is a copy I made of the original telegram: "Ward, 19, Creed Place, Belfast."
The original not being produced the evidence was objected to and objection upheld.
WILLIAM JOHN BUTTERS . I am a counterman at the West Strand Telegraph Office—on 16th November this telegram 373, "V V," was handed over the counter by some person unknown—I recognise the code number, the word "charged," and my initials on it—I handed it to the stamp and numbering clerk to stamp number and transmit to the Central Telegraph Office—the code number is "M H X."
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. It is written in ink—I cannot say whether it was written in ink when it was handed to me.
CHARLES WALBANK . I attend the pneumatic tube at the West Strand Post-office—the tube communicates with the Central Telegraph Office of the General Post Office—on 16th November I sent this sheet "V V," No. 373, through the tube at 12.45 p.m.
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. I did not observe the contents, nor whether it was written in pencil or ink.
HENRY AUBREY BETTERIDGE . I am a telegraphist at the Central Telegraph Office, St. Martins-le-Grand—on 16th November I was engaged at the Derby Grand Stand wire—I received the message on form "V V" at 1.1—it is directed to "Diodes"—it purports to be handed in at Derby at 12.54—the code number has been altered to "M K X" from "M K S"
12.52, which was my writing—one letter only has been altered, "S." to "X," two minutes later—I would not swear I did not alter it, but I do not think I did.
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. I was in the racing department on that day—I fold a form once, and put it in the rack, from which a messenger would take it, and hand it to the "Diocles" private wire, which is about fifty yards from me—the "Diocles" telegraphist would telegraph it to "Diocles," and then spike the form, face any way—if the face was outwards a person could see it, but not if the back was outwards—the word telegraphed is "off"—the form remains spiked till collected by a finishing clerk or examiner, who is changed every week—the forms are kept in the racing room—I know of no one but myself or the examiner who would have an opportunity to alter the form. (The witness pointed out the spike-hole as distinguished from the holes made since in fastening the form to others.)
WILLIAM ARTHUR DEARING . I was on duty in the Central Telegraph Office on 16th November at the wire communicating with the Derby Grand Stand—races were going on—I received "V V" at 1.3 p. m.—"Mandragora" is my writing—the message is taken from the instrument and passed over to the Exchange Telegraph Company's wire, immediately behind me; the clerk there would telegraph the message and spike the form—this is the spike-hole.
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. No one would stand in my immediate neighbourhood, so as to see the message—my fellow clerks on the same circuit might see it, but they may have been busy at the moment—it is not unusual for clerks to go from one gallery to another, but it is against the regulations; I believe it is a grave dereliction of duty.
OWEN ROWLAND . I am assistant superintendent of the check department of the Central Telegraph Office—when messages arrived from the districts by the tubes they were circulated to different parts of the galleries—one directed to Belfast would be sent to the Irish gallery—when addressed to registered names in London, such as "Shrimp, London," they are passed to the registered address, after being endorsed at the code office—someone would look up the address—the letters on the back would indicate the destination—"V V" is endorsed "N. W.," and "C B P.," the code for the Camden Road Post-office, where those forms would be sent—on November 16th, in consequence of instructions I received, my attention was called to form No. 373, bearing the words "West Strand," the date stamp, and the code time, 12.44—I put the registered number and time of receipt on "V V"—I copied the telegram—it was to "James, P. O., Belfast," and the text was, "Back Grey Leg"—it was written faintly in red pencil—I then sent it up to the Irish division gallery at 12.52—I next saw it some time that afternoon—I found it amongst the messages that had been despatched—it then had on it the code letters "C. B. P.," which meant Camden Town, and the code note, "N. W."—I found it was altered to "Shrimp, London," and the message was altered to "Mandragora to win."
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. From the ime the message left my hands it would pass through three other hands—when I said at the Police-court, "These messages pass through seven different hands before getting into the hands of the prefixer," I understood I was asked the
number of hands after it passed the Central Office—it passed through seven hands altogether; three took it after it left my hands.
WILLIAM CHRISTIAN SMITH . I was employed at the Central Telegraph Office on 16th November last at the wire communicating with the Camden Road Post Office—messages to be forwarded there would be brought to me—I sent this message at 1.22—I see my writing on the form—I do not know who brought it to me—it came to me in the ordinary course of business and I despatched it.
Cross-examined by MR. P. TAYLOR. The distributor brought it who is attached to the metropolitan gallery—the messages come from the check tables—three supervisors were attached to group C, to which I belong, and about sixty telegraphists—the clerks would not notice a person coming from another gallery, but the supervisors would—it is not allowed—the messengers would be known to the special inspector of messengers, who are changed at times—the messengers sign when they come on—they would be attached either to the metropolitan or the provincial galleries, but would be changed to different check tables—they may be on duty in more than one gallery—the inspector changes them.
Re-examined. Messages for another gallery might be sent by tube—if a message gets to the wrong gallery the persons at the check tables dispose of it—they send it to its right destination by tube.
LEON GEORGE POULAINE . I am a clerk at the West Strand P. O.—on November 20th I was on duty at the counter, receiving telegrams—I recognise this form "Y Y"; it has my writing and my initials—it was handed in at 2.49, I inserted the number of words and put my initials—I handed it to the tube attendant for transmission to the City—the number of it is 550.
ALFRED FORTIN . I am a telegraphist at St. Martins-le-Grand—on November 20th at 3.7 I was at the machine connected with the Warwick racecourse grand stand wire, and received this form 772, directed "Diocles, London"—I copied and handed it to the messenger of the Exchange Company behind me.
OWEN ROWLAND (Re-examined). On November 20th at 2.49 I intercepted another telegram, "Y Y," arriving from another district office, "King, P. O., Belfast. Have sent your order on.—VANE."—that was written in pencil very faintly—I identify it by its number and the time—I made a copy of it—later on the same afternoon I re-obtained the form which I had copied, but the message had disappeared, and in place of it was a message by Wilde, of Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. "Take £6 Rabicano to win.—GOUGH." I had sent that message to the Irish department at 2.59—supposing by some mischance a telegram for Greenwich found its way to the Irish department, and was put on the check-table, it would be put on the green table and marked "Not N. W."; that means "Not north-western table"—if it was found out of its place it was the chief clerk's duty to set it right, through a tube between that department and the Irish gallery—there is a glass shutter on the table, which opens, and you put the message inside a gutta-perch
cover—but first of all you place it in a box, and eventually it would find its way to the proper place.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. A telegram which ought to have gone to the metropolitan gallery has found its way to the provincial gallery—the centre of the gallery has communication with the Irish division, but the rest of the gallery has not—I understand the working of the various galleries—in the event of telegrams arriving from the provincial gallery by tube, an assistant takes them from the tube, and places them on the check table, and the distributors take them to various operators—prefixers are persons specially appointed, one for each town; there is one for Belfast and one for Dublin, but not for Cork—the operators telegraph the message, the prefixer never does so—they are brought by the various distributors to the check tables—there is nothing to tell who brings them, except the time one officer is on charge at a certain time—there might be more than one messenger to each prefixer—it passes through the prefixer's hands before it gets to the distributor—he is the person who actually takes the message from the check table—it would be against his duty to intercept a message—the first person to receive and see a message would be the check clerk; he must see it to see what box to put it into, and would have the opportunity of intercepting it, and the distributor also—they both knew where the tube of communication was—the check clerk could intercept a message without leaving his place—I do not know that anyone could check his arresting it in its transmission—no one could check the distributor; the check clerk would not make a note by which he could identify a message which passed through his hands—I cannot say how many check clerks were in the room, or how many distributors are attached to that table; a record of them is kept by the divisional officer—he is not here—there are five check tables in the provincial gallery—there are telegrams from Scotland and Ireland on the same check table besides Belfast—the Belfast work has only one distributor—several distributors have access to each check table—one tube is on the ground floor, and the other on the third floor; there is no tube communication between the S. E. table and the metropolitan gallery.
Re-examined. The distributors sit at the table and place the Irish telegrams in the Irish box—it is not their duty to remove from the table—it is not necessary for the distributor, in taking the messages from the box, to look at them, but he would have to look at the town to see what prefixer to take them to—he does not sit at the table, he moves about after he has prefixed them—he has no business in the racing department or to go to a clerk and take a message from the distributor's hand—it was not his duty to tell a clerk to hand him a particular telegram, or to give him information respecting racing telegrams.
ARCHIBALD EDWARD ROBERTS . I am a telegraphist, employed at the Central Office—on November 20th I was operating on the wire connected with the Greenwich Post Office, and this telegram "Y Y" came to my hands an it stands, and I transmitted it to Greenwich at 3.16 p. m.—I have put that time on it in my writing.
By the COURT. I am in the metropolitan gallery, thirty yards from the check table; it would be less from the check table to the distributor—they are not put in a basket; they are laid in the circuit; they ought to be
put there by the actual distributor—if a person, not a distributor, passing through the office wanted to get rid of a telegram and dropped it on the table it would be brought to me—the chief clerk marks the message off.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. There is a chief clerk at each table; she has the control of the messages; she makes a remark at the back—she receives them into her hands and marks them off—the message would come from the central branch, right down at the bottom of the building, because it was from West Strand—the messenger receives them through the tube, opens the box and gives them to her—there are three people, not two.
THOMAS DRIVER . On 27th November I was employed at the counter at the West Central District Post Office—this telegram "Z Z" came into my hands at the counter at 12.52 on that day—I numbered it 127, which meant it was the 127th telegram I had received that day—I initialled it "D."
GEORGE PICKRELL . I am a tube attendant at the West Central District Office—on 27th November I was there on duty at the tube in communication with the Central Telegraph Office—I sent on the message 127 by the tube at 12.53 on that day; I see an entry of it on my time sheet for that day.
WILLIAM IVES . I am a telegraphist at the Central Telegraph Office—on 27th November I was on duty at the Kempton Park Grand Stand wire—this message 22 is my writing, "Diocles, London, Unionist"—I received that message at 1.9 p.m. and I placed it in the rack for the messenger to collect—"Diocles, London," is the Exchange Telegraph Company—in this telegram "Z Z" I see "Green, £3 Unionist to win.—BEN."
MISS CRAWLEY (Re-examined). On 27th November I was on duty at the wire communicating with the Camden Road Office—I sent this telegram "Z Z" at 1.24 on that day—I put my name M. Crowley, as it now appears.
BENJAMIN PHILLIPS . I am assistant superintendent of the A division of the Central Telegraph Office—Sturman was employed in that division—on November 16th he was on duty—I made observations, in consequence of instructions I had received, as to his movements on that day—at 12.54 he was sitting at the Belfast prefixing table—132 on the plan indicates that spot—his duty was to mark a telegram with the distinguishing letter S if it were for delivery in Belfast, or with an X if it would have to be retransmitted on from Belfast—he had no business to leave his seat at all—messages would be brought to him by a man called a distributor, who would get the messages from the south eastern check table, just to the right of No. 135—there are tubes from that table communicating with the central hall—messages come up the tube into the hands of the check clerk, who would place them all in the distributing-box, and then the distributor would sort them out—at 12.54 I saw Sturman leave his seat and proceed to the check table, where he stood for about a minute—he then went back to his seat and prefixed some messages for Belfast, and placed some at each of the three Belfast wires, ready for the operators to send on to Belfast—he then left the A division at 12.56 without permission—I am the person from whom he would get
leave—he left by a door opposite the check table leading into the lavatory; by going from the door down a passage, and through a swing door to the left you get into the racing division—I lost sight of him for about five minutes, and then at 1.1 he returned from the direction of the racing department, and to his seat—he prefixed some more messages for Belfast, and distributed them, as he had previously done, to the Belfast wires, and then he again left the division without leave at 1.2 and walked back into the racing room, where he stood, with his back towards me, at table 045—I was standing by the Waterford circuit 201—I remained there till 1.4, and then left the division, leaving him standing in the same position, at 045—Mr. Culmer, a supervising senior attached to the A division, was in the division at the time; he returned from dinner at one o'clock—I had a communication with him before I left.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. There are three wires to Belfast—one operator was working on each wire, and at some parts of the-day there were two to each wire probably—Sturman had to prefix messages and then hand them to the operator—there was nothing to prevent the operators from intercepting a message; they would have done it less easily than Sturman—I watched him carefully—check clerks were at the table—if a check clerk had seen Sturman take up a telegram discharged by a tube and put it in his pocket it would have been his duty to communicate with me—I made a note of the times in my pocket-book—when the telegram was received at 1.3 I was about eight yards from Sturman when he was prefixing—it was a breach of duty for him to go to these places without permission—he was so placed that I was visible to him all the time—it was most unusual for clerks in that department to go to the lavatory or elsewhere without my permission—he could see me very plainly in the same way that I could see him—he committed a breach of duty right under the eyes of the supervisor—I don't know if he knew that I was looking at him—the check table was about six yards from Sturman's seat—I could see the movement of the distributor as he took papers to Sturman—probably I should have seen if Sturman put anything into his pocket after the distributor handed it to him—a person might approach a tube in the provincial gallery and send a message through it to the metropolitan gallery I think; that is not my department—the tube at the point of discharge communicates with the check table, and that table is under the supervision of the check clerk—he could not speak to any particular message—of course the tube is in constant use—he should or would be able to say whether any message was sent up from below or down from above—there is a centre tube from the provincial gallery communicating with the metropolitan gallery—Sturman was not near that, but in the S. E. wing—a communication from the provincial to the metropolitan gallery would be discharged on a check table, where there would be a tube attendant, and he would be able to say whether on a particular day a message had been received—that tube may be used when a mistake has been made, and a message sent to the provincial instead of the metropolitan gallery, but it is used in the ordinary way—several tubes lead direct from the provincial gallery direct to the metropolitan gallery, and the ordinary purpose for which they are used is transmitting ordinary telegrams; they are in constant use throughout the day, and thousands of telegrams would pass through it—among other
things it would be used to correct mistakes, and to send to the metropolitan gallery a telegram which by mistake has been sent to the provincial gallery, and vice versa—it is suggested by the prosecution that certain telegrams were sent to the provincial gallery, and afterwards sent away from the metropolitan gallery—a tube attendant is on duty in the metropolitan gallery, and he stands by the check clerk and hands him, folded up, the wires as they come down—I don't know if the tube attendant and check clerk from the metropolitan department are here—if the prisoner received at the Belfast table by mistake a telegram for London, he should return it to the check table by the distributor, who would give it to the check clerk, and point out that it had been wrongly distributed, and it would be sent down the tube to the metropolitan division—the check clerk and distributor would be in possession of the telegraph form before the prefixer—I cannot say that any of these telegrams ever reached Sturman's hands, or that they were not handed on to any one of the six telegraphists—if they had been handed to one of the telegraphists they ought to have gone to Belfast—when a telegraphist leaves his seat he may leave behind him a number of forms which he may have signed or initialled—possibly they very often sign a number of forms in advance and they may not be exhausted when they go off duty.
By the COURT. There are a number of tubes between the provincial and metropolitan departments, in addition to the one I have spoken of—I have been many years at the Post Office—I should not call it a rare occurrence for a telegram to be sent to the wrong department—it happens every day—a message for the London department, if delivered at the Belfast table, could be sent upstairs to the London department by hand, but that would not be the ordinary course—if it were taken upstairs irregularly by hand the messenger would probably take it to the person in charge of the division, or he could place it in a rack—a large number of persons are walking about—a person could take a telegram upstairs, and put it in the rack without necessarily attracting attention—messengers are constantly going up and downstairs from the provincial to the metropolitan division; we call them transfers; they transfer messages that require correcting or inquiry about; such messages go by hand rather than through the tube, as it is quicker; they are constantly passing from one division to another throughout the building—a dishonest person could take a telegram upstairs without attracting attention, and when he got upstairs all he would have to do would be to place it in the rack, and it would them be placed on a circuit and sent off without attracting attention.
HENRY WILLIAM CULMER . I am a supervising telegraphist of the A division, the division in which Sturman was employed—on October 31st he was on duty between noon and four in the afternoon to receive telegrams from Cork—he was an operator at 223 wire, that was his proper position—noticed him about twenty-six minutes past three, he changed his position from receiving telegrams to that of sending, that is, he was dealing with forwarding messages—he took the opportunity, in the absence of the sending clerk, Montgomery, to take his place—Montgomery had gone out on permission—he was sitting at 223 (Cork)—two men sit at the wire, side by side, one to send, the other to receive, working simultaneously—from
noon till 4 Sturman was receiving messages for Cork—he had no authority to alter his duties, it was quite irregular—the result of his change would be to bring into his possession telegrams addressed through the office to Cork—after that I saw him leave the division at 3.48, that would be with permission obtained from Mr. Phillips, I believe, from the superintendent in charge—he went out at the door opposite the table which has been mentioned—the doors are swing doors, leading to the lavatory—he returned at four p. m. and took up his proper position, sending telegrams to the proper wire—his duties would change then—he would be receiving from ten till four and then change to sending till five and then his duties would cease, that would be his proper duty—On the 16th November I returned to the division at one o'clock—Mr. Phillips was in the division—I was there when he left—I then saw Sturman; I had seen him between those two intervals; I saw him return from the receiving at two minutes past one, which he did without leave—I missed him from his seat at two minutes past four, but I did not see him leave his seat—he returned at 1.6, he came from the direction of the racing-room—on the 20th November he was on duty between ten and three—his duty during that time was prefixing for Belfast—his seat would be at the end of the table—at three he should have taken the key for the sending telegrams, passing to 132—the prefixing terminates then, and he should then have taken the passing of telegrams to Belfast—he then went to the check table—he had no business to do that—I saw Ray, a distributor, there at that time—he was at the table—he had telegraph messages in his hand ready to distribute—Sturman snatched them from Ray's hand, placed some of them to the key of the Belfast wires, No. 135, and hurriedly left the division through the same doors—that was at one minute past three—I saw him again at 3.5—he then handed a substitute paper to the superintendent, and he obtained a substitute for the remainder of his day's duty, at one minute past three, he requested permission to leave duty, and left the division at 3.6.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I attached very considerable importance to his leaving the division hurriedly on November 20th—I believe I have mentioned that before—possibly I have not mentioned it in evidence before—I don't think I used the word "hurriedly" before the Magistrate, but there is a letter written on that date—Ray was the distributor who in the ordinary course would hand the telegram to Sturman, but not at that time; his duty terminated at 3.10—Sturman would not be prefixing after three—he snatched the messages from Ray at three—at three he would take up the distribution of telegrams to Belfast—he did not do so, but snatched them from Ray—he placed some of them on a Belfast wire, and then left the division—he did not prefix the messages that he snatched from Ray—no prefixing took place after that—at three he should have taken up the telegraphic communication to Belfast—I do not suggest that he did that instead of prefixing—his duty was to send the messages himself—Ray's duty was to supply him and others with telegrams to the other wire—he ought not to have taken them from Ray—some of them he ought to have sent; some he gave to the other man—if he had put one of them in his pocket, I don't know that I should have seen it—I am not omniscient, I was observant—I was standing in close proximity to the superintendents desk—he went to the check table and
took the messages from Ray—he did not return to the check table, he went to 135; he had no business there—he would have his back to me, or sideways—I think I was three or four yards from him—after 3.10 it was no part of his duty to hand messages to any other telegraphist—it was not the duty of any other telegraphist to receive from him—he would not necessarily know that I was three yards from him—I don't think it possible or probable, he would see that I was engaged on my own duties—I had other duties besides watching him—I was attending to the wire from 2.4—I am an operator—that was my regular duty at that particular time, to sit at the table 234—I was observing; I might have been operating and observing—the instrument was at my side—my position would be something like it is now with regard to you—I doubt if it would be ten yards; it would be about five yards—when he turned to get the messages at the check table he would be at right angles—he would get nearer to me—his breach of duty was leaving his position and not taking up his prefixing, but taking the messages from Ray—I have seen cases of excessive zeal, but I should not say that I have seen that—I am not a prejudiced witness—on November 16th I was observing, as accurately as I could, what Sturman did—I was not placed exactly in the same position as on the 20th—at that particular time I was rather nearer him—I was not operating at the time, not at one o'clock—if he put anything in his pocket perhaps he did it clumsily—he is a very smart young fellow, probably he eluded me—when he returned from the racing room it was 1.4, and he went to his seat at 2.6—he was under my observation during that time—I should say he was ten or twelve yards from me—I was acting under instructions to observe his actions—if he had handed any message to a clerk at that time I should have seen him—I may have talked over this case with other Post Office authorities—I do not make the slightest suggestion against Montgomery—on 31st October Montgomery changed his position from receiving telegrams to sending them, and Sturman took his place—I make no imputation on Montgomery, or of any collusion with him—he left his place at 3.26 with permission; he was relieved by another operator—a telegram for Cork would arrive at the Central Office at 3.35—Montgomery should have been operating from three to four—he was not there at 3.48—he would have been able at that time to commit a fraud; I do not suggest anything—Ward took his place for two minutes—Montgomery was away from his seat for twenty-two minutes—Sturman was operating at that time—for two minutes of that time Sturman was there, acting in Montgomery's place—he did not volunteer to take his place, but he did it without any permission—he was only there two minutes—twenty-two minutes is a long time for being absent—if a man merely left to relieve himself, he would not be away so long—I can't say for what purpose Montgomery left, he was away from 3.26 to 3.48—at 3.26 Ward took his place at sending telegrams—at 3.28 Sturman changed places irregularly with Ward at the sending wire, and remained there till 3.48—Ward did not go there by my instructions—sometimes an operator asks another to relieve him and gets permission of the superintendent—at another time a man is instructed to relieve him—he would not get another to relieve him unless he wanted to leave the division—a
man does not relieve another without permission—Montgomery would have obtained permission from Mr. Coates, I think—he was the assistant superintendent in charge of the division at the time—there was such a person actually in charge at the time, and it would have been his duty to reprimand Sturman if he had done wrong in taking Montgomery's place—I cannot say if Mr. Coates reprimanded Sturman—I believe Coates is here—if a man wants to go away urgently, and gives a good reason, he gets leave by applying at the time—he would not be allowed under any circumstances to meet friends on urgent business outside—he would only get permission to leave for natural purposes, washing, or to see the medical officer—I might not have seen if Sturman received a Cork telegram between 3.35 and 3.48—I don't remember saying at the Police-court that there was nothing to prevent my seeing it; it was no part of my duty to see that there was no movement to indicate to me that he had received a telegram—it is very unusual for clerks to change places between the proper times—I don't think it is done at all unless with permission—there are two Cork wires, and two persons were operating on this day—there was nothing to make it more likely that a particular Cork wire should have got into the hands of one operator rather than into those of the other—I do not suggest anything against either of the Cork operators—there was only one operator at each wire—I could not say it did not reach the other operator and not Sturman.
Re-examined. Mr. Coates was the assistant superintendent in charge—I had received instructions with regard to watching Sturman—I do not know what instructions Coates had received—I saw Sturman go to the table and take the Belfast messages from Ray—if he had not so interfered, those messages would have been distributed among two people—the result was that Sturman got all the messages for Belfast.
JAMES MONTGOMERY . I am a telegraphist in the Central Telegraph Office—I am there every day—on November 20th I was on duty—I was sending telegrams to Cork, and Sturman was receiving them from Cork—shortly after three, Sturman asked me to change over with him, saying he did not feel very well, or something to that effect, and he could get on better sending than receiving—the receiver has to write, the sender has to read and work the machine—I changed with him—after a time one of the supervisors (I think Mr. Testor), noticing we had changed over, told us to take up our proper positions, and we changed back—I only remember changing on that one occasion, at the Cork wire—once afterwards when working at one of the Belfast wires Sturman asked me to change—I declined then, recollecting I had been spoken to before—it would not be recorded, but it would be remembered—on the occasion that I changed places with him at the Cork wire, I was relieved by Ward very shortly after we had been told to take up our proper places and had changed back—Ward is not on the permanent staff; there are a certain number of persons who understand the telegraph and can relieve persons from time to time.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I don't think that this day I was engaged on the Cork wire was the 20th November; I don't know the date; it was on a Wednesday—it was a mistake to say it was 20th
November; it was in October—I accepted the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that it was 20th November that I was working on the Cork wire—there is a record at the Post Office of the particular wires we are on on certain days. (The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that he had put the wrong date to the, witness, and that the evidence as to what happened at the Cork wire related not to 20th November but to 31st October,)—I asked for permission, to leave my work on 31st October—I was absent for less than a quarter of an hour—interchanges of position between me and other telegraphists might have taken place on other occasions; I can't remember any—I said at the Police-court, "I have changed, I think, with others before; they have told me the reason"—I think I have done so—it is not allowed—my recollection is very distinct with regard to this particular day—I have not spoken about it with the officials—I was not spoken to about this case till after I went to Bow Street—I was at work twenty minutes before I went to Bow Street—I was called on suddenly; it was sprung on me—it was not sprung on me that I was connected with these frauds—one of the superintendents at the General Post Office asked me if I had changed duty with Sturman, and I said, "Yes"—I was not asked what reason he had given me—I have recollected since I was at Bow Street that he gave me a reason that he was not very well; I have thought it over since—I have not changed places with other telegraphists very often; I cannot say how many times—I should have been off duty soon after Sturman asked me to change places—every day during that week I left the division at about the same time that I did on this day—I went to wash—we generally get relief for a wash about a quarter of an hour before we go—in the ordinary course it would still have been my duty to continue on my seat—every day about that time I asked for leave to go and wash, and be absent for about fifteen minutes—if there are any spare men about we are allowed to go out to wash before we go off duty, so that the moment our time is up we are ready to start—I had been sitting at the same table with Sturman for some days before that—when I asked permission to leave the division I got another man to relieve me—Sturman asked me in the first place to change seats—I did not get someone to relieve me immediately after that—Ward relieved me after I had changed back with Sturman, and when I went to wash myself—I changed with Sturman at his request—I did not change with Ward at Sturman's request, it had nothing to do with him—my ordinary time to go off would be four—I cannot recollect at what time I went off to wash, it would be shortly before four—I should not require above fifteen minutes for washing.
Re-examined. It would be very soon after three o'clock that Sturman requested me to change—it was on a Wednesday, I cannot be certain about the date—Sturman never asked me at any other time to change places with him on the Cork wire—I was sitting in the exchanged place about a quarter of an hour before Mr. Testor spoke to me, I should say—I then changed back to my seat, and almost immediately afterwards Ward came to take my place, and sat down receiving in my seat—I don't know whether he continued there—I went out.
and four hours spare for practising; I am an improver—during the third week in November Sturman during part of the day was engaged in prefixing the messages for Belfast; when he was doing that I was distributing all the Irish messages for two hours—during the week ending October 6th he was operating on one of the Dublin wires and I was distributing, and he said, "Will you look out for a message?" and he mentioned a name and address which I have since forgotten, "and if you find it put it upon my key"—I cannot remember the town to which it would be addressed, but it must have been Dublin or some subsidiary address, because he wanted it on the Dublin wires—I did not find the telegram—on one occasion, in the week ending 24th November, I was standing by the check tables and he took some messages for Belfast from my hand—he came up from his seat, where he was prefixing for Belfast, and said, "Any messages for Belfast?" and what I had in my hand he took away—I cannot say how many telegraphists were communicating with Belfast at the time; there are three wires to Belfast—on Monday, December 24th, I received a letter, dated December 21st, from someone acting on Sturman's behalf—in consequence of that letter I went some weeks later to 103, Cheapside, and I saw the name of the writer on the door, but the door was locked—I called next door and saw a gentleman who told me to go to 97, Cheapside, the office of Mr. Kent, a solicitor—I went and saw a gentleman, whose name I do not know—he told me the gentleman I came to see was not in, and I was to call next day—I went next day, and then a gentleman showed me a letter, in Sturman's writing to the best of my belief—I have seen him write—the letter was handed to me, and I read it and returned it to the gentleman. (Mr. Noaten was called into Court)—that is the gentleman to whom I gave the letter.
THOMAS NOATEN (Interposed). I am a clerk to Mr. Kent, a solicitor, of 97, Cheapside, who was acting as solicitor for Sturman—I was present at his office when Ray called—I either handed him the letter or read it to him, I forget which—I received it, with instructions for the defence, from Sturman, in Holloway Prison—it was written on foolscap paper—I did not see Sturman write it—he wrote it in his cell, with the instructions—there were about a dozen sheets of paper, and this letter was one—I destroyed it in Ray's presence, to the best of my recollection.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I am in no way connected with Mr. Crawshaw, Sturman's present solicitor—there was a change of solicitors—I am an assistant clerk to Mr. Kent, and have been for some time—this is Mr. Kent's writing—I am not entirely employed by him, I assist him—I am a mortgage broker as well, and I have part of Mr. Kent's office and assist him—I am not wholly and entirely employed by him.
By the COURT. This interview took place in Mr. Kent's office at 97, Cheapside; my name is on the door there—I visited the prisoner in Holloway Prison as Kent's clerk.
ALFRED RAY (Continued). After I had had the letter shown to me, and had read it, I returned it to Noaten, who destroyed it, but on the same day when I got back to the office, I wrote this copy of it, as far as I remembered it: "Dear Ray,—I hope you will forgive my writing to you to ask you not to mention the message addressed to Cork, which I
have asked you for, as it will involve a clerk in the A division, who will soon find himself taking lodgings in the same house as myself, Holloway Castle.—LOUIS STURMAN. P. S.—I don't wish you to be dragged into this wretched business."
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. When he took it from my hand he fixed it, and I should in another minute have handed him the very package I had in my hand—I cannot say that I saw him prefix that particular message, but I saw him prefix messages which he took from his pocket—I was five or six yards from his seat when he took the message from me—he had seen me prefix messages before, and I was continually bringing him messages to prefix—I did not see him do it—I do not know whether I saw Culmer outside, but he sits near there—he is an operator—at the time Mr. Culmer took the message from me, he was prefixing, and after that—I read the letter myself—I will not pledge myself to the exact words—but the clerk was in the A division—I am quite certain the words were not "addressed to Cork, you were asked for"—the letter was dated the 21st, but I did not get it till the 24th; I have the letter now which arrived on the 21st—the letter was only in my hand the time it took me to read it, and I handed it back at once—I received it a little before twelve, and on leaving the office I went straight to the Post Office on duty from twelve to eight—I was from twelve to three distributing, and from two to three distributing, the next hour I was distributing, and two hours afterwards—I made this note between one and two—one clerk would speak to another if he wished—if you went into the office when they were busy you would hear the clicking of the instruments, not conversation—the first date was October 6th—I have no recollection what the address was, I never found it—there would be another messenger with me from one to two, but from two to three I should be by myself—I was on duty on October 1st if it was a week-day, I have not been away at all, but my hours vary—if I am not there another official takes my place—I am not there earlier than eight—I was probably on duty on November 16th, but cannot recollect being asked for any information—I may have heard conversation about betting amongst the clerks but I should not take notice of it, not that it is so common, but I do not speak about betting myself and I do not notice what they say—I go to the metropolitan gallery three hours a day to practice; they are nearly all young women there—I do not not know any of them personally—I sometimes go into the racing gallery but cannot say whether they indulge in conversation about betting there; I only go there to qualify—I am not afraid of contamination.
ALFRED SLATER COATES . I am assistant superintendent of the A division—on Wednesday, October 31st, Sturman's duty would be specified hour by hour—supposing his duty was from twelve to eight it would be posted on the Monday or Tuesday in the preceding week, but the way he was employed. The eight hours would be specified on the Thursday before—the week begins on Monday, and he would know on the Thursday before exactly what his duty would be in the coming week—on October 31st I was in the A division between three and four o'clock—I had received instructions in September 1893, to keep special observation on Sturman, and on this day, between three and four o'clock, I watched his movements—he took
charge of case 223, Cork circuit, instead of acting as receiver, which was his proper duty at that time—the key is the instrument by which you send more signals, it works in two directions—it was his duty to be at the receiving wire, and I saw him change over to the despatch wire, with Montgomery—I made this note at the time in the divisional diary: "October 31st, 1894, three to 3.18 p. m. writer 223 Siemen Key"—"writer" means receiver, he has to take down the message received from Cork—again at 3.26, "223 Diamond Key"; that is the second change; "3.48, outside with permission," appears in the lavatory diary—he returned at four o'clock—I noticed at 3.36 that Sturman had again taken up the key notwithstanding he was told that he was in the wrong position—Ward, who is not now in the service, was at the key when he changed the second time; he was there for one month—the change was made a minute after Ward took the position—Montgomery was absent from 3.26 to 3.37—that does not appear in the diary—Montgomery took up a position by the side of Ward, who was receiving till 3.48; Montgomery took up the key when Sturman went outside and took his proper position at 3.48—Sturman changed his position in my presence without authority—I did not speak to him about it because I had instructions not to interfere with him—on November 27th at one o'clock, I was on duty in the division as general superintendent of the room, and at that date I had verbal instructions from my superior officer to let Sturman do as he liked—he should be a puncher at one o'clock, a man who prepares messages for the Waterford circuit 201—his duty was to perforate the messages to send by the automatic translator, and I saw him doing so at one o'clock, but at 1.2 he got up from his seat, passed out through the southwestern door, and returned through the racing room at 1.4—he had not permission to do that—he was exactly two feet eleven inches from the check table, in fact he could have reached it.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I was not asked at the Police-court about October 31st—Montgomery took up his proper position at 3.18 till 3.26, at the key of the circuit, after being spoken to by Mr. Foster, and then he sat down by Ward—I took a note of the matter at the time, Montgomery did not—Montgomery left Ward in possession of his seat, and when he returned he sat by Ward from 3.47 till he went out—Mr. Culmer was there—if he did not say that he was sitting by Ward, perhaps he was not asked—may I be allowed to explain, Ward took up the position of receiver when Montgomery went outside, not at the time, but immediately after, and directly Montgomery was out of sight Sturman induced him to change—Ward remained as receiver—I made a note of the time I was assistant superintendent—there was nothing strange in Sturman going away without asking permission he has done it scores of times, but not others—Mr. Crawshaw added others" at the Police-court—it was read over to me, but it was put in totally different language by the Chief Clerk—I never said "He and others often left without permission"—it would be more than a man dare do—if I had seen those words in my deposition I should certainly have called attention to it—but the gentleman acting as chief clerk had a broad Scotch accent—I remember him saying "and others," and he did not care so long as he got it on the depositions; but if
a man tried to leave the gallery without my permission it is as much as my place is worth, but I had received instructions to let him do what he liked, and I acted up to them—if men tried to leave the gallery I should follow them, and the sub-Comptroller woulddeal with them—I have done so in two recent cases, and one was a particular friend of Sturman—I looked on the whole thing as a great nuisance; it did not put me in a good temper—I mean to tell the Jury there were not many men going in and out; I should be pleased to have their names if you have any—he went out by the ordinary exit, and went double his distance to come back through the racing room, presuming he went to the lavatory, to put the most charitable construction on it—it is a great breach of duty for a man to go out to speak to a friend, particularly in the racing room, and one which he would be discharged for; but I do not discharge them; I simply represent the facts to the Comptroller and he deals with them—I did not see Sturman give anything to the messenger, he might put his handkerchief in his pocket, and he would not be such a fool as to let me see him put a telegraph form in his pocket—I had him under observation and watched him closely—if he handed a message to the messenger he would take care to do it when I was not looking—I have never seen him place a message in his pocket—he could manipulate a message without my seeing it; I was six feet from him, and there was nothing between me and him, but when I turned round to write my back was to him, and then I had another pair of eyes to observe him in the person of Culmer; Sturman was between the two of us—I saw him looking at an illuminated card, with which were two other cards, and it would be exceedingly convenient to put a telegram between them; and besides that, there was a piece of india-rubber, which is not supplied to them, and if a telegraphist uses it he is not fit for his position; he should put his pencil through the words—I never used india-rubber—I suggest that it was an improper thing for him to have, and if I found a man using it I should consider him too slow for our fast cable wires—I searched his drawer and found a piece of india-rubber, an illuminated text card, which I had seen that afternoon, a bottle of gold paint, two of silver, and the frontispiece of a local magazine—there was nothing wrong in his bringing them there—the Assistant Comptroller, Mr. H. Smith, gave him his instructions—he retired on a pension about March last; I acted with him—he was the person who gave me instructions to let this man do as he liked, but his mantle descended upon Mr. Headland—I received many instructions from him; in fact, I have been under cross-examsnation for twelve months—continual questions were asked me with regard to the movements of Sturman—I can tell you as much more about him as you like.
JOHN FOSTER . I am a telegraphist in the Central Office, attached to the news division—where I sat depended on what ray duty was—I sat in the racing room sometimes—I was a distributor in the racing-room—I believe I was on duty in that room at the end of October and November; I cannot say now without looking at the books—I should have no difficulty in seeing the winners that were telegraphed from the various grand stands when I was acting as distributor—they are stuck on a spike—about the end of September Sturman said to me, "Will you bring me out the winner" (of a certain race, I cannot remember it) "to the lavatory, where I will meet you?"—he told me the time of the race—I said I
would—I took the name of the winner to the lavatory and gave it to him—on several occasions in October he asked me to do the same thing, and I did so—I always took them to the lavatory—I am not sure if he asked me to do it in November, it is so long ago—Sturman gave me for doing it the odds to 2s.; if the winner were 5 to 1 I should get 10s.; of course I took him the winner—I acknowledged to myself that I received from him altogether a little over £2.
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I knew I was engaged in a dishonest transaction—I did not say on leaving the Police-court that I intended to put all the blame on Sturman, or anything resembling it—no other man in the Post Office asked me to take him the names of winners to the lavatory—I did not take the names to another clerk in the A division—I do not know Sturman's writing—he was employed on the same floor as I was, but not in the same department—I did not frequently see him write—I don't know who wrote these telegrams, "Y Y, X X, V V," and "Q Q"—I do not know anyone's writing remarkably like this; I do not recognise it at all—I do not know anything about the Mandragora and Rabicano telegrams; I have not seen them before—no statement has been made to me by a fellow employe in the Post Office with regard to those two telegrams—I don't know the man who wrote them; I know nothing about them—I did not give the names of the winners to a friend of mine—it is untrue that my evidence to-day is for the purpose of screening my friend—I do not know the person to whom you allude—it is untrue that I know who wrote them. (MR. TAYLOR wrote a name and handed the paper to the witness.)—I can read this name; I know such a person—he is in the Post Office; he is a friend of mine; he is not in the A division, but in the D—he is not there now; he ceased to be on duty some time in November, just at the time this prosecution was started—he left before 27th November—he is suspended—I never gave him the names of the winning horses; I never made a statement with regard to giving him the names—I believe the day he was taken downstairs and suspended, I was away ill; I heard it the next day—before I was away ill I had not spoken to the postal authorities in connection with this prosecution—I did not know they meditated a prosecution—I know Record, who was charged at the Police-court—I won't swear positively with regard to the Mandragora telegram.
By the COURT. There is no foundation for saying that the person whose name is on this paper wrote out these telegrams, or was the person to whom I gave the names of the winning horses in the lavatory.
WILLIAM WYKEHAM HIRON . I am a clerk in the Inland Telegraph Branch of the Central Telegraph Office—telegrams handed in at a branch or district post-office for transmission are numbered consecutively at each of those offices of origin by a numbering machine from one upwards—on the day after they are handed in, they are sent to the Central Office, and are there kept at the Inland Telegraph Branch for three months—I have examined the telegrams sent from the West Central District Office on 31st October—I find among them, "Q Q," which is numbered 227; it is the only one of that date and number—I have examined the telegrams sent from the West Strand Post-office on 16th November—I find no telegram addressed, "James, Post-office, Belfast"—I find one "V V" numbered 373—it is in ink—I found no telegram addressed, "King, Post-office, Belfast"—I find a telegram "Y Y" of 20th November, No.
550, addressed, "Wild, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich"—it is in ink—that is the only one with that number on that date.
JOHN ALPORT LAVEROCK . I am a principal clerk in the accountant's branch of the General Post Office, Dublin—all copies of telegrams received in Belfast are transmitted to Dublin for safe custody a day or two afterwards—I have examined the copies so received in Belfast on 16th and 20th November last—I did not find among them any message addressed to "James, P. O., Belfast," or any message received in Belfast on 20th November addressed "King, P. O., Belfast."
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting at 59, Holborn Viaduct—I have been employed by the Home office, the Admiralty, Scotland Yard, and Solicitors' Department of the Post Office—I have examined these five foolscap sheets, which were given me as being in Sturman's writing; these telegraph forms, numbered 1 to 18, which are in one person's writing (MR. TAYLOR stated that there was no doubt that Sturman wrote these eighteen telegrams in the course of his duty), and the telegrams, "Q Q, X X, Y Y," and "V V"—I have discovered, by means of a very careful examination under a microscope with different lights, on "V V" traces of previous writing in pencil—I find in the address portion, above the word "Shrimp," a capital "J," a small "a," about three-quarters of an inch away "s," about an inch further along a capital "B," an inch and a half further on a small "s"—in the first space is what looks like "F," followed by one letter, which appears to have been crossed out; it is not legible—in space two is a "G"—lower down I find "BAC" and "R" or "K" running from the first to the second space of the third row; then comes "Yr"—the "G" is visible to the naked eye—the pencil has been removed, the surface of the paper has been rubbed away, and there is only the impression left—I don't see how that impression could have been produced in any other way than by a pencil—if it had been produced with a point there would have been an indention, but there is no indention—just at the head of the "J" I do find traces of pencil visible—it is visible to the naked eye—supposing pencil writing had been there, someone had rubbed it out with india-rubber—on this class of paper I should have expected to find these traces under the microscope, if the writing were very faint—with a view to subsequent erasure, and on common paper as this is, it is easy to remove the surface, but almost impossible to remove a trace—on the address portion of "Y Y" I find in the same way the word "King"—"Wild" is written over "King"—one and a half inches on is a "P"—in the second space on the telegram is the letter "S"—in the address portion of "Z Z," over the "m" in "Shrimp," I could discover the letter "Y," and a final "d" nearly at the end of the address space—I could see there had been other writing, but I could not decipher it—the surface of all those three telegrams is rough, as if it had been rubbed with india-rubber, or an eraser of some kind—the present appearance of the paper is consistent with erasure with india-rubber—it would be the natural way of removing pencil impressions on telegraph forms, and I should expect to see such indications as I see now if it had been done—I believe the writing on "Q Q," "Shrimp, London. £3 Lad
Normanton win—BFN," to be in Sturman's writing, the address, the text, and the letters "C G" in the corner—I believe "VV," "Green, London. £3 Mandragora win," to be in Sturman's writing—the ink is a peculiar colour—it appears to be written with the same fluid as "W W," "Green, London. Sweet Auburn to win.—BEN"—I do not know whether it is ink or not, it looks like ink—my attention has not been drawn to whether it was written with a pen—I believe, "X X," "Green, London. Imperialism to win," is in Sturman's writing—it is written with black ink, a different fluid to the other two, to the best of my knowledge—"YY," "Wild, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. £6 Rabicano to win.—GOUGH," I believe to be in Sturman's writing—I compared the "G" in "Gough" with several "G's" written by Sturman, and they are the same in my opinion—I believe "ZZ," "Green, London. Unionist to win.—BEN," to be in Sturman's writing—the most characteristic letters there are the "S" in "Shrimp," and the "L" in "London"—all the writing on these telegrams is disguised—all these telegrams, "QQ, Y Y, X X, W W, V V" and "Z Z," I associate by comparison together, independently of Sturman, and I come to the conclusion that they are undoubtedly all in the same writing. (The witness explained the similarities he found in the various writings submitted to him.)
Cross-examined by MR. TAYLOR. I have devoted my time to examining handwriting for nearly the last eleven years—my experience during that time has been my training—I took it up as a profession to get my living by it—I began to give evidence in this Court five or six years ago—the first case I was engaged in was eleven years ago, and I believe Mr. Netherclift died about three years ago. (The witness pointed out the similarity between the writing of the various documents.)
Re-examined. I did not see Sturman write these five sheets of foolscap—I was told under what circumstances they were written.
Wednesday, February 6th.
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN (Re-examined). I have examined these telegrams, "V V" and "W W"—I have no doubt whatever they were written with a pen—I have examined them with a microscope—if written with a pen where the pressure came the two points would divide, and there would be a hard line on each side of the stroke—that would he shown when dry by a dark mark on each margin, and that is shown on this writing—I cannot say whether the medium used is ink or not—the Jury can satisfy themselves as to what I say by means of this glass.
MATTHEW TOWERS . I am a police constable attached to the Post Office—I took Holloway into custody—I charged him with forging and uttering certain telegrams—I found this card in his pocket-book—he made no reply to the charge.
FRANK OWEN WOOD . I am employed in the Confidential Inquiry Office of the General Post Office—on November 27th I saw Sturman at half-past one—I had a conversation with him—I showed him this telegram "Q Q," and said, "Look at this mutilated form which is now addressed to "Shrimp, London," and consists of a bet of £3 on Lady Normanton. When the message, No. 227, was handed in at the West Central Office, it was addressed to Cork; that message was torn off and the lower part of this form substituted. On the day this happened, the 31st October, you were properly engaged in receiving
telegrams for Cork, but at the time this message was due to arrive at the Central Office, you changed with another clerk, so that you should be sending messages to Cork. Now at 3.48 p.m., at which time this message would have reached the Cork division, you left your place and the gallery. You did not return until four o'clock, at which time the result of the race won by Lady Normanton was known in the office, and this message to Shrimp was transmitted"—he replied, "I did not do it, that is all I can say"—I then showed him the telegram "VV," and called his attention to the time he was on duty and to the time the form was handed in, as I did in the other case—he replied, "I can't explain the message either"—I adopted the same course with regard to "YY"—I detailed to him the evidence of Ray, and then detailed to him the circumstances—he said, "I may have got out of my seat, I shall have to deny that I tampered with the message"—I said nothing to him about "ZZ" that is the telegrams of 27th November—"VV" and "YY" were spoken to by Mr. Woodward—on the following day I went to the Offord Arms, Caledonian Road, and saw Mr. Hurdle and had conversation with him—the prisoner Holloway came to the house; Mr. Hurdle told me it was Holloway—I told him who I was and said, "I have just been making inquiries of Mr. Hurdle and the name of Gough and Mr. Wilde. The telegram backed Rabicano for £6; Mr. Hurdle tells me that it was sent by you, and that you had previously obtained his permission to use his name"—he replied, "I did not send the message"—I said, "But you called on Mr. Hurdle yesterday for the money won on that bet"—he replied, "Yes, but I did not send that message"—I said, "Who did?"—he said, "Someone from whom I have received big sums of money at different times"—I said, "Who is he?"—he replied, "I don't know why I should say"—I then produced the telegram "Y Y" and said, "This telegram is a forgery, you did not send it, who did?"—he made no answer—I said, "You understand your position; the telegram is a forgery, and you appear to be responsible for it, unless you say who sent it, what is his name and address?"—he replied, "I don't know"—I then fetched Mr. Burman, and on his arrival I saw him in the presence of Holloway—I said to Holloway, "I have been seeing Mr. Burman in connection with this telegram," which I produced to him, "Y Y," "which the man sent in the name of Ben to Mr. Giles, whose registered address is 'Shrimp, London.' Burman says you sent that message, and he had one-sixth of the winnings while you had the remainder"—he said, "I did not send the message"—I said, "This message is a forgery. Who sent it? You received the greater part of the money. How do you account for it?"—he said, "I handed it over to the man"—I then asked him if he sent a betting message on the previous day to Shrimp—he said "No"—I asked Mr. Burman if he had authorised any other person besides Holloway to send messages in the name of Ben—he said, "No"—I then told Holloway he would have to go to the Post Office—I saw him there in the afternoon, and said, "Do you feel disposed now to tell us the name of the man who sent this message?"—he said, "I don't know the man; I don't know where he lives"—he was then given into custody.
General Post Office—Mr. Wood was present; it was when Mr. Wood had the interview with him—I told him what to write—Sturman admitted all these yellow sheets numbered 1 to 18 to be in his writing—they are telegraph forms which he would fill up in the ordinary course of his duty.
Cross-examined by MR. HALL. I was present at the Police Station on November 28th—after Holloway and Cooper were arrested, Sturman, nodding towards Holloway, said, "You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, whatever the other may be"—I think Holloway was too far off to hear it.
A.S. COATES (Re-examined by MR. TAYLOR). Sturman was on duty on Saturday, November 17th, from twelve noon to eight p. m.—on October 31st Sturman left the division with permission at 3.48, and Montgomery left with permission at 3.26—Montgomery only left once I am sure; it is recorded in this book—Montgomery made the entry himself—he left his seat twice—he should properly have taken charge of the key of that circuit at three o'clock, and instead of that Sturman took it from 3.0 till 3.18—then Sturman and Montgomery were told by Mr. Testor that they were out of their places and they took their proper places till 3.26, when Montgomery went outside and was relieved by Ward, and immediately after Montgomery left, Ward and Sturman changed places, Sturman taking charge of the key, and he remained there till 3.48, and at 3.48 Sturman went out—Montgomery sat beside Ward from 3.37 to 3.48, Ward doing the receiving work and Montgomery doing nothing till 3.48, when he took the key from Sturman—I speak of this from memory and from a note I made at the time—the note is "Sturman's key 30-18, ditto, ditto, 3.48 outside," and immediately below is "3.26"—it means he was at the key from three to 3.18—I did not intend it to be understood by other people—other assistant-superintendents would have access to it—the "26" was blotted at the time by accident—the entry was made for official purposes, and was abbreviated so that others might not understand it—Mr. Testor witnessed my making that entry—I called his special attention to it—there are no alterations in it—I cannot speak definitely to November 16th, about 1.6, no doubt I had just come on duty—Mr. Culmer, I believe, can speak to that.
By the SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Sturman sent all these telegrams (produced) to Cork on 31st October; I recognise his signature in each case—he put the time in—three of them are all timed 3.40, the next is 3.41, the next 3.42, and the next 3.46, and that is the last he sent on that wire that day.
H.W. CULMER (Re-examined by MR. TAYLOR). On 16th November Sturman returned to his place at 1.6, after I had seen him in the racing room at 1.4—he remained in his place till 2.15 when he went to dinner, so far as I know—that would be his dinner-time appointed for that day, it varies.
Thursday, February 7th.
208. LOUIS MARIANI STURMAN was again indicted, with WILLIAM COOPER , for unlawfully conspiring to obtain by false and counterfeit telegrams divers money and property from the Postmaster-General, and in furtherance of that conspiracy forging a telegram authorising the payment of £25 with intent to defraud, to which they
PLEADED GUILTY .
209. LOUIS MARIANI STURMAN and WILLIAM COOPER were further indicted, with WILLIAM LEUTCHFORD , for conspiring with Henry Wilson to forge and counterfeit and alter certain telegrams, and by such means and other false pretences to obtain from Joseph Blake and others large sums of money, to which Sturman and Cooper
PLEADED GUILTY .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL offered no evidence against Leutchford.— NOT GUILTY
210 LOUIS MARIANI STURMAN, WILLIAM COOPER , and WILLIAM LEUTCHFORD were further indicted for conspiring to forge, alter, and utter telegrams, and by those means to obtain from Robert Henry Sloper and other persons their money, to which Cooper and Sturman
PLEADED GUILTY .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL offered no evidence against Leutchford.— NOT GUILTY .
211. LOUIS MARIANI STURMAN and WILLIAM COOPER were further indicted, with JAMES HATCHMAN , for forging, altering, conspiring to, and uttering certain telegrams, and by those means and false pretences obtaining from Richard Dipple and William Tynan their moneys, to which Sturman and Cooper
PLEADED GUILTY .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD, Q. C.), MR. SUTTON MR. CASSERLEY, and MR. H.C. RICHARDS Prosecuted; and MR. WATT and MR. A. MAY Defended.
RICHARD DIPPLE . I live at No, 6, Devonshire Square, City—I am a turf commission agent—I have a registered telegraphic address "Cernentia"—I have a betting business with a man named Steadman, the arrangement with him was that he was to send me £5 up at the time of the race starting, and if he wanted more he was to send me more—he is a gas engineer in Bethnal Green Road—I received a telegram marked "H," dated 14th September, 1894, backing a horse called Amiable—there was something I thought wrong with it, and I sent to Steadman about it—I did not send the telegram to him; I did not pay at once—next day another telegram came that was unsatisfactory, and I went to Steadman about it, and asked if he could account for the delay—on the 15th I received this telegram "B B" relating to a horse named Queen's Evidence, and I communicated with Steadman about that—that was something like an hour after the race had been run—Steadman after that came to see me—I had some conversation with him, and a few days afterwards he came bringing the defendant Hatchman with him, and in his presence he said that the messages were not sent by him (Steadman), but by Hatchman, and he introduced Hatchman to me—I had never seen him before—I asked Steadman how he accounted for the long delay—he referred to Hatchman, and I said to Hatchman, "I have no business with you, but I will hear what you have too say"—he
said, "I sent them, that is all I can say about them"—I said, "Where do you live?"—he said, "At Hackney"—I said, "How do you account for these messages being put in at Balham?"—he said he was there looking for business—I said, "How do you mean, the other one came from Balham the next day; were you there two days?"—he said, "Yes"—we had some more conversation and Steadman said, "However, I will not allow you to send any more in my name; I will settle up the business and I will pay you"—I told him I did not feel inclined to pay him until the delay was fully accounted for—he said, "Will you pay me half the money then, divide it with me"—I went and saw my partner on the matter, and then came back and gave him half the money, and closed the account—I lost on the Amiable transaction £5 13s., and on Queen's Evidence I lost £15 12s. 6d.—that was the full amount—I paid half—I had other business with him—I paid it to Steadman—I did not know the other man.
Cross-examined by MR. WATT. I had dealt with Steadman some considerable time—in these telegrams the amount of money is expressed in figures instead of words—I have had plenty like these from Steadman, lots besides these two—Hatchman came to my office at the appointed time—he said, "I sent them and I can say nothing more"—I did not know what he was—it was not mentioned to me that he kept a public-house—I did not know it at that time, I heard afterwards that he did—he did not mention the nature of the business that took him to Balham—most of the conversation took place with Steadman—I held Steadman responsible—I did not know that he had allowed Hatchman to use his name, not till he told me—as long as Steadman was responsible I did not object—I should object, not knowing who they were—in settling up it is sometimes usual to take half.
Re-examined. I had these two telegrams in my room—I showed them to Steadman, and I believe he showed them to Hatchman—I drew Steadman's attention to the hours marked on the telegrams.
JAMES GEORGE STEADMAN . I am a gas engineer, at 503, Bethnal Green Road—Hatchman is a cousin of mine—at the latter end of August last I received a letter from him (asking permission to use his name)—I told him he could do so, and he came to me every Tuesday and settled the bets he had made in my name, either paying or receiving—I did not know where he sent from—in September I received a letter from Mr. Dipple—in consequence of what he said I wired to Hatchman, and he came and saw me, and I took him with me to Mr. Dipple towards the end of September—I told him I had received a communication from Mr. Dipple, stating that he thought there was something wrong with the Balham messages—he said, "They are all right"—I said, "Don't send any more"—he said, "I won't"—I said, "What took you to Balham?"—he said, "Because I was looking for a public-house"—he had been manager to Mr. Hewitt—the name of one of the horses on which a bet was made I think was Amiable, and the other Sketch, I think, but I had so many—when we went to Mr. Dipple's I had some conversation with him in Hatchman's presence, as I have stated—Mr. Dipple said he thought there was something wrong about the Balham messages—Dipple settled with me in respect of the bets, one was halved, and I told Hatchman to send no more, and we cancelled the arrangement; I felt perfectly
satisfied that all was right—I received from Tynan moneys made for bets in my name, I paid that over to Hatchman; there was only a few shillings difference, I paid 15s.—I have not the account, whatever it was I handed it over to Hatchman.
Cross-examined by MR. WATT. I had not given authority to anyone except Hatchman to bet with Dipple or Tynan—I betted myself with Tynan—in all the bets with Tynan I used to put figures in the telegrams—there were three settlements with Hatchman, two he won on, one he lost—two were with Dipple and one with Tynan—I have known Hatchman a considerable time, being my first cousin—he was manager of a public-house in Aldgate, and he had the Duke of Kent for about twelve years—at this time he was out of business and was looking for a house, where he could find one—I had every reason to believe that he had money—the letter I received from him was not written by himself—I believe he cannot write, and I don't think he can read—I have always been given to understand that he cannot read or write—any letters that I got from him I supposed were written for him by somebody—he told me that he knew Roberts when he kept the Duke's Head, but I do not remember him—my cousin says that I knew him—I was on intimate terms with my cousin—I very often saw him—I fitted up his house for him—in all my dealings with him I always found him honest, otherwise I should not have allowed him to use my name for £10.
HENRY HARRIS . I am a solicitor, living at Clapton—I am clerk to Mr. William Tynan—he is a turf commissioner and carries on business at 246, Bethnal Green Road—his registered telegraphic address is "Hackness, London"—I know that he has done business with Mr. Steadman—it was my duty to enter bets as they were received—I did not always enter them—there was a meeting at Doncaster in September—this form (produced) is "Hackness, London, 100s. to 100s. on Amiable if win 100s. on Boobytrap"—that telegram has been destroyed—it purports to come from Steadman—this means £5 on Amiable to win or find a place, and if win £5 on Boobytrap—Boobytrap was not a starter £5 was the odds—Amiable won—in consequence of that I credited Steadman with £5. 6s. 6d.
Cross-examined by MR. WATT. I had a great many transactions with Steadman—I don't know whether it is usual for persons having an account with a bookmaker to allow other persons to use their names; we only hold one to be responsible—I believe it is done—I notice that in these telegrams the money is in figures, not letters—I cannot remember now whether I received money in that way from Steadman, I think it would be so—I could not say.
Re-examined. The £5 6s. 6d. was settled; it was credited in the account—Steadman got that amount.
CHARLES HARRY COMMINS . I am chief clerk to the sub-postmaster at Balham High Road—I have been there twelve months; during that time Cooper was temporarily employed in the office for seven weeks, from 20th August to 6th October, as a telegraphist—when a telegram is handed in at our office it is first stamped with a dated post-mark, and then the time of handing in is inserted in code letters and then the name of the office to which it is to be sent—these three telegrams, "X, Y" and "B B" bear what purports to be our post-mark, and the code time, and "W. C." in Cooper's writing, to the best of my knowledge—looking at "X" sent
at 2.2 p. m., I see it was handed in at Balham, and "Q T S" and "W. C.," and on the left-hand side the code "A K S," which means 1.52, the time it was handed in—"B A L" are the code letters for Balham—"Y" has the code letters "A K S," 1 52 p. m.; "B B" has "B A S," 2.7—"X" and "Y" purport to have been sent on to the Central Office at 2.2 and "B B" at 2.16 p. m.—I should think that the word "Amiable" in the body of "X" and "Y" is in Cooper's writing—I do not recognise having seen these telegrams in our office—all telegrams handed in at Balham are tied up and kept there till the following day, and then they are sent on to the General Post Office.
Cross-examined. The telegram "Z" appears to have been sent to the Central Office at 2.4 on 14th September—the initials of the sender are "W. C."—Leutchford gave me the telegram, and it is addressed to "Bain, London"—this telegram, "A A," purports to have been handed in at 2.5 on 15th September, and to have been sent to the Central Office at 2.15—Leutchford handed that in, and it was addressed to "Obeying, London"—I should not see every wire—when the sender hands in a form we wire it on to the General Post Office, and keep the original, which is sent next day to the General Post Office tied up with others—I should not see them all.
EDITH LAURA DOLBY . I am a supervisor of the I group in the metropolitan gallery, which includes the wires from Balham High Road—this telegram, "X 1," purports to be a message received at the Central Office from Balham at 2.3—it is part of the practice for the person who receives a message from a place like Balham to initial or sign it as having been received by him—this is signed "C. H. R." as the initials of the receiving telegraphist—I have no telegraphist in the group who signs "C. H. R.," and I had not on 14th September, or before or since—I do not recognise the initials—this telegram "Y 1" "Hackness," addressed to Tynan from Steadman, purporting to have been received on the Balham wire at the Central Office at 2.2 on September 14th bears the same initials "C. H. R."—this telegram "B B 1" of September 15th purports to have been received on the Balham wire at the Central Office at 2.16—the initials of the receiver are "M. A. S."—I do not recognise that signature, it represents no one in the I group.
Cross-examined. The text of "Z" and "Z l" corresponds—"Z 1" purports to have been received on the Balham wire at 2.4 on September 14th by someone signing "C. H. R."—the text of "A" and "A A 1" correspond—"A A l" purports to have been received from Balham at 1.15 on September 15th by someone signing "M. A. S."
GEORGE HOLLOWAY . I am a telegraphist engaged at the Central Office—on 14th September I was engaged in the racing gallery and was at work on the wire communicating with the Doncaster Grand Stand, and receiving the results of races by wire—the practice is, before I get the name of a winner I get a signal, "Hear. First horse," informing me that the next message will give me the name of the winner—it is just to put me on my guard so as to be quick—at 2.11 on that day I received and took down this message "Y 2" addressed to "Diocles, London," the London telegraphic address of the Exchange Telegraph Company—the message is "Amiable"—it is supposed to be the name of a horse—just before I received that message I had received the signal
intimating that the next message would be the name of the winner of the race.
HENRY LANKSTEAD . I am a telegraphist in the Central Office—on 16th September I was on the wire communicating with the Alexandra Park Grand Stand, and receiving the racing results from there—this message, "A A 2," in my writing, arrived at 2.27, addressed "Diocles, London"—it is "Queen's Evidence."
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I have devoted some time to the study of handwriting, and have frequently given evidence here and elsewhere on the subject—on this telegram, "X," "Cernentia, London. 100s. 100s. on Amiable, if win 100 Booby trap.—STEADMAN," the name and address and the message, with the exception of "Amiable" and "Booby Trap," is in Sturman's writing—I have had submitted to me many admitted instances of his writing—the telegram "Y," "Hack ness, London. 100s. 100s. on Amiable, if win 100s. on Booby Trap," is, with the exception of the horses' names, in Sturman's writing—the telegram "BB," "Cernentia, London. 100s. 100s. Queen's Evidence.—STEADMAN," is in Sturman's writing, with the exception of the horses' names, I say.
Cross-examined. "Z Z" and "A A" are certainly not in Sturman's writing—I believe the words "on Amiable" in "Z" are in Cooper's writing, but not the rest of the message—I do not know the writing of the rest of the message—the words "on Amiable" on "Z" have been written in at a different time to the rest of the message—I should say the rest of the telegram is in Sturman's writing—to the best of my belief "A A" is in Cooper's writing—I do not recognise the writing in "AA 1"; the words "Queen's Evidence" have been written in at a different time and with a different-coloured pencil—I believe the code letters on the back of "Y 1," "B B 1," and "X 1" are in Sturman's writing.
JOHN HILL SHINNER . I am a clerk in the Confidential Enquiry Department of the General Post Office—on November 29th I saw Hatchman there—I had gone for him—I told him who I was—I asked him if he knew the telegraphic address of Cernentia, London—he said "Yes, Mr. Dipple"—I said, "Do you know Mr. Steadman, of 303, Bethnal Green Road?"—he said, "Yes, he is my cousin"—I said "Has he given you permission to send betting telegrams to Cernentia, London?"—he said, "Yes, up to £5 each way, I used to settle with him on Tuesdays"—I said, "Where were such messages handed in?"—he said "Usually at Balham"—I said "When were they sent?" he said, "Three or four months ago"—that was from the then current time—"There were about four or five of such messages"—I produced the messages "X" and "B B" to him, which I read to him and placed before him—I said, "Were you the sender of these messages?"—he said, "Yes, I sent them"—I said, "Did you receive the money paid in respect of them by Mr. Dipple?"—he said, "Yes, I received the money of Mr. Steadman"—I cautioned him that what he said might be used in evidence against him, and told him that the telegrams were forged, and that the money paid in respect of them was obtained by fraud—I said, "Do you still say you are the sender, and that you received the money in respect of them?"—he said, "Yes, I was the sender, but I don't know what you mean by forged telegrams; I did not write the messages myself, I am a bad scholar; a friend of mine wrote them for me"—I said, "If you did
not write them, who did write them?"—he said, "A fellow named Roberts; he went over with me from Bishopsgate to Balham; they were written in a public-house at Balham, I don't know the name"—I made a note at the time—I showed him another message "Y," addressed to Hackness, London, and said, "Do you know this message, addressed Hackness, London?"—he said, "No, I don't know anything about it"—I said, "The full address of it is, Mr. Tynan, 246, Bethnal Green Road. Do you know it now?"—he said, "I must, according to that"—I said "The telegram is a forgery, and the money won over it was obtained by fraud. Were you the sender, and did you obtain the money?"—he said, "Yes; I sent it, and obtained the money off of Mr. Steadman"—he also said, "So far as I know these were sent by me. I cannot read them, but they are the same as sent by me"—I said, "Where is Roberts to be found?"—he said, "I don't know; I don't know his address"—I asked him when these various messages were written out—he said, "Between ten and twelve minutes before the races were run in respect of which they were sent"—I quite understood they were written in his presence—I said he would have to be given into custody—he said, "This is a pretty thing."
Cross-examined. I have constantly interviewed people under suspicion—my usual interviews are with Post Office employes, and they are seldom or never cautioned at the beginning of the interview—up to the time when I cautioned him I had no actual knowledge, except from his admissions, that he was the actual sender, and not an intermediary—I wanted to know about it—if he had satisfied me that he was not the sender nothing further would have been done till I had ascertained the accuracy of his replies—when I found he was the sender I thought I should have to charge him, and then I cautioned him—he was not in custody—I found him in a public-house, and requested him to accompany me to the Post Office; he came in a cab—he said he was a bad scholar and could only write his name; I saw him write his name—he said Roberts had taken the telegrams to the Balham post-office, and that he (Hatchman) had waited at the public-house, where the telegrams were written—I don't remember his saying he had stopped at the public-house half an hour till Roberts came back, and I have not got it on my notes—I do not think I asked him how long he stayed before Roberts came back—he first said, "I don't know anything about the message to Hackness"—I read out the message and showed it to him, so that he could see it was in figures—I think he said that was the way he recognised it, through the figures; he mentioned something about the figures—when he afterwards said, "As far as I know, they were sent by me," I understood him to say the ones I was showing him were the ones he had sent—he said he had got the money—he said he had not given Roberts permission to use his name at all—he did not tell me he had paid the money to Roberts; he simply said he had received it—I asked him about his intimacy with Cooper and Sturman; he said he knew nothing of them—he was not confronted with them; I don't think he met them till he went into the dock—he saw them at Bow Street—from time to time observations have been made to me that Sturman has for a portion of the time been kept under observation, I have no personal knowledge of it—I was not on that duty, nor did I give any instructions—so far as I know nothing has ever been discovered
tracing any connection between Sturman and Hatchman or Cooper and Hatchman—I should think my conversation with Hatchman lasted three quarters of an hour perhaps—he was at the Post Office a little over four hours—I was not asking him questions most of that time—he was brought to the office shortly after one, and I went to him at one or two minutes to three, and was with him about three-quarters of an hour and left him, and I was with him subsequently about ten minutes—I was in my own room most of the time in between doing business connected with this case—there was a reason why he was left for two hours before I went to see him; I wanted to see my colleague, Mr. Wood, who was at Bow Street at the time; the case was under investigation with regard to some of the other prisoners who had pleaded guilty—Wood is not my superior officer, but he had primary charge of the case—when I returned and finished the conversation he was given into custody.
MR. WATT called
LOUIS MARIANI STURMAN (In Custody). I have pleaded guilty to this charge—I have only known Hatchman since I have seen him in the dock—I never knew him before, or heard his name—I did not conspire with him innocently or maliciously in any way—I first saw him at Bow Street.
Cross-examined. I have pleaded guilty to the charge of fabricating in the office these messages with regard to the backing of Amiable and Queen's Evidence; they were written out by me—I only knew Cernentia was a bookmaker; I did not know his identity; I did not know who Steadman was, or who Hatchman was—I pleaded guilty to having conspired with Cooper and other persons—I was to get the money from one of those persons—I could tell you his name, but I don't wish to do so—I decline to give his name unless his Lordship should order me to do so; I don't think I would do it then; I will say it was not Hatchman—it did not come through Hatchman that I knew of—I never got any of the money in respect of any of these Cernentia or Hackness telegrams—I was told the money was not paid—the same man told me that—I won't tell you his name—I am positive I never got the money.
By the COURT. I gave these telegrams "X, Y," and "B B" to Cooper, not exactly as they are—they are not in my writing; they were given to me without the words "On Amiable" by the same man who would have paid me the money had he received it, and whose name I decline to give, and I handed them to Cooper, who has pleaded guilty—the man who gave them to me was employed in the Post Office when I left, and he may be now; I have been in prison for ten weeks—I generally handed them to Cooper the night before, I am not positive—Cooper was at Balham and I at the General Post Office—it must have been at least one day before they were sent that I handed them to Cooper ready written out by the Post Office employe, whose name I decline to give.
WILLIAM COOPER (In Custody). I have pleaded guilty to this charge—I first saw Hatchman at Bow Street some weeks ago—I knew nothing of him, and had nothing to do with him before that—I do not know anything about him.
Cross-examined. Sturman gave me the telegrams "X, Y," and "B B" on
the day before the date they bear—the names of the horses were not on them when he handed them to me—the horses' names came by telegraph to the Balham office in the ordinary course, and I wrote them on these telegrams—in the sent column I put the code time and my initials, as though they had been sent to the Central Office—they never were sent to the Central Office—I then introduced them among the other messages in the office as though they had been sent—they were never handed in by Hatchman or anybody, but I placed them among the messages—I never saw Hatchman at the Balham office—I got no money in respect of these transactions—I should have received it from Sturman, but he paid me nothing—it was necessary, in order to carry out these frauds, to have some outside men communicating with bookmakers and who would be able to telegraph to the bookmakers, using their own or someone else's name—I don't know who did that in these transactions—I left that to Sturman, and I had nothing to do with that branch of the business—so far as I know Sturman arranged about the outside man—when I was first charged with these frauds I made a confession at once to Mr. Wood, one of the confidential officers of the Post Office, and told the truth—then Sturman was brought into the office, and Mr. Wood read my verbal statement, which he had taken down, to him—Sturman then denied that there was any truth in what I had said—he said he could not understand my idea in making such a statement, and he persistently accused me of saying that which was untrue—I did not hear Sturman tell a string of lies to Mr. Wood—I heard him deny the statement I had made which I knew to be true—he spoke falsely upon that occasion—I could not saw whether Sturman or a friend of his suggested this fraud to me; I cannot tell exactly how it was first put into my mind.
Several witnesses deposed to Hatchman's good character.
WILLIAM JAMES SMITH . I am a solicitor, of 36, Watling Road, Hackney—I am Hatchman's solicitor—no instructions were given me as to calling Cooper and Sturman—I had no idea that they would plead guilty—I have made efforts to find Roberts, but I have not been able to do so.
Cross-examined. I instructed my clerk to try and find him—personally I made no efforts—I have not been able to find any traces of him, although I got all the information I could as to where I should be able to find him—Hatchman told me he was a frequenter of the public-house Hatchman used to keep in Norton Folgate, and I tried to find him in the street, I had no address—I have been with Hatchman along Bishopsgate Street and other streets, and looked for Roberts—I have been a solicitor since 1881—in the whole of my experience as a solicitor I never tried to find a man in the same remarkable manner—I had no other instructions.
HATCHMAN GUILTY, with a strong recommendation to mercy, as the JURY considered that he had been used very much as a dupe by the other parties to the conspiracy. — Three Months' Hard Labour. STURMAN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. COOPER— Ten Months' Hard Labour. HOLLOWAY— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
There was another indictment against Louis Mariani Sturman and William Cooper for felony.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
MR. GRANTHAM Prosecuted.
JOHN CLAUSEN . I am a seaman—on 18th January I was paid off from my vessel, and in the afternoon I went with my shipmates into the Railway Tavern in Queen Victoria Road—when I came out I went towards the Customs House Station to go to my ship—as I went along three men ran after me and tackled me—the prisoner is one of the three—he held me and took my money and my watch from me—I ran after the man that had the money, and as I ran I was knocked about by several, and one of them knocked off my hat and ran—I had over £7 before I was robbed; that was all taken—I had come from New York—I went to the Police-station and gave information—I did not give a description of the prisoner; I had no chance—I saw them running—I had hardly any time to look round.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. There were two women in the tavern; they were not along with me; they asked me for a drink, and I gave it to them; they left the house with me, and went along with me down the road towards the Customs House Station—they were not with me when I was knocked down, they had left me before—this was about 3.30 in the afternoon, it was daylight—I am quite sure that they did not take my money—they did not get their arms round my neck; one was walking alongside of me.
Re-examined. It was one of the three men that took my money, I am sure of that—I tried to get away from them but they held me; it was all done in a moment—I felt a man's hand in my pocket, it was not a woman's hand.
RICHARD SOAMES . I am an engine driver—last Friday week, 18th January, I was on my engine, travelling with a steam-roller, rolling down stones in Queen's Road—I saw some people running towards me—I saw the prisoner, he was not the first man, he's not here—Clausen was the second and the prisoner was behind him, and he caught hold of Clausen by the neck and threw him down in the road—he got up again and he started thumping him in the face—the prisoner was in the road close to my engine, sometimes nearer than I am to you, and sometimes a little further off—it was broad daylight—the prisoner was wearing a cap very much like mine, and a dark-coloured coat—this is the coat (Produced)—I am certain the prisoner is the man.
Prisoner. That is my cap and jacket.
Witness. I did not see where the prisoner came from—I was backing my engine, and I did not see them till I reversed my engine, and then I saw them running towards me.
JAMES ALGAR . I am flagman to the engine driven by Soames—on 18th January I saw some men running, one came towards me, the prosecutor was running after him and the prisoner after him—I saw him strike Clausen and knock him down in the road several times—the prisoner was wearing the same clothes as now, this is the coat—afterwards at the station I picked him out of five or six men.
FRANCES WEBBER . I am the wife of George Webber, a cabman—last Friday week I was working at a laundry about five minutes' walk from Customs House station—I went out of the laundry and saw the prisoner running after the prosecutor—he knocked him about, and the prosecutor went into a baker's, and three of the men went in and got him out, the prisoner was one—I said to him "You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, let the man alone," and I told the prosecutor to go to the station and I took him there—the prisoner was wearing a greenish coat with a velvet collar—this is the coat, and lie had a peak cap—the prosecutor complained of being robbed, he admitted not being sober—I am positive of the prisoner, I picked him out at the station that afternoon; he then had on a different coat and hat.
GEORGE BENBOW (178 K). On 18th January the prosecutor came to the station, he was drunk—from information he gave me I went with Constable Little—about half-past four I saw the prisoner standing against. the Lilliput public-house, in the same street as this occurred in—he was then wearing the same clothes he has on now—I took hold of him and said, "I want you"—he said, "What for?"—I said, "For robbing a man at the corner of this street this afternoon," and he said, "I know nothing about it"—I took him to the station, and about five o'clock I got five men together, and placed him with them in the yard, and he was identified.
Prisoner's defence. I admit knocking him about, not knowing he had been robbed—he hit me in the jaw, and I ran after him and hit him.
GUILTY .—He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Chelmsford, on January 3rd, 1893, and eight other convictions were proved against him.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Recorder.
HURLEY also PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in June, 1890, at this Court, and MARTIN** to one at West Ham Police-court in March, 1893.—HURLEY— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. MARTIN— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. DRAKE Prosecuted.
WILLIAM MILNER . I am a shedman in the employ of the Atlantic Line Company, and I have seen the prisoner working at the Royal Albert Dock; I saw him there on January 3rd—there were four cases in No. 22 shed, containing silk—the prisoner was working in the shed and on the quay—the cases were sound at 5 p.m., and at 5.30 I noticed that one was broken—the prisoner was not there—I sent for Mr. Brown, the superintendent.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I have not mistaken you for somebody else, I knew you.
By the JURY. The case had not been opened by the Customs.
RICHARD BROWN . I am superintendent of the Atlantic Transport Line—on January 3rd, Milner sent for me—I went into No. 22 shed and saw a large case open; part of the lid was torn away, not in the way the Customs would do it—four boxes were exposed to view; I took one of them out; they contained silk pocket handkerchiefs—the police showed me three silk handkerchiefs; I believe they are the same—four boxes were missing—I estimated them at about 2s. 6d., but the price is 1s. 6d. each.
STANLEY WILLIAM WESTLEY . I am foreman to the Atlantic Line—on January 3rd, I engaged the prisoner; he came on duty at ten o'clock and left at 5.30—he was working as far as I recollect in No. 32 shed.
Cross-examined. I have no doubt that I engaged you.
WALTER RICHARDSON. I am manager to Mr. Hammett, a pawnbroker, of Barking Road—on January 6th the prisoner brought these three silk handkerchiefs—he asked me to lend him 4s. on them—I saw a list that morning of handkerchiefs being stolen, and detained them, and gave him in custody—4s. was not too much for the lot—I would have lent more.
HERBERT GRACE (25 G). I am stationed at Plaistow—on the evening of January 6th, Mr. Hammett called me, and said in the prisoner's presence, "This man has tried to pledge these handkerchiefs. I have reason to believe they are stolen"—I said to the prisoner, "Where did you get them from?"—he said, "I brought them from Singapore three months ago"—I found 18s. 9d. on him—at the prisoner's request I went to his sister in the Mile End Road, who said that he had given her some handkerchiefs eighteen months ago, but they were quite different to these; they had three red stripes round the edges.
Prisoner's defence. They are my own goods which I brought home from abroad. I was at Singapore eighteen months. They were all different.
R. BROWN (Re-examined). The small boxes were in three packing cases of half-inch wood, very dry and short-grained—they would be very easily opened—iron was bound round them—the centre panel was raised up; that could easily be done with a chisel—these robberies were very rife last year, but this year we have only had three.
GUILTY . He was further charged with having been convicted of felony at the Thames Police-court, on March 25th, 1893.
Cross-examined. I have seen you in the East India Docks—I have not seen you since you were convicted.
GUILTY.— Six Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Common Sergeant.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted, and Mr. SANDS Defended.
JOHN SMITH . I am a sadler, of 2, Ashford Road, Walthamstow—on Christmas night at ten p.m. I was in the Coach and Horses public-house, Walthamstow, in conversation with two men—the prisoner came and struck me on my face, knocked me down, and kicked me on my left jaw,
which was broken, and I have been under medical attendance at the hospital.
Cross-examined. I said nothing to him and he said nothing to me—I do not know the names of the men I was talking to; they were wellborers—I did not see Mrs. Caro there; I will not swear she was not there—I made no remark on seeing him and his wife coming along—he did not say that he objected to my going with his wife—we did not fight, but we had a struggle—he attacked me first—I did not bite him that I know of; I may have, I was not in a condition to bite anybody after my jaw was fractured—I was walking about the day after, but my jaw swelled up so that I could not eat anything; I did not ascertain till some days afterwards that my jaw was fractured—Caro has never spoken to we about going with his wife, when he was away, or anybody else—I have drank with him at different public-houses—I have never been to her house—I was not at her house on the 12th—he goes up to London to act as a waiter, and I live at Walthamstow—I have not got a pony—I did not tell the Magistrate that I was kicked by a pony on the 26th.
ARTHUR RAPSON (Detective N). On January 1st, at 3.30 p.m., I took the prisoner on a warrant, which I read to him—he said, "He should not have gone with my wife"—he never suggested that he had not done it.
Cross-examined. I have known him some time; he bears the character of a peaceable man.
WILLIAM MURRAY . I am house-surgeon at Tottenham Hospital—Smith came there on December 27th at three o'clock; he had a compound fracture of the left side of his lower jaw—it was consistent with this having happened on the 26th—considerable violence had been used by a blow of some kind. (MR. SANDS requested that the prisoner might make his own statement, to which the COURT consented.)
The prisoner. On Christmas night me and my wife carne out at ten o'clock, and we had our supper, and this man said, "Good-night, good-night" to my mistress. I said, "What it the meaning of that?" and turned back, and we had words. He was intoxicated, and we went to words; he pulled up his foot, and I pulled up mine; we fell and two men picked us up. He bit me in two places on my hand. (Showing it.)
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY of a common assault. — To enter into his own recognizances.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
CHARLOTTE MITCHELL . I live with my husband at 38, Addy Street, Deptford, and collect the rents for some houses—the prisoner lived at No. 47 since November 11th at 3s. 6d. a week, or 7d. a night—I went to her on January 11th, and she gave me a florin; I had not got change, and said I would send it to her—I showed it to my husband—he gave it back to me, and I paid it to Mrs. Murphy the same night—she brought it back
the next morning; it was the same—I went to the prisoner's room at 7.30 a.m., but she was out; I went again at seven p.m., showed her the coin, and said it was bad—she said, "Is it? I know nothing about that. I have got plenty more of them; I found them at home under the mattress"—this is the same coin.
By the JURY. The room is only charged at six days to the week.
FLORENCE MURPHY . On January 12th Mrs. Mitchell paid me a florin—I put it on the mantelpiece by itself on Friday night, and on Saturday morning I gave it to my husband with another, a dark coin; this was a bright one.
ARTHUR MURPHY . On January 12th, I received two florins from my wife, one light and one dark—I went to a coal wharf, bought some coal, and gave the two florins to Leedharn, the clerk—he afterwards came and gave me both coins back—I took them to my wife, and she gave me some more money.
WILLIAM GOLL (264 R). On January 12th I went to 47, Addy Street, and saw the prisoner—I cautioned her, and told her I should take her in custody for passing bad money to Charlotte Mitchell—I made this rough note about three hours afterwards—she said, "I know it was, and I have got some more; I suppose you are going to search my room?"—I said, "Yes; I believe you have more"—she went towards the bed, and between the mattress and palliasse were several more pieces.
Prisoner's defence. I found the money under my bed, between the sacking and the bed. I did not know it was bad.
The COMMON SERJEANT considered that the coin was in the husband's possession, not the prisoner's.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HURRELL Prosecuted, and MR. THOMPSON Defended.
GEORGE WINFIELD (10 R). On 27th December I was on duty in Deptford High Street—there was a disturbance, some men were about to tight, we parted them, and they left—the prisoner remained and used very bad language—he was the worse for drink—I told him he could not be allowed to use such language—he went away, and returned and made a blow at me with his fist—I went on one side and Knight closed with him, and called out, "I am stabbed"—I saw blood on Knight's neck behind his right ear—I seized the prisoner, threw him to the ground, and held him, with an open knife in his right hand, an ordinary pocket-knife—he struggled very violently, and my little finger was cut—I had to leave go of his hand, and lost the knife—it was found closed in his left vest pocket at the station—I blew my whistle, and assistance came—he said, "I will kill every f—policeman in Deptford"—I was present when the knife was found—there was blood on the blade and on the handle too.
Cross-examined. I did not see a clay pipe in his hand—a postman came and attempted to take the knife away, but he was able to close it
and put it in his pocket while I was struggling with him—it was not the stem of a clay pipe—he rolled me over two or three times in the road—I went back to the place and looked for the knife, but did not find it—it was found in his pocket two or three minutes afterwards—he is a hardworking dock labourer.
Re-examined. Knight was struggling with him about a second; nobody else was near.
MARK KNIGHT (426 R). On December 27th, about 11.45, I was in High Street, Deptford, and saw the prisoner and three others quarrelling and wanting to fight, and causing a disturbance—Winfield and I tried to get them to go, and three left, but the prisoner remained—we again requested him to go; he used very disgusting language and walked about five yards and turned round, rushed at Winfield, and attempted to strike him—I closed with him; he seized me round my neck and said, "Take that"—I felt a severe blow behind my ear; I staggered and fell—I got up again and saw Winfield struggling on the ground with the prisoner—I found blood rushing from my neck, and said, "Mind the knife, George; he has stabbed me"—the prisoner said, "Yes; and I will kill every b—policeman that is in Deptford"—I went to Winfield's assistance as well as I could, and saw a knife in the prisoner's hand—I held his wrist and tried to take it away, but I fell back exhausted and had to be carried to Dr. Du Cane close by—I have not recovered yet; I have only returned to duty this morning—I still feel pain when I turn my head—this is the knife (Produced).
Cross-examined. I have not done duty of any kind up to to-day—when I closed with the prisoner he had his right arm out straight, and he must have had the knife in his hand—I did not see him smoking a short clay pipe, nor did I hear about one—I fainted from exhaustion—when I was struck I did not know he had anything in his hand, but I said "Mind the knife," because I felt the blood.
WILLIAM NEWNHAM . I am a postman, of 8, May Bank Cottages, Lewisham—on December 27th, about 10.45 p.m., I was in High Street, Deptford, and heard a police whistle—I went to see what it was, and saw Knight with his hand to his ear, which was bleeding—he had the prisoner on the ground, with a knife in his hand—I did not see it, but it cut my finger, and I was kicked on my back—I went with the prisoner to the station.
Cross-examined. The cut was across my little finger—it could not have been produced by a nail or a pin—it was clean—I did not see a pipe or the remains of a broken pipe on the ground—when I tried to get hold of his hand it was closed; there was blood on his hand, which caused it to slip—when I went up Knight said, "I am stabbed," and Winfield had the prisoner on the ground—the struggle lasted three or four minutes, but I saw no knife—a lot of constables came, but they could not find the knife—I went to the station and saw this knife found in the prisoner's breast pocket with blood on it, which is there now—they went to look for the knife before they searched him, and were away about half an hour; I do not think it was an hour before he was searched—I remained at the station the whole of the time—he was not put in a cell, he was in the room—Winfield searched him, and a sergeant was
present—it was in an inner room at the station—I was not asked before the Magistrate anything about the blood on the knife.
Cross-examined. Directly the charge was taken the prisoner was searched—he was held by two constables and the knife was found in his breast pocket—I had a search made by two constables while he was being conveyed to the station, but I was at the station as soon as he was—as soon as I came back the charge was taken—I mentioned about the blood before the Magistrate—the stains are there now; but they were different then—Newnham is wrong if he says that half an hour or more elapsed before the knife was found.
W. NEWNHAM (Re-examined). I say that the prisoner waited half an hour at the station before he was searched.
EDGAR DU CANE , M. B. I am a bachelor of surgery of the Royal University of Ireland, and practice at Evelyn Street, Deptford—Knight was brought to me on December 27th about midnight, bleeding severely from a wound behind his right ear, an inch deep at least—I probed it—it was in a very dangerous place; it severed one of the branch arteries—without medical assistance death might have happened—I could not tie the artery and had to place a ligature round it—it penetrated to the bone—it was inflicted by a sharp instrument—his right ear had a small cut on it—I saw the knife; it was bloody, and a small portion of bone was adhering to it—the blow must have been inflicted with considerable force; it had penetrated the muscle before it wounded the artery—it may paralyze his sight, and probably his hearing.
Cross-examined. The wounds could not have been inflicted with the stem of a clay pipe.
MR. HURRELL stated that he would not press the charge of felonious wound ing
GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. He received a good character.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
218. ARTHUR TUCKER (30), and ROBERT WILLIAMS (21) , breaking and entering St. Saviour's Church, Lambeth, and stealing a corkscrew the property of Alfred Brown, and two keys, the property of Bell and another.
MR. WALLACE Prosecuted.
ALFRED BROWN . I am verger of St. John's Church, Herne Hill Road—on 21st December I left the church at two p.m. securely locked up; I went again next morning and found four alms-boxes broken open—the door I entered by was secure, but the door they made their exit by was unlocked—I found the safe open, and these keys were used, which had been taken out of a drawer in the vestry—I missed a small amount of money and a corkscrew from a drawer, which was unlocked—4s. or 5s. was the value of what was taken, including the money—I saw footmarks where they had entered by a window in the body of the church, and tied it up with a piece of string.
clothes, and saw the two prisoners acting in a very suspicious manner—we followed them for twenty minutes, and I stopped Tucker and said, "We have been watching you sometime, Tucker, what are you on the look-out for?"—he said, "Nothing"—Williams said, "I was going to ease myself"—I said, "What have you got about you!"—Tucker said, "You can't b—well search me"—I seized him and we both fell to the ground—Williams seized Mew by his throat and said, "Throw away them keys; they will do for us for another job"—Tucker took these keys from his pocket and threw them away; a gentleman picked them up and gave them to me—with assistance we took them to the station—in the struggle I saw Williams kick Mew twice on his right side—on January 16th they were charged, and Tucker said, "I don't know anything about it, and don't want to"—Williams said, "I know nothing about it. I did not know there had been a burglary at this church."
ADBERT MEW (404 W). I arrested Williams as a suspected person, loitering for the purpose of committing felony—he walked quietly at first, and then threw me to the ground, and held me by the throat, and kicked me twice, and shouted, "Throw them keys away, Tucker, or they will do us for another job"—I have suffered great pain since in my side, and I had a black eye.
Cross-examined by Williams. I did not throw you to the ground, you threw me and kicked me; you said you were not going with me to the station.
Tucker's statement before the Magistrate:"I know nothing about the keys."
GUILTY . They had both been before convicted of burglary. TUCKER— Four Years' Penal Servitude : WILLIAMS— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
220. FREDERICK CHARLES HARPER (24), PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Walton, and stealing various articles therein; also to stealing a watch and other things, the goods of Annie Sparrow, in the dwelling-house of James Levy; also** to a conviction of felony in October, 1892.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. And
221. RICHARD OAKLEY (21), and CHARLES RICHARDS (20) , to burglary in the house of Francis Bertram Cunningham, and stealing a paper-knife, a spoon, and four postage labels, his goods; Oakley having been convicted at Southwark Police-court on January 31st, 1893.— Six Months' Hard Labour each. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
Before. Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. PICKERSGILL Prosecuted,
lodging-house—he stopped a man and produced something from his pocket; there was a light, and it glistened—I was in plain clothes, with three other officer—he went into the lodging-house—we went in and asked him to come outside, and asked him if he had a watch on him—he said "Yes, I found it," and gave it to me—there are two names on it, "George S. Elliott. Presented to him on his 21st birthday by his affectionate father, William Elliott, hoping he may hand it to as good a son."—I also found this American dollar on the prisoner; it has been used as a pin; also these two George the Third sixpences—he said, "I found them all together, but I cannot say where."
Cross-examined by the prisoner. Mrs. Ward did not give me information, nor did I give her sixpence next day; I do not know her.
WILLIAM WATERS (393: M). I was with Thornton in the Borough Road, about 12.45 a.m., and saw the prisoner near a lodging-house—he had something bright in his hand, showing it to another man, who walked away, and the prisoner walked into the lodging-house.
Cross-examined. I did not get any information from Mrs. Ward; I do not know her.
WILLIAM ELLIOTT I am a refreshment contractor, of 2, High Street, Islington—a communication was made to me, and I missed a gold watch from a drawer in my bedroom, which was kept locked—I had seen it safe within a week; I did not wear it—the drawer had been broken open and closed again—my bedroom is on the second floor; the ground floor is a restaurant, and there are public rooms on the first floor—I never lock my bedroom door—I value the watch at £10; it was given to me by my father and belonged to-his father—I do not know the prisoner—any person might step upstairs from the first floor.
ANNIE ELLIOTT . I am a sister of the last witness, and live in his house—the American dollar which has been converted into a brooch is mine, and was in a box in my bedroom—I had not worn it for years, and do not know when I saw it last—I usually keep my bedroom door locked, but not always.
Prisoner's defence. I have never been in the hotel at all. I know where it is. I was going to Kingsland and picked this parcel up in the gutter and put it in my pocket.
MR. PICKERSGILL Prosecuted.
THOMAS BEAN . I am an omnibus timekeeper, of 4, Matt Street, Old Kent Road—on July 13th, shortly after midnight, I was in Great Dover street, and all of a sudden I had a smash on my left temple, from somebody standing at the door of a chemist's shop—it sent me reeling into the gutter on the ground—I got up and the prisoner and three more surrounded me—there was a lamp there—the prisoner was in front of me—he caught me by my throat, and my collar and tie gave way—we fell three times and got up again, the prisoner holding me, all the time struggling—the other three men were hitting and kicking me from behind, and the fourth time I fell they kicked me about my body and head—the prisoner knelt on my chest, and I could see his face perfectly well—he took my
watch and chain, and then gave some signal, and the three men ran down Shallow Street—the prisoner then hit me twice on my throat, and kicked me three times on my left jaw, which was dislocated, and my ribs were injured—I rolled in the gutter and became insensible—when I returned to consciousness two constables were standing over me—I next saw the prisoner yesterday fortnight at Southwark Police-court with twelve other men, and identified him at once—I had never seen him before July 13th—I gave a description of him the same night—I am certain he is the man—I was taken to Guy's Hospital, they bandaged me up, and a constable saw me home—I was an out-patient for a week, and after that I had Dr. Duncan—I was away from work seven weeks.
RICHARD BEARD (134 M). On January 14th I had received a description, and placed the prisoner in the waiting-room with twelve other men—he was in custody on the other charge—I had searched the Felony book—the prisoner was told to place himself where he liked—some of the men were prisoners—Bean walked in, looked round, walked up to the prisoner, and placed his hand on his shoulder without any hesitation, and said, "That, is the man"—I had not told the prisoner what he was charged with—I then said, "You will be charged with highway robbery with violence on this person"—he said, "He has made a mistake"—the Inspector then charged him in the charge-room, and he said, "I was not this side of the water on that date"—Dr. Duncan is not here.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. The twelve men were in a row; they were not mostly boys.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "All that I know is I was looking after a job, as I had got a licence as a conductor, and was living at 62, Acton Street, Gray's Inn Road. I wish to call witnesses."
RICHARD BEARD (Re-examined). Only two witnesses were examined at the Police-court, and then he was remanded for a week, when witnesses were called, but they did not answer—he did not ask for the case to be remanded that he might call them.
Prisoner's defence. On July 13th, I was at Mr. Thomas's all the evening. I borrowed 5s. of him and got this license the next morning at Scotland Yard; it is dated July 14th. I never was on this side of the water at all. My witnesses are John and Charles Wood, brothers, of 62, Acton Street, and Frederick Thomas, of the Merlin's Cave, Margaret Street, Clerkenwell. A friend told me that Mr. Wood came here this morning and was sent away. A friend told me that I should not be tried to-day; that there was no sitting of the Court. (An adjournment for half an hour, here took place while two constables went for the prisoner's witnesses.)
Witness for the Defence.
By the COURT. He was not a lodger; I am a lodger—I occupy two rooms—I am not married—me and my brother and the prisoner all occupied the same bed—sometimes he would be out all day and sometimes he would come home at ten o'clock or twelve or one—he had a key, and sometimes came home when I was asleep—we always knew when he came in, because he used to wake us up—I cannot tell at what time he returned home on July 13th; I do not think: it was as late as one o'clock—I have
not been here before to-day till I was fetched by the policeman—nobody here told me that there was no Court sitting', or my brother—I was asked on Saturday evening to come, but I could not leave my work.
The COURT called.
GUILTY .—. Nine Months' Hard Labour on the first indictment, and Twelve Months' on the second, to, run concurrently, and Twenty-five Strokes with the Cat. The COURT commended the conduct of the officers in both cases.
224. CHARLES AUGUSTUS JACOBS (60), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining £13 10s. from Charles Dash, £5 10s. from James Wyburn, and £2 from Charles Thompson, by false pretences.— Six Months' Hard Labour. And.
225. JOHN CARPENTER (20) , to robbery with others on James Glazebrook, and stealing a watch and chain, his property. He received a good character.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25TH, 1895.