CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
TWELFTH SESSION, HELD OCTOBER 24TH, 1898.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ., Q.C.,
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
INCLUDING CASES COMMITTED TO THIS COURT UNDER ORDER IN COUNCIL, PURSUANT TO WINTER ASSIZE ACTS OF 1879.
Held on Monday, Oct. 24th, 1898, and following days,
BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. HORATIO DAVID DAVID, M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAN, Knt., one of the Justices of the High Court; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., M.P., Sir DAVID EVANS , Knt., Aldermen of the said City; Sir CHARLES HALL , K.C.M.G., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Esq., Sir JAMES THOMPSON RITCHIE , Knt., WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., GEORGE WYATT TRUSCOTT , Esq., JOHN CHARLES BELL , Esq., RICHARD PRATT ALLISTON, Esq., JOHN KNILL , Esq., and THOMAS VESEY STRONG , Esq., other Aldermen of the said City; and Sir FORREST FULTON, Q.C., Knt., 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.
RICHARD CLARENCE HALSK, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
DAVIES, MAYOR. TWELFTH 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, October 24th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
This being the first Session at which the Criminal Evidence Act, 61 and 62 Vic., c. 36, allowing prisoners, to give evidence on oath in their defence, came into operation in this Court, the COMMON SERJEANT in his address to the GRAND JURY explained the provisions of the Act, and the node of proceeding under it.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
ALICE STEVENTON . I help my mother at a stationer's shop, which she keeps at 58, Wells Street, Oxford Street—I was serving in the shop on the evening of September 3rd—the prisoner came in about nine o'clock, and asked for three packets of Woodbine cigarettes, price 3d.—I served him and he gave me this 5s. piece—I gave him the change, 4s. 9d.—he then left—I put the crown in the till at once—I had no other there—I afterwards took it out of the till, and put it into a box the same night; there was no other crown piece there—when we went to pay a bill I found it was bad—on September 8th I went to Marlborough Street Police-station, and picked out the prisoner from several other men—I have known him about three or four years by sight—I gave the crown piece to the constable.
EVELYN MAUD BROWN . I am a barmaid at the Wheatsheaf public-house in Rathbone Place—I was serving there on September 5th about 11 p.m.—the prisoner came in and asked for some bitter and a 2d. cigar served him and he gave me half-a-crown in payment—I thought it—I was bad—I took it to the manager, Mr. Weston, and he sent for a police-man, and the prisoner was taken into custody.
he got it from, he made no reply—I sent for a constable and gave him into custody. The coin I gave to the constable.
GEORGE HOPWOOD (395 D). I was called to this public-house and found the prisoner detained—Mr. Weston said, "This man has uttered this half-crown piece over my bar, and I give him into custody"—the prisoner made no reply—I searched him there, and found 9s. in silver on him—I took him to the station, where the charge was read over to him—he said he had been to some sports at Putney, and had had a bet with a bookmaker, who must have given him the money—he gave an address—I received this coin from Mr. Weston.
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: I am not guilty. I got the bad half-crown at St. Crispin's Sports from a bookmaker.
The prisoner, desiring to give evidence on oath, went into the witness-box.
WALTER CLARKE (The prisoner was then sworn). I live at No. 2 Flat 9 and 10, Bolsover Street, Portland Place—I went to the races on Saturday—I had a lot of bets on every race—I came home with £3 10s.—I was a little the worse for drink—I went into Mrs. Steventon's, so she says, at 9 p.m.—she says I tendered her a bad five-shilling piece—I do not remember going into the shop at all—on Monday, the 5th, I went to Putney sports with my brother and four other men, and I bet on a man I know personally, and he won three events—I must have got the half-crown off a bookmaker, or else at the refreshment bar—we all came back at night about ten or eleven in a van—the club is held in Rathbone Place, and I went into the public-house and put down the bad half-crown, but I did not know it was bad—I pulled out the first coin I got hold of—I have lived round that neighbourhood for close on sixteen years, and I am known round there as honest and respectable and bard-working—I would not tender bad money at a place whore I was known; Mrs. Steventon has known me for twelve years—I am always with her son.
Cross-examined. I was at Kemp ton Park on the Saturday by myself; I made the bets with a bookmaker named George Kemp—he is not here; I was at Putney on Monday—my brother was with me when I was arrested—he did not attend at the Police-court; I have lived round there for more-than sixteen years—I am known as honest and hard-working was convicted of being a suspected person on November 9th;—I I got three months' hard labour—I have been at work since I have been out of prison, and I left in consequence of the dangerous work I had to do.
GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
The police stated that the prisoner was an associate of thieves and bore a bad character.
656. CHARLES JOHNSON (67), BERTRAM WALSHAW (20), and DAVID MEAGAN (18) , to unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin. Johnson having been before convicted of a like offence. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] JOHNSON— Five Years' Penal Servitude. WALSHAW— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. MEAGAN— To enter into Recognizances.
NEW COURT.—Monday, October 24th, and
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, October 25th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
JAMES SCOTT (Police Sergeant). About I a.m., on September 30th, I went with Sergeant Williamson to Great Peter Street, Westminster, to a first floor room which was locked—we forced the door and saw the two prisoners in bed—we found twenty-five counterfeit half-crowns in two different places, two files with metal in the teeth, a ladle with metal adhering to it, this galvanic battery for silvering the coins, and some acid—they were in a bag which was not locked under the bed—I searched a cupboard and found plaster-of-paris and sand—I asked Dean to account for them—he said that a few days ago he met a man who asked him to mind the bag and brought it there, and it had never been opened, and he did not know the man—Smith said, "I am not married to him, I only live with him."
WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (Police Sergeant). I was with Scott—I asked the prisoners what account they had to give—they were both sitting up in bed, and she said, "Harry, I told you what this would come to"; he made no reply—they were taken to Rochester Row Station, where she pointed to him, and said, "This man brought that bag into my room"—he made no reply—Scott said, "Who did you get the bag from?"—he said, "An old man, a stranger"—they both used awful language.
Cross-examined by Smith. You said, "God blind me!" and when you said it you hit him with your elbow—nothing was said about the key of the bag.
ROSINA MATHEWS . I am deputy for 23, Great Peter Street—at the beginning of August I let the first-floor front to the prisoners as a married couple—they remained till the police arrested them—Smith was always hard at work in the room, or washing in the yard—I saw Dean most days—if he went hopping it was only for a day or two.
WILLIAM BURNHAM (Detective Officer). I know Johnson, Walsham, and Aleagan (See above)—on August 11th we followed Johnson to the Rose and Crown, Soho—the woman Smith joined him—they went through several turnings, and met Dean and another man—we followed them to 23, Great Peter Street—the two prisoners stopped in Birdcage Walk, and Dean said, "Is that you, Harry? All right"—on September 13th we followed Johnson to Great Peter Street—he looked at his watch once or twice, and Smith came out—I saw them again together on August 13th and 20th, and repeatedly—on September 29th I went to a butcher's shop in Spring Street, and received a half-crown; I also went to the post-office in Lancaster Street and received another
half-crown—I am told that the old man is one of the best makers of counterfeit coin.
Cross-examined by Dean. I saw you meet Johnson in Red Lion Square on August 20th—you went down Southampton Row, and walked back, and Johnson and the other man went into Bloomsbury Square and remained three-quarters of an hour looking about.
Cross-examined by Smith. I did not ask you for the key of the bag; it was not locked, but I thought it was—it was strapped at both ends.
MISS LISTER. I am assistant at the post-office in Lancaster Street—on September 29th Walsham gave me a bad half-crown; I put it aside, and afterwards gave it to Burnham.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of coin to Her Majesty's Mint—these twenty-five half-crowns are counterfeit, and from two different moulds; the two coins uttered by Meagan and Walsham are from one mould—these sixteen half-crowns are from the same mould; the half-crowns Johnson threw away are from the same mould as these—all these articles are part of the stock in trade of a maker of counterfeit coin—there are no moulds, but here is plaster-of-paris.
THOMAS KIRK ROSE . I am a doctor of science of the Royal Mint—this galvanic battery might be used for coining but for no other purpose; this acid might be used to charge the battery—one of these coins has been plated, which could be done by this battery.
Evidence for the Defence.
Cross-examined. The bag first came to the room on the Tuesday—I was not curious enough to open it—I have been in Johnson's company—he did not come to the house where I live on August 13th—he has never been to my place to my knowledge—I may have seen him at the Rose and Crown on August 16th—we talked about nothing particular—I do not know whether I was in his company again on August 18th—I have never seen Meagan before—I did not see him at the Elephant and Castle public-house, Great Peter Street, but I saw Walsham there once—Johnson did not go into my room that day, he has never been there to my knowledge—I never said, "I knew it would come to this"—I said, "Oh, Harry, Harry, what have we come to?"—I did not say at the station, pointing to Dean, "This man brought the bag into my room "; I do not know whether he brought it in or cot—he has been living there regularly.
Dean, in his defence, stated that a man whose name he did not know asked him to mind the bag from Saturday to Monday; that he took it how, and Smith knew nothing about it, and that the landlady could state that he had the plaster-of-paris to mend a glass bowl and several other things.
R. MATHEWS (Re-examined). I never saw him mending anything with plaster-of-paris.
DEAN**— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
SMITH— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted, and MR. STEWART Defended.
WILLIAM JOHN CLAPCOTT CLAM EN . I am a chemist, of 73, Prince of Wales Road, Kentish Town—on September 14th, about 5.15, I served the prisoner with a cake of soap; he gave me half-a-crown from a purse—I gave him the change, and put it on the counter; it blackened my finger, and I put it in the scale and found it bad—it was very light—I ran after him and overtook him in Chalk Farm Road walking with another man—I said, "You have given me a bad half-crown"—he said, "I am very sorry, I will give you another in exchange," and gave me a good one from a purse, and I gave him the bad one back—about ten days afterwards I picked him out at the Police-court.
Cross-examined. At first I did not examine it—I went after him, and found him with a respectable-looking individual—I had the bad half-crown in my hand—I handed it to him, and he took it, and said, "I am very sorry," and took another out of his purse.
JOHN CHARLES MEACHER . I am a chemist, of 61, Stroud Green Road—on September 24th, about two o'clock, I served the prisoner with a cake of soap—he gave me a half-crown—I gave him the change and he left—I tried it again, and found it was bad, and sent a man after him—he was brought back—I told him it was bad, and returned it to him, and he gave me a good one, which I think he took from his waistcoat pocket—that was before Mr. Allen arrived.
Cross-examined. When the prisoner was in the shop I said, "I think this is a bad one"—he said nothing then—I said, "I think this is a good half-crown"—I rang it, and tried to bend it, but could not, but I did afterwards—I discovered that it was bad about half a minute after he left.
HERBERT PLANTREE ALLEN . I am a hosier of Stroud Green Road, about 100 yards from Mr. Meacham—on September 24th, about 1.45, the prisoner came in and pointed to a tie, price 6 1/2 d.—he gave me a half-crown and I gave him the change and put the coin on top of a pile of half-crowns on my desk—I had a doubt about it, and after he left I looked at it and found it was bad—I went up the road on my bicycle and saw Mr. Meacham directing a man to go after somebody—I went on and overtook the prisoner just as the man was tapping him on the shoulder—I followed them and went into Mr. Meacham's shop and said that he had passed a bad half-crown on me as well—the prisoner was very excited, he said that he must have taken the money somewhere else—I sent for a constable and handed him the half-crown which I marked right across the neck.
Cross-examined. He said, referring to both coins, that he must have taken them somewhere else.
uttering counterfeit coin and said, "A lot of fuss has been made about nothing"—I searched him in the shop and found a good half-crown, two good florins, and threepence, and a bad half-crown in the same pocket—he pulled a purse out of one pocket which contained 30s. in gold—I found no tie on him.
H. P. ALLEN (Re-examined). Neither of these coins is the one I marked.
H. P. ALLEN (Re-examined). This is not the one I gave him nor is the other, but I remember the way I marked it—(MR. WEBSTER here stated that there was a mark across the Queen's head).—this is not the mark I made.
Evidence for the Defence.
JACQUES VAN DE BERGE (The prisoner). I am a Dutch subject—I have been resident in England two years—I am a cabinet maker, in partnership with Jacques Cox—Mrs. D. Swart knows me—I do not recollect the dates, but about two months ago I was buying some soap at a shop for a 2s. 6d. piece—a gentleman came after me, caught my shoulder, and said the money was no good—he had the money in his hand—I took it, gave him another for it, and put it in my pocket—on a Saturday I paid for a 6 1/2 d. tie in a shop in the Seven Sisters Road with a 2s. 6d. piece—I received my change, 1s. 11 1/2 d.—I had walked about three times the length of this Court—Mr. Meacham said the coin looked a little bad, but he tried it, and said, "I am sorry; it is all right"—I was called back by a working man and a little boy to the chemist's shop—when I bought the tie this gentleman came, and said, "You gave me a bad half-crown as well"—I was surprised and offered him another piece, but Mr. Meacham, the chemist, said that would not do—he made a little noise, and said, "We will call the police; you stop here"—two policemen came—it was not the first policeman's section—he looked at the coin—then Hath way came, and I was glad, because they were insulting me in the chemist's shop, and he had in his and the half-crown from the gentleman I bought the tie of—I was searched—I had a pound, a ten-shilling piece in my purse, and a good half-crown, a sixpenny piece and 3d. in coppers—I was told I should have to go the station—there was a crowd, and I was ashamed, and asked if I could go in a cab—the policeman said, "Yes, if you pay for it"—I said, "All right"—I told the policeman it was a lot of trouble for a little matter—this is the first time I have been in such a situation—I gave my address, 10, Whitfield Street—I was asked that by the policeman—that is my landlady's, Mrs. Swart's, address.
Cross-examined. I gave my business address as well—several miles from home I recollected I wanted some soap when I saw it—I was alone—I might have asked the way, but I was by myself—no one was with me when I left Mr. Clamen's shop—I took the soap home in my pocket—it is there now—I went to Stroud Green Road from Portland Street Station—I met a young lady, and she gave me as a rendezvous Portland Street, about twelve—when I left her I intended to take a bath—I had to be in the neighbourhood ten days after, and bought another cake of
soap—I did not know the half-crown I gave Mr. Allen was bad—the soap is still in my pocket—the tie was not found, it must have been lost at the chemist's—I was also a long time at the police-station.
Re-examined. I have to seek business in Kentish Town and other parts of London—I go to Barker's, a shop like Shoolbred's—I go to Hampton's, of Pall Mall, Symon's. of Victoria Street, Westminster, and Holland's, Fletcher's, and other places for orders—I was searched by the two constables, and I took out what was in my pockets and helped the police.
JAMES HATHWAY (255 Y, Re-examined). The tie and soap were not found—the prisoner was searched once; I was present—another constable had been in the chemist's shop about a minute before I arrived—when I arrived I at once searched him; the other constable was present.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.
659. THOMAS BULLMAN** (40), PLEADED GUILTY to Stealing a watch, chain and seal, belonging to George Simpson, from his person, and to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in August, 1896, in the name of Thomas McCarthy.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
660. ALICE MILLER (28) , to Stealing a bracelet belonging to Frederick George William Gowling, and to a conviction of felony at Kingston, Surrey, in January, 1898.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM EDWARDS . I am a barman at the Angel and Crown public-house—I was serving there about 6.30 on October 9th—the prisoner came in and asked for stout and bitter, price 1 1/2 d.—he gave in payment a coin supposed to be a half sovereign—I took it to the manager, who came and spoke to the prisoner—he asked him where he got it—he said he had got it in exchange two hours previously in the street, from a baker—this is the coin (produced).
DAVID FARROW I am manager at the Angel and Crown—on October 9th the last witness brought me a coin—I saw the prisoner being served before that—I saw him come in the bar—the coin felt rather light, and I took it back to him, and said, "What do you call this?"—he said, "Half-a-sovereign"—I said, "No, it is not; it is a gilded sixpence"—I took my knife out and scraped the edge—he said he had got it from a baker, and he did not know where the man lived.
JAMES COLE (78 H). I was called to the Angel and Crown on the evening of October 9th, and found the prisoner detained there—Mr. Farrow handed me this coin, and said the prisoner had tendered it as half-a-sovereign—the prisoner said he got it from a man in the street—I
searched him and found on him 19 penny pieces and one halfpenny—he said that he met the man in the street, who said he wanted half-a-sovereign's worth of silver, and he gave the prisoner the half-sovereign—this was two hours previously—he was taken to the station and charged—all he said was all right.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate;"If I am remanded for a day I can call the man who gave it me, and three witnesses who saw me do so."
The prisoner desired to give evidence.
EMANUEL POWELL (The prisoner was then sworn). I am a Pole, and a tailor by business—I left work at 4.15 and went to get a shave, and was going to London by the 7.15 train, but I lost it, and came by the nine o'clock one—I went with a friend to sleep, and I went out—I had 15s. 6d. in silver—I was walking along when this man asked me if I had half-a-sovereign's worth of silver—I said, "Give me the half-sovereign"—he did so, and I gave him the silver—I spent the silver, and then, as I wanted a drink, I put down the half-sovereign—they said it was a gilded sixpence.
Cross-examined. On October 9th I was lodging at 44, Sidney Street—I only got the coin about 4 30 that afternoon—I had 15s. 6d. altogether—I had spent the 5s. 6d.—I don't know my friends' names, I only know their first names—I do not know where they live.
GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
JOHN EDWARDS . I keep a confectioner's shop at 105, Seymour Place, Marylebone—on October 7th the prisoner came into my shop about 12,20 a.m.—he asked for a bottle of ginger beer, price 1d.—I served him—he gave me a good shilling—I gave him a sixpence and 5d. in coppers—he stood in the same place at the end of the shop—I went to serve another customer, and as I was doing so he called me to the end of the shop and said, "You have made a mistake, you have given me a bad sixpence—that was not more than a minute after I had given him the change—this is the coin (produced)—I told him the coin I gave him was a good one—he still protested, and I told him to call a constable—he said "No, I won't do that"—I said as he would not I would—he asked for the coin—I said "No"—I sent for a policeman to charge him with ringing the change on me—I went to the door, leaving the prisoner and the customer in the shop—I came back and said I did not know what to do, and I said either he ought to apologise or I should have to see a constable, and he said he was sorry and hoped I should not upset myself as he had a wife and children—a constable came in and I explained the case to him in the prisoner's presence—I gave the coin to the constable—it is a silvered farthing—on the same afternoon I found another coin in the corner, the same place where the prisoner had been (produced)—I went to the station and after that to the Police-court—on the same evening four other coins were handed to me by my sister—I gave them to the police.
jeweller's assistant—I was in Mr. Edwards' shop on this day and saw the prisoner there—I heard a conversation between him and Mr. Edwards.
WALTER REYNOLDS . I live at 14, Seymour Buildings, Marylebone, and am an errand boy employed by Mr. Edwards—on this day I was dusting the shop and found on a shelf there four coins behind a board (produced)—I gave them to Miss Edwards.
JOHN MOORE (146 D). On October 7th I was called to Mr. Edwards shop and found the prisoner detained there—he was given into my custody—I searched him and found on him 2s. in silver, 1s. and two sixpences—Mr. Edwards gave me a silver farthing—I said to the prisoner "Did this man give you this coin"—he said "No, I don't know where I got it from, I do not wish to say anything more about it"—I gave the coin to the inspector—I afterwards went to his lodgings and made a search—I found this coin in a small tin box—it is a penny piece silvered on one side and gilded on the other.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of coin to Her Majesty's Mint—all these small coins are farthings very rudely brushed over with silver paint, not plated at all—the other coin is an old penny, and a similar thing has been done to that.
The prisoner desired to give evidence.
WALTER MILLS (The prisoner was then sworn). I entered the shop for a penny bottle of ginger beer, and he gave me the change, and I had some other silver in my hand—when he asked if I would call a policeman I said I was not sure—he did not give me any time to make a statement, but rushed out of the door and got a policeman—the policeman asked me if I gave him the sixpence, and I said "Yes, I did"—I must have picked it off the counter.
Cross-examined. I was living at 2, Leyton Crescent; my little brother brought the penny home—he is not here; he knew the little boy who did it.
GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.
667. GEORGE MANN (54) to Stealing a Post Office bank book of Harry Gordon, also to forging and uttering a notice of withdrawal, having been before convicted.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Six Months' Hard Labour.
668. WILLIAM HENRY MORGAN (24) to Stealing while employed in the Post Office two post letters, the property of H. M. Post master General— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Ten Months' Hard Labour.
669. FREDERICK MURRAY (28) and THOMAS SMITH (24) to Breaking and entering the warehouse of Alfred Gurlock, and stealing three boxes of cigars and other articles, Smith having been before convicted. Four similar convictions were proved against Smith. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] MURRAY.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. SMITH— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
670. JAMES BRAITHWATTE (23) , to Breaking and entering the warehouse of Philip Normanand others, and stealing 29 pairs of boots, his property— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
672. JOHN GRAHAM (23) and ALFRED JAMES (22) , to Breaking and entering the counting-house of the Koko Marescopas Company, and stealing postage stamps and orders, their property, and having both been before convicted. Other convictions were proved against them. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] GRAHAM— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour , JAMES— Three Years' Penal Servitude And
673. GEORGE PERCY GILL (29) , to Stealing £4 4s, of H. Pontifex and Sons, his masters; also to stealing £4 4s., £2, and £3 of his said masters; also to stealing £15, £3, and £3 of his said masters; also to falsifying certain accounts of his said masters.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday and Wednesday, October 25th and 26th, 1898.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MESSRS. C. F. GILL and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted, and MESSRS. J. P, GRAIN and P. GRAIN Defended.
The evidence in this case (one of procuring abortion) is not of a nature for publication.
GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY.— DEATH.
(For other cases tried on these days see Surrey cases.)
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, October 25th, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
675. GEORGE WILLIAMS (21) PLEADED GUILTY to robbery on Henry Bond, and stealing a watch-chain and match-box, his property, having been convicted at Worship Street on June 29th, 1898.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
676. CHARLES MAC COLLA (39) to four Indictments for stealing bags, portmanteaus, and other articles of the Brighton and the South Eastern Railway Companies. (DR. SCOTT, medical officer of Holloway Gaol, stated that he considered the prisoner to be of impaired intellect, and DR. PERCY CHATTERTON , of Falcon Square, City, that he was temporarily insane, and that having had sunstroke and malarial fever the least amount of alcohol would affect him.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. And
MR. HADDON Prosecuted.
JESSIE AMIES . I am single and live at Castlemaine—on September 21st, about 3 p.m., I was in Fleet Street—Johnson's Court was on my left, and I saw the prisoners—Cannon came up and snatched my watch and chain from my belt, but some one returned it to me afterwards—it was worth £2 10s.—I informed the police, and on October 1st I recognised the three prisoners in the dock at the Mansion House—I am satisfied that they are the men—Cannon asked me at the Mansion House if he was not the man who picked up the watch—I said that he was not.
Cross-examined by Johnson. There was nothing in you to attract my attention—I saw you all three quite well—I was at the Mansion House ten minutes before I saw you in the dock, and the detective said, "Those three men who stole your chain will be placed in the dock directly." and that I was to pick them out when they came up.
Mr. HADDON here withdrew from the prosecution.
NOT GUILTY .
CHARLES EDWIN BENNETT . I am an omnibus conductor, of 16, Ewell Road, Fulham—on October 4th, just before 1 a.m., I had just left my brother, and the prisoner grabbed at my watch chain, and threw it over an area and knocked me down—I stuck to him—a policeman came and I gave him in charge—he never got out of my sight; I am sure of that—I had been drinking a little, but I knew perfectly well what I was doing.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You were at the corner of Hilton Street—I was by myself—I did not say at the Police-station that there were other men with me—you threw the watch and chain away when you found you could not get away—I did not hit you with a stick—my ear was bleeding.
JOHN LLOYD (195 B). On the morning of October 4th I. was on duty—heard shouts of "Police! "and found Bennett covered with mud and blood—he said that the prisoner had robbed him of a watch and chain and thrown them down an area—the prisoner was five yards from him and Bennett was running after him—I am sure of that—another constable came—we took him to the station and searched him and found this part of a horseshoe—he was charged and said, "You have made a very fine mistake this time"—Bennett had been drinking but knew very well what he was about, he could walk and run properly—he was bleeding a great deal—his clothes were muddy—it was a dry night, but there had been a water cart, and a man who was knocked down would be dirty.
Cross-examined. Bennett had not hold of you when I went up, you were four or five yards from him—he pointed you out as the man who Had stolen his watch and chain—several respectable people were passing.
Witnesses for the Defence.
JOHN NORMALLY (The prisoner) I was coming home and a gentleman fell down and said "I have hurt my hand"—I said, "I will go with you to the hospital"—I did so and I showed the doctor my leg, which I injured at the same time. I bade him good night, and in Grosvenor Place
the prosecutor came and hit me with a stick and sat on the ground—I said, "Are you going mad, or what is the matter with you? "He said "You stole my watch and chain. "I said, "Are you mad?" and the policeman came up. The man was the worse for drink, and he ought to have been locked up.
Cross-examined. I was walking quietly down the street, and the prosecutor deliberately struck me on my shoulder with a stick—he came across from the opposite side of the road—when he struck me I walked across the road and asked him what he did it for—I remained perfectly passive; I told the constable—I did not run away; I was walking after Bennett—he was staggering.
JOHN LLOYD (Re-examined). The prisoner made no complaint that Bennett had struck him—he asked me at the Police-court whether he said that Bennett struck him with a stick, and I said "No"—when Bennett gave him in custody he did not say anything about being truck.
Prisoner's defence. It was one o'clock when I came out of the hospital, and this man hit me with a stick on my shoulder.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Westminster Police-court of robbery from the person.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, October 27th, 1898.
Before Mr. Justice Bigliam.
SAMUEL DOUGHTY (Sergeant 36 G R). On Saturday, the 1st of this month. I was on duty at Wilmer Gardens, Kingsland Road—James Baldwin, police-constable, was on fixed point duty about nine o'clock at night—it was his duty to remain on duty there till one o'clock on the 3rd—if there was any disturbance in the neighbourhood near Ware Street it would be his duty to leave the fixed point and go towards it—I was on duty in Kingsland Road about ten minutes past twelve—I saw Baldwin there, at the corner of Wilmer Gardens—there were a number of people in Kingsland Road, about four yards from the corner of Wilmer Gardens—there is a public-house at the corner—the people were standing on this side of Wilmer Gardens, near the street lamp at the corner—there were about six or seven of them—Baldwin was about four yards from me, at the corner of Wilmer Gardens—I saw the prisoner there wrangling with Baldwin—I went up to where they were, and said to the prisoner, "Old chap, we don't want no trouble with you, get out of it"—he turned and went down Wilmer Gardens—he was alone at that time—Baldwin and I followed him down about sixty or seventy yards—the prisoner then said, "All right, governor, I will go"—I turned to Baldwin and said, "We will get back to the road," and we turned back
towards Kingsland Road—I saw Baldwin follow me two or three yards—I went on to the corner of Kingsland Road, I thought Baldwin was following me—I saw a crowd in Kingsland Road—I then missed Baldwin, and I rushed back to the corner of Wilmer Gardens, and saw Baldwin struggling with the prisoner, about thirty yards down Wilmer Gardens—I have found out since that it was opposite 99—I ran down immediately to the assistance of Baldwin—I saw the prisoner with this knife in his right-hand—previous to that Baldwin shouted out to me, "Look out; he has got a knife"—Baldwin had hold of the prisoner by the back of his neck and by his left-hand—when I got up I seized the prisoner's right-hand where the knife was, and I closed the blade with my right-hand, and it cut the prisoner's thumb and across the finger—I wrenched the knife away from him—while this was going on Baldwin kept his hold of the prisoner until the arrival of Constable Bendall and another constable—Bendall took hold of the prisoner by his left-hand and left-arm—the prisoner tried to slip his coat off and escape, and Bendall drew his truncheon and struck him across the head—I told Bendall I had got the knife, and the two of us took him—Baldwin followed us into Kingsland Road—I did not see him get into a cab, but I believe he did and went in it to the Hoxton Station—two constables came to our assistance and we took the prisoner to the station—he was very violent on the way—we took him into the charge room—later on I took him to the North Metropolitan Hospital, where Baldwin had been taken.
Cross-examined. My attention was first called to this matter by a large number of persons wrangling—when I asked the prisoner to go away he seemed quite willing to go—he went towards the lodging-house—I did not see whether he entered or not—there was a rough lot in Kingsland Road, and I hurried back, thinking Baldwin was following me—the last time I saw him he was about three yards behind—there was nobody else there except three women—they were all four or five yards behind him—directly after I blew my whistle a great crowd came round, and we were pelted with flower-pots and water.
HENRY BENDALL (Policeman 253 G), I was on duty early on the morning of the 2nd of this month about ten minutes past twelve—I went to the corner of Wilmer Gardens and looked down and I saw Doughty and Baldwin straggling with the prisoner—I ran down to their assistance, when I got near them Baldwin had hold of the prisoner's left arm—Bald-win said, "Here, Bendall, catch hold of that arm"—I caught hold of his left arm and Baldwin said, "Look out, he has got a knife!"—the prisoner struggled very much, and slipped his coat off his left arm into my hand—on Baldwin seeing that he struck him down with his truncheon—in that way the prisoner got free from me—I caught hold of him again by his left hand—the struggle continued between Doughty, the prisoner and me—Doughty then said, "All right, I have got the knife"—I said, "All right!"—we got him up to the top into Kingsland Road—Baldwin followed up behind—as we went up Wilmer Gardens the crowd threw things at us, and when we got into Kingsland Road other constables came up, and with their assistance we took the prisoner to the station—I saw some women—but when I looked down there was no one there but the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I saw no stab by the prisoner—Baldwin made no complaint of being stabbed; I saw Baldwin get into a cab in Kingsland Road.
JAMES QUINLAN (122 G). About a quarter past twelve on October 3rd I was near Wilmer Gardens; I heard a police whistle—I went to the corner of the Gardens and saw the prisoner in the custody of Doughty and Bendall: he was struggling violently—there was a large crowd; I assisted in taking him to Hoxton Station—on reaching the station I saw Baldwin lying on the floor; as we brought the prisoner into the station I heard Baldwin say to me, "That is him, Jim; that is the man that stabbed me: that is the man that has done this"—the prisoner replied to me, "You know me better than that, and you know my pal Steve Cole, the farrier"—I replied "Yes, but he is a little man to you"—Bald-win tried to rise up on his elbow and kick out with his foot; whether he intended to point it to the prisoner I could not say, but it seemed to me his wounds would not permit him to kick.
RANDALL HODSON (Inspector G). I was going along Kingsland Road in the early morning of October 2nd, when I saw, 200 yards from Wilmer Gardens, Baldwin passing in a hansom cab—I was off duty, and was proceeding home; he was standing on the footboard, blowing his whistle—the cab was going in the direction of the station—I went to the corner of Wilmer Gardens, and saw a crowd collected; I saw Bendall and Doughty struggling with the prisoner—he was very violent, and the officers were apparently exhausted, and I went up and took the prisoner by the right arm—Quinlan afterwards came up and he took him by the left arm and together we took him to the station—on entering the room there I saw Baldwin in the ambulance lying on the floor, he was in a position to see the prisoner as we brought him in, and on seeing him he said, "That is the man that has done it."
Cross-examined. The prisoner was drunk.
Re-examined. He could walk; he had evidently been drinking heavily, he walked to the station—he could hear what Baldwin said—I was not present afterwards—I left the charge room, leaving the prisoner in Qninlan's charge.
CHARLES BROWN . I am a cabdriver, and live at 26, Marlborough Road, Chelsea—on the early morning of October 2nd, I was coining along Kingsland Road with my hansom cab—Baldwin got on the cab and told me to drive to Hoxton Police-station—I drove him there—I afterwards noticed drops of blood on the footboard and doors of the cab and on the cushions and mat.
EDWARD IVES (41 G). I am now a sergeant—I was on duty at Hoxton Station when Baldwin was brought in—I saw that he was suffering—I pulled his clothing on one side and saw the wounds, they were bleeding at the time—I laid him down, I knelt by his side and was bathing him, he was in the act of raising his head to pull the pillow under when the prisoner was brought in—Baldwin could see him and he said, "That is the man that did it; that is the man that stabbed me"—then a few seconds elapsed and he said to the prisoner, "You dirty dog to stab a man like this"—the prisoner made no reply.
WALTER BRIDGMAN (Inspector G). I was on duty in charge of Hoxton Station, about half-past twelve on the morning of October 2nd, when Baldwin came into the station—he was seriously ill and bleeding—he was attended to—the doctor was sent for—shortly after the prisoner was brought in—Baldwin said, "That is the man that did it," and rose his right foot—the surgeon came and advised his removal to the hospital—at three in the morning I directed that the prisoner should be taken to the hospital—I saw the surgeon at the hospital—he gave me his opinion as to Baldwin's condition, and in consequence the prisoner was taken back again to the station, where I charged him with attempted murder—he was only in the hospital about a quarter of an hour—I cautioned him—he said, "I was not the instigation of using the knife, although I am charged with it; the reason is I did not have a knife on me"—I think at that time he was pretty sober—he knew what was being said to him—when he was first brought in he was drunk—the thumb on his right hand was bleeding.
WILLIAM PIGGOTT (Inspector at Hoxton Police-station). About half-past eleven on Sunday morning, October 2nd, I changed the prisoner with wilful murder—he made no reply to that charge—at that time he was perfectly sober.
FRANK HEWITT OLIVER . I am surgeon to the 6 Division of Police—early on the morning of October 2nd I was called to Hoxton Police-station, and saw Baldwin—I made an examination of him—I found him suffering from several distinct wounds—his condition was very grave; I ordered him to be be removed to the Metropolitan Hospital—after his death on October 4th I made a post-mortem examination—Mr. Brown, a surgeon, was present—I then found four punctured wounds; the first in the left loin, which entered the abdominal cavity; the second was in the left lower abdomen, also entering the abdominal cavity; the third was over the region of the heart, an inches in length, but not penetrating the chest; the fourth wound was an incised one on the back of his left hand—so there were three punctured wounds and one incised—I had placed in my hands the uniform Baldwin was wearing on that night; in the tunic in front I found rents corresponding with the wounds two and three—there was an additional cut in the tunic on the left arm, not penetrating the skin; that was a distinct cut—there was a good deal of blood on the clothing—I and my brother surgeon came to the conclusion that death was caused by syncope, shock and hemorrhage, the shock and hemorrhage being directly caused by the punctured wounds—on the early morning of October 2nd I saw the prisoner at the station; I examined him—at the back of his right hand I found an incised wound, another on the palm surface of the right little finger—both these wounds were quite recent; all the wounds might have been caused by the blade of the knife (produced)—I examined the prisoner's head; I found no injury; his lips were swollen—he certainly was drunk, but he was capable of under-standing what was being said—I spoke to him; he complained of his wounds—he understood me; it was about a quarter to one.
WALTER LANGHAM BROWN . I am house surgeon at the Metropolitan Hospital—on the early morning of October 2nd Baldwin was brought there; an operation was performed, from which he rallied a little—a vein was cut and tied up; he died about eleven on Sunday morning—I
assisted Mr. Oliver in the post-mortem—I agree with him as to the cause of death.
Evidence for the Defence.
JOHN RYAN (The prisoner) sworn. On the night of the 1st, and the early morning of October 2nd, I was going down Wilmer Gardens from Kingsland Road—some men came round me and hustled me, and one of them put his hand into my pocket and took my money out—I accused one who I thought to be the man, and then words came to blows—there were a lot of his companions with him—then a dialogue took place, when Baldwin came on the scene and arrested me, and I was taken to Hoxton Police-station—I did nothing at all to Baldwin—it is not true that I stabbed him with this knife—I had had a drop that night—I cannot tell whose knife that is, it is not mine—I said, "You know me better than that, you know my pal."
Cross-examined. I first saw this knife on the 6th of this month, at the Coroner's Inquest—I had never seen it before that—I was not in the habit of carrying a knife—I have carried one—I left it at my lodging, in my other pocket—if it was in one of my boots in my locker I left it there on the Thursday.
By the COURT. On the Saturday night I had not my knife with me—It is not like this produced—I had no knife with me on the Saturday night—I had no struggle with Baldwin—this was a struggle with about twenty men—I don't believe I had a struggle with him—I should say I did not hare a struggle with Baldwin—that is as far as I will say—I did not hear Baldwin call out, "Look out, he has got a knife!"—I do not remember Doughty taking this knife out of my hand—I don't remember as he took it from my hand that the blade was closed and cut my right thumb under the nail—I do not remember my attention being called to that cut—I remember the doctor calling my attention to it at the station—he did examine my right hand and my head—I saw the wound in my right thumb—I had several wounds, that one was from the stabbing from the man with the knife, the knives which the men had—the other men had knives, too—I did not see them but I felt them—my attention was called by the doctor to another cut on the middle finger of the right hand—I saw it, that was also caused by the other men who did the stabbing—I attended before the Magistrate—I was asked to be examined as a witness and to show my thumb—I refused—I remember going down Wilmer Gardens on this night and coming back and being taken to the station—I did not see Baldwin lying there—I was covered up by the police round me, striking me and covering me up—I did not see Baldwin there—I did not see him at all there—I did not hear him speak—I did not hear him say that I had stabbed him or make any accusation against me at all—I know Sleeve Cole by working at the shop, and he was a friend of mine—I said to Quinlan, "You know me better than that"—I did not hear I am accuse me of stabbing him—I did not mean that Cole had done it, I meant that I would not do such a thing—I did nor, hear Baldwin's statement—I told the inspector that I was not the instigation of the knives being used, because I did not have a knife upon me—it is untrue that Doughty took this knife out of my hand—the stabbing must have taken place in Wilmer Gardens.
GUILTY .— DEATH . The foreman of the GRAND JURY had sent a note to his Lordship, in which the GRAND JURY expressed their appreciation of the conduct of P. C. Doughty, and his Lordship endorsed that opinion.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.
GUILTY — Six Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, October 26th, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
To enter into her own recognisances to come up for judgment when called on.
MR. HARRISON Prosecuted.
JOHN WARNER . I am a general dealer, of 15, Lucy Street, Bermondsey—on September 18th, between 12 and 12.30 p.m., I was in Edgware Road—several men were standing by the music-hall near the station—one of them stepped out and asked me to buy some pawn tickets and a ring—I refused—the prisoner then said, "You are not taking all the b—money in the Edgware Road"—I went on—when I got on the other side of the road in the shade, the prisoner struck me on the mouth, and said, "Edge up! Pin him!"—I was pushed up against the wall—the prisoner put his hand in my right pocket—two men were holding me—the prisoner then said, "I will hold his dukes while you take the money"—a man said to me, "If you don't let go I will knock your b—brains out"—I was also struck by a man not in custody—I saw a policeman, and gave the prisoner in custody.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I followed you to the station, and charged you with assault—I saw you searched at the station—I do not know if any money was found on you.
Re-examined. I lost 32s.—I had seen the money about ten minutes before I got into this trouble.
CHARLES DODSON (95 D). About 12.30 on September 18th I was in Edgware Road—in consequence of information received I stopped the prisoner and another man—I said to the prisoner, "Wait a minute"—the prosecutor came up and said, "This is the man who struck me; I will give him in charge"—the prisoner said, "I do not know the man, I have never seen him before"—I searched the prisoner; no money was found on him.
Cross-examined. You were put into a cell and brought out afterwards and charged with robbery.
and saw the prisoner and another man knocking the prosecutor about—a policeman came up, and they ran away; I followed them, and heart them say they would give the prosecutor some more and then do for him—I followed them to Chapel Street, and saw a constable and spoke to him; the constable took the prisoner into custody—I had not lost sight of him; another man had hit the prosecutor on his head with a stick.
Cross-examined. I did not see you strike him—there were fifty or sixty people there; I did not say there were only five or six—I did not go for a constable; the constable was waiting for you—the other man went away.
By the COURT. The other man was not taken into custody, because the prosecutor was too stunned—he did not see the other man.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he was in the Red Lion and saw a crowd opposite and went over, and saw the prosecutor talking to a boy, but seeing a policeman coming he went away, and the policeman came and arrested him.
GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction on A arch 4th, 1895, and seven other convictions were proved against him, including three term of penal servitude, and he had 335 days still to serve.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour and twenty-five strokes with the cat.
LYSTER PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted, and MR. SIMMONDS Defended.
FLORENCE JANE FOX . I am a teacher, of Ashford, Kent—on October 1st I was riding on an omnibus, and when we were near Liverpool Street about 11.30 I missed my purse, which contained a cloak-room ticket for two boxes at Liverpool Street Station, I went straight to Liverpool Street to inquire for my boxes—I could not find them—the big box was both locked and padlocked and done up in a wrapper, and the bonnet-box was padlocked—the big box contained articles of clothing—when I saw it again some night-dresses, chemises, and other articles were missing.
Cross-examined. He was with a porter; no other man was with him.
CHARLES PERKS . I am a cab-driver, of 2, Burton Crescent, Euston Road—on Saturday, October 1st, I drove a man from Liverpool Street to the South-Eastern Railway, London Bridge, with two boxes, one of which had a canvas cover on—they were taken off; the man gave me a half-crown, and I gave him 1s. change.
ALBERT EDWARD GRASS . lam counterman at the Parcels Department, South-Eastern Station on October 1st, between 12 and 12.15, I saw a cab outside the Parcels Office, and saw the prisoners there—Watts was standing at the cab, and Lister came to the Parcels Office—I asked him if he required the cloak-room—the big box was covered with canvas—I took it out and put it on the cab and the small box inside—Lyster gave a direction to the cabman, but I could not hear it—he got in and they drove off together.
Cross-examined. The boxes were in the cloak-room—I did not see either of the prisoners bring them in—all the conversation was with Lyster—I did not see a porter, and went to the cloak-room and gave them cut—I did not speak to Watts or he to me.
DANIEL DRISCOLL . I am a cab-driver and proprietor—on October 1st I was called to the South-Eastern Railway—a big box was pat outside and a small box inside—the two prisoners got into the cab—I was told at first to drive to St. Paul's Station, but while going over London Bridge Lyster said, "I have made a mistake, drive to Blackfriars Station"—I did to; the boxes were taken off and I was paid and discharged.
WALTER BOWRING . I am parcel porter at Blackfriars Station—on Saturday, October 1st, about 12.30, these two boxes were deposited there, I believe by Lyster, but he gave the name of Wallis, they were left there for five minutes and then taken away.
Cross-examined. There was only one man.
HENRY FREDERICK TURNER . I am a cab-driver—on October 1st, about 12, 30, I was called to Blackfriars Station, one man brought the big box out and I believe the little one (Watts) brought the other out—I was told to drive to Piggott's Hotel, and the box was carried off the cab by some person in the street—when we drive from a station with baggage we have to hallo a out where we are going.
Cross-examined. It was the tall man who told me to drive to Piggott's Hotel—he called my cab.
HENRY WATTS . I am outside porter at Piggott's Hotel—on October 1st I was asked to carry this large box into the hotel—it was closed, and in canvas—I carried it up and put it into bedroom No. 21—the tall man paid me when I went downstairs—I did not notice the short one.
GEORGE HARBETSON . I am manager at Piggott's Hotel, 163, West-minster Bridge Road—on October 1st the two prisoners came in a cab from 1 to 1.30 with these two boxes—Lyster had been staying in the hotel, hut not Watts—a porter carried the big box, and Watts the small one—they went upstairs—I did not notice them come down.
Cross-examined. The boxes were taken to Lyster's room, No. 21—he had been staying there about ten days—I had never seen Watts before.
ROSE GHEESEMAN . I am chambermaid at Piggott's Hotel—on October 1st I was upstairs when the boxes were brought and put into Lyster's room, No. 21—I afterwards suggested that they should be put into A larger room, No. 24—the big box was covered with canvas and shut up—they put them into No. 24 themselves, I only saw them go downstairs in twenty minutes or a quarter an hour—one of them was then carrying something—I cannot say which.
Cross-examined. I was sweeping in another room—I cannot say whether should have known if one of them had gone down and came up again—had the door open while I was sweeping.
ELLEN LOW . I am a waitress at Piggott's Hotel—on October 1st I saw the prisoners come in with these boxes—I saw them taken upstairs, and the prisoners followed them a little while afterwards—I next saw them twenty minutes or half an hour afterwards, but cannot say whether one of them was carrying anything.
information, and went to Piggott's Hotel with two other officers—I saw two men there having dinner, one on each side of a table—I said, "I am a police-officer; I believe you two men brought two boxes here half an hour ago "; they both denied it—I then called the last witness, and said to her "Are these the two men who brought the boxes here?"—she said, "Yes"—I said to the man, "Is that the truth?"—Lyster said, "Yes"—I said, "Do you know what the boxes contain?"—Lyster said, "Yes, ladies' underclothing"—I said, "Where did you get them from?"—Lyster said, "I bought them of a man"—I left two officers with them and went up to room No. 24 and saw the two boxes; the canvas was not on the larger box—both the boxes were broken open, and I found a portion of the property in the bedroom; I did not see a padlock—the hasp was completely broken off the small box; I took them down to the prisoners and asked them if those were the boxes—they said "Yes"—I said "Who is the man you bought these of?"—Lyster said "That you will have to find out"—they were taken to the station; Watts gave the name Thomas Watts, and said that he had no fixed abode—I have since ascertained what his real name and address are; there was no label on either of the boxes, only the luggage label—there was a name on them when they were taken from the cloak-room, but it has been erased.
HENRY BIRD (City Detective). On October 1st I went with Ottway and Collins to Piggott's Hotel—when Ottway went upstairs I remained, and Lyster said "Who put us away?"—I made no answer, but Watts said "Have you found the cabman?"—I said "Yes"—Watts said "You have not been long"—Lyster said "I congratulate you; it was a smart job; you have had a bit of luck."
WATTS— GUILTY . The Prisoners then
PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions, Lyster at Clerkenwell on January 18th, 1892, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude, and Watts at this Court on April 28th, 1896. Three other convictions were proved against Lyster and five against Watts. LYSTER— Five Years' Penal Servitude. WATTS— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted, and MR. ELLIOT Defended.
JOHN STOCKER (192 City). On October 3rd, about midday, I was an duty in St. Paul's Churchyard and saw the prisoner on the north side with Noah Milman—Harris pointed out a lady to the boy—she was looking into a shop window—Milman put his hand in her pocket and Harris touched him on his arm—a little further on Harris pushed Milman again—they went into the crowd, looked at some ladies but did not touch them—they went into a crowd again and Milman went across to Sweeting's window.
By the COURT. The boy did not appear to be willing, he was very nervous, but Harris nudged him with his elbow—he sent him into the crowd, and at the north end of St. Paul's, Harris went into the garden and came out, and the boy again put his hand into a lady's pocket—they went to Paternoster Row—I ran after Harris and took him in Newgate Street
and charged him with inciting the lad to steal—he said, "I don't know the boy, I am looking for work, I have my tools with me"—that is the boy.
Cross-examined. During the whole time I was watching I did not hear Harris say anything—I had no previous knowledge of the boy, but I was told to look out for them—I am told that the prisoner was in employment—I do not suggest that there is any previous conviction against him—Milman has been convicted of attempting to pick pockets—I have been told that he got into trouble in Essex for stealing from another boy, but I have no proof of it.
JAMES BROWN (City Policeman). I was on duty in St. Paul's Church-yard about twelve on October 3rd with John Stocker—I saw the prisoner take Milman down the north side and point to a lady's pocket—Milman put his hand in her pocket, walked away into a crowd of ladies, and went towards Cheapside—the prisoner followed and joined him at the corner of Cheapside—he pointed him to another lady, and sent him into the crowd—he left that, and went into another, and made another attempt to pick a lady's pocket—the prisoner left, and Milman followed him—I went after Milman, and Stocker went after the prisoner—we took them and charged them.
Cross-examined. I did not hear the prisoner say anything to Milman.
NOAH MILMAN . I am twelve years old, and live at 1, Pauline Terrace, Montague Street, Whitechapel—I have known the prisoner some weeks, and went with him to St. Paul's Churchyard on October 3rd—I did not want to go with him—he told me to go into a crowd, and pointed out a woman, and if I saw her purse I was to take it, and run over to him—I went to the woman; he saw some men watching me and touched me on the shoulder, and called me away and went across the road—he then called me back, and pointed to another woman—I went over and he came over and pulled me back, and said that two detectives were watching us—I went out with the prisoner once before, and was caught and taken before a Magistrate at Worship Street—the prisoner ran away and I was discharged.
By the COURT. I live with my parents—I told my father I had been brought up by the police, and he gave me a good whipping—he is not here.
Cross-examined. I remember going in July to Earlscoyne, in Essex, with Mr. Charles Goldstein, superintendent, and a lot of boys—I don't remember taking some money then from a boy named John Brown—I was searched by a policeman, and he found a florin in each sleeve of my coat and two sixpences in my left trousers leg and 2 1/2 d. in my breast pocket—I told him I had spent the other 3 1/2 d., making the 5s. 6d. for my fare; I did not steal the money—I found it tied up in a handkerchief; I put the florins in my sleeves because I was frightened—I do not know that the money was Brown's, or that they charged me with stealing it from him; I said I was very sorry, and they said they would not prosecute—the prisoner was not with me then; that is the only time I have been accused of stealing money—I don't remember stealing a shilling from Mrs. Hitchcock's little girl in August, or Mrs. "Finburg accusing me last Thursday of attempting to pick her pocket in Spitalfields; I don't
know her—(MRS. FINBURG was called in)—I have not seen her before; I was with three boys, Mark Symons, Louis Symons, and Meredith about seven on September 10th.
By the COURT. I know I am on my oath, and that I am liable to be sent to prison if I commit perjury—I still say that I have not seen that lady before.
By MR. ELLIOTT. I only went a little way with the boys, and then left them—I don't know Sergeant Parsons—I know the boys were charged with attempting to pick pockets in Shoreditch.
Witnesses for the Defence.
MORRIS HARRIS (The prisoner, sworn). I am a boot laster, of 12, Essington Buildings, Old Montague Street, Whitechapel—I went into the employ of Samuel Goldstein, of Essington on Street, six or seven months ago, and was there till the Friday before I was arrested—Noah Milman lives opposite me—Maurice Goldstein called for me at 7.30 a.m. on October 3rd, and we walked about till 11 looking for a job—he is no relation to my employer—I told him to take the tools to make a sample with—I could not find a job, and he said, "I think I have found you a job"—then I saw the boy, Milman—I said, "Aren't you going to school?"—he said, "No"—I said, "How is that?"—he said, "It's holidays"—I said, "I'm going to look for a job"—he said, "Let me come with you"—I said, "What for?"—he said, "I want to go for a walk"—I used to work in the City for three and a-half years—I said, "I will go through Liverpool Street"—he said, "I'm going into St. Paul's Churchyard to try and get purses"—I said, "What?"—when I came back I saw him playing with ladies' pockets—I said, "What are you doing?"—he said, "Looking at the shops"—I admit I said what the officer said—I did not incite the boy to steal, I urged him to come away—I said, "You will get into trouble, look at the people looking at you"—I did not say anything about detectives—I was with him in St. Paul's Churchyard ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—it is not true that I was with him on a previous occasion trying to pick pockets, and that we both ran away, and he was caught and I was not.
Cross-examined. I did go to St. Paul's Churchyard to look for work—I have known the boy three years—I went away and sat down, and afterwards went back to the boy—I work for Mr. Goldstein from eight till eight—I ran away because I was frightened—I had never been in a Police-court in my life—it broke my heart—this has been hanging on for four weeks, and it has sent me nearly mad.
MAURICE GOLDSTEIN . I am a boot laster, of 138, Nathaniel Buildings, Commercial Street, and have known the prisoner for the last ten years—on October 3rd I went to his house at about 7.45 a.m., and found him in bed; I woke him and he dressed, and we went out to look for work; he took his tools with him—a boy came up and spoke to us.
Cross-examined. The prisoner went to St. Paul's Churchyard—work has been slack lately; I have not had any conversation about this case with anybody; I am in regular employment: piecework.
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. JONES Prosecuted.
ELLEN HOLLINGTON . I am the wife of Charles Hollington, a chair carver, of 58, Cambridge Heath Road—on the evening of September 19th the prisoner came to my shop and asked me to have a drink; he sent for drink, which we had in my shop with two more friends—he is my daughter's young man—he asked if he should shut the shop up for me, and asked me to go to the Northampton to have a drink with the two friends, and we went and had it—my daughter was not there—we came out, and when I got to the top of Northampton Street I received a blow, and fell to the ground—I do not remember anything more until I was picked up by a constable—the prisoner struck the blow, and I saw him knocked to the ground by some lad in the street—I did not see anything in his hand—I was taken to the hospital.
ELIZABETH ADAMS . I live at 76, James Street, Bethnal Green, and am a widow—I was with the prosecutrix—as we came out of the Northampton, and got to the corner of Northampton Street the prisoner took a knife from up his sleeve—my daughter said, "Mother, Jack has got a knife! "and before I could call to Mrs. Hollington he plunged it into her breast—he made two stabs at the back that cut her bodice, but did not penetrate the flesh—they both fell—there had been no angry words of any description—her stays saved her life, no doubt—she was not the worse for drink, but the prisoner was—2 1/2 pints were had in the shop between five people, and I think two pots of ale were called for in the public-house.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not spend your money there—you ran after the prosecutor's daughter, and she ran away from you—you told her you would give her three days to live—I cannot account for it except that you were very drunk.
ELIZABETH ADAMS . I am the daughter of the last witness, and live at 78, West Street—I was with proecutrix at the Northampton—there was no quarrelling, only he threw a quart pot at her—she did not say anything to him—I saw the prisoner take a knife out of his pocket and put it up his sleeve—he made for her back twice—then she turned round and he stuck the knife in her breast, and then they both stumbled, and he got up and ran away—he said he would give her three days to live.
JOHN ELLIOT (416 J). I heard some cries about 11.5 p.m., on September 19th—I saw prisoner in Cambridge Heath Road running towards Whitechapel Road pursued by some people—they shouted, "Stop him, governor, stop him! he has stabbed a woman two or three times; he is an Italian; be careful of him, he has got a knife"—I pursued him and caught hold of him with my right hand by the back of his neck and held his arm with my left hand—he turned round with the knife and made a plunge at my breast, and said "Take that, you b—"—the knife was 3 or 3 1/2 inches long; I jumped back to avoid being stabbed, and as I did so he got away from me, and started to run again—I took my truncheon out, got up to him, and hit him on his left shoulder, and ran him up against the shutters of a shop—another constable came up to my assistance; I said "Be careful, he has got a knife"—the prisoner turned
round and said, "I have not got a knife by me; you must see I have not got a knife by me"—we took him into custody; after going a few yards towards the station the prosecutrix came up with another constable and said "That is the man who done it; I shall charge him"—I said, "What has he done!"—she said "Look here, he has stabbed me in the breast"—she appeared sober, but very much excited—she was taken to the London Hospital—I afterwards found this knife (produced) in the gutter where he was arrested, but I do not believe this is the knife.
JOHN BATE . I live at 409, Bethnal Green Road, and am assistant divisional surgeon—the prosecutrix was brought to the Police-station bleeding freely from a wound in her right breast a little over an inch wide and over two inches deep—it was downwards and upwards, into the substance of the breast—if it had gone directly backwards probably it would have been fatal; but as it was, it would prove serious from the amount of hemorrhage if attention had not been given to it at the time—it was produced by a sharp-cutting instrument—I do not think that the knife produced would cause it—it is an old, rusty, blunt knife—I should expect the blade to be much wider, longer, and much sharper—everything was saturated with blood.
Prisoner's defence; All I say is that I did not do it.
GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, October 26th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
688. GEORGE STEVENS (23) and CHARLES WEST (21) , to stealing a bicycle belonging to Charles Simpson; West also to attempting to steal a bicycle belonging to George Karp and conspiring to obtain his goods; and Stevens to stealing a bicycle belonging to William Watkins and another, Stevens having been convicted at the North London Police-court on May 27th, 1898.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.
689. ARTHUR JAMES SMITH (28) and WALTER JAMES WHITE (19) , to committing acts of gross indecency and to procuring their commission— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] SMITH— Nine Months' Hard Labour. WHITE— Six Months' Hard Labour.
690. THOMAS JONES** (36) , to stealing a barrow belonging to John Holmes and to breaking and entering the warehouse of William Knowles and stealing twenty nine pairs of boots, sixteen calf skins, a pair of gaiters, and a ball of string; also to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in January, 1894, in the name of Thomas Harding — [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Three Years' Penal Servitude.
691. DANIEL McCARTHY (27) and FREDERICK WILSON (22) , to breaking and entering the ware-house of Clifford Elkans with intent to commit a felony, and McCarthy to being found at night in unlawful possession of housebreaking implements; also to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell Police-court on June 30th, 1897, in the name of James McCarthy ; and Wilson to a conviction of felony at this Court in June, 1896, in the name of Alfred Bates .— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Five Years' Penal Servitude
each. The COMMON SERJEANT acquiesced in the commendation of the GRAND JURY of the zeal the police officers had shown in the capture of these habitual criminals.
692. EDWARD SHEEHAN (21), was indicted with the said McCarthy and Wilson for being found in the unlawful possession of a jemmy, and with breaking into the warehouse of Clifford Elkans with intent to steal.
MR. HARRISON, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
He received an excellent character.— Three Days' Imprisonment.
BERRY PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted.
SARAH TAYLOR . I am cashier to Ye Mecca, Limited, at 4, Lombard Court—on October 15th, between 2.15 and 2.30 p.m., the prisoners came in together—Palmer asked for a cigar—he spoke to Berry—I did not hear what he said—he took a cigar—I was watching Berry—I said to Palmer, "Do you smoke a 4d. or 6d. cigar?"—he put his hand to his pocket—Berry took out half-a-sovereign, and Palmer muttered to Berry while I was counting 9s. 6d. change—Berry said, "I am sorry; I have some sixpences here; if I give you 6d. will you make up half-sovereign, and I will give you a sovereign and add 10s."—he added half-a-sovereign, and I did not see him take it up, but I found by my till I was 10s. short—they were on the stairs when I found it out—when I parted with a sovereign all I had got was a half-sovereign in gold—I spoke to a gentleman who was sitting at a table, who went out and brought two policemen—Berry said, "I have made a mistake"—I said, "No, you know better; you have got my 10s."
STEWART LYON . I am a clerk at 4, Lombard Court—I was in Ye Mecca on October 15th, when the defendants came in—Palmer looked round, and said, "Jim does not seem to be here"—he took a cigar—Ye Mecca is a cafe—I saw what took place, and spoke to Miss Taylor directly after the defendants had gone out—I spoke to a constable in Gracechurch Street—the prisoners were hurrying away—I gave them into custody—the prisoners asked what we wanted them for—I said the sooner they came the sooner they would know.
CHRISTOPHER RADBOURNE (807 City). I was spoken to by Lyon—I arrested the prisoners in Fenchurch Street—I took them back to Ye Mecca, where they were charged with stealing half-a-sovereign—they made no reply—at the station I searched them—on Berry I found a half-sovereign in gold, three sixpences, and two coppers—on Palmer I found no money—I did not find a sovereign, because Berry gave a sovereign back to the lady.
Cross-examined by Palmer. At the station Berry said you had nothing to do with it.
Evidence for the Defence.
FREDERICK PALMER (The prisoner, sworn). I live at 13, Tolman Street, Great Suffolk Street, Borough—I met Berry at London Bridge—we went to Ye Mecca—he asked me to have a drink—I refused—he asked me if I would have a cigar—I said yes—I took a 4d. cigar from the box marked "4d."—that is all I know till I was taken back by the police—at the station Berry told the inspector I was perfectly innocent.
Cross-examined. I have known Berry three or four years—I had not seen him for three months prior to October 15th, when I met him about 2 o'clock—I was going to the Hackney Road to see a cousin—I had not long been out—I had just come across London Bridge—I had no money—some cigars were marked 6d., some 4d., I took one at 4d.—I did not notice what took place with Miss Taylor, I was lighting a cigar—I heard silver being counted—I did not see Berry receive a sovereign—I was standing at the back, he was in front of me—I was standing waiting for him to come out, and smoking a cigar—I could have seen if I had looked over him—I did not give it a thought—you was sitting at a table—Berry is not a friend, but I know him—we have had several drinks on other occasions—I did not notice that Berry was being charged 6d. or I should have told him—when we got back Berry was accused of stealing half-a-sovereign—the young woman said nothing about me—asked what I was charged with and the constable said "You will see when you get down to the station"—I did say at the shop that I had nothing to do with it, and at the station, when I asked for bail Berry said I was a perfectly innocent man.—
PALMER— NOT GUILTY .
BERRY** also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of Felony at this Court in April, 1892, in the name of Charles Williams.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WILLSON Prosecuted and MR. PURCELL Defended Martin. The evidence is unfit for publication.
WRIGHT† GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
MARTIN, NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Thursday and Friday, October 27th and 28th, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. SYMONS Prosecuted, and MR. RANDOLPH Defended.
ANTONIO CORSI (Interpreted). I am an artist's model, and live at 253, Kingsland Road—on September 12th soon after midnight I was at the corner of Kingsland Road and Old Street with Sabatino, and afterwards the two Annicellis, father and son, came, and while we were talking the two prisoners came up—I had seen one of them once before—they said in
Italian, "Look here, you have been taking my man servant away"—someone said "I have not taken him away, he asked me for a lodging and I gave him one"—Pasquale said, "Oh, I see what it is we will both kill you," and Lorenzo shot at me—I felt something strike me, and then the tall prisoner turned round and shot me; the shot is in my shoulder now—Sabatino commenced running, and the prisoners ran after him and shot him—I was taken to the Police-station, and found Pasquale detained—I charged him with shooting me—I was in the hospital fifteen days, and afterwards I picked out Lorenzo from fifteen others—he is the man.
Cross-examined. I was going to Fulham—I had moved from Kingsland Road that very night—this was at midnight—I had been in Sabatino's company since 9 o'clock—I had seen Pasquale once before—I don't think I ever saw Lorenzo—I do not know their brother—I was not with Sabatino and Napolitano when they assaulted Raffaelle—I am absolutely certain that Lorenzo was with Pasquale—Pasquale did all the talking—I made no insulting remarks when they passed—Sabbatino did not proceed to attack him; but he made a sign of taking his coat off—I know what a pricker is—this was after I produced a revolver—the thickness of my shirt stopped the shot from going into my stomach—I have the shot here—I did not say at the Police-court that Pasquale shot me in my side; I only said, "That is the man that shot me"—the two prisoners summoned Sabatino two or three months ago, and I attended the summons and acted as interpreter for Sabatino, but did not get anything for it—I heard four shots—when I went to identify Lorenzo I knew that he was one of the Melangoves.
SAVERIO SABATINO (Interpreted). I keep an ice-cream shop—on September 12th from 10 o'clock till 121 was with Corsi—we came out of a public-house about 12 o'clock and I was seeing him home in Shoreditch close by the railway station—the two prisoners and their brother came up—the Armicellis were there, father and son—Pasquale said, "What did you take my man away for?"—he said "I did not take him, he came to sleep two or three nights," and he put his hand under his coat and fired, holding the revolver right at my chest—I ran away, and on that the other brother fired at Antonio, and the brother turned round and fired at my shoulder—I heard four shots and I heard two afterwards—I knew the prisoners before by seeing them, but did not know their names.
Cross-examined. I had not been with Napolitano that morning—I do not know that he was summoned for assaulting the prisoners that very same evening—I was summoned with Napolitano for assaulting Raffaelle—I knew Raffaelle Melangove, but did not know his name—Pasquale did all the talking—the interpreter, before the Magistrate, did not speak the truth—I blame him—and Manzie was sent for to interpret—I know him—I did not say a word at the station about Lorenzo having a revolver, because I was frightened—there was another man called Pantileoni—I did not say, when I got outside the station, "Oh, we forgot to tell the police that the three brothers were there"—I did not hear till the next morning that Raffaelle had been assaulted and taken home—I did not shout out insulting words to Pasquale when he came up or prepare to attack him—I do not know two people named Rochiolo,
the witnesses the prisoners are going to call are all bought—I have not shown anybody a knife, saying that I had brought it to finish up one of the Melangove brothers—I saw that man go by (Pointing)—I know him by sight, but have never spoken to him—it is not at all true that I prepared to attack Pasquale that night—I had not got a pricker in my bag.
Re-examined. I did not attack these men.
SALVATORI ANNICELLI (Interpreted). On the morning of September 13th I was with my son and Corsi and Sabatino in Shoreditch—the prisoners and their father came up, and Pasquale said, "You have taken one of my men"—Sabatino said, "I did not, he only came to me for two or three days' shelter"—he said nothing to that—he had got a revolver, and he fired at Sabatino, who ran away, and the other brother shot at Antonio—I ran away to call the police, and Pasquale fired at me.
Cross-examined. I am sure Lorenzo was there and the father—I have seen them many times before—I did not know Raffaelle—it is not true that Sabatino attacked Pasquale—I went to the Police-station; I did not see the two Manzies there—I did not know the man who was brought in to interpret, but I know him now—we did not say when we left the station, "We forgot to tell the police that the three brothers were there."
ANTONIO ANNICELLI (Interpreted). I am an ice-cream vendor—on the evening of September 12th I was with my father and Sabatino and Corsi in Kingsland Road waiting for a tram—the two prisoners and their father came up, and he said to Sabatino, "You have taken my servant;" Sabatino said, "I have not taken him," and on that the tall prisoner drew a revolver and fired at him, and he ran away—the brother then fired at Corsi and the father—I had not known either of these men before—I knew before the case that he is called Carabino—I had seen him before and had seen the other one.
Cross-examined. I had never seen the father before that night and have never seen him since—Sabbatino did not move—there was an interpreter at the station—I did not see his father leave the station with the interpreter—I do not know that we used the words "the three brothers were there."
Re-examined. They called the third man "Father."
WILLIAM SHAYLOR (423 G). Early on the morning of September 13th I was on duty in Old Street and heard a report of fire-arms near Paul Street—I went in that direction and saw Pasquale going after Sabatino and fire two shots—I caught hold of him with this revolver in his hand, there were four empty cartridges in it and this loaded one (produced)—I said, "Well, what is the matter with you, are you mad or not?" he said, "I think I must be, if I had my knife I could have killed him, I am no good with a revolver"—this is my note—Corsi came to the station afterwards and picked Pasquale out as the man who shot him.
Cross-examined. Pasquale was very excited, he spoke a little English, but I could not understand what he said.
By the COURT. What he said to me was in broken English, but I have no doubt about what he said—Corsi said nothing about another man having fired at him with a revolver.
ISAAC GOBY (Police Inspector G). On the morning of September 13th I was in charge of Hoxton Station when Shaylor brought Pasquale in and handed me this revolver with four chambers discharged and one loaded—another constable brought Corsi in, he was very excited and appeared to be suffering great pain—he accused Pasquale—an interpreter was sent for, it was interpreted to him, and he said that he did not intend to shoot Corsi, but he did intend to kill Sabatino—not a word was said about Lorenzo—the question, "Was there anybody else, was not put.
Cross-examined. It was interpreted, "I intended to kill Sabatino," not "I intended to shoot."
HENRY MCKENNA (Detective G). On September 15 I saw Corsi in the hospital—he made a statement to me, and I went the same afternoon with Sabatino to 83, Goswell Road, and found Lorenzo—Sabatino said "That is the man who shot Corsi"—I told Lorenzo that I was a constable and should take him for shooting Corsi—he said in English, "Not me, my brother"—I took him to the station and he was charged and placed with eight others, and one of the Annicellis picked him out, and on the day of the remand he was picked out in one of the rooms at the back of the Police-court by Corsi and young Annicelli—the brothers are alike.
Cross-examined. A communication was sent from the hospital that he wanted to see the police.
CYRIL MANZIE . I keep a school at 3, Paul Street, and have sometimes acted as an interpreter—on the morning of September 13th a policeman came and asked me to go to Hoxton Police-station—I found these people there—I knew nearly all of them by sight—Pasquale was charged with shooting at Corsi, and wounding him on his shoulder—I interpreted it—he said that he did not intend to shoot Corsi; he intended to shoot Sabatino, because he had assaulted his brother—I afterwards went when Lorenzo was charged; he said that he did not know anything about it.
Cross-examined. My father was there—as we were leaving the station Sabatino said that the three brothers were there—I said, "It is too late now, come in the morning," but they did not.
GILBERT SMITH . I was house-surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital—on the morning of the 13th Corsi was brought there with a large wound on his left lower rib, and another on his shoulder—he has the bullet in him now—the wounds were not dangerous—he was in the hospital ten days—he has consumption—there is a tiny hole in the shoulder of his shirt, from which I draw the inference that it must have been a much smaller bullet than this one (produced), but the graze on his side might have been caused by a bigger bullet by one of this size, and it must have been oblique.
Cross-examined. This photograph shows a bullet or part of one, or a portion of the flesh; it has gone in, and there is no exit—it was necessary to keep him in five days for his wounds only.
Re-examined. I form the opinion that it was a bullet wound on his shoulder: it was a very small wound, I could hardly put the probe in.
Evidence for the Defence.
PASQUALE MELANGOVE (The prisoner sworn, Interpreted). I cannot speak English—I have been in England two years—I was in the Army and in the police before I came over—I am in partnership with my two brothers as ice cream merchants—we have two shops, one in Hackney Road and
the other in Goswell Road—on September 12th, about 9 o'clock, I went to the shop in Hackney Road, bringing four plates; I found it closed and went to the Goswell Road shop and found Lorenzo there—I placed the plates down and went to bed about 10 o'clock, but Lorenzo came and said "Hurry up. Come and assist your brother, they are killing him"—I partly dressed myself and went out—Lorenzo remained in the shop—I went to Hackney Road and found the shop closed, and was on my way back and met these four assassins—I was alone, my father was not with me—Sabatino gave me a shove, I said "What is this? What are you doing? What have you insulted my brother for? Is it not sufficient your taking one of my servants away who owes me £2? Bring him back," upon that Sabatino drew his revolver—the four malefactors had already done something to my brother Raffaelle, there had been a discussion going on for the last two years—upon that I went into a fried-fish shop and was arrested—I drew my revolver just to frighten them—I do not know whether it was loaded or not—I had bought it only a few days before—I had no intention of inflicting bodily harm on Corsi—I was taken to the station—I am quite sure Lorenzo was not with me.
Cross-examined. I thought my brother Raffaelle was dead, or else in the hospital—Lorenzo did not go with me; who was to remain in the shop? it was still open—I did not see Sabatino run away and did not run after him—I was running to get away—I was not firing a revolver, if I had fired I should have fired at the prisoner; I me an that I should have hit him—I found these cartridges empty in the revolver, I had only bought it a few days—I saw Lorenzo again two days afterwards when he came to the prison—Sabatino had taken one of my servants away—I was not annoyed at it, I did not care—the man owed me £2; I told him to come and reckon up—my brother Raffaelle was half killed that night—that was the only pistol belonging to anybody in my family—my brother Lorenzo had not one.
Re-examined. It is usual to keep our shop open after 11 o'clock—this is my discharge from the Army—(A good conduct certificate).
LORENZO MELANGOVE (The prisoner, sworn, Interpreted). I am in partnership with my brothers Raffaelle and Pasquale—I was at the Goswell Road shop when Pasquale came home and went to bed—I was minding the shop—Raffaelle was not there—somebody named Williams came and told me something, in consequence of which I went and woke up Pasquale—Williams said, "Go and assist your brother, there are a lot of Italians; they are going to kill him"—I went downstairs and kept the shop open till 11 o'clock, and waited inside for somebody to come—I did not leave the shop at all that night—Pasquale did not come back, but Raffaelle did; somebody brought him home bandaged up.
Cross-examined. It was about 11.15 when Pasquale went out—the customers went out about 11.15 and I closed at about 11.30—I did not know that Pasquale had gone to the other shop I only told him to run, I did not know where it happened—I did not ask Williams where it was—I knew that my brother was in danger of his life and I did not ask where—I did not run out to try and find out after the shop was closed, I was only waiting their return alone; my brother was upstairs in bed—I
have seen this revolver with the police, this is the only one, and it was bought two or three days before—I do not know how to fire a revolver and I am afraid.
Cross-examined. I heard three shots fired—I saw a man fire one but cannot recognise him.
JACOMENA PIEROTA (Interpreted). I am the adopted daughter of the prisoner's father—I was at the Goswell Road shop on the night in question and saw Loreuzo there—I went to bed at 11 o'clock, he was then in the shop.
CARMENA MELANGOVE (Interpreted). I am the prisoner's father—on this Monday night I was at the Goswell Road shop—my son Lorenzo was there—I went up to bed at 11.45 p.m. and went to bed at 12.15 a.m.—I was in bed when two Englishmen came, and when Raffaelle was brought home by the constable—I left Lorenzo downstairs when I went to bed—I was not out with Pasquale and Lorenzo that night at all—I am not the man to kick up a disturbance and I did not go out—I did not see a disturbance with them, I never have anything to say to them.
Cross-examined. I was asleep when Pasquale went out, but I heard in the morning that he was fetched out, I heard nothing about it that night—I did not see Sabatino that night.
WILLIAM COLLUM . I live at 6, Middlesex Passage—I know this shop in Goswell Road—I went there one night, I think it was Monday, September 13th—I had left the theatre about 10.11 p.m. and went into the prisoner's shop about 11.30 p.m. and saw Lorenzo there—I had some refreshment there and stayed about, a quarter of an hour: he was there all the time.
Cross-examined. I left about 11.45 p.m.—I was not carrying a watch, but I saw a clock at Rosebery Avenue, which is about half a mile from Goswell Road; ten minutes walk—I had a bottle of ginger-beer there, nothing else—I was talking to Lorenzo—if he says that the customers left at 11.30 p.m. he is mistaken.
RAPPAELLE MELANGOVE . On the night in question I received certain injuries—Napolitani struck me with an iron, and Corsi gave me a kick by the ear, and Sabbatino struck me on my arm—I was taken home by a policeman about a quarter or half-past twelve, and found my brother Lorenzo at home—he was upstairs—my father and sister were at home—Lorenzo, came down and my father looked out at the window—I slept at Goswell Road that night, and so did Lonenzo; he did not leave the house after I got there.
CHARLES—(255 G). I took Raffaelle home—I got him home about 1 a.m.—the Goswell Road shop is about a mile from the Hackney Road shop—it is about a mile from Shoreditch Church to Goswell Road.
Cross-examined. There are trams after 12—Napelitani was charged, and discharged—Corsi was not charged with assaulting Raffaelle.
By the COURT. The Magistrate refused to commit anybody who Raffaelle charged—there was a charge against Sabatino at Worship Street, but I was not there; I heard that he was bound over.
GUILTY .— PASQVALE— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. LORENZO— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
MOORE PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. MEARS prosecuted, and MR. SYMONS defended Whittal.
JAMES FERGUSON (City Police Inspector). I was watching in Fairingdon Street on September 28th at midday—Moore left his employer's stores and joined Girling—they went to Ludgate Circus when Moore left him and went to Ludgate Hill—Girling previously handed him a brown paper parcel—Moore then met Whittal—they walked through the Old Bailey to Smithfield, Moore handing the parcel to Whittal, who went away—Moore returned to work at 2 o'clock—I was in Stonecutter Street on October 4th about 1 o'clock and saw Moore leave the works and go to St. Bride Street and Ludgate Hill and then to the Old Bailey, where Whittal was standing some distance up; Moore made a motion with his right hand, Whittal came opposite the entrance to the Sessions House and they walked together down the Old Bailey and went into the private bar of the Old London Tavern, they called for a drink—after a time Moore took from his jacket pockets these parcels (produced), and handed them to Whittal—they are inner tubes—they remained in the public-house about twenty minutes—they then walked to Ludgate Circus and separated—I followed Whittal to the Park Cycle Works, Park Road, Battersea, where he showed the proprietor some of the tubes—I went to him and said, "I am a police-officer. Where did you get those tubes from?"—he said. "I bought them in the City"—I said "Where?"—he said "I bought them honestly; that's good enough for you"—I said, "You will have to come back to the City with me"—he said, "All right"—I took him to the detective office, Old Jewry, searched him and found two memoranda.
Cross-examined. I believe they are in Court—I believe they are receipts given by Moore to Whittal for tubes and types.
By the COURT. One is for £9 worth of goods and another in June; balance £2 10s.
THOMAS ABBOTT (City Police Inspector). I said to Whittal on October 4th, "I am a police-officer. I am given to understand that you refuse to give the name of the person you bought these tubes from"—they were lying in front of him—he said, "I bought them from Mr. Moore, and paid him 15s. for them"—I said, "There are other goods you purchased from Moore"—he said, "Yes; I think it was last Thursday; I bought from Moore one Clipper type for 12s. 6d., and a few tubes I have in my shop; I paid him 2s. 6d. each for them the same evening; there are two Clipper types there; one I got about a fortnight ago, and the other last week; I paid him 12s. 6d. for each, and three pairs of pedals I paid him 5s. a pair for"—he was detained—he said he knew Moore, and where he was employed—at the station, in Whittal's presence, I said to Moore, "To day, at dinner time, you gave this man (Whittal) these six inner tubes"—he said, "Yes; he was to pay me 15s. for them, but he is quite innocent"—on searching Whittal's place I found fifteen inner tubes and
valves, two type covers, one pedal, one saddle and pillar, one chain, and one boy's bicycle—on showing them to Whittal he said, "I bought those from Mr. Moore, and paid him for all. I gave him a fair price; I gave £1 for the boy's bicycle"—Moore said, "This man is quite innocent; he did not know how I got them."
Cross-examined. On two occasions Moore said that Whittal was quite innocent—when I spoke to Whittal he told me at once that he had got the things from Moore, and that he had purchased other things from him—I found these articles in Whittal's shop, not concealed—the bicycle bears signs of use.
WILLIAM GIRLING . I am a cycle-fitter, of 8, Havard Road, Chiswick, and was formerly employed by the prosecutors—on October 20th I was convicted of stealing one type and two air-tubes, was bound over to come up for judgment—On September 28th I handed Moore a brown paper parcel containing a pair of types, trade value about £2—I went with Moore to 212, St. John Street to take stock, four or five weeks before we were charged—Whittal came with a cart—two machines were taken out of their crates by Moore and myself and put in the cart by Moore and Whittal—they were wrapped in paper—I don't know who drove the cart away or where it was going.
Cross-examined. Moore was a workman like myself, but many years my senior—I was longer in the firm—the cart came some time before 6 pm. when the place was open.
DAVID WHITTAL . I am the prisoner's brother and live at 53, Bridge Road, Battersea—I drove in a trap with him to 212, St. John Street where I saw Moore and Girling—my brother asked me to have a drink—I said "No; I don't want one: you go and have one"—he said "You stop here till I come back," and he went away—Moore put two bicycles into the cart and Girling and I covered them to prevent their being scratched—they were already covered with paper—Moore told us to take them to his home, which we did, where they were received by his mother, I believe.
Cross-examined. My brother got 4s. or 5s. for doing that work for Moore—he was out in the trap about two hours and a-half.
JAMES SANDER . I am Stores Manager to the Gormally and Jeffries Manufacturing Company, 19 and 20, Holborn Viaduct—these six tubes and fifteen inner tubes are their property; they are without valves and are worth 5s. each—I also identify these two outer covers, chain, pillar, and Mcycle as their property—the number on the bicycle has been partially filed out—Moore had no authority to deal with the articles.
Cross-examined. The six are 26 inch tubes; the others are 28 inch—more 28 inch are sold than 26 inch—the 1 1/2 inch and 1 1/3 inch diameter would be about the same value—I daresay they can be bought at 2s. a Pair, trade price, or even less, but not of that quality—I put £5 as the trade price of the bicycle.
Re-examined. You cannot buy a Palmer's or Clifford's type for less than 5s.—A great many ladies' machines are fitted with 26 inch wheels.
Witnesses for the Defence.
known Moore six or seven months and have had dealings with him in buying, selling, repairing, and brazing—I have bought shop-soiled goods of him—I buy things in the cheapest market—I was looking at this bicycle a few weeks since for my boy and spoke to Moore—he said "I daresay I can find you one"—I told him this was a shade too small but it might do for him to learn on—I learnt him and I daresay he has been out on it every day since—I could have sold it two or three times since but would not—it was kept in the shop—I paid Moore £4 for it—I have done repairs for Mr. Sander and have sold goods to him second-hand—I was at his place of business when arrested—I did not know that the things I bought of Moore were stolen—I gave him 2s. 6d. for the inner tubes—I also deal with the Great Eastern Rubber Company, East Loadon, and have bought inner tubes at 2s., 1s. 9d., and 1s. 6d.—this is an invoice of theirs for five dozen tubes at 2s, each—I gave 25s. a pair for the type covers and 5s. a pair for the pedals, saddle and pillar 7s. 6d., and chain 5s. I first met with Moore in Battersea Park one Sunday, riding round—he had an accident with his pedal—I had a spanner with me and tightened it and we rode round the park—he said, "Are you in the line?"—I said, "Yes," and gave him one of my cards—he said, "I can do business with you, and will give you a call someday"—Just before Whitsun he brought me a repair; a party had run into someone—I charged him 11s.
Cross-examined. I did not know where Moore was employed until about a month ago—I was waiting for him on September 28th when I got that Clipper type—he told me what the parcel contained—I had not asked him to get it for me—he wrote to me to meet him at 1.30—he said he had bought the tyre—on October 4th I was waiting for him again—I did not see him approaching—I saw him put his hand up—he did not signal—we went to the public-house, and he handed me the six inner tubes—I did not know what he was going to bring—they are always tied up in this way—we are not allowed to examine them—it does them no harm—I only offered one for sale to Sander—I have not offered a Palmer variety to him before, only a Clipper—I have got about 4s. for Clippers, and not 5s. 6d. with valves—I did not say to Ferguson, "I have bought them honestly; that is good enough for you"—he said, "What have you got in your pocket?"—I said, "Six inner tubes"—he said, "Where did you get them?"—I said, "I bought them of a gentleman in the City"—he said, "Do you know they are stolen?"—I said "No; I do not"—he said, "They are; you had better come with me"—I said "Where to? "He said, "To the Detective Office "and I went with him—I told him before I got ten yards away who I bought them "of—he said, "You bought them of a man with specs"—I said "Yes; Mr. Moore"—I cannot account for Abbott saying I understand you refuse to give the name—I examined the bicycle before I bought it, I have examined it several times—I did not know where the number was—I have been in the trade three years—I have not taken out the figure 2 and do not know anything about it—it looks as if newly done—I do not suggest it has been done since it has been in the possession of the police—it is bright—it has been ridden scores of times—I never cleaned it—it used to be kept on the floor of the shop—this is the first time I have seen that the number has been tarnpered
with—it is a serious thing—the number is the only way of tracing a machine—I don't think you can get Clipper types under 5s.—I received a letter-card from Moore about the third week in August to go to St. John Street to do a little job for him—I had been there about eighteen months before—I did not come to the door and receive the bicycles from Moore, nor did I put them into the trap—I got there a little after 11 a.m. and not 5 p.m.—I went away to have a drop of liquor, as I did not feel very well, and when I came back my brother was in the trap with the bicycles, which were covered—it is customary to take sacks in the trap—I did not order them to be covered—I thought there might have been a sale, and that Moore had bought them—I do not attend sales—I never paid more than 2s. 6d. for a tube—I cannot say if a Clipper can be bought under 5s.—I paid £4 for the bicycle—I sold him goods, and repaired frames for him at the same time—I did not omit to mention the boy's bicycle to Inspector Abbott because I knew the number ha I been tampered with.
Re-examined. I told the police of all the things in the shop for sale—the tubes are treated with sulphur combined with vulcanite, to prevent their sticking when tied up—I never saw the number until to-day that I remember—it is usual to keep bicycles covered with paper—Moore paid me 4s. for the horse and trap.
JOHN H. MOORE (The Prisoner). Whittal is innocent as to where I got the machines from—I never told him I had stolen them—I knew that he was a small man dealing in the cheapest market—probably I told him I attended sales.
Cross-examined. I was employed during the day, but could attend evening sales—I should say that the number had not been tampered with—I cannot say if a file has been used to it—it is not my work.
Friday, October 28th.
JAMES SANDER (Re-examined). Inner tubes are sometimes tied up, but more commonly all Clipper tubes are delivered as these are (loosed—the tubes that were tied were Gormally tyre tubes, but a customer would have no difficulty in examining the stuff—we might have one or two tied up, but the bulk are thrown into drawers like these are—these are similar tubes.
WHITTAL— GUILTY . Both prisoners received good characters.— Judgment Respited.The GRAND JURY commended Inspector Abbott, in which the COURT concurred.
MR. ORMSBY Prosecuted.
During the progress of the case the Prisoner stated that he was
GUILTY and the JURY returned that it verdict.— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. GRAZEBROOK Prosecuted.
WILLIAM BOWDEN . I am a seaman—I lodge at 17, Victoria Buildings, Whitechapel—about 10 p.m. on September 22nd I was in the City of Norwich public-house, Wentworth Street, Whitechapel—I saw the prisoner with several women—Susan Smith was there—I paid for drink and changed a half-sovereign—I got in change 9s. and some coppers—I was in the bar about half-an-hour—the prisoner followed me out—Smith was coming out, too—the prisoner said, "Aren't you going to give me the price of a drink?"—I said I had, inside—he twisted me about and I tried to shove him off—he says I hit him first; I suppose I did trying to get away—he put his hands into my pocket—he took all my money—I had no other money in my trousers pocket—I held on till he knocked me down three times and scored my band, which was bleeding, and he put a lump on my face which did not show till a day or two afterwards—a constable came up and I heard that the man was in charge—he was taken to the station.
SUSAN SMITH . I was with Bowden who paid for a pot of ale and two twos of whiskey—I saw him pay over the bar half-a sovereign and receive the change; the charge was 8d.—I went out with him—the prisoner followed directly—I was in Bowden's company—I saw the prisoner take the money out of Bowden's pocket—he put his arm round Bowden—Bowden struck him after he had taken the money—the prisoner took the money before he knocked him down: then I walked away—Bowden called for the police—when they came I was outside the crowd—the prisoner put one arm round Bowden and the other hand in his pocket, and as he did that he was striking him in the face.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I followed you to the station because the Inspector asked me what I knew about it—I said I had been drinking with him all the evening, and he said, "If you saw it you can speak"—the Inspector did not threaten me.
EDWARD BAGLBY . I was a Policeman, 6 A Reserve, I am now a prisoner—on September 22nd, about 10.15 p.m., I was about fifty yards from the City of Norwich public-house—I saw a crowd and went to it—I saw the prisoner leaving the crowd—he faced me and said, "He struck me first"—the prosecutor was excited—I could see he had been interfered with—he was standing—on his left wrist were three marks, and his left cheek was very thick—he said "I shall give this man into custody for robbing me and knocking me down," and in answer to my question he said, "I went into the public-house and changed half-a-sovereign and treated him"—I took the prisoner to the station and on him were found two half-crowns, two florins, and 2 1/2 d.—on being charged he made no reply—at the Police-court he said, "The money was mine."
Cross-examined. I went to Nicholson's Wharf and was told you were employed there two or three days as a casualty man—I saw two foremen
—you gave an address at a lodging-house in Brick Lane and I saw the deputy, who did not know you.
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I can prove how I came by the money I had in my pocket; I worked hard for it."
The prisoner stated in his defence that he had been working till the Thursday afternoon, from 7 a.m. on Monday.—
GUILTY .—He then
PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony at Newington on March 12th, 1895.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. MATHEWS for the Prosecution offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, October 27th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. OLIVER Prosecuted.
LILLY PAYNTER . I live at 13, Albert Street, Shad well—on September 29th I was with Elliott in Cable Street—four men pushed him off the path-way—two pulled his hand from his right-hand pocket and money fell to the ground—the prisoners were two—I had seen them before.
Cross-examined by Harris. You were "all four together—the prosecutor had hold of you.
Cross-examined by Sullivm. You were one of the men who hustled the prosecutor—you were on the same side of the road, as the other two.
GEORGE HOPKIN (396 H). On September 29th, about 12.45, I was in Cable Street—I saw the prisoners and two others assault the prosecutor—I heard some money rattle on the ground—I arrested Harris, as he was running away.
Cross-examined by Harris. You were not in charge of the prosecutor—I asked what was the matter—you tried to run down a court-way.
Re-examined. The prosecutor is away at sea.
ARTHUR WATERS (148 H). I was in Cable Street on September 29th about 12.45—I saw four men attacking the prosecutor—I knew one of the prisoners—I took Sullivan into custody—he was standing by the prosecutor—the four men were together.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. The prosecutor said you were one of the men—the inspector did not take the prosecutor into a room at the station for five minutes to speak to him.
GUILTY of the robbery only.
SULUVAN then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in October, 1892, in the name of Jeremiah Sullivan.— five Years' Penal Servitude.
HARRIS†— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
703. JANOS TODT (34) and MORRIS SINGER (20) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from Philip Jacobs £3, with intent to defraud. Other counts charged them with conspiring together to defraud Philip Jacobs.
MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted.
The prisoners being foreigners, the evidence was interpreted to them.
PHILIP JACOBS . I am a tailor, of 10, Poland Chambers, Poland Street—on September 6th my workman, Konovsky, brought the prisoner Todt to me with three bills to change—he said he could not change them, and they were good—I gave him £3 for them—I afterwards applied for a warrant.
VICTOR KONOVSKY . I am a tailor, working for Philip Jacobs—on the night of September 6th I met the prisoners—they asked me if I knew where they could change American notes—Singer spoke in Yiddish—I took them to a Jew in Compton Street—Singer went in, Todt stood outside—I afterwards took them to Mr. Jacobs—Todt went in to see him, Singer stood outside.
Cross-examined by Singer. You stood across the road—I did not say you should not take Todt in, so that he should not see how much you got, and that we should divide the money—you said you brought the money, and wanted to earn something—you bolted the door, and he gave you 2s.
ARTHUR CLARKE (Police Sergeant, C). on September 13th, about 10.30 a.m., I was with Detective Ellis in Leman Street, Whitechapel—I saw the prisoners together—I arrested Singer—I told him he would be charged with obtaining by false pretences £3 from Mr. Jacobs—he said, "All right"—I took him to the station—I searched him—I found a cigarette case containing fifteen American dollar greenbacks, similar to these (produced)—he said, "That is not mine, it belongs to him," pointing to Todt—that was in broken English—Todt said, "Yes, that is mine."
KELVICH DAVIS I am a carpenter—I saw Singer in May last in Wardour Street crying—he showed me a letter and a ten-dollar bill, and asked me to lend him 10s.—I lent him 10s.—I next saw him in custody on September 6th.
ETBEL CHORLEY . I am book-keeper at the Great Eastern Railway Hotel, Liverpool Street Station—on June 19th Singer brought these two 10 dollar Confederate State notes—he asked me to change them—I believed they were good—he said he was going to stay at the hotal that night; that his luggage was coming during the day, and he asked me to keep a bedroom for him—after he got £16s. 8d. he went away—I next saw him in custody in September—I identified him from about a dozen persons.
Cross-examined by Singer. I spoke to you in the reception office—the waiter interpreted your language.
NATHAN WATERMAN . I am a tailor—on August 14th I met the prisoner in Wardour Street—he showed me a bill and asked me whether I knew where he could change it—I was outside a grocer's shop, and asked the grocer's man—I then said, "It is Sunday, and all the offices are closed"—I lent the prisoner a sovereign—I gave him my name find address, and he said he would call again at 7 o'clock for the balance—I did
not see him again till I saw him in Court—I identified him from twelve or fifteen others.
Cross-examined by Singer. The other man was with you—you said, "I want a sovereign because I have to give it to this man, as he has to leave town, and I will call later on for the balance."
WOOLF LEVY . I am an interpreter, of 11, Poland Street—on September 13th I was called to Marlborough Street Police-station to assist in taking the charge against the prisoners, and their answers—the charge was obtaining £3 from Mr. Jacobs—in answer to the charge Todt said, "I have only come to England about a week or ten days. I came from America; I have been living in a town called Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. On leaving there I met a man whom I knew. I bad 240 dollars in gold. He knew I was going abroad. He said tome, 'What do you want to carry all this gold with you for? I shall change it for you, and give you paper, being about to go on board a ship you do not want to carry it in your pocket.' He handed me twenty-four of those 10 dollar bills. On arrival in Liverpool I went to a clothier and bought the suit of clothes I am wearing now; I paid one 10-dollar bill and they were good enough, so I changed another in order that I could have my fare from Liverpool to London; when I came to London I met Singer and asked him where to change the money"—Singer made no reply—Todt said Singer went about with him and told him where to change the money—he said the prosecutor had cheated him out of £3 because he ought to have given him £6 for the thirty dollars and that Singer cheated him of one dollar—he was charged before the Magistrate on September 13th, 20th, and 27th, and then made answers—these are the correct statements before the Magistrate (produced and read), Todt says: "On my arrival in London from Liverpool I met a constable and asked him to show me a place where I could exchange American money; he directed me down a street, I went to a Jew there and other places, and they said they did not know what money it was. I came to the West End and met Singer, I asked if he knew where I could change the money; he asked for some and I gave him some; he went away and brought it back; he showed me a sovereign and said that was the value of ten dollars and I believed him; he said, 'Give that to me and I will find some one to change it,' we met Konovsky, who took us to Jacobs, where we got the money "
Singer says, "What 'is written down is true, the dollar note which I produced was what I had received from Todt, I never had any of the other money."
TODT added in his defence that he was not aware the money was bad, and that he had a box in London of 300 dollars more which he said was good money.
Cross-examined. I may have said "I do not know the lady at all, but I know the man who changed the two bills,"—it is possible I know him—I know Waterman, but I took him for another man.
GUILTY . It was stated that these notes had been circulated for nine or ten weeks by men of the description of the prisoners who refused their
address.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. There were three other indictments for misdemeanour.
MR. COHRN Prosecuted.
HELEN OSTRACHINI . I am the wife of Guilo Ostrachini, an Italian, of 26, Great Barton Street, Clerkenwell—he does not understand English—I met him on Monday, October 3rd, in the Thornton Road about 10 p.m, I went in to get the supper, and he went out—I was away from him about five minutes—I next saw him on the ground outside the urinal—I saw the prisoners and some young fellows—the prisoners were punching and kicking him—I heard my husband say, in broken English, "They have robbed me and kicked me"—I saw Cronin robbing him—I saw him take his hand from his right hand pocket—I saw someone hit my husband and run into the White Swan—I saw Bartle kick him—I saw both prisoners follow him to the public-house.
Cross-examined by Cronin. I saw you put your hand in his pocket—I heard no money fall on the floor at the station.
Cross-examined by Bartle. My husband did not try to stab you on the ground—I bad no quarrel with my husband.
GUILIO OSTRACHINI (Through an Interpreter). I live at 26, Great Barton Street—I am a figure maker—on Monday, October 3rd, about 10.30 p.m., I had just got off a tram coming from Poplar—I met my wife in the Thornton Road—I went into a public-house for a drink with her—I was with her two or three minutes—then I met the prisoners—I did not know them—they asked for 4d.—I walked on and said nothing—Bartle came behind and punched and kicked me, and Cronin put his band in my pocket—both of them kicked me—I was on the ground—Cronin took from me 2s. 2d.—I got up and ran into the White Swan—the prisoners followed and got hold of me and kicked me again—Cronin threw a glass, but I avoided it—the publican put the prisoners out and then put me out—the prisoners tried to get at me again, but five or six police came—the prisoners were arrested.
GEORGE HAWKINS . I keep the White Swan public-house in the Thornton Road—about 10.45 p.m. on Monday, October 3rd, I saw the prosecutor trying to mount the bar—the prisoners were following him—they seemed to be attacking him; he was trying to avoid them—I saw he had a black eye the next morning—a glass came over to the saloon bar from the middle bar, where a scuffle was going on—the prisoners were trying to get the prosecutor out—he said, "No, stop here"—I did not realise they were attacking him, or I would not have turned him out—he exclaimed, "Police! Police!"—I turned them out because a bother was going on, and the police came.
JOSEPH WYMAN (36 G). About 10.30 p.m. on October 3rd I heard cries of "Police!"—I crossed the road with another constable to where the cries came from—the prosecutor was surrounded by seven or eight confederates of the same class—he complained of being assaulted, and said Cronin had stolen 2s. 2d, out of his pocket—the prosecutor said Bartle had hit him behind the head first, and Cronin struck him in the
face and knocked him down—I understood what he said—I took Cronin into custody—lie said to the prosecutor, "I put you down? It is false"—he made no reply to the charge—I found 3d. on Cronin, nothing on the other roan.
WILLIAM PEACOCK (240 G). I heard cries of "Police!" and went to the White Swan—I saw the prisoners and several confederates and other people surrounding the prosecutor—he pointed out the prisoners as the men who had assaulted and robbed him outside the urinal—I took Bartle into custody—on the way to the station he said, "It is all right, I did put him through it,"
Evidence for Cronin's Defence,
STEPHEN CRONIN (The prisoner sworn). I live at 6, Wilson Street, Crescent Road—on Monday night, October 3rd, I was walking past the White Swan—I met Mr. Hawkins, who asked me how I was getting on—I said, "All right, is there any chance of a drink?"—he gave me 7d.—I got a pot of ale with two friends—I heard a cry of "Murder!"—an Italian, was striking his wife—I went up and said, "What do you want to do that for?"—he struggled with me and drew a knife—Bartle stopped him—then he ran in the public-house—he had another plunge at me, but Bartle caught his arm—his wife came—she threw a glass, and said, "Take that, you dirty tyke" and "That is supposed to be my husband, but I have not lived with him for twelve months, had it not been for you and the gentleman, I should have been murdered"—the prosecutor came back with a constable—a sergeant came—the wife said, "He tried to stab me, I give him in charge for trying to stab me three times"—at the station there was no Italian interpreter, and the prosecutor spoke for ten minutes, and I only know a word or two—the inspector asked what it was all about—the sergeant said, "Assault and attempt to rob"—then the wife was asked—she said, "Those two men attempted to rob my husband"—I said, "It is a d—lie"—the inspector said, "You sit down; you are drunk"—I said, "What about the prosecutor? you have no business to take drunken people's evidence"—the inspector said, "How much was in your pocket?"—the prosecutor said, "3s. 11d.," "What have you lost?" "6s. 8d,"—do you think I could have all that without some flying all over the floor? or that I would not have it in my possession if I took it.
Cross-examined. I am a labourer—I was not in employment—I can not say how long I have been out of employment—my father and mother are keeping me—I did not first demand 4d. of the Italian—I did not strike him, nor knock him down—I did not follow him into the public-house, we were on the pavement—I (did not ask the prosecutor's wife about the quarrel, because the inspector told her to speak out and give evidence—I did not know the woman.
Evidence for Sortie's Defence.
HENRY BARTLE (The Prisoner). I was near the White Swan, when Mr. Hawkins gave me a drink and 3d.—we drank at the Metropolitan and at the White Swan—I heard the cry of murder—I saw the prosecutor assaulting his wife, who fell to the ground—I went over to the prosecutor, and stopped him hitting his wife—the Italian tried to stab Cronin—I stopped him—Cronin crossed the road, and came back to the kerb—I
Btopped the prosecutor again from stabbing Cronin—the prosecutor threw a glass in the public-house—Mr. Hawkins had the prosecutor turned out—the woman said, "What for, you dirty tyke? I have only had him twelve months, now you are knocking him about"—the constable and the prosecutor charged me—I said I thought the man was going to stab me—the sergeant and another constable told them to go to the station.
Cross-examined. I am a labourer—I have been out of employment six weeks—I live with my mother and father—neither I nor Cronin asked the prosecutor for 4d.—I only stopped him from stabbing Cronin—the prosecutor was not knocked down—I did not follow him into the White Swan—I stood outside—I went up to the door when we saw him stabbing—I was not in the public-house—I never said to the policeman, "It is all right; I did put him through it."
HELEN OSTRACHINI (Re-examined). My husband did not assault me with a knife—the prisoners did not come to my rescue—I had no quarrel with my husband—I saw no knife used—I did not throw a glass at him—Cronin threw the glass and the mark is on the wall—my husband moved his head and escaped it.
JOSEPH WYMAN (lie-examined). I did not hear of the Italian using the knife till the next morning at the Court: not a word on the night—ten minutes previously I had passed the spot and there was no sign of a quarrel; all was quiet.
GUILTY of robbery with some violence.
Cronin was further charged with a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on February 17th, 1892.
Cross-examined by CRONIN. Your brother is like you, but I know where he is.
Cronin's defence. "I was working in Tottenham Court Road at the time my brother was convicted in 1892 of stealing boots—he is just like me, and went in my name."—
GUILTY**†— Five Years' Penal Servitude,— Three Years Penal Servitude.
OLD COURT.—Friday, October 28th, 1898.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
706. FRANCIS CAPRON (36) and GEORGE DE LA RUE (30), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously having in their possession certain plates on part of which was printed parts of 100 Gulden Austrian bank notes. Seven Years' Penal Servitude each.
MR. BURNIE Prosecuted and MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES Defended.
JOHN HAWKINS . I live at 101, Shaftesbury Street, Hoxton—I keep there a provision and confectionery store—I was in my shop a little after midday on August 20th—I heard a disturbance outside—I went out and saw the deceased lying with his head on the kerb and a crowd of people—before I went out I saw the prisoner strike Collins with his fist on his neck—the deceased struck him back they both got together and fell heavily to the ground, the prisoner uppermost—they were about six yards from the kerb.
Cross-examined. I saw all this while I was leaning over the counter—my shop joins a urinal—they were fighting when I looked out—I was about twenty yards away then—I did not know the accused—he seemed to be a robust man—I think he was able to take care of himself—it all happened in about three minutes—he was an older man than the prisoner.
ERNEST HAWKINS . I am thirteen—I am the son of last witness—about 12 o'clock on Saturday, August 20th, I was at my father's shop door—I saw the deceased standing in the road—he and the prisoner were shouting at each other—the prisoner was close to my father's shop, close to the urinal, and about four or five yards from the deceased—he rushed at the deceased and struck him—the deceased struck him back—they both got together and fell down, the deceased underneath—the prisoner got up first—Collins said, "Let me get up first"—after a second or two he let him get up—then the deceased made a run at him, and the prisoner butted the deceased in the stomach with his head and his fists—the deceased fell back on his head on the kerb—I went for a policeman.
Cross-examined. They came out of the urinal separately—I did not see them come out—when the deceased was in the road, and shouting at the prisoner, then the prisoner ran at him—I do not know if he asked him to fight—I did not hear what they said to one another—I was about 20 feet away—I do not know a girl named Grace Brabben—the deceased man was taller than the prisoner—he let the deceased get up after a second or two—then they started fighting again—I did not see the prisoner duck his head to avoid a blow—I did not see the prisoner walk away or turn his back on the deceased—I did not see any kicking; there was none; if there had been I should have seen it—I did not hear the prisoner say he did not want to fight any more—he did not run away—he stood there quietly.
Re-examined. I went away directly to look for a policeman.
WILLIAM NAPPER . I live at a butcher's at 128, Shepherdess Walk, Hoxton—on Saturday, August 20th, I was at the corner of Shaftesbury Street—I saw the deceased and the prisoner there—I was just passing—they were having a scuffle—the prisoner had his back to me—they were holding each other—the prisoner threw deceased on his back, and fell on the top of him—they both got up, the prisoner first—the deceased tried to get away—the prisoner rushed at him, and "shouldered" him and threw him with great violence, his head coming in contact with the kerb—I was three or four feet away at the time—after the deceased man's head struck the kerb he was unconscious—I said to the prisoner, "You ought to be ashamed of yourself to throw an old man like this, it is most cruel of you"—he tried to get away then, and I said, "I shall stop you
until the police come"—he made no answer—I detained him about twenty minutes in abeyance.
Cross-examined. I was about twenty-five yards away when this happened—I could see quite clearly what was going on—the prisoner was very violent in throwing—he allowed the deceased to get up—the deceased tried to get away from the prisoner, but he was too quick for him—the prisoner tried to get away when he saw what was done—he did not try to get away while I was holding him—I did not see any marks on the prisoner's face—I did not see anybody strike him.
Re-examined. I was about twenty-five yards away at first, and rushed up to them—at the end, when the deceased fell, I was about three yards off.
LOUISA CHAMBERS . I am the wife of William Chambers, and live at 121, Shaftesbury Street, Hoxton—on August 20th, about midday, I went to my front window on the second floor, and saw the deceased lying in the road, and the prisoner was standing with his Lack to me kicking him—I thought he was never going to leave off—I called out, "Oh, you brute, leave him alone"—the deceased tried to get up and prisoner kicked him down—then the deceased got upon his knees and elbows, and the prisoner made a running kick at him, and he went over like a ball—he seemed very weak and exhausted—then a man came up and pulled the prisoner away and said, "You have given him quite enough"—he helped the deceased up—he then seemed to make towards the prisoner, but his left arm fell to his side as if half dead—the prisoner went towards the deceased and put his head in his stomach, and got hold of his legs and threw him over his head—he came just opposite my door—his feet came right off the ground and his head came with force on the kerb—the prisoner stood looking at him—a man came up and said, "Now you have done for him, he is as dead as a door nail, I told you what you would do."
Cross-examined. I would Dot be sure if I said that at the Police-court—after the fight was over Napper held him—he did not try to get away from him—I know a woman named Edwards—she lives in the same house—we have not talked this matter over—we said what a dreadful thing it was—I am positive about the kicking—I cannot swear where he kicked deceased—being thrown on the pavement made his head bounce—he did not get up at all, he tried to—I do not know who the man was who came up to hold him—he was a roadman—he did not come up till the prisoner had done kicking him—he came up before it was all over—the deceased seemed as if he would have gone for the prisoner if he had had strength.
Re-examined. The prisoner got a black eye from a man in the crowd, they were so indignant.
GEORGE MARTIN . I live at 18, Hertford Road, Kingsland, and am a scavenger and horse driver in the service of the Shoreditch vestry—the prisoner and the deceased were in the same service with me—on August 20th I was at work in Shaftesbury Street with the deceased and the prisoner—a little before 12 o'clock the deceased left me to go into the urinal and the prisoner followed—I did not hear anything said between them—I saw them come out and went on with my work—Collins came out first—they looked as if they were chaffing each other—I went up the road arid heard someone screaming, and went back and saw
Collins lying on the ground with his head on the kerb—he never spoke to me—the prisoner was close to him—I said to him "I believe you have done it now"—I fetched some brandy.
Cross-examined. I do not know if the prisoner and deceased were friends of a great many years—I had only worked with the deceased for a week—I do not know how long the prisoner had been employed by the vestry—they were on friendly terms when they went into the lavatory,—they were larking about—I did not see any kicking.
ALICE PAYNE . I am the wife of Henry Payne, a gunsmith. On August 20th I went to my shop door about 12 a.m.—I saw the two men in the road—they were both on the ground and the prisoner on the top—he got up and walked away a couple of yards; the deceased followed him; and then the prisoner turned round and the deceased made as if to make another blow—he did not hit the prisoner; he seemed exhausted—then they had a scuffle, and the deceased fell to the ground with his head on the kerb.
Cross-examined. I did not see the prisoner go away, as if he did not want to fight any more—I did not see any kicking—my shop is six or seven yards away from where it happened.
EMILY EDWARDS I live at 120, Shafesbury Street, and am the wife of Edward Edwards, a cabinet-maker—on August 20th, about midday, I was in my first floor front-room—I heard a voice in the street, saying "Let me get up "two or three times—I went to my window and saw the deceased lying on the ground, and the prisoner kneeling on his chest—the deceased tried to get up, but the prisoner kept him down—then he let him get up, and the deceased tried to go after him—the prisoner tried to go away—the deceased tried to hit the prisoner but could not, and the prisoner turned round and butted him back on the kerb.
GRACE PROBART . I live at 56, Crapley Street, and work at I, Shaftesbury Street, a cat's meat shop—on this day I was in the shop—I saw the two men standing opposite the urinal—the deceased went in first, the prisoner followed—they came out and stood on the kerb talking—the deceased said he wanted to fight, and the prisoner said he did not—the deceased struck the prisoner—that was the first blow struck—they both fell down in the middle of the road, the prisoner on top—he got up and held the deceased down—the deceased said, "Let me get up"—the prisoner let him get up—the deceased tried to strike the prisoner, who pushed him, and he fell back with his head on the kerb.
Cross-examined. He pushed him back to prevent himself from being struck—I was there the whole time—I did not see the prisoner kick Collins—if there had been any I should have seen it—I do not know the prisoner; my father knows him—my father works at the brass foundry.
THE JURY here stopped the case and found the Prisoner
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted, and MR. PURCRLL Defended.
FREDERICK TAYLOR . I am a coachman and live at 13, Clarence Street, St. Luke's—on October 5th, at midnight, I was in a compartment of the Weaver's Arms public house, St. Luke's—I saw the prisoner in a different
compartment, he had a drink there—he shouted to me twice through a flap in the division, "You have got to go through it to-night"—I went round to him and asked him what he was kicking up a row with me for—he punched me in the cheat and I punched him back—the landlord refused to serve him and we both went out—he spoke to me quite friendly—he said, "That is all right, you must not take any notice of what I said"—while outside two men came up and said to the prisoner, "Jack, give us a shilling for our kip" (lodging)—the prisoner said, "You are not going to get a shilling, and if you don't go away you will have to go through it;—there is one already who was got to go through it"—I do not know the names of the men, they walked round the corner into the next street—the prisoner is a hairdresser, we were outside his shop—I followed the men, nothing more was said between us—I went about two steps, and the prisoner said, "You have got to have it, take it"—I shouted out, "Wait a minute, he has shot me"—I felt the shots behind my ear—I turned round and he rushed at me; I clutched him and threw him to the ground—we were both on the ground struggling, and the revolver went off again—he said, "I will pop you another one in your head"—I felt another shot near the same place—the police came up and took the revolver from him—I was taken to the hospital, where I remained till October 14th as an in-patient and have not recovered from the wounds yet.
Cross-examined. In the public-house I knocked Gorman on to a feat after I had had a blow—he has not had trouble with me before—his shop was pretty nearly smashed up by two men—I was not one of them—their names were Jones and Townsend—I know them—they are not my friends—I am sometimes in their company—Jones has just come from eighteen months' imprisonment—I do not know what Townsend's last sentence was—I do not know that Gorman has applied for protection to the police—I do not know if he has a police whistle—I had not seen the two men who asked for 1s. that night—they said Gorman had done them for 30s.—they had no sticks in their hands—I know a man named Boyle; he is not a friend of mine—I know where he lives—I was away once through that man—he stole my goods out of my cart—he stole them and I was sent to prison—I have only had one sentence for twelve months—I was charged with assault six years ago—it was on a policeman—I got three months—that is the only time any person has charged me—I know Mr. Tyrriell, the warder—I was never sent to an industrial school; Tyrrie? may remember it, I don't.
Re-examined. I have been employed for sixteen months in Castle Street.
WILLIAM GARDNER . I live at 3, Hull's Place, Lever Street, St. Luke's, and am a box maker—on October 5th I was in the Weaver's Arms until it closed—I am 28 years old—I saw the prisoner and the prosecutor there—Gorman looked through the flap and said to Taylor "You have got to go through it"—Taylor came round and asked Gorman what he meant—Taylor pushed Gorman and he fell into the sawdust—Taylor came out, and the prisoner five minutes afterwards; they went across the road and stopped outside Gorman's shop; another man came up and a second waited on the other side of the road—I did not hear what was said—they went
round the corner, the other man first and Taylor following, and Gorman put his hand in his pocket and pulled out a revolver and said "You have got to have it"—I heard a revolver go off—Taylor staggered and then the prisoner went for him again. Taylor shouted out "I am shot, somebody help me"—they struggled and then another shot went off, they were on the ground, then the police came up.
Cross-examined. I had known the prisoner before that, he keeps a hairdresser's shop at the corner—I do not know if he has had any trouble there; he has got other men into trouble—I know Jones; I do not know where he is now—I do not know if he will be away about eighteen months; he is inside a building I suppose—he was charged with assaulting the prisoner—I do not know a man named Olney Boyle; I know George Townsend; I do not know where he is now—I did not hear that Gorman's shop windows were broken—I do not know that he has got a whistle—Jones and Boyle and Townsend go to the Weaver's Arms—I do not know that Gorman's nose was cut; I saw him with a big eye.
Re-examined. I did not see any marks on the prosecutor when he left the public-house.
THOMAS CHAPLIN (120 G) On the early morning of October 5th, I heard a noise and firing of shots in the direction of Clarence Street and Lever Street—I went there and saw the two men on the ground and at the same moment another shot was fired by one of them—I only heard one previously—the prisoner was on top of the prosecutor and in his right hand he had a revolver—the prisoner said "I hope I have killed, him"—I got hold of him and pulled him off the, prosecutor, I wrenched the revolver from him, he became very violent and I threw him to the ground and blew ray whistle for assistance—we took him to the station—he said nothing—his face was very much bruised—he was perfectly sober, he was excited.
Cross-examined. When my attention was first called to the public-house there were several men outside; I think they were quarrelling—I did not see if they had sticks, I was fifty yards away—the prisoner has had some trouble about his shop and some windows were broken last April—I do not know if he prosecuted two men for assaulting him.
Re-examined. I have never known Taylor to be in any attempt made on the prosecutor.
ROBERT BOWDEN (Inspector, G Division). I was in charge of the station on October 5th when the last witness brought the prisoner in—he handed me a revolver—I found in it six empty cartridges, four seemed to have been discharged some time, and two recently—the revolver was then warm—the prisoner said, "Look how I have got it," and pointed to his face, which was swollen—I charged him with attempting to murder by shooting—he made no reply.
Cross-examined. I hive known the prisoner about two years; we have had a lot of trouble with roughs lately.
JAMES MAXWELL . I am house Burgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and about 1 o'clock on October 5th the prosecutor was brought in suffering from two wounds behind the left ear—one was only superficial the other was much deeper, both might have been made with bullets—later on an operation was performed, and this bullet (produced) was extracted
from behind the ear deep in the neck—it was in a dangerous place—he will remain in my care for some time; he is now out of danger.
Cross-examined. While I was examining the prosecutor he was a little excited—his behaviour while in the hospital was not as it should have been.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I had no intention to murder; I must have done it in self-defence."
GUILTY, with intent, to do previous bodily harm.
The Prisoner received a bad character.— Four Years' Penal Servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Friday, October 28th, and
NEW COURT—Saturday and Monday, October 29th and 31st, 1898.
before Mr. Common Serjeant.
710. ERNEST CURTIS RUSSELL , to indictments for unlawfully obtaining credit for £82 3s. 11d., £215 11s. 5d., £593 8s. 7d., £382 18s. 9d., £50, and £100, without stating that he was an undischarged bankrupt.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS, Mr. AVORY, and MR. BIRON Prosecuted, and MR. SIMMONS Defended.
GUILTY on the First Count ;
NOT GUILTY on the Second. NEIL— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
BRABY— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Saturday, October 29th, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
714. EDMUND THEODORE RATCLIFF (51) and CHARLES GEORGE PERRY (26) , Unlawfully conspiring with William James Rodwell and Frederick William Lewis to obtain by false pretences from Mary Catheart and others various sums, amounting to £215 9s. 8d., with intent to defraud.
MESSRS. CHARLES W. MATHEWS and BIRON Prosecuted, and LORD COLEBIDGE, Q.C., and MR. COYLE appeared for Ratcliff, and MR. RANDOLPH for Perry.
ANNA BAKNETT . I am a tenant on the Wootton Estate of Mrs. Cathcart—three gentlemen came to collect the rents—two of them, Lewis and Rodwell, I have seen before—Lewis said they had brought a gentleman, Mr. Perry, to collect the rent due March 25th—there were some deductions
for repairs—I drew this cheque for £15 4s. 4d. the balance, and paid it to Perry on May 18th—the cheque bears the endorsement, "C. J. Perry, 103, New Road, Batterssa Park Road"—Perry gave me this receipt.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. The deduction was by arrangement—Perry did not show me a writ—my husband had previously seen him, and was satisfied it was right to pay Perry—Lewis and Rod well had been down there four or five years, not as sequestrators all the time, but part of it—Mrs. Cathcart resided at Wootton Lodge.
MARY KENT I am a ten ant of Mrs. Cathcart on the Wootton Estate—I remember on May 18th Lewis, Rod well, and Perry asking for the rent—I paid Perry, and he gave me a receipt for £6 10s., allowing £2 10s. for some deductions—Rod well in Perry's hearing said Perry was the person entitled to the rent.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. Mrs. Cathcart has not resided at Wootton Lodge for some years—I have paid the rent to her bankers at Ashton.
JOHN THOMAS WARRINGTON . My father is Mrs. Cathcart's tenant on the Wootton Estate—on May 18th Lewis and Perry came to collect the rent—Lewis said, "I have brought down a gentleman to whom Mrs. Cathcart owes money"—after that I paid Perry £26 8s. 5d. for rent after certain deductions—I received this receipt from him.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. He showed me a paper—he gave me a receipt in his own name.
GEORGE BULL . I am a tenant of Mrs. Cathcart on the Wootton Estate—on May 18th, Lewis, Rodwell, and Perry came and spoke to me about the rent—I afterwards paid George Perry £19 1s. 10d.—he gave me this receipt.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH I saw no order—I thought they were acting for Mrs. Cathcart—I never looked at the paper—they had a sort of paper.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH Lewis showed me a paper, and I was satisfied.
GEORGE RAWLINSON . I am a tenant on the Wootton Estate—on May 18th, Rodwell, Lewis and Perry came and asked me for the rent—I made some objection to paying it to Perry—he said all the other tenants had paid it so I said I would pay—I paid £15 10s. and got Perry's receipt.
WILLIAM COPESTAKE . I am manager to Crompton and Evans, Union Bank, Uttoxeter Branch—on May 23rd, this year, this cheque of Anna Barnett was presented at our bank by Perry—he endorsed it in my presence—I asked him his address—he said, "103, New Road,
Battersea Park Road, London, S. W.," and I wrote it on the cheque—the cheque was paid.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. It is usual to take the address—I don't know whether I should have refused to cash the cheque if he had not given me his address.
EMILY NUIT . I am the wife of Henry Nutt, a labourer—we live at 103, New Road, Battersea Park Road—I have known Perry for some time—he and his wife lived at our house in November, 1897—they left there on February 19th this year, and since then neither of them have lived at our house.
Cross-examined. Letters were sent there to Perry for some time afterwards, but they were not taken in by me—I did not see Perry and his wife after February 19th till I saw them at Bow Street, except once at a public-house.
ARIS TICKNER . I am a solicitor, practising at 14, Gray's Inn Square—for some years I have been the London agent of Mr. Wilkins, a solicitor, of Uttoxeter—I remember the action of "Cathcart v. Walker," in which Mr. Wilkins acted as solicitor for Walker—I produce an order in that case, dated August 10th, 1894, under which judgment was given on an interpleader issue in favour of the claimant making Mrs. Cathcart pay the costs of the action—this further order of January 21st, 1895, is in the same action in the Court of Appeal—on the side of it is "Allocator for costs, dated January 30th, 1895, £17 15s. 6 I.," signed Gilbert Cole-ridge—on February 27th, 1895, there was a subsequent transaction consisting of a payment to me of £17 15s. 6d. by Mr. A. E. Fenton, a solicitor, who, I understood at the time, was acting for Mrs. Cathcart; that was the representation to me—I accounted for it to Mr. Wilkins in the ordinary course and left him to deal with or account for it—the next I heard about the matter was when Mr. Deakins's clerk applied to me about June this year—I knew nothing of any proceedings in January connected with this judgment under with a writ of sequestration was issued: my attention was not in any way called to it.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. At the time I first had a communication from Mr. Kemp in this matter I had forgotten the existence of the order of January 21st, 1893: I said before the magistrate I thought there was none—then I went through the papers and recognised it when I saw it—I do not know whether the Appeal from the County Court was only to be allowed on Mrs. Cathcart giving security for costs.
WALTER LEWIS . I am managing clerk to Hammond and Richards, solicitors, of 26, Lincoln's Inn Fields—in the early part of 1895 Mr. Fenton, a solicitor, whom I knew very well, made a request of me about a judgment debt against Mrs. Cathcart—this document, dated February 27th, 1895, was then brought into existence—it is in Mr. Fenton's writing, and purports to be signed by Mr. Walker, and to be an assignment to me of a judgment debt for £17 15s. 6d., for which I was to pay exactly that amount, under an order which is cited in it. the judgment debt being dated January 21st, 1895, in the action of "Cathcart v. Walker"—I paid Mr. Fenton the precise amount—I have not got my cheque-books for that period with me—I have been convinced from the date of the transaction that I paid him the exact amount, whatever the
amount was—I said before the Magistrate I paid the £17 odd—it was no benefit to me to buy the judgment debt for the full value; I did it as a kindness to Fenton and to oblige him—he was not acting for Mrs. Cathcart; he said he wanted to acquire the debt to assist him in recovering certain claims he had got against Mrs. Cathcart; that she owed him a large sum for costs which he could not get paid—he was to see me right out of the matter; that was the expression—I ultimately sold the debt, and so recovered my money—Fenton effected the Bale for me to Perry on January 4th, 1898—I was then repaid what I had paid for it, I cannot say that I received the exact amount—I received a cheque from Fonton in February this year for £200, which I understood included this item; Fenton acted for me in many matters—I am not able to individualise the repayment of the £20—he owed me more than £200, but he had certain costs against me—I do not know of any document showing that the £20 6s. 6d. was part of the £200 paid on account of a larger debt—beyond the assignment there is no document to show the amount I paid—I said when I was examined in July, "I have not had the £20 odd named in the document; I understand Fenton received it; I have not had it"—I also said I had had this cheque for £200 on account—Fenton had been Mrs. Cathcart's solicitor, and he asked me to buy a debt due from her to enable him to have a hand over her and to use it in some shape legitimate I suppose—I never applied to Mrs. Cathcart for the money, I left it in Fenton's hand—I let the thing be dormant for three years, and finally I assigned it to Perry—I executed the assignment to Perry on whatever date it bears in Fenton's presence and gave it to Fenton to complete—I knew Rodwell as Mr. Hood Barr's clerk—I knew him after he left Mr. Hood Barr's—I understood he transferred his articles to Mr. Cudby—I was introduced to Mr. F. W. Lewis by Rodwell some time last year—I know Rodwell's writing fairly well—the attesting clause to Exhibit 18 A is in Fenton's writing, and the document itself in Rodwell's.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. I transferred my claim to Perry through Fenton, who carried it for me and accounted for it afterwards to me.
By the COURT. The calculation of the difference between £17 15s. 6d. and £20 6s. 6l. in three years I left to Fenton; I understood it simply consisted of 4 per cent, interest.
ARTHUR EDMUND FENTON I am a solicitor practising at 10, Staple's Inn—in 1893 I was acting as Mrs. Cathcart's solicitor in the action of "Cathcart v. Walker"—if I said before the magistrate "I find on reference to my books I was so acting in 1894 "that is correct; I suppose the litigation extended over both years—I did not act throughout the whole of the litigation; there was a change of solicitors—I acted for her on the first hearing at the Burton-on-Trent County Court on August 10th, 1894—I ceased to act for her about September or October, 1894, I think, and before the appeal came on for hearing in January, 1895—I think by that time I had been succeeded by another solicitor—I am not sure if there was an interval during which Mrs. Cathcart acted in person, but I was ultimately succeeded by another solicitor, Mr. Elton—I ultimately sold for £450 to Mr. Hood Barr's, a solicitor, the judgment
debt for over £1,000 due to me from Mrs. Cathcart—I had disbursed for Mrs. Cathcart over £1,000—I knew she was a woman of property, and I knew also it was practically impossible to recover the debt; she contended that no part of her property was available for the purposes of execution, and I was so advised by eminent counsel—the order by the Court of Appeal in January, 1895, dismissing the appeal and allowing the costs was mentioned to me by Mr. Tickner, who was the solicitor on the other side, as being in existence—I asked a client of mine, Mr. Walter Lewis, if he would pay the amount and buy the debt—he agreed—I told him I had not Mrs. Catrtcart's authority to pay the debt, and therefore if I paid it, it would be necessary to take some steps to keep the debt alive, so that it could be recoverable against Mrs. Cathcart, and I proposed that he should buy it, because it was the one particular debt I knew of which was recoverable, and because the order was made under Mr. Cozens Hardy's Act of the previous year—Lewis gave me the money in cash. I think—probab'y he would give me a cheque or something of that kind—I should think, I had a record of the payment of that sum; I don't know if there is one—I knew of the reas ignment of the debt in January, 1898—I attested the signature—between February, 1895, and January, 1898, the debt was mentioned, but nothing definite was said—Mr. Lewis had been out of his money for some years, and he wanted to get it—it was a judgment debt, that was only bearing interest at four per cent., and was not being enforced—I know Rodwell—I know Lewis as a solicitor—I know Cudby as a practising solicitor—document 18A is in Rodwell's writing, and I attested it—the £20 6s. 6d. was paid in relation to that assignment on the day that it was executed by F. W. Lewis, who was the solicitor in the matter to me—I have not brought any record of the payment; probably it would be shown in my accounts—if it was paid to me it was paid to me on behalf of Lewis only, and accounted for to him about that time, or shortly afterwards—I do not think there was any specific payment, because I have a large number of transactions with Lewis. I have nothing to satisfy you that such a sum was paid in relation to this matter—I will search for you—Perry was not there—I think only my client, Mr. Lewis, was there when I attested the assignment—F. W. Lewis brought it and asked me to get it executed and he would pay the consideration money on receipt of it—I understood he was acting in recovering the larger portion of the debt due from Mrs. Cathcart in that matter; he was the solicitor in the matter—I did not know that the object was to found an application for an order of sequestration—he made no divulgence to me at that time—I have met Perry on business; he had shortly prior to this paid off a mortgage due to my client—I have not seen him in Rodwell's or Lewis's company—I cannot remember that I have.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. F. W. Lewis paid the consideration money as solicitor for Perry, who took the assignment—there was first a trial at the County Court; then Mrs. Cathcart appealed to the Divisional Court which ordered a new trial; and there was a second trial at Burton on August 10th, 1894—I acted for her up to the first trial; I did not appear on the second trial—Mrs. Cathcart appealed against the judgment which
was against her the second time—I heard that immediately the Court sat in October application was made that she should give security for costs and that in consequence of her not complying with that order her appeal was subsequently dismissed; I remember those facts now—Mr. Hood Barrs acted for her before I was her solicitor—she incurred liability to me for costs—I know she has not paid her solicitors; she never pays without being sued, and resists execution in every form—she setup that her settlements prevented my being paid—I was not disposed to go to the House of Lords—Mr. Hood Barrs went there and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal in "Hood Barrs v. Cathcart" and discovered he could recover—I had disposed of my debt some time before—the judgment of the House of Lords would not have helped me, as my judgment was dated anterior to the judgment of the House of Lords, and according to that House I could only recover such arrears of her income as had accrued at the date of my judgment, and not any subsequent arrears.
JOSEPH MONTGOMERY KEMP . I am clerk to Messrs. Deakin & Co., solicitors, of Stepney, who acted for Mrs. Cathcart in January, 1898—her affairs went through my hands and I have taken much part in the conduct of them since they have been left to Messrs, Deakin—I am perfectly conversant with her affairs—the assignment purporting to be dated January 8th, 1898, did not come to my notice nor to Mr. Deakin's notice—I did not know of the proceedings taken at Chambers or of the issue of a writ of sequestration till May 27th when I searched and found it at the Law Courts—my principal directed me to search because he heard that Perry and Lewis had gone down to Wootton and collected rents on May 18th—the affairs of Mrs. Cathcart were in the hands of Messrs. Deakin on more than one occasion before the Court of Appeal in the spring months of this year, and daring those months an investigation was conducted for the Court of Appeal by Master Wilberforce one of the Masters of the Supreme Court—that, among other things, was in relation to this writ of sequestration of Mrs. Cathcart's property—I was present in Court on May 19th, 1898, when the Court of Apped made an order, of which this is an office copy. (This order, addressed to Lewis and Rodwell as sequestrators and receivers, appointed under the order to file accounts of all moneys received by them, referred to Master Wilber-force to enquire and report what moneys had been received by Lewis and Rodwell, ordered them to pay over such moneys as the Master considered they were accountable for, and restrained them from taking any further proceedings under the writ of sequestration against Mrs. Cathcart or her properly pending the appointment of another receiver)—Lewis, Ratcliffe, and Rodwell were present in the Court of Appeal when that order was made—the matter was argued from the bar—it only came to my knowledge, through my principal, on May 27th that on May 18th, 19th, and 20th Perry, Rodwell, and Lewis were at Wootton collecting Mrs. Cathcart's rents—I did not know it when it was being done—neither my principal nor I knew anything of Perry, or of the assignment of Lewis's debt to Perry—I searched for the first time on May 27th to see if any such order had gone out for the issue of a sequestration writ, and my principal and I then became aware for the first time of the
summons of January 12th, followed by the writ of January 26th—at the beginning of January when we were acting for Mrs. Cathcart no one told us that Ratcliff had given his consent to a writ of sequestration—in the course of my search I found filed this office copy of the summons of January 12th, 1898, and this consent of January 19th; this is the original signed by E. T. Ratcliff for the plaintiff—Master Wilberforce was continuing his inquiry at the end of May and into June—I was present on June 5th when Ratcliff attended before the Master—he was asked why he had consented to the summons and counsel handed him the original summons; he said it was immaterial, as it was more a matter of course—the Master had not then before him, so far as I am aware, any evidence of Ratcliff having got a garnishee order on the money obtained by the sequestration—the Master made a note of Ratcliff's answers on that occasion—I knew in the searing of this year that Ratcliff was making claims against Mrs. Cathcart in relation to costs—I am not aware that this bill came into my hands or those of my principal or of Mrs. Cathcart—I became aware of the fact that on May 10th Ratcliff signed judgment for the amount of his bill of costs—I became aware of the effort made by him to garnishee the money in Perry's hand—I cannot say when I became aware of it—I correct what I said on Saturday that it was May 27th, 1898; it was June 17th when I made search in relation to these matters—on the 21st I discovered proceedings were taken under a writ of sequestration—my watch was after the arrest of Ratcliff—these documents were found upon him in relation to proceedings for costs against Mrs. Cathcart—on June 20th, 1890, I issued a summons to set aside the judgment Ratcliff had obtained on May 10th—on July 16th, an order was obtained to set aside the judgment—an affidavit was made by my principal and by Mrs. Cathcart denying that proceedings had been brought and another affidavit by Ratcliff denying that—on August 11th, an order was made for Ratcliffe to pay £270 into Court within seven days, the difference between £30 and £300 collected on May 18th—this affidavit was made in support of it by Mr. Deakin, my principal. (That in batch of faith the plaintiff signed judgment in default of defence, and that Mrs. Cathcart received no notice that he had signed, and he was not aware till June 17th, when he was at Bow Street, that Perry admitted collecting rents for Mrs. Cathcart and had received £200 under a garnishee order)—Mr. Cudby represented the defendants at Bow Street—no affidavit was made in reply by Ratcliff—on August 18th Ratcliff appealed against the order and filed this affidavit. (Stating that he had acted for Mrs. Cathcart for a year from January, 1897)—Mr. Justice Phillimore dismissed the appeal with costs—Ratcliff was present when the summons was made before the Master on June 15th—I heard him say he consented to the writ of sequestration, and there is a note in Master Wilberforce's book—when asked whether he consented, he said it was immaterial whether he had or not; it was all a matter of course—I know Ratcliff's writing—the letter of December 16th, 1897, to Mr. Alfred Vincent who assists Master Wilberforce is Ratcliffe's writing. (This was in answer to a letter form Mr. Vincent in "Hood Barrs v. Cathcart" of December 14th, stating"If you have ceased to be the defendant's solicitor the Master will be glad if you will forward the letter on," and commenced" "As I am not now acting as solicitor for Mrs. Cathcart I have sent a
copy on to her as requested")—the writ of sequestration was issued January 26th, 1898—that was the outcome of the summons of January 12th, and Ratclift's consent of January 19th—Mr. Deakin was acting as Mrs. Cathcart's solicitor—these letters came from Ratcliff to him. (Two letters were put in dated December 30th, 1897, and January 1st, 1898, relating to the giving up of information and papers).
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I swore the information, which was the foundation of this charge: that Ratcliff had consented collusively on behalf of Mrs. Cathcart to an order dated January 21st, 1895; that I had searched at the Royal Courts of Justice, and could find no such order; that Perry was not a creditor of Mrs. Cathcart, and was not entitled to issue a writ of sequestration against her; that the order was fraudulently drawn up by Frederick William Lewis; and that the writ of sequestration was obtained by Lewis to enable him, Rodwell and Perry to defraud Mrs. Cathcart—I believed that Ratcliff had consented to an order, which he knew to be non-existent—I now find there was an order—Mr. Deakin commenced acting for Mrs. Cathcart in December last—I knew she had employed other solicitors—usually a notice of change is served upon the solicitor previously employed—I believe a notice was served on Mr. Ratcliff in writing—that would not be in Mr. Deakin's letter-book, because it would be on a form, and signed by Mrs. Cathcart—I imagine I saw her sign it, but I would not swear positively; she signed so many things—the document should be filed—I cannot say whether it was—that is the practice—I think Mr. Nutt applied to me about it—I think this year—I am not answering from surmise, but from what I heard from Mr. Stringer, there have been so many solicitors employed—I cannot give you the date—I have not searched the file for such a document—I can produce no copy entry or letter to verify my assertion—I cannot give the date when Mr. Deakin issued a summons against Ratcliff to produce his bill of costs—there was a summons taken out—I have not my papers, and cannot tell you from memory—I have no doubt we can produce the order—Mr. Deakin's office is at Stepney—it would be about January 18th, 1898—there were two bills to costs—the amount of that delivered was £448 3s. 9d.—I have never seen a bill of June 8th, 1897, and Mrs. Cathcarb denied having received it—the action is brought against Mrs. Cathcart for that bill—our summons on January 19th, 1898, was for a bill of costs in the whole matter, and there was no suggestion at that time that Ratcliff had ever delivered such a bill—a writ was issued for the bill of costs on March 10th, and the not proceeding was an attachment, so far as I can recollect without the papers—I cannot say whether a bill was delivered on March 10th—I believe there was a bill showing a sum of £734 7s. 2d.—I never saw the bill Mrs. Cathcart swears she never received—the bill produced is the only one I saw—Mrs. Cathcart has letters addressed to the District Messengers' Office, 27, Chancery Lane, but not all documents—since Mr. Deakin has been acting, I have never been for any documents there—I have seen documents which have been addressed there—she has stayed at Horrex's Hotel for some time—she objected to documents being sent to her hotel—both judgments on the bills of costs were set aside.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. I believe there was a summons on
behalf of Perry under the writ of sequestration to pass accounts—I believe Mr. Deakin took it out—the Master refused to allow costs—in consequence of what Mr. Deakin said, or something of that sort, the summons was dismissed.
Re-examined. I cannot fix the date from memory, but the attachment against Ratcliff for nondelivery of his costs was about March of this year—on March 10th the writ was issued by Ratcliffe for £448, having relation to the bill alleged to have been delivered previous to June, 1897—there was no mention of any other bill, even when the attachment came on—subsequently another writ was issued in relation to another bill of costs, but I cannot give the date without the papers—I will produce all the documents having relation to the bills of costs-both appeals by Ratcliff were dismissed—an order was made on August 6th to set aside judgment of August 4th; Ratcliff appealed on August 11th; that was dismissed with costs by Mr. Justice Lawrence—then the other appeal was in the same form—these proceedings were taken on behalf of Mrs. Cathcart by Mr. Deakin—afterwards the case came into the hands of the Treasury solicitor—then it was ascertained there had been an order of January, 1895.
JOSEPH DAVIS . I am an Associate of the Royal Courts of Justice—I produce the order of the Court of Appeal, made May 9th, 1893, drawn up on May 10th, taken up on May 19th—the interval between the 10th and 19th was caused by the fact that Lewis and Rodwell did not file any affidavit—the order was upon Rodwell and Lewis for an account of all moneys received by them as sequestrators, and for payment into Court, under the investigation conducted by Master Wilberforce, and they were restrained from taking any further proceedings under any writs of sequestration pending the Master's Reports—no report to the Court was made as between May 9th and 18th.
MARY CATHCART . I have an estate at Wootton, near Derby—it is seven miles from Ashbourne—I have about a dozen tenants—I remember the action against a Mr. Walker for about £100 for rent—it was tried in the County Court at Burton-on-Trent—I did not personally condrict—Mr. Walker's solicitor, Mr. Williams, wrote imploring me not to press for the payment of £80—the end of 1894 and the beginning of 1895 I was nearly dying—I was laid up from November or December till February or March at the Royal Palace Hotel at Kensington—I know there was a matter in the Divisional Court, but I had a solicitor, Mr. Girdlestone—I did not know of any judgment against me for costs—I heard of it afterwards—I did not know of any assignment of that judgment by Walker to Walter Lewis—Ratcliff was acting for me about January, 1897—this document [a retainer] has my signature—it fixes the date of Ratcliff's employment as ray solicitor as January 28th, 1897—he continued my solicitor till about October 28th, 1897, when I discovered he had given consent to a deed robbing me of the order of the Court of Appeal of March—Rodwell asked me to sign away the benefit of that Order and I declined—about the end of October, 1897, I sent Ratcliffe a written message that he was no longer to act—after that date he did not act for me with my consent—I think I then attended to matters myself, but I was ill—my next solicitor was Mr. Deakin whom I engaged to act professionally
for me in all matters—in January I did not know of the assignment of May 4th, 1897, of my judgment debt by Walter Lewis to the defendant Perry—the first I heard of it was Mr. Deakin asking me if I knew anyone of that name and I said "No"—[a letter with envelope dated January 5th, 1898, and giving notice of two assignments, Walker to Lewis, and Lewis to Perry, was handed to witness]—there were letters which I told Mr. Kemp to take possession of with envelopes like that—J made a mistake; it was not Mr. Deakin but his clerk I saw—I was ill at my hotel, I think, from January to April—I fell ill four days before attending here in the Savage case in December, I think—it is not likely that I attended at 27, Chancery Lane, in January—I do not think I could have seen the letter then, because I was ill at Horrox's Hotel, Norfolk Street, Strand—I was confined to my bed—some letters I got and they tried to serve me with something—I did not know of the issue of a summons for leave to take out a writ of sequestration on January 12th—I gave Ratcliffe no authority to attend it—Mr. Deakin was my solicitor and his clerk, Mr. Kemp, troubled me as little as possible—I did not knew that Ratcliffe on January 9th had consented to the writ of sequestration—he had no authority to consent—I had forbidden him to write to me—I received no bill of costs from Ratcliff in June, 1897—that was one cause of the dispute—I wanted the bill—with my authority Mr. Deakin took out a summons in January to cause Ratcliff to deliver his bill—I first heard of the writ of sequestration through Mr. Kemp—Rodwell, Lewis, and Perry had no authority to go to Wootton and collect my rents on May 18th—I took proceedings in the Court of Appeal under which an order was issued restraining them—that was the first thing after my illness; May 9th—I did not know Perry before I saw him at Bow Street before the Magistrate.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. Mr. Quick, of 11. Milk Street, Cheapside, was my solicitor before Ratcliffe—I changed my solicitors when they preferred the other side to me—that occurred in numerous cases—I do not know how many—I never make accusations I am not prepared to prove—we are trying Mr. Ratcliff, not the whole gang I do not want to prejudice any other solicitor—I cannot say how many I have accused—say 2,000 while you are about it—I sent them a letter or a Court notice of change—I saw Ratcliff with a notice of change, and wrote even before that—my letter was after October 28th—I also communicated with the Law Society—I do not keep a letter book—I wrote the letter at the Post Office in Chancery Lane, directly I heard of Ratcliff's bad action—I lost not a minute—the Post Office is opposite No. 27—it was in the form of a telegram, but I sent it express—I wrote language more forcible than polite—the least was that it was an infamous transaction—I would rather not say the worst—I sent it in an envelope which you can buy at the Post Office with a stamp on—I sent it to Ratcliff in Gray's Inn Square—I filed an order at the Royal Courts because I thought he might deny the letter—that would be about the beginning of November—27, Chancery Lane, was my address for documents to be sent when I was acting in person—Ratcliff communicated with me there, but not my other solicitor—I was angry with him for sending documents to my hotel—my solicitor would serve the notice of change—I authorised hint
—it was important to me he should do so—I signed notices more than once—in one matter the clerk had forgotten the notice of change—I have only one solicitor at the same time, except it is one of Diprose's took the moneylender—sequestration orders have been issued against my property many years, and Mr. Justice Cave wrote saying the order was a monstrous abuse of the Court, and he apologised to me afterwards; I was sorry he had to do it—the Court of Appeal decided my estates could not be sequestrated; here is the order (produced)—the House of Lords held differently, because at the time I was assured the case was not coming on, and no defence was put in in the Hood Barrs case—the reason of the sequestration orders is not my debts, but because of bogus claims—when the bankrupt Grossman was before the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Kay said I had money and would not pay—he did not say I had been for a long time acting in a dishonest manner—that is a libel—someone deceived the poor man—Sir George Lewis was very nice to me, but I was frightened he would not take my view—I could not get my bill out of Ratcliff, and he barricaded the door against me—he did not want me to know what was going on—I do not mention names, because I try to avoid litigation—I pay my debts: that is a delusion you have—I did not receive Ratcliff's bill of costs dated January 8th, 1897, from 27, Chancery Lane—I was going there then—it is Lonsdale Chambers, but it was to the District Messengeis where the letters were taken—I paid Ratcliff £5, £10, £15, and other sums from time to time—I paid costs—I have given the receipts to my solicitor—I do not know that they are quite all—those sums were not for expenses—I stopped paying him when he defrauded me of £300 of Midland stock in collusion with others—I have taken no criminal proceedings against them—I am waiting for you—I will not say it is more than £155—if I kept an account I could produce it.
Cross-examined by MR. RANDOLPH. I did not call at 27, Chancery Lane at the time of the notice of assignment to Perry. (This was stated to be addressed in a registered envelope to 27, Chancery Lane, dated January 5th, 1897)—possibly my solicitor produced that envelope at the Police-court—Mr. Peakin was then acting, not the Treasury solicitor.
Re-examined. I do not remember hearing of Ratcliff's judgment against me for costs before the Police-court proceedings—I instructed my solicitor to take steps to set it aside if I knew of it, but I was so ill.
JAMES STOCKLEY (Metropolitan Detective Serjeant). On June 12th a warrant was handed me for the arrest of Rodwell, Lewis, Ratcliff and Perry—on June 16th I saw Perry at Bow Street Police-station—he said he bad heard someone had been inquiring for him at his address, and asked whether process had been issued against him—I told him I held a warrant for his arrest for being concerned with three other people in defrauding Mrs. Cathcart—he said, "I think I collected £300 in company with Lewis and Rodwell. I had authority from the Court to collect £30 due from Mrs. Cathcart to a man named Walker who assigned that debt to Ratcliffe who issued a ganishee order against her, and handed him the £30"—he handed me a writ of sequestration dated January 26th, 1898—later the same day I saw Ratcliff in Chancery Lane—I asked him whether his name was Ratcliff, and said I had a warrant for his arrest for being concerned
with two other persons in obtaining money belonging to Mrs. Cathcart—he said the charge was absolute Lonsense, I took him to Bow Street—in his possession I found seven documents, relating to Cathcart and Rat life, three of which were put in evidence—one purports to be a judgment, against Mrs. Cathcart for £448 3s. with costs £4 14s. dated May 10th—it is an Exhibit—I also found two diaries at his office, two letter-books, and a quantity of documents—I searched his office the same afternoon after he was remanded—one diary was for 1898—there is an entry on January 17th of "Cathcart and Lewis," but nothing about attending a summons for Mrs. Cathcart—there is "Cathcart re H. B"—that would be Hood Barrs—then "Cathcart, Lewis, and another: Attending summons before judge for injunction," etc.; then "Cathcart and Walker: Preparing affidavit in support of application for writ of sequestration, etc.—one letter-book covers from January 1st to June 16th, 1898—I am unable to find any letter informing Mrs. Cathcart of the writ of sequestration—I also found the letter from Mr. Vincent to Mr. Ratcliff.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. There are letters of January 7th, 8th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 27th, addressed to Mrs. Cathcart.
JOSEPH MONTGOMERY KEMP (Re-examined). A notice of change of solicitor would not appear in the letter book but would be on a form—I found a notice of assignment amongst the papers—neither the order for costs nor the assignment could be produced before the Court of Appeal when asked for.
Evidence for the Defence.
EDMUND THEODORE RATCLIFF (Defendant) sworn. I have been a solicitor of the High Court since Michaelmas, 1869—I first spoke to Mrs. Cathcart on August Bank Holiday, 1896—she came to my office to swear some affidavits—I had a long conversation with her—on January 28th, 1897, I was retained by her in all matters then in progress—she was then engaged in litigation very heavily—in one action in the House of Lords, though judgment has not been given, it is in her favour—I have no doubt of it—in "Hood Barrs "I obtained an order which was approved by the highest authority, Lord Justice Rigby—that was after discussion with Hood Barrs—it was approved by my counsel, Mr. Montague Lush, and put an end to that litigation, the chief point being that all accounts were to be taken by Master Wilberforce and 4 percent, was to be paid on any balance found due to Hood-Barrs, at Mrs. Cathcart's death, and that neither should bring any action against the other—the inquiry before Master Wilberforce was in the beginning of 1897—about the end of October she was annoyed at finding out this agreement and sent a notice to the effect "How can you act against Mr. Hood Barrs after that agreement?"—so I considered my retainer cancelled as regards Mr. Hood Barrs—I never had any other withdrawal of the retainer from her or Mr. Deakin—it is usual to give notice of the change of solicitor, and when I was appointed I wrote to her solicitor, saying "I am now acting for Mrs. Cathcart in all her matter'—I never received any notice of such change and did not consider my retainer at an end until I had a summons to deliver my bill of casts and to give up my papers about the end of February
—I remember the letter of January 19th, 1896, from Mr. Deakin [asking for papers and staling Mr. Ratcliffe had been seen with Lewis and Rodwell in a wine shop in Chancery Lane]—I considered then I ceased to act—it was untrue that I was with Lewis and Rodwell in a wine shop and I contradicted it in a letter—I was often with Rodwell—I may have seen Lewis and Rodwell at the office that morning—I was introduced to Rodwell by Mrs. Cathcart, who paid him so much a week to assist her and me in her litigation against Hood Barrs—he drew my papers for the House of Lords appeal—Lewis then was a clerk to Mr. Cudby, a solicitor in Chancery Lane—I did no work for and made no charge against Mrs. Cathcart since that date—I communicated with her through the District Messengers in Chancery Lane, at her desire, as she did not want her address known—in 1897 I made out her bill and handed it to her in my office on June 8th, 1897, when it is dated—it was drawn up and endorsed in the ordinary way and engrossed by my law stationer, Mr. Noad, of Carey Street—I have not the receipt—I could get it this afternoon—I swear I delivered it—she promised to give me money on account, but I got very little of it—cash payments were made with which I credited her and brought into the account when I delivered it on March 10th, 1898—I took no proceedings upon it till March—she had forty to fifty writs of sequestrations against her extending over years—she introduced Bodwell as her special sequestrator—in "Grey v. Cathcart" it was held there could be no objection to sequestration in the face of a judgment—with a narrow writ you can only collect the debts due and payable at the date of the judgment—that was decided in "Hood Barrs v. Elliott"—with a wide writ you can seize for a debt when it is due at the time of judgment or not, but a wide writ is only applicable where a married woman commences proceedings, and not where proceedings are commenced against her—it was idle to resist a writ of sequestration—in "Cathcart v. Walker" the writ was in respect of the costs of appeal—the summons was served upon me, returnable on January 17th—I did not know Perry by sight when the summons for the writ was issued—I attended as I thought on behalf of Mrs. Cathcart—I knew most of the details of the litigation—I asked for adjournment—the Master said there was no answer and made the order—I did not consent, but I did not see my way to oppose—subsequently I received Mr. Deakin's summons and delivered my bill after a time—I was unwell—I had no object in delay—it included the earlier bill and gave the total sum—I received no communication to the effect that I had not delivered my former bill—I issued a writ with regard to the bill delivered in 1897—Mr. Deakin entered an appearance—then a month after delivery of the second bill I issued a writ for that—Mr. Deakin entered appearance, and after the time for defence had expired I signed judgment on both bills—if the bill had not been delivered that would have been a good defence—I first heard of Perry having collected Mrs. Cathcart's rent when his solicitor, Mr. Turner, told me he had collected £300, and that he had a sum on which I could get a garnishee—I immediately took out a garnishee—I was astonished, because Rodwell had told me although he was not restrained by the Court of Appeal in that matter, he did not intend to collect any more rents—I had no communication with Perry before he collected the rents—Perry when I was
introduced asked what he had better do, and I recommended him to get another sequestration, and appoint F. P. Moore, a man of substance and a client of Mr. Turner, and I understood they applied to appoint him, but were advised no to collect-from what Mr. Turner told me I thought the £270 would be far better in my hands than in the hands of Lewis or Terry—I wished to get it in as quickly as possible, and if it was to be repaid I could repay it; Lewis might have bolted with it—the writ commands the person who holds it to collect all and to account, and he has to carry his accounts before the Master, who has to sanction what is being done—on the occasion that the Court of Appeal delivering judgment restraining Lewis and Rodwell from acting as sequestrators I reached the Court, when Mr. Kent told me it was all over—Rodwell told me they had been restrained from collecting Mrs. Cathcart's rent in certain specified actions—considering I had a just debt against Mrs. Cathcart I served a garnishee summons upon Perry under which he handed me £270—I I was not present when he filed his accounts before the Master—I learned that the Master refused to confirm Perry's accounts—a summons was taken out under Order 30—the judgments were upset—I paid the £270 into Court—I asked the Master to give me his reason, and after some trouble he agreed, and my solicitor has the endorsement on the summons—the reason was purely technical—my claim against Mrs. Cathcart till exists, and I should go to the Court of Appeal on the question—the sequestrations were made necessary because Mrs. Cathcart would not pay, she has nearly £6,000 a year, nobody gets a shilling without a sequestration, and while I was acting for her she has been sued by nearly every hotel-keeper in London, I believe.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. My retainer is dated January 27th, 1897—during that year I had no serious difference with Mrs. Cathcart till the question arose with regard to the agreement with Hood Barre—that was some time in October; because I was at a rent audit—otherwise we remained good friends—she did not tell me I no longer acted for her—she did not think the agreement was as beneficial to her as I did—she did not accuse me of having betrayed her interest in having signed it—she said I ought not to have done it without her express instructions—she thought it was better for the litigation to go on—she simply cancelled my acting in Hood Barrs—I had known F. W. Lewis about ten years—he is the man who absconded—he was never a friend—I knew Mr. Cudby when I began to act for Mrs. Carthcart—Mrs. Cathcart introduced me to Rodwell within a day of my being retained by her—I was very often with Rodwell, and occasionally with Cudby, in 1897—I remember Mr. Vincent, Master Wilberforce's clerk's letter of December 11th, 1897, containing the phrase, "If you have ceased to be the defendant' solicitor, the Master would be glad if you would kindly forward this letter on," and I answered that on December 16th, 1897, heading the letter, "Hood-Barrs," when I stated, "I am not now acting as the solicitor of Mrs. Cathcart. I have sent a copy of your letter on to her as requested"—I thought that was clear, without putting "in the above matter"—I sent the letter to the District Messenger's Office—in December I knew that Mr. Deakin was acting in Hood-Barrs—I understood in nothing else—Mrs. Cathcart very often divides her favours.
(other letters were handed to witness). I may be a bad letterwriter but I still say I believed I was acting for Mrs. Cathcart in other matters than Hood Barrs—I have never had the withdrawal of her retainer—she often sent letters in express envelopes—I got them—in January, I have heard since, Mrs. Cathcart was laid up, but I did not know it then—I wrote the consent on January 19th, but I had not read the summons, and after that I did nothing—I do not charge for writing the consent of January 16th; no taxing master would allow it and no solicitor would charge it—I do not think any writ of attachment was issued against me—I had not the slightest idea the rents were being collected on May 18th—the first I knew of it was when Perry came back—that was before the garnishee affidavit—I believe Mr. Charles Turner told me—he was solicitor for Perry—that was after Lewis and Rodwell said they would have nothing to do with it.
Re-examined. I had no understanding with Lewis or Rodwell with reference to the collection of rents—I have never paid them any money, nor promised it—they had not told me prior to May 18th they were going to collect—they said they would not—I knew my debt to be just—I saw no reason why it should not be paid—I believe Perry had no occupation but was in receipt of £4 or £5 a week—I had no reason for not delivering my bills of costs—from first to last I have not appropriated a penny of Mrs. Cathcart's to which I did not consider I was justly entitled by law—the judgments were set aside on the grounds stated in my affidavit—(the Law Stationers' book containing an entry on May 5th against Mr. Ratcliff for engrossing bill of costs was here read).
CHARLES GEORGE PERRY (Defendant) sworn. I am 26 years of age—I was originally apprenticed to the organ building trade, my family being organ builders—I came into some money and for some years I had no occupation—for a short time I have been in London and in business—I am not at all acquainted with legal procedure—previous to these legal inquiries I had never seen Mrs. Cathcart—I think previous to January I had known Mr. F. A. Lewis, a solicitor—I knew him as a solicitor, not before—I also knew Rodwell better than I knew Lewis, I Knew him to be connected with the law—I had met Rateliff before January—I did not know him intimately—I think I met him at the Bodega in Chancery Lane, I am not sure who introduced him to me—it was in January this year—I might have seen him some time before January—I think I knew him as a solicitor, he might have been pointed out to me aa a solicitor—I did not see Mrs. Cathcart on a private matter of my own—I consulted Rodwell, I went out with him, I saw him in Mr. Cudby's office, I explained my business to Rodwell in the presence of Lewis—I think they said they would do what I wanted and write letters for me and oblige me—I was not going to pay for it—Rodwell said to me "I want you to do something for me, Perry. We have had our names sufficiently in this matter, we just want you to put your name to the matter"—I don't know whether that was the exact statement—"and we may be able to put some business in your way"—they did not say what the matter was—I put my name to a letter and gave it to Rodwell and I have never seen it again, I wrote it at Rodwell's dictation, it was something like this: "I hereby instruct you to act for me in this matter," it was not headed "in
my matter"—that was all that happened that, day—I don't know the exact date that was, it was some time early in January this year I think, I would not be positive—I saw Lewis and Rodwell again shortly after, they did not ask me again about the matter and I did not volunteer—I don't know what it was I signed, I did not pay any money for any debt, I am positive of that—I did not know that I was a plaintiff in any sequestration suit in January, I knew nothing about it—in May I bad a letter from Rodwell which I think I destroyed, it was asking me to see them at the office, and if they were not there to come up to the Old Bailey—I went to the office and waited till I saw him—he said, "Good morning; I hope I shall be able to put some business in your way, Perry, "I said, "Oh," and he showed me this letter of sequestration, it was a printed letter—I glanced at it, but Lewis was speaking to me about my having to go up to Staffordshire and they would be able to put some money in my pocket, but Rodwell would be in shortly, and I should see him; Rodwell came in, he treated the matter as a mere joke, and said, "It will be a holiday for you, very likely I shall see you to-morrow"—he did not say what it was for—I glanced over the paper and saw my name on it, but did not read it carefully through, they asked me to sit down and make a copy of it, which I did, it took me some time—they then asked me to come on to the Old Bailey, which I did, and I gave the copy to Rodwell and he said, "Thank you"—I stayed with Rodwell the whole of the day I think, and Lewis and Rodwell told me to have my bag packed the following day to go away—I went home and told my wife I should probably go away the next day—I went straight to their office the foliowing morning—they told me I was going to be introduced to a solicitor—I was introduced to a Mr. Turner—I may be wrong in saying on that day—I am positive it was before I went to the country—I was to accompany Mr. Turner to the Law Courts—I think he had a copy of his writ with him—I went in front of the Master, came out again, and said nothing—that day it was arranged that we were to start in the evening—what day I cannot say—I was told we were going to Alton, that we should stop for a day before we got there, and that we should have a jolly time, something of that sort, they never mentioned business—we stopped half way and went on the next morning to Alton, near Wootton—in the morning they said "We are going round, we shall introduce you to Mrs. Catheart's tenants; we shall have a trap, and we shall introduce you as the proper person to receive these rents. Here is the receipt book, we can buy stamps there and you will give receipts and take the money"—I had never heard of Mrs. Cathcart—I did not ask why, I simply thought I was being employed, and that they were entitled to collect the rents—I was told afterwards to tell them I was the proper person to receive the rents—I read the writ directed to myself, Rodwell, and Lewis, I read the part which says "We command you to take," &c.—now I come to remember I think the writ was read out to me by Rodwell or Lewis, and they showed me that part before we started—I thought I was dealing with a solicitor, and I saw the signature at the bottom "High Court," but I did not think enough of it at the time—the evidence is correct that I went round with Lewis and Rodwell—I collected about £300—I gave receipts—when I first went down Rodwell and Lewis went with me—I had never been before—after we collected
money at Wootton we stayed at an hotel at Alton, and the next morning I was informed they were going back, and I was to go on to Stourbridge, and meet Lewis there—I met him—Rodwell came in the evening, and I was informed I was to go round with a bailiff, see the tenants there, and collect some of the rents—that is part of the £300—I gave the money I collected to Lewis before I went to Stourbridge—I was two or three days collecting at Stourbridge—I came up to town each day, and handed the money to Lewis—the last time I came up I had a little over £40—I had been provided with a sovereign or two for my expenses, and was informed I should not require any more, as I should be collecting money when I got down there—the last time I came up I was looking for Lewis and Rodwell, and could not see them, but I met Ratcliff, who handed me a note from Rod well to the effect that I should be perfectly safe in admitting having so much in handabout £250, to the best of my remembrance—the note also said I should be safe in handing Ratcliff that—I did not part with the £40 till later to Lewis—before I went to the country I was never served with an order of the Court of Appeal—I never heard that Lewis and Rodwell had been committed by the Court of Appeal, nor of any hearing—a month or so afterwards I heard that inquiries had been made at my house, in consequence of which I went to Bow Street and saw Mr. Stockman—I was arrested—I had no idea I was acting dishonestly till I had collected these rents, then I began to think there was something wrong about it—I handed over all I got except about £7, which I thought was for my work—I had no idea that I was defrauding the tenants, or Mrs. Cathcart, or anybody—there was no agreement between myself and Rodwell or Lewis—it is not true that I conspired with them to effect an improper purpose, or any proper purpose by improper means.
Cross-examined. I knew Rodwell intimately—I did not see him very frequently—I saw him in the Bodega, Chancery Lane—I did not know him as a clerk in Lewis's office—at first I presumed he was a solicitor—then I found out he was not a fully fledged solicitor—he told me he was studying to pass an examination for the law—I used to see him in Mr. Cudby's office—I did not think he was a clerk, but that he was reading up for the law—I saw him on a few occasions with Lewis—I had not known Lewis very long—I used to meet Mr. Cudby in the same place—I saw them frequently last year—I had never heard of Mrs. Cathcart—I seldom read the newspapers—I had had means—I was hard up—I did not expect to make money—as I was to be employed I thought I should be paid—they told me it would be to my advantage—when Rodwell said they did not want their names brought into the matter I did not pay particular attention to that—I did not ask him what he meant—he did not tell me what the matter was—I did not ask him—I thought they wanted me to write a letter, and that I was instructing Lewis to act as my solicitor—I did not think it of any serious consequence—I thought, "Well, be is a solicitor and an honourable man," and I did not trouble my head—I understood it was a matter in which Lewis and Rodwell did not wish their names to appear—I did not ask why—I do not think it was in January that I went before the Master—I think it was in May—it was before I started for Staffordshire—Mr. Turner spoke to the Master, and I think he had a writ in his hand or a copy—the Master looked at it, and possibly
wrote 011 it—I did not ask what it was about—Ratcliff was not there—now I remember. I went to the Law Courts on two occasions, once with Mr. Turner, and on the second occasion I think Ratcliff was present and Turner—I think the last occasion was when I came back from Staffordshire—I did not see Ratcliff between January and May—I might have seen him in the Bodega, but not to speak to—I was not in the company of Lewis or Rodwell—I used to go to the Bodega and I used to see them—I saw they knew each other—I did not ask anything about the matter—I think I was told I was going to collect rents, perhaps, in the train—I might have told the tenants I was authorised to collect the rents—Lewis made the deductions, sometimes in my presence, sometimes not—I did not understand the form of receipt, and made mistakes, and they had to be altered, and then they made out the form of receipt and put down, less the deductions, the amount—I signed the receipts—I knew deductions were being made—when I went down I saw the writ and was told it was perfectly correct—I first found out I was collecting Mrs. Cathcart's rents when I got there, not before—I did not ask to see the list on the way down—I did not ask whose rents—I saw the writ before I went down, but I did not thoroughly make myself acquainted with it—I saw Mrs. Cathcart's name on it—probably I knew I was going to collect her rents—I think I received two or three cheques—leashed them—I handed them to Lewis in the first place, and he gave them back to me—he told me to go to Uctoxeter and cash them, and then go on to Stourbridge and collect rents, it was on my way—I brought them up to London to Lewis—I handed a cheque to Lewis at Wootton—he told me to take them to Uttoxeter, because there was a branch of the bank there—there was some talk about Lewis cashing the cheque, but he said, "Well, you have collected my rents, you had better take those cheques on to cash them"—I was asked for my address when I cashed the cheques—I gave it as 103, New Road, Battersea Park—I had just left that address, but I did not think of it, because it was on the writ of sequestration—it was an accident—I had no right to address it there—it did not occur to me—at that address they refused to take more letters after I left; we had some quarrels—I did not know the landlady would not take them in, we did not part on very friendly terms—I had lived there about a month before—on the previous days when I had come to town I had been to Ratcliff's office—if I remember correctly, Rodwell gave me instructions to collect the rents—his office was 14, Gray's Inn Square—I showed them the counterfoil receipts, and on one occasion I gave Lewis some of the money—I went to Ratcliff's office to meet Rodwell and Lewis—I saw Ratcliff there once—I only went there twice—my only purpose was to account for the money—I think it had to do with the note—when I came up to London I felt there was something wrong—that first occurred to me when I left Wootton—that might be the first day—I thought, "I suppose it is all right, this man Lewis being a solicitor"—I trusted to his advice—not exactly, advice, but—after what he said I did not tell him I thought it was not all right, because I was not positive, not because I waft anxious to get the reward I expected—it never occurred to me—there are only two receipts not in my writing—the deductions are in my writing—Lewis and Rodwell told
me what the deductions would be and I had the book—they knew as near as possible; they had been there before—I knew they had been there from what they told me—it occurred to me the tenants would not have paid me if Lewis and Rodwell had not been present—I thought Lewis and Rodwell were the real authority—I thought I was really going to assist them—I did not understand—I never asked—I admit I had no right to sign the receipts—my only reason is because I was instructed by them—I collected under £200 on the 18th, none on the 19th—it must be untrue that I had £300 on the 19th, because it took me a good time to get that in, and I was in Stourbridge more than one day—it was impossible for Ratcliff to have seen me on the 19th because I stopped at Alton the second day to collect those rents, and I was instructed to go on to Stourbridge—I really did not see him till I bad finished the collection—he asked me how much I had collected when I accidently met him in Holborn—that was before I had completed the collection, but I do not remember dates—it must have been from the 20th to 23rd—I had to go down again for one day—I was about a week collecting—I told Ratcliff I did not know the exact amount and I told him something over £200—the note he gave me stated it, but I did not know only from the receipts—I did not tell Ratcliff I was going to get £30 out of it—I heard his evidence—I do not remember his saying to me that he would not have collected these rents for a thousand pounds—if he had I think I should—I last saw Lewis or Rodwell about a week after the 18th—about three days after—they were in hiding—I heard Rodwell say something about the Court of Appeal: to the effect that they had been committed—I assumed they were hiding, because I could not find them—I wanted to give them money—I went to see Lewis to receive 30s. due to me—I did find him eventually and got the 30s., probably in the wine-shop—I did not see them, after that I went home—about that time I saw Rodwell about filing the accounts—I did not know a summons was taken out because I accompanied Mr. Turner to the Law Courts—Rodwell or Lewis introduced me to Mr. Turner—I am not positive about it—I went with Mr. Turner to file my accounts—I was not clear on the point—I did not trouble to ascertain what the purpose was—I have paid Mr. Turner's fees as my solicitor, not out of my pocket—Mr. Turner said, "Have you any money in hand?"—I had £40, and I paid him £1 and told him Lewis and Rodwell said it was quite right—I was ignorant of what he had done, but I had gone with him to one of the Masters, and he had a copy of a writ—when I went in front of the Master it was simply a matter of consenting to an order; I did not ask Mr. Turner what order—I might have been pointed out as the person to whom the debt was due; I did not say a word.
Re-examined. I came into some money some years ago—that is not in existence now—I gave the address to the bank clerk at Uttoxeter; he made no inquiry, but paid me then and there.
GUILTY.— Perry was strongly recommended to mercy on account of his youth.—Judgment respited.
NEW COURT.—Monday, October 31st, and the three following days.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
716. JAMES EDWARD LANSFIELD STAPLES (59) and JAMES ANTHONY JELLICOE (38) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain £170, £85 10s. 9d., and other sums from Thomas Cleaver, and obtaining money from him without stating that Staples was an undischarged bankrupt.
MR. C. MATTHEWS and MR. BODKIN Prosecuted, MR. DUNCAN appeared for Staples, and MR. CHAMIER for Jellicoe.
GEORGE BOYLE . I am an official in the Bankruptcy Court and produce the file in the bankruptcy of James Edward Lansfield Staples, the petition is dated December 5th, 1890—the creditors are Norman and Stacey, Limited—the receiving order is dated August 29th, 1891, and the adjudication is November 9th, 1891—the gross liabilities are £18,580 2s. 6d., and the assets £454; there are two statements of affairs—no discharge from that bankruptcy has been granted, and none has been applied for—Staples is therefore now an undischarged bankrupt—there is a public examination on the file—there was no private examination afterwards.
EDMUND HENRY BRAY . I am managing clerk to Nashfield and Co., late Nash field and Withers, solicitors, of 12, Queen Street, Cheapside, a member of that firm was a Mr. Withers, who died in September, 1891—Staples, the defendant, was acting for Mr. Withers in some financial matters—I produce here a three months' bill of exchange, dated April 20th, 1891, for £500 drawn by Louisa Staples, accepted by J. E. L. Staples, and endorsed "Louisa Staples" and "George A. Cook"—it was dishonoured on July 23rd—I also produce the original statutory declaration purporting to have been made by Louisa Staples, of Combmartin, before Mr. C. G. Barnett, of Ilfracombe, April 20th, 1891—I do not know how it has same date as the bill in Bray's possession, it comes from the custody of the firm now. (This was the sworn declaration of James Edward Lansfield Staples that he was the only child of the marriage, and that his father, James Staples, settled £40,000, by trust deed upon his mother, with a power of appointment to all or any of her children after her death, and that she died about April 11th, 1893, without exercising that power, and that, therefore, he was entitled to the said sum after the death of his father, aged at that time 92 years, and that on the mortgage of that reversion he sought to borrow £450.) Proceedings were taken against Staples, and judgment was obtained against him—I did not know that he had a petition against him when those proceedings were taken—I afterwards learnt of his bankruptcy—I do not know the date of the judgment; it was after July, 1891—I attended the first meeting of creditors as representing Mr. Withers, and on behalf of the firm—Staples was there—I put some questions to him—I made memoranda there as to his answers—I asked him his father's name and address; his mother's name; whether he had any brothers or sisters; and who was the trustee's solicitor—he did not answer that—then a question arose whether there was a settlement—he said that no settlement was in existence; that Mrs. Staples had signed one, but she knew nothing about it, it was made at the instance of G. A. Cook—I asked him if he knew anything about the Alliance Bank, and he said, "Yes, the shares are in my father's name, father
would disinherit me if I was adjudicated a bankrupt"—I received this letter from Jellicoe dated July 28th, 1897: "3, John Street, Bedford Row, Dear Sirs,—Captain J. E. L. Staples informs us that some time since you discounted some bills drawn by his late mother for one of the name of Cook, and that a declaration made by his late mother was handed to you, do you mind letting us know if this be so, and whether the document is in your possession?—Yours faithfully, JELLICOE and Co."—on July 29th we answered, and said if they would send us £1 1s. we would make inquiries—Jellicoe evidently wanted to see the declaration without paying the £1 1s.—he did not produce it, and we did not show it to him.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. We discounted the bill; I did not serve the writ on Staples—I do not know if he knew that proceedings were taken against him.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. We had a client who lent money on the strength of this bill for £500, and he kept the declaration as a security—I did not attach very much importance to its genuineness—I have no doubt that Mrs. Staples signed it—if I had thought that a monster fraud was being perpetrated I should have told another solicitor of my belief.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. Proceedings were taken against Mrs. Staples—we wrote to her and got a reply, stating "Mrs. Staples does not understand anything about the bill which she has had notice of from you."
Re-examined. We are in possession of another bill drawn up by Cook on somebody else, which was also dishonoured—Cook was a solicitor—the cheques were all payable to Cook.
JOSEPH BAIBERG . I am manager to my brother, a financial agent, of 25, Argyle Street, Regent Street—part of his business is to lend money—I know a Mr. Williams very slightly—I got a letter from him on April 15th, 1897—two or three days after that the two defendants came to my office—I Lad never heard of them before—Jellicoe asked me if I would lend £500 on a reversion which Captain Staples was entitled to—I said that I would if the security was all right—Jellicoe said that Staples was entitled to £40,000 under the will or marriage settlement of his father; he then produced a short abstract of the title—it was a blue paper; it had headings giving the dates of certain deeds and parties to the document; I never had it in my possession—there was some question about a certain portion of the title being locked up in a safe, and could not be found—I asked Jellicoe if his client had ever dealt with the property—he said not as far as he knew—I also asked if he had ever been a bankrupt, and Jellicoe said as far as he knew he was not; they were both there—I said. "If you will see my solicitor I will lend you £500, or anything more you may want"—Staples asked me who my solicitor was, and I said, "Arthur Newton and Co."—he said, "Oh, no, I won't go there"—he gave no reason why he would not go; I then asked him if he would go to Mr. Lea, 13, Old Jewry—he said they would consider whether they would go or not—they went away, and I started making inquiries about them—next day Jellicoe called at my office alone—I told him I had made inquiries, and I had heard that Staples was a bankrupt and that his saying that he came into a reversion was a simple fraud—Jellicoe
said, "I am sure the reversion is all right, but I am surprised at what you say about the bankruptcy"—he still protested that the security was good, and I said, "If you will go and see Mr. Lea, and he approves, I am still prepared to let you have the money"—he went to Mr. Lea, and did not satisfy him, and I did not lend him the money—I don't think I saw them after that—this letter, dated April 15th, is from Mr. Williams, and it was in consequence of that that I had this conversation.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. I got this information through my brother from a Mr. Bray, who carries on business in the City.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. Jellicoe came with an abstract—I call it an abstract, because he called it one—I think he read it out to me—it was not a statement by Staples's mother that there was a marriage settlement—Jellicoe was disinclined to believe me when I said Staples was a bankrupt—I do not mean to suggest that Jellicoe was assuming surprise.
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE BARNETT . I am a solicitor, of Ilfracombe—on April 20th, 1891, I was called to a hotel in Ilfracombe to take a statutory declaration of a lady—I think it was in the afternoon—I do not know who fetched me—I took her declaration in the ordinary form—this is it (produced)—I did not know Mrs. Staples, of Combmartin—I did not know if that was the lady who made the declaration—Combmartin is five or six miles away—about 1896 Staples came to my office at Ilfracombe; he said he had been staying at the Britannia Hotel, and he wished me to go there and satisfy them as to who he was; I said I could not do that, and he called my attention to a statutory declaration his mother had made and in which he was mentioned—I said I did not remember anything about it, I could take a statutory declaration without knowing what was in it, and could not do anything for him—I got this letter dated June 9th, 1897, "Dear sir, we understand from your London agents that they have been in communication with you respecting Louisa Staples' affairs of Combmartin, Devon, and as we have a copy of a declaration made by her in the year 1891 before us, we shall esteem it a great favour if you will kindly let us know whether or not you have a copy of a marriage settlement referred to in that document in your possession, and have you any idea of the state of affairs of James Staples who is resident in your town, as we should like you to represent us in obtaining certain information, and will pay your charges for whatever trouble you may have? If you are not acting for Mr. James Staples could you ascertain for us who is, and all about his affairs; whether the marriage settlement can be seen and a certified copy obtained; who are the trustees at the present time, the addresses of the gentlemen, what notices have been received by them respecting James Edward Lansfield Staples' share? Thanking you in anticipation. Please keep our correspondence in strict confidence, as our client does not wish it to get to his father's ears.—Yours faithfully, JKLLICOB and Co. "I answered that letter on June 11th, "Dear sirs, in reply to your letter of the 9th inst., I beg to say that I have not a copy of the marriage settlement referred to, and have only a very dim recollection of taking the declaration merely as a commissioner; I was not acting for either Mr. J. E. L. Staples or his mother, and know nothing whatever of the contents of the declaration;
Mr. James Staples is not a client of mine, he lives at Combe Martin, about seven miles from here, and is considered very wealthy, I will make inquiries for the information you require, and let you know the result—Yours truly, C. G. BARNETT"—on June 16th I got another letter from them asking if I had been able to discover the solicitors who represented Mr. James Staples, and saying that perhaps it would be well if I acted for them in the matter—on June 25th I received another letter again asking for the name of the solicitor representing Mr. James Staples—I answered it on June 26th. (Stating that he had experienced great difficulty in getting the information required without it coming to Mr. James Staples' knowledge, but would write again.)—on July 1st I got a letter again asking for the information—on the same day I replied that I had hoped to have been able to give them the information they required, and that there was only one man at Combmartin with whom Mr. James Staples is in any way friendly and scarcely that, and I had been unable to get at him—on July 7th I wrote again: "Dear Sirs,—I am sorry not to have been able to get the information you require. I shall know for certain tomorrow though whether I obtain it or not, and you shall know the result.—Yours truly, C. G. BARNETT"—I wrote this letter on July 8th. (Saying that the information obtained was very meagre, viz.—that the solicitors were at Bath, but that efforts would still continue to be made to learn their names.)—on July 13th I receved this letter from Jellicoe and Co. (Asking for a copy of the settlement, and if the name of the solicitors could be obtained; their client would pay liberally or costs)—on July 15th I received this letter from Prince and Co., and on July 17th I wrote this letter to Jellicoe and Co. (Stating that he was still prosecuting inquiries.)—I came to London on July 26th, and went to see Mr. Prince—he was not in—I left my London club address, and Jellicoe visited me there—he said he heard I was in town—he must have seen my card at Mr. Prince's—I told him I had not been able to get the information he required, the difficulty was in not letting it get to the old Mr. Staples ears—I employed somebody who went there once a week, who knew the only friend of Mr. Staples—he was a very aged man, I did not know him—the information was as to where the settlement was—if the document had been in existence there could be no difficulty in getting a copy of it from the trustees—I said I should not advance any money until the document was shown—I thought I was acting as his agent at that time—I do not think anything more was done, and I let the matter drop.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. As far as I remember the lady was quite clear in her mind when she made the declaration.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER, I had a letter from Mr. Prince, dated July 15th. (Read) "Dear Sir,—We have been consulted as to raising an advance to Captain J. L. Staples on his reversionary interest under his parents' marriage settlement. We have seen the letters you have written to Messrs. Jellicoe and Co. thereon. We understand from Captain Staples that you have known him for many years, and we understand that previously to his having left for India in 1866 that you knew both his parents, and will be able to depose to the fact that he was the only son of Mr. James Staples and his wife Louisa. We have seen a copy of the declaration which Mr. Staples made before you in April, 1891.
If you are prepared to make a declaration on the lines we mentioned, we shall be very pleased to send you a draft, and would of course should pay your costs in the matter; if you should be coming to London we should prefer it being made here when Captain Staples would be present to be identified as it were—Yours faithfully, PRINCE and Co.") I lied on June 17th, saying that I could hardly make such a declaration, but I would see what I could do—I knew nothing to the contrary about the document being in existence—I did not think Staples was trying to get a document which did not exist—I simply acted as a commission in taking the declaration—I went to Mr. Prince's own office—Jellicoe called on me to see what progress I had made as to the marriage settlement, he did not want to know about the taking of it—I have a son, he not in practice with me.
Re-examined. I told Staples I could take a declarsration without knowing its contents—I had not known Mr. Staples for many years, or his parents—I could not depose as to his being the only son of James Staples and his wife—I do not remember his being there when the declaration was sworn—my son is not in business with me, he would advise anyone for me if I was away, in a friendly way.
BROOME PENNIGER . I am a solicitor, of Newbury, Berks, my firm is acting as solicitors to the late Mr. Joseph Staples, the defendant's uncle, I am acting for the executors in the winding-up of his estate—on May 20th I got this letter from Jellicoe and Co. (Read: "3, John Street, Bedford Row, W. C., Dear Sirs, re Joseph Staples, deceased. We believe that you acted as solicitors for the above-mentioned testator, and as we are concerned for a member of the family we should esteem it a great favour if you for would kindly let us know the name and address of the solicitors who acted for Louisa and James Staples, of Combmartin, as Joseph Staples was one of the trustees of Louisa Staples under her marriage settlement. Could you find out whether Joseph Staples ever mentioned that marriage settlement which we are now trying to obtain inspection of, or was it ever in his custody? Henry Biggs acted with him as co. Trustee. We do not suppose that the settlement is among his papers, but perhaps there might be a copy of the document in question; if so could you furnish us with a copy? Of course, we undertake to pay your charges. Have you any idea who acted for Henry biggs?—Yours faithfully, JELLICOE AND Co.") After making inquiries I wrote on June 25th in reply. (Stating that they had made inquires, and the family knew nothing of any document as referred to.) On June 25th I received this letter from Jellicoe and Co. (Asking for the address of the solicitor representing Mr. James Staples, of Combmartin, stating that the marriage settlement was dated June 20th, 1838, as the late Mrs. Staples made a declaration, saying that they had a copy so there could be no doubt about its being in existence, as the commissioner wrote to them acknowledging having taken it, and enclosing a copy in their letter; asking if they could find out what had become of Mr. Henry Biggs, the cotrustee; also asking for a copy of the settlement.)—I did not answer that—no such copy was enclosed in it.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I did not help him very much—I did not know there was a monstrous fraud going on, I thought Jellicoes' letters were bona-fide inquiries—if the enclosure had been left out by an oversight he could not know.
Re-examined. All the documents were in my custody, or should be—I could find nothing of the kind.
HENRY BIGGS . I live at 44, St. Nicholl's Hill, Bristol—I am seventy-two years old—my sister was Louisa Biggs—in 1838 I was twelve years old—I heard of my sister being married to James Staples; I was a little schoolboy—my father was a woollen draper; he did not have a shop; he travelled and sold cloth to woollen merchants—he travelled for himself not for a firm—after the marriage my sister went to live at Bath—James Staples was in the timber trade—I last saw him about twelve years ago—my sister died about four years ago—I was never a trustee under any marriage settlement between my sister and James Staples, I never heard anything about it till four years ago—I heard if from old Mr. Staples—at the end of August, 1897, I got a letter signed "Jellicoe and Co."—my sister lived till she was 73 or 74—this is the letter:—"3, John Street, Bedford Bow, August 30th, 1897.—Dear Sir,—We understand, from a declaration made by your late sister, Mrs. Louisa Staples, that you are one of her trustees under her marriage settlement with her and Mr. James Staples, of combmartin. We shall be happy to know if the settlement is in your possession, as we observe that the remaining trustee, Mr. Joseph Staples, has since died. If the document is not in your possession kindly let us know when you saw it last, and to whom it was handed. Thanking you in anticipation, we are, Dear Sir, faithfully yours, JELLICOE AND Co."—I replied, "In reply to your letter, the settlement never existed, it is a tissue of lies.—Yours truly, HENRY BIGGS ."
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. My father left no money at his death—I knew I was not a trustee; I was only a schoolboy—I do not know if there was a trustee—I know Staples; he is the only son of my sister and her husband.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I never had any doubt but that he was the legitimate son of my sister and her husband—I meant that my trusteeship was a tissue of lies—I knew there was no settlement; a boy could not be a trustee—Staples and his father have not been reconciled for many years—I do not know that his father has banished him from his home—I never heard my sister refer to this settlement—I have heard it was only read over to her when she signed it—I often saw her.
Re-examined. Old Mr. Staples told me of the settlement, and that I was one of the trustees—he said, "You know very well there is no truth in it"—it was three or four years after my sister's death—my sister could not have brought in £40,000—I believe she was very fond of this man.
Tuesday, November 1st, 1898.
RICHARD CLARK . I am a Justice of the Peace for Devonshire, and live at Combmartin—I knew the late Mr. James Staples about eighteen years before his death—he died last June—his age was eighty-three, he kept his faculties perfectly to the last—I am one of his executors—I visited him two or three times a week for the last five or six years, he resided entirely at Come Martin—I know the prisoner Staples, I last saw him nine
or ten years ago, not at his father's house—he was not on good terms with his father—as executor I have taken possession of the contents of the house—I found no tracer of a marriage settlement or deed, I never looked for such a document—I knew old Mrs. Staples, she was seventy-two or seventy-three—communication used to come to Mr. staples during the latter years of his life about a marriage settlement, but he denied that three was one.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. Mr. Staples left £100 to each of his three executors—I held his will for some time in a drawer at my house—I was present when it was signed in the dining-room on May 8th, 1897—I did not attest it—I was also an executor under his previous will made two or three years before—he made a fresh will because he altered his opinion in reference to the legacies—he only made two or three wills—his son was a beneficiary under the first will for £100, which was struck out of the last will; he made a codicil—Mrs. staples was aware of what I call the bogus declaration, and threw up her hands, and said, "My God! Mr. Clark I do not know what I signed; there never was a marriage settlement"—she did not also say that with regard to the two bills which she signed—I did not take steps to prevent the prisoner Staples borrowing money, because old Mr. staples said, "They are foolish enough to do so; it is their own fault."
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I took possession of all the letters in the house, and found a number from Jellicoe to Mr. Staples senior, making inquires about this marriage settlement, and a letter from staples, jun., to his father on the same subject and one from him to his father from Plymouth—I never met "Mr. Jellicoe—of course I told Mr. Seldon, the solicitor, years ago, that the mother said that she did not know what she signed, but not with a view of his acting, and I told Mr. Lucas too—that was in 1891, when it first came to my knowledge that she had made a statutory declaration; she was very anxious to keep it from her husband, and I was wrote to Mr. Lucas on the subject—I assisted her first in keeping the knowledge of that declaration from her husband, but afterwards he repudiated it entirely: he know all about it in a fortnight—my coexecutors are Mr. Charles Doulton and Mr. Staples of Hull—I know Mr. Barnett, I did not tell him—he is the solicitor who took this oath—I have heard it doubted whether Staples is an illegitimate son—I do not know that his father denied that he ever imputed illegitimacy to him—I remember when the son came from India, and I believe his mother was very pleased to see him—I do not know that bonfires were lit.
Re-examined. This is the Portsmouth letter which I found. (this was dated April 17th, 1895, from Staples to his father, appealing to him for £50 to pay his passage to Toronto, and stating that his poor deluded mother had deceived his father and laid the blame on him the son.
ARTHUR FREDERICK SELON . I am a solicitor of Barnport, Davon-shire I acted as solicitor for the late Mr. Staples—my London agents are Church, Reddall and Park—I was in communication with them in 1897, and later in 1897 I went into direct communication with Jellicoe—I find in my press copy letter-book of August 3rd, 1897, this letter which I wrote to Jellicoe, "I have been consulted by Mr. Staples, of Combmartin. My
client denies making any such statements as you allege, and I shall be ready to accept service in any proceedings you are instructed to take"—this is the letter to which I was instructed to write an answer. (This was from Jellicoe and Co. to James Staples, Esq., July 29th, 1897, stating that their client had written to the Rev. W. James—, asking him to interview James Staples, Esq., to obtain a certificate of their client's birth, as statements had been made denying his legitimacy, and that they were about to commence an action to establish the point, and inquiring whether they should send a writ to him or to his solicitors.)—I then got this letter of August 18th from Jellicoe: "We have seen our client, and shall be glad if you will find the date and place of birth of your client, and a copy of the deed of settlement; as your client is aged, we do not wish to trouble him"—I then received this. (Acknowledging the letter and deferring a definite reply to the end of the week.) I then got this letter from Jellicoe: "If you will wire we shall be happy to come and see you, and pay your charge"—Jellicoe never came to Barnstaple at all—on September 23rd, 1897, I received this letter. (Offering to pay for a draft of the settlement if the witness had it) I never had such a draft—on October 9th, 1888, I received this: "Please accept service of the enclosed writ, and return with endorsement thereon"—the plaintiff to that writ was the prisoner Staples; it was issued by Jellicoe at the suit of Staples—the action was commenced on October 9th, and dismissed with costs early in 1898 for want of prosecution—I remember getting instructions from the late Mr. Staples, in consequence of which I wrote this letter to the prisoner Staples: "Sir,—Mr. Staples desires me to return the enclosed to you and to inform you that he will neither see you or have any correspondence with you."
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I did not know that there had been a marriage settlement; I had never been consulted about it—I did not reply to Jellicoe that there was no such settlement in existence—I was actually served with a writ demanding the production of the document in Court—we had notice of a change of solicitors—I did not then know that there was no marriage settlement in existence—I first learned that from my client when I saw him after receiving the writ, and I had been informed so by the old gentleman himself.
Re-examined. Mr. Staples came to me for whatever legal business there was; I conducted some County Court actions for him.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. My recollection is that under the first will the prisoner had a small of legacy £100, or it may be a little more—I altered the previous will in February, 1895; it was the same will, but one or two legacies were altered in amount—there was one prior to 1895, but I did not draw that—the second will was in May, 1897—the date of the codicil was December 24th, 1897—the only thing dealt with in the codicil was striking him out of the will altogether.
ALFRED AUSTIN BIRD . I am one of the firm of Church, Reddall and Park of 9, Bedford Row: we are agents for Mr. Selborne—on May 28th, 1897, Jellicoe called on me alone and said that he was acting for Captain Edward Lansfield Staples, a retired officer, and his mother, before her death, had made a statutory declaration to the effect that there was a sum of £40,000 settled on her for life with the remainder to her
child and that he was the only child; that part of the trust funds were invested in shares in the Alliance, and National Provincial Banks, and there was in addition £436, which was not included in the settlement: it may be that that was the fortune of the father—he said that the father and son had not been on good terms, and he wished me to ascertain whether Mr. Seldon, of Barnstaple, was solicitor to the father or to the trustees of the settlement, and if so, he wished to know whether Mr. Seldon would procure and furnish information as to the trust funds and a copy of the settlement, and the names and addresses of the present trustees, but he did not wish the inquiry brought to the notice of the father, if Mr. Seldon could supply the information confidentially—I did not say much—it was a very extraordinary proposal, it would be a breach of confidence in so much as they were the affairs of his client, but if he was acting for the trustees of the settlement he might give the information—there might be circumstances to justify it—he told me that the trustees were Henry Davis and Joseph Staples, of Newbury, and that they were both dead—he said that of course our costs should be paid—I communicated with Mr. Seldon and got a reply—I got this letter of May 31st, 1897. (Stating that they had communicated with Mr. Seldon, who was not in a position to assist them, and was not aware of the settlement referred to and enclosing a guinea)—I had no answer to that letter—in October, 1897, I received a copy of a writ from Mr. Seldon—the action was dismissed on December 8th, 1897, for want of prosecution.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. No solicitor appeared before the Master.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. The writ was accompanied by a note—I did not expect Mr. Seldon to have anything to do with the action—I did not expect to get the costs if the copies of the documents were not supplied—the guinea represented the letters that passed—he was there about an hour—I did not see any impropriety whatever—I did not understand why he should come to me instead of writing to Mr. Seldon—the inquiry ultimately reached Mr. Seldon—the case struck me as a little peculiar.
THOMAS CLEAVER . I am a coffee-house keeper, of 4, Wharf dale Road, King's Cross, and I have been in business there some time—I once knew a Mr. Glenister, a solicitor's clerk—in December, 1896, I had £600 or £700 which I had saved lying idle at my bank—on December 22nd Glenister and the defendant Staples called on me; Staples handed me his card—Glenister introduced him as Captain Lansfield Staples, and said he wanted to borrow some money; I said that I did not mind lending some as long as I knew it was all right—Staples said he expected about £40,000 from his father, Joseph Staples, of Come Martin, on a marriage settlement; that his father was ninety-two and very ill then, and that his mother was dead—he said his father had lead and silver mines, and that when he came into the estate he should start them in working order, and he wanted to get a loan from the North British Mercantile or the British Equitable of about £10,000—he showed me this copy of a statutory declaration—he said it was a copy made out between his father and mother for him, and it was his mother's declaration—I think I read it right through—I saw a sum of £40,000 under the marriage settlement mentioned in it—I lent him
about £16 that day on this promissory note for £20—after fourteen days I was to get back £20 for lending £16—a few days after they came again, and I lent him more money and got an I. O. U. for £7 10s. from Staples—a few days later they again came, and I lent some more money and got an I. O. U. for £12—next I lent them £5, taking an I. O. U. for £6—then they came and said that a cousin of Staples was coming up from Reading, and he did not want him to know that he had had the money in small sums; so he gave me a bill to cover everything—Staples told me to show him that, but not to let him have it till he had given me a cheque for the amount—he added the note up, I did not—it was for £85 10s. 9d.—the note was dated February 5th, 1897, and signed by J. E. L. Staples—at no time did he say he was an undischarged bankrupt, I never heard it until after I bad consulted with my solicitors and proceedings were taken—after taking the bill I had some conversation with Glenister, and a few days after that Jellicoe, Staples and Glenister called at my shop; that was the first time I had seen Jellicoe, it was about a fortnight after the date of the bill; he was introduced as a solicitor, and trying to get a loan from the North British Mercantile—he said he had been to Parr's Bank and had seen the papers relating to Staples' father's estates and knew they were correct, he told me I could go and see the papers at Parr's bank for myself if I was not satisfied—Staples said he wanted some money to go on with until he got the loan—I lent him some and took an I.O.U. for £19—about the 3rd week in April I had advanced nearly £200 to Staples—I said I had not had any of my money back and Staples, said he expected to settle it up every day—Jellicoe proposed trying to get a mortgage of £450 on Staples' father's estates in Devonshire, I agreed—it was to be for £450, because I had to pay some down when the mortgage was executed—Glenister was married on April 19th, and this was about that time—an arrangement was made for Glenister, Staples, Jellicoe and myself to meet at Moorgate Street, and on April 20th I got this telegram, "Moorgate Street, 12.30 to-morrow, Staples"—I went there and saw Staples, Jellicoe and Glenister there, they said we were going to a loan office so as to make an arrangement to pay me back—we went, and Jellicoe went in, and we waited outside; Jellicoe came back, and said the gentleman was not in—it was then arranged that we should meet next day at London Bridge—we met, and Jellicoe went in to see Mr. Hurst; we waited outside, and he returned and said he was not in—Jellicoe spoke to me about lending Staples more money so that he could have the mortgage papers brought to me—I said I would not lend him any more money, as I did not think it satisfactory—before we parted Jellicoe said he had another client named Knight who wanted about £400 for about three weeks to finish some buildings at Ramsgate—I said I could not do more than £150, and he said that would do—next day we went to my bank, and I drew out £150, which I paid to Jellicoe—Glenister and Staples were present—he did not give me any receipt—he said he would bring both mortgages up on April 26th—I took no security for the £150—when they first spoke to me about Staples' father's property I said I would go to another solicitor, but Jellicoe said, "No, don't go to anybody, I will act for you both"—I agreed—I never did any thing unless Glenister was present; I left it to him—on the Monday they produced two mortgages—this is the
one by Alexander Knight, signed by him and attested by J. A. Jellicoe, and dated April 26th, 1897—this is Staples' mortgage, in which the only security is the reversion of £40,000 on the marriage settlement, signed by Staples and attested by J. A. Jellicoe—the interest was 6 per cent.—next day I drew £190 from the bank, and handed over £150 to Staples—it was in notes—I had given him about £350—I kept the two mortgage deeds—a few days after that Staples came down again, and I made him a further advance of £50—he said he wanted it to pay his expenses of living, and also to pay Mr. Jellicoe—I took an I.O.U for it—I had to borrow it from a friend, whom I have had to pay back—subsequently I lent him different sums—early in July I spoke to Glenister, and on July 10th I received this letter: "3, John Street, Bedford Row. Dear Sir, We are obtaining very favourable news, and hope shortly to get the matter completed.—Yours truly, JELLICOE AND Co."—this I.O.U. for £6 is dated the same day; I gave the money to Staples—on July 22nd I got this letter. (Read) "3, John Street, Bedford Row. My Dear Sir,—Mr. Glenister has forwarded us your letter to him. We are pushing these matters on, and hope to get them completed very shortly. They are both progressing very favourably, but we cannot hurry them any more than we are doing.—Yours faithfully, J. A. JELLICOE"—on July 29th I received this letter: "Dear Sir, Please favour us with a call to-morrow at 2.30. JELLICOE AND Co. "I went to his office on July 30th—Jellicoe, Staples and Glenister were there—Jellicoe said the matter was going on all right; he showed me some papers, and said he wanted £12 or £15 more for expenses—I said I had drawn all the money out of the bank—I did not advance 1/2 d.—on August 3rd I got this letter from Staples, (Stating that he could prove that he was not a swindler as Mist Morris derignated him; that he knew Jellicoe to be safe, and that he hadknown'him for ten years,)—on September 29th I got his letter from Jellicoe and Co., asking what was the meaning of the enclosed letter from Kisch, Wake, and Wild. (The enclosed letter requested an explanation of the mortgage, dated April 26th, 1897, by Staples to Mr. Thomas Cleaner.) I had been to see my solicitor before that letter was sent—Kisch and Co. answered the letter—on October 9th I got this letter from Jellicoe and Co. (Saying that a writ had been issued in consequence of the refusal to give them information of the money which Staples was entitled to under his mother's marriage setlement.) That was a writ in which James Edwin Lancefield Staples was plaintiff, and James Staples, Thomas Cleaver, and Henry Prince were defendants—I put the matter into my solicitor's hands—about May last proceedings were taken at Bow Street—on June 10th, 1898, I got this letter from Jellicoe. (Asking the meaning of the Police-court proceedings, and saying Mr. Cleaver was at liberty to inspect all papers in their possession.) On the same day I got another letter from them, asking for the amount due to me on my mortgage deed, as they were settling Mr. Knight's reversion, and should require a reconveyance, also asking when and where the deed could be inspected—I never heard any more of Knight's reversion—I have never had any of the money I advanced to Knight or Staple—the total loan was about £600—that was the whole of my savings—I have saved money since—I got no interest from either of them—after I had parted with my money to Knight I saw Jellicoe several times, and he
said he expected the matter would be settled in a few days—I believed it was genuine.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. I have known Glenister since he was a boy—he is now about twenty-eight—he was in Mosley's office when I first knew him—Mosley was not my solicitor—I believed Glenister to be straightforward—he was not a lawyer; he had some knowledge of law—I was accustomed to lean on him—I would not go into any of this unless he was present—we were simply living in the same house; he is not my nephew—when he introduced Staples to me I asked Glenister if it was all right, and he said it was—the first introduction was in December, 1896—Glenister was married in April, 1897—I heard of it about a month be fore that—I was not anxious to assist him in a financial way in his marringe—I was not going to pay him a commission for the introduction of business to me—Glenister did not tell me that Staples was entitled to £40,000 before he came in—Staples came in with Glenister—Glenister did not tell me that Staples had applied for a loan from Mosley whilst he was there—he said he had known Staples for a long time—Glenister never told me that Staples was an undischarged bankrupt—I do not know if he knew—Glenister came in, and said, "It is all right, Jellicoe has been to Parrs' Bank, and he has seen the shares"—Jellicoe told me I could see them—I did not pay £80 on Staples' mortgage—I do not know if there has been any quarrel between Glenister and Staples—I know a man named Joel—I engaged him to find out these things; he is a private inquiry bloke—I believe he and Glenister were on friendly terms.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I have no figures to prove that I lent £600—I do not keep any accounts—I drew it from the bank; I do not keep a banking account, I have only a deposit account—I know that accounts have been produced from the bank showing that only about half has been taken out. but I kept the rest at home—I know that Knight's is a perfectly good mortgage—on December 22nd Glenister introduced Staples—Jellicoe was not there then, or when the bill for £85 10s. 9d. was given—I am not certain when he first came—I remember Glenister saying that shares stood at the bank in the name of Staples's father—I relied on what Glenister said about the marriage settlement, I did not understand the papers—I saw Jellicoe about seven times—he only asked me for money'once—Jellicoe arranged the mortgage for Knight, not Glenister—I do not remember telling anybody that the visits to Moorgate Street and London Bridge were bogus attempts to find moneylenders—Jellicoe was the first to suggest the mortgage to me—he said he would prepare it—Glenister had nothing to do with it—I lent two sums of £150, one for Knight and one for Staples—I gave it to Staples, I do not know what was done with it—Jellicoe was there, and he received Knight's money from me a few days after—Knight only received £10 of this money—I have lent money once before—I got six per cent, interest—I do not know what rate of interest Staples was to pay me for this—I did not blame Glenister over this, I thought he was sucked in too.
Re-examined. Jellicoe never at any time told me that Staples was an undischarged bankrupt.
used to call there; I don't know what about, and after he left I kept his acquaintance—I knew Cleaver; he had some money lying idle at his bank—Staples wanted a temporary loan, and asked me if I knew anyone to assist him—I mentioned Cleaver, and a day or two afterwards he and I called on Mr. Cleaver; he read the statutory declaration to Cleaver and went on about his father's position—he said that he should be entitled to a very large sum at his father's death, on the marriage settlement, and he wanted £15 or £16, as he was going to get a loan from an insurance company—Cleaver parted with some money, and an I O U was given—Cleaver parted with money on other occasions, and when a certain amount had been advanced Staples said that he wanted to go to Newbury to see his cousin; that the money had been embodied in a bill, and he did not want his cousin to know—Staples did not say at any interview that he was an undischarged bankrupt—I told Staples that Mr. Cleaver was anxious about his security—he said that he was in treity with the British Mercantile, and he would call on Mr. Cleaver and explain the mutter—that was at the end of February—I was afterwards present with Staples and Jellicoe at Cleaver's, and Staples said that the matter had been entertained by the North British, and he should have to go to Parr's Bank, where the £40,000 was in the name of James Staples—he did not say how he knew that—I believe more money was advanced at that meeting—at a subsequent meeting Jellicoe produced three sheets of abstract and read out two sheets of it, and said that it was the particulars of the fund—the amount of it was very large—Mr. Cleaver became anxious about his money just before I was married, and Staples said that he would see Jellicoe—we all three went to Mr. Cleaver's, and it was arranged that an agreement for £450 should be drawn up on the marriage settlement, for money advanced—Cleaver said, "Well, I suppose I shall have to employ a solicitor"—Jellicoe said, "Well, if you do you will have to incur a lot of expense; I can act for both parties"—I was married on April 19th and went to Southend to spend the honeymoon—I was sent for, and left my bride and came to London, and saw Jellicoe who said, "I have arranged that this money shall be paid to-day to send away"—I waited half an hour, and he came back and said that Cleaver was not in, and we were to meet next day at London Bridge—I returned to Southend and came up next day, and Jellicoe said that he knew a man named Knight, a builder at Ramsgate, who advanced money on mortgage—we met again on April 23rd and went to Cleaver's bank; drew out some money in notes, £1501 think, and handed them to Jellicoe—no receipt was given—I was in London next day, and two mortgages were produced—I went with Cleaver, Jellicoe and Staples to the bank, and Cleaver drew out £170 in money and notes, and handed it to Jellicoe—I have no doubt that there were two journeys to the bank; it was not all one transaction—the two mortgages were handed over to Cleaver, and he made another advance—on May 6 an I O U of Staples was given for £60; all three were present—it was said that it was under the marriage settlement to prevent expenses—the money was advanced—I got this letter from Staples in July—(Dated July 19th, 1897, and making an appointment at Prince's at 5.30 p.m. next day, signed "Ernest")—he used to call himself "Ernest—I knew what "Prince's" meant—I went there and saw Prince's
clerk—I then got this letter (This was signed "Ernest,' and said, "I left P.'s office at 7.40 p.m.; I shall run down to see you about 1.30 to-morrow ")—I recollect him consulting his solicitors, Kisch, Wake, and Wild—I then got this letter (Signed "Ernest" and complaining that Jellicoe had failed to meet him, and that he had to look starvation in the face as he could not raise another penny.)—he obtained money from me and my fellow-clerk, and has not paid me—a man named Joel came to me on business, and said that somebody had been giving us away; he represented himself as Foster, but his name is Joel—Cleaver had been recommended to Joel to make inquiries—I said to Staples, "If you have misled me and my friend, I will do something"—he made no answer, but walked out of the office—I have not received any of the money which Mr. Cleaver parted with—certain £5 notes came into my possession, as Staples owed me money, and he paid me—he borrowed £28 of me, and I changed, I think, two £5 notes for him—I introduced him to my employer's bank, the London and Midland, and he opened an account with £35—I knew where he got the money—he did not mention to me that he was an uncertificated bankrupt.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. This was in 1891, 1892, and 1894—Staples called in 1894; I do not know what his object was—I takedown letters in shorthand—I do not keep the call book—I never searched the file in Bankruptcy and found that Staples was an undischarged bankrupt—I am employed by Iron and Co., envelope directers—I have not seen Inspector Drew during lunch; I have not talked to him to-day—Cleaver has known me all my life; he was my father's lodger—my wife is not related to him—I was engaged to her four years ago—I knew that Cleaver had some money in the bank—I did not say that I would introduce a friend who would be of advantage to him—I swear that I have not made any profit out of it—I say that Staples ran over the abstract to Cleaver, not that Cleaver asked me if it was all right and that I said "Yes"—I told Cleaver to call at my office and read over the declaration—I do not know that Cleaver placed implicit trust in me and would not have anything to do with it without me—I have not given him instructions for a will—I thought this security was all right after he had read it—Mr. Middleton was the person who was in the office with me, he lent 10s. and did not get it back—Joel was not a clerk in the office, but he came to my office—I was looking out for my friend Cleaver, and I advised him to see Joel—I had had no quarrel with Joel—Joel had not accused him of capturing one of his former clients.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I place the date of Jellicoe's first coming, at the end of February, on account of the abstract; the manager of the British Equitable was out of town, and from there they went to the North British—I explained that Jellicoe wanted an abstract for the North British—when I met Jellicoe first he had been in communication with the North British, and he had a letter which he showed to Mr. Cleaver the first day he saw him—a bill was given on February 5th, and this was about a fortnight after that—Cleaver had the declaration read to him long before Jellicoe came on the scene—he wanted to get particulars of the securities he was going to lend money on—I do not recollect the names
of any trustees being mentioned—£150 was paid to Staples, and £170 to Jellicoe in my presence—I had nothing to do with Knight's mortgage—I never received a letter from Jellicoe in my life—Mr. Cleaver has always been acquainted with the fact that the father and son were on bad terms, and said that he would punch the old man's head if he ill-treated his son, or something like that.
GILBERT LEWIS WILD . I am one of the firm of Kisch, Wake, and Wild, solicitors—on September 27th, 1897, I wrote this letter to Jellicoe, asking for an explanation (Produced)—I got no answer, and wrote again on September 30th. (This letter expressed surprise that he should have communicated with Mr. Cleaver when the witness was acting for him, and threatened proceedings within twenty-four hours.) On October 1st I received this letter from Jellicoe. (Stating that he was expecting papers from the country, and the matter would then be completed, and whatever was due from Captain Staples would have to be paid off out of the proposed loan which they were carrying out.) We received instructions in reference to the writ of October 9th; that died a natural death—on October 16th, 1897, we placed the whole of the matters before the Director of Public Prosecutions, and left it in his hands.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I have not received notice to pay off the mortgage.
EDMUND LEE STAPLES . I am the son of the late Joseph Staples, who died at Newbury, for whom Mr. Penniger, who was called yesterday, acts—I had no knowledge that Staples was getting loans—I had no communication with him at all.
HENRY CHARLES RAYNER . I am 'a cashier at the King's Cross branch of the National Bank—in 1896 and 1897 Mr. Cleaver had a deposit account there, and on April 23rd, 1897, he withdrew £150 in two £20 notes, 35166 and 67; twenty £5 notes, 85556 to 85575; and £10 in gold—on April 26th he withdrew £190, in six £20 notes, 35179 to 35184; four £10 notes, 59252 to 59255; six £5 notes, 83852 to 83857.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. There was no current account—a sum was deposited in March, and another on April 15th, 1897; sometimes small sums were paid and larger ones put in—they do not overlap, because a fresh receipt was given, but part of the money was still there.
JAMES GEORGE GIBSON . I am a clerk at the London and Midland Bank, Charing Cross branch—on April 26th, 1897, Staples opened an account with three £5 notes, 85567, 85574, and 85575, and one £20 note, 35166—three days later I changed another £5 note for him over the counter, No. 85563—the account was closed at the end of December, 1897—the only other credit payment was £25 on May 6th, which was paid in coin.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN, I did not change the note.
CHARLES BARRETT SMITH . I keep the Welsh Harp, Chandos Street—I knew Staples when he was a customer in 1897, and have changed notes for him—I do not recollect the numbers—I changed a £5 note for him—I do not remember whether he put his name on it—this is my signature on the back of this note—(For £5, No. 85566.)—I changed this note for somebody, and, to the best of my knowledge, for Staples.
RICHARD HILLS . I am a clerk in the bank note office of the Bank of England—I produce a £10 note, No. 59254, endorsed "J. Jellicoe," and two £20 notes, Nos. 35182 and 35183, also endorsed "Jellicoe," and a £5 note, No. 83853, endorsed "Jellicoe"; and a £10 note, No, 59253, endorsed "J. Wagstaff"; also two £5 notes, Nos. 83856 and 83857, which have come to the Bank of England and been cancelled.
JOSEPH WAGSTAFF . I am a builder, of St. Margaret's House, Walthamstow—in May last I agreed to sell Jellicoe a house called Haslemere in Green Leaf Lane, Walthamstow, and as a deposit he paid me a £10 Bank of England note—I paid it into my bank on May 5th—this note bears my name, but I did not write it.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. That was the only note I had taken for fully a week prior to that date.
JOHN EDWIN TAYLOR . I am cashier in the Inland Revenue Office; part of my duty is to receive money paid for solicitors' services—on April 27th, 1897, I received these two £5 notes, Nos. 83856 and 83857, in respect of solicitors' services from a person named Jellicoe.
JAMES WARE . I am chief clerk at the head office of Parr's Bank, Bartholomew Lane—that bank and the Alliance Bank were amalgamate in July, 1892, and since then it has been a limited liability company—I have charge of customers' deposits—Mr. James Staples, of Combmartia, kept an account with us, and we also kept certain securities of his there—we have no trace of a marriage settlement being in our possession—the first time I saw Jellicoe was at Bow Street Police-court—if a person we did not know came in we should not give him any account as to the securities of customers, unless he possessed authority.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I know that Jellicoe has been to our bank and made inquiries—anyone can pay 1s. and see our register, but not customers'securities—James Staples held fifty shares in 1897 which were worth about £4,500.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. The shares till stand in James Staples' name.
OSSANT ROBERT F. DOVE . I am a clerk in the Life Department of the British Equitable, and produce the proposal form for the life insurance policy, dated July 18th, 1897, of James Edwin Lans field Staples for £250—there was nothing except the proposal—there has been no other communication between the British Equitable and Staples—I do not know Jellicoe—I never heard of an application to the company to raise a very large sum of money by loan.
THOMAS RATCLIFFE . I introduce business to the North British Insurance Company—in May, 1897, I met Jellicoe, and he said he had a matter which he thought he might introduce to us, which particularly referred to a reversion, and asked if we would allow half the premiums to accumulate at interest as the life was rather old—no name was mentioned—I wrote to him on May 11, 1897: "Dear Sir,—I have much pleasure in confirming my call of to-day, and now beg to say that I shall be happy to see Captain Staples tomorrow at twelve, as you arranged to-day. I hope we may be able to get the matter done quickly. The loan is going before our directors tomorrow for £10,000 at four per cent., with £10,000 insurance, with premiums at credit, or as much
as the company will allow to remain so. Thanking yen, yours faithfully, H. RATCLIFFE, Agency Superintendent"—at that time I had learnt the name of the borrower, Staples—I had been introduced to him—the proposal form was filled in and was passed into the hands of the insurance company.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I know for a long time that this loan was receiving the serious consideration of the company.
CHARLES LUCAS . I am a solicitor, of Newbury—I knew Mr. James Staples for about twenty-five years—I acted for him from 1887 to 1892—about two years ago the defendant Staples called on me—he asked me if I was still acting for his father—I said "No"—he asked if I had made the wills for his father—I said "Yes," and he asked if he was affected by them—I said that I could not tell him, as it would not be professional—he asked me if I would act for him, and I declined—then he asked if I knew anything about a marriage settlement—I said "No"—I had had a conversation with his father and his uncle Joseph, and knew that there never was one—he left Newbury the same evening—he was in the Army in India—in July, 1897, I got a letter from a Mr. Prince, and I answered it.
Cross-examined by MR. DUNCAN. I knew the older Staples some time—I visited him in Hull twenty-five years ago—he made a fortune in the timber trade and lost it, and made another and kept it—he was married in 1843—in 1891, Mr. Staples, senior, was taken ill, and I went to see him, and subsequently went to London, and there saw what was alleged to be a settlement made by Mr. Staples—there were two statements in the declaration; one was that Mrs. Staples was seventy-six and Mr. Staples eighty-six years old, whilst he. was seventy-seven and she many years less—that and other things led Mrs. Staples to say that she had never signed it, or that if she had it was by a trick—I saw Mr. Staples; he said that there never could have been such a settlement—Mrs. Staples was in very great trouble about the matter, and there was some threatenings of proceedings, because money had been obtained on the declaration—Mrs. Staples vouched that it was got from her without her knowing the contents—the prisoner became bankrupt, and I acted for Mr. Staples in getting a copy of the proceedings.
Wednesday, November 2nd, 1898.
CHARLES LUCAS (continued). I do not know if it has ever been suggested that the prisoner Staples got £500 from his mother—I have heard that an estrangement took place between the father and the son—old Mr. Staples said it was a lie that he was on friendly terms with the prisoner's wife.
Re-examined. This is the marriage certificate of old Mr. James Staples and Jane Biggs, dated December 11th, 1843, married in London—the copy of the statutory declaration says that she was married in 1838—this is the certificate of the prisoner's birth, dated 1841, and the marriage did not take place till 1843.
HENRY COBURN . I am manager and actuary of the North British Mercantile office, 61, Threadneedle Street—some time before May 6th, 1897, Mr. Ratcliffe sent a communication to my office in reference to having seen Mr. Jellicoe, and about May 6th or 7th I was handed this letter from Jellicoe to Mr. Ratcliffe. (This stated that Mr. Staples was absolutely
entitled on his father's death to £40,000 invested in shares in the Alliance Bank, that a loan of £10,000 was required, and that a policy could be effected on his life provided that half the premium remained at interest, and requesting to know whether the North British would make the advance)—this is my reply. (Dated May 7th, and stating that he would lay the matter before the directors, and inquiring whether the shares could be realised immediately after the death of the borrower's father.)—I then got this letter of May 10th from Jellicoe. (Stating that the shares would no doubt be sold immediately on the death of their clients father); also this (Asking for a complete statement of the various investments to which Captain Staples would succeed, and inquiring who the rustees of the fund were.)—on May 12th I got this answer from Jellicoe. (Stating that the funds were invested in the Alliance Bank in the name of Joseph Staples, whose age was 93)—I received this next day (Again asking for a complete list)—I then received this letter from Jellicoe. (Stating that a portion of the funds were invested in the National Provincial Bank of England, and the balance was at the Alliance)—I answered that by this letter. (Inquiring how the title arose, stating that the directors entertained the matter subject to further inquiry and that the borrower would have to insure his life for £10,000)—on May 27th a proposal was drawn up for an insurance on the life of J. E. Staples, that states that he is married and desires to insure for £10,000, and that his father, aged 93, is alive—the matter was referred to Messrs. Bircham, our solicitors; the rest of the inquiries were left in my hands—having heard nothing by July 16th I wrote to Bircham's—no advance was made.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. He said: "Of course the deeds will have to be inspected in the usual way"—on May 16th he wrote again to me, "The funds are in the Alliance Bank and partly in the Provincial, and your solicitors can satisfy themselves by making the usual inquiries"—there was a bona fide investigation going on—un June 1st, 1891, I wrote to Jellicoe, saying "The directors are prepared to lend the £10,000 at 4 per cent, upon the security of his absolute reversion to the fund, of which his father, aged 93, is the present tenant for life, together with insurance on the borrower's life for £10,000," &c.—there were no letters after that.
EDWARD HUGH BRADLEY . I am managing clerk to Messrs Bircham, 50, Old Broad Street, solicitors to the North British Mercantile Insurance Office—about May or June I received instructions from the insurance office in reference to a loan of £10,000 to Captain Staples, and on June 14th I saw the two prisoners—Jellicoe handed me part of an abstract of what purported to be a marriage settlement—I do not remember what sum was mentioned in it—I said that from my point of view it was useless, and I must have the names and addresses of the trustees, and a full abstract of the settlement, with a statement of the funds which were invested—ultimately I received the settlement papers—Jellicoe did not say how he had got the abstract—I think Staples said that his father had the original statement, that he was on bad terms with his father, that he had quarrelled with him, that he had tried to make inquiries with reference to the funds and trustees, and he asked me wherber we would make some advance to enable him to make the necessary irquiries
—I said, "No, they would not"—then he asked if the North British would do it—I said I did not think they would, but he could go and ask them—he asked me to write a letter stating that as far as I could see, I was satisfied that the thing was genuine, and asking them almost to make the loan—I said I could not do anything of the sort—then Jellicoe wanted me to write the same letter to Mr. Ratcliffe—on July 7th this letter came to the firm from Jellicoe. (Referring to their call, and asking Messrs. Bircham to bring before their client an amended form of proposal, viz., a loan of £2,000 instead of £10,000, with policy for £4,000, payable in the event of death, upon his giving a charge over all the property coming to him on the death of his father, which would be upwards of £36,000; that there was a difficulty in obtaining inspection of the marriage settlement in respect to the £40,000 which had been settled on the marriage of his father and mother, without getting to the father's ears, which their client particularly wished not to do, as his father might probably cut him off; that no doubt the matter could be arranged in the way suggested, by their client giving a post-obit bond for double the amount on the death of his father, who was then ninety-three years old.) There was no communication between June 14th and July 7th—on July 8th I answered that letter. (Saying that they were not prepared to advise their client to advance money on the terms suggested. If, however, he could produce two sound securities, the directors might be induced to make the advance, taking the reversion as collateral security.) At the end of August Jellicoe came alone, and said he could now furnish me with full particulars, and asked for the short abstract back, which I gave him—I never heard from him again In connection with the matter.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I did not receive a letter from my company, written by Jellicoe to them; I merely had instructions to go into the matter—I had a short abstract given me; it was useless—I do not think it would have taken any solicitor in.
LEWIS BROWN . I am an accountant, employed by Messrs. Russell, Son, and Camming, 14, Old Jewry Chambers—on April 24th, 1897, Jellicoe owed us £21 17s. 6d. for interest—we were paid on April 29th by a bank note for £20, No 35179, and the rest in cash.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. He was acting on behalf of a client.
Re-examined. It was paid in respect of a loan due by Mr. Jackson whom I understood Jellicoe was financing—I understood it from Jellicoe himself; I believe Jackson was a builder.
GEORGE WINGRAVE . I am manager of the Bloomsbury Branch of the London and Westminster Bank—I know Jellicoe—I remember on June 9th, 1897, I changed a note for him over the counter, No. 35180—he had no account then, he came in to inquire about opening one, and asked if I would change the note.
HENRY PRINCE . I am a solicitor of 9, Fleet Street—on July 1st or 2nd, 1897, the two prisoners came to my office with a man named Kent, who introduced them to me—Jellicoe explained that Captain Staples was a client of his, that he had known him many years, and that he was interested in or entitled to large sums of money under his parents' settlement, and produced a letter written by Mr. Cockburn with reference to £10,000
—Jellicoe explained that the North British had agreed to make an advance, and I think the letter was addressed to Mr. Jellicoe—he also said that Staples did not want so much as £10,000, but the insurance company would not advance less—he wanted me to advance £2,000 or £3,000—this is the letter from Mr. Cockburn, the manager of the North British—he went on to say that he had been expecting a temporary advance from a Mr. Cleaver, and his client had been placed in an awkward position on account of the money not being sent, and in the meantime he wanted me to advance a small sum to fill up the Cleaver disappointment—I said it was news to me that the North British, if the security was satisfactory, would not advance less than £10,000—he stuck to it, and said, "I know that Captain Staples had relied on that money from Mr. Cleaver, and I know how much embarrassed he is at its not arriving"—I knew Jellicoe professionally for ten years; I had not met him—Staples said that the marriage settlement was in an iron safe built into the wall at his father's house at Combmartin—I asked Jelicoe, "How does it happen it that settlement relates to the large sum you have told me of, it is not in the possession of the trustees?—Staples said, "Both the trustees are dead; my father has got possession of it, and he sticks to it"—he told me his father was over eighty—Jellicoe produced a copy of the declaration supposed to have been made by Mrs. Staples, the prisoner's mother, which I was told had been prepared in connection with the difficulties which Staples had had in raising money—they were both there—I asked Jellicoe if he knew where the securities were; he said at Parr's Bank, and also at Deacon Williams and Co.'s—he said that he had been to Parr's, and ascertained that the statement was correct that there were securities there—they pressed me to make advances, and said, "What you tell me no doubt is all right, but I know nothing about it, and you are practically asking me to do something on faith; are you quite certain that it is all right?"—Jellicoe said, "Yes, you can take it from me it is all right; I should not come to till you a bogus story, as I fully investigated the matter in relation to the Cleaver security, which I myself prepared"—I said if the North British would advance £10,000 I would get a client of mine to advance £2,000 or £3,000, but I should want to know of the existence of the settlement—Staples said he was in urgent need of some money, owing to the failure of Mr. Cleaver's advance, and I was asked to advance £50—I refused, but said I would give him a cheque for £25—I gave them this cheque, dated July 2nd, 1897, on my faith in the assurance which they had given me—I should not have given it unless I believed it—at their request I left it open—I absolutely believed Jellicoe; if he had not been there I should not have parted with a penny—I turned to Jellicoe and said, "If this is not all right the blood will be on your head, if we cannot rely on one another in a matter of this kind, professional life is impossible"—they then went away—about a week later they called again—I had suggested that inquiries should be made, and that it should be ascertained who the solicitors were who had prepared the settlement, and I said I should like the original or a draft, and they came to tell me of some solicitors in Bath—I could not find such a firm, and Staples said he thought they were both dead—then one of them stated that Mr. Cleaver had not sent his money, and could I let
them have £15—I gave them this cheque, dated July 9th; that was followed on July 16th by a further visit by Captain Staples alone, to give me some information I had asked him for—I then advanced him £10 by open cheque, he saying that he was still disappointed by Cleaver—on July 20th both the prisoners came, and in the mean-time I had mentioned the matter to a client of mine, who, subject to my being satisfied, was prepared to advance £3,000—I let Staples have another £10 then, and made a short charge for £50, which he signed in my favour—I had not at that time heard anything from the defendants about Mr. Charles Lucas, a solicitor, of Newbury, but from another source I heard that he might be able to throw some light upon the matter—I wrote to him on July 23rd, and I received a letter from him dated July 24th—on July 26th Jellicoe called, and I told him the effect of the letter from Mr. Lucas—I told him it was a letter which called for a very grave explanation from him and Captain Staples, but particularly from himself—a few days later they both called, and I said what a very serious aspect had been put upon the matter—Staples suggested that I had got the information from Mr. Lucas, and I said I had—I said I would read them the letter, but before doing so I said, "In effect Mr. Lucas says that you are a swindling thief, and unless you can explain it away I shall treat you like it"—I then handed the letter to Jellicoe to read (This stated that " Captain" Staples was the son of James Staples, who was very old and very ill; that he (the writer) had acted for the father; that there never was a marriage settlement and that the son would not benefit under the father's will that the mother narrowly escaped a prosecution for signing the declaration which far son induced her to do, and that he (the writer) would not be surprised if the son had forged the will and documents as he was capable of anything.)—Staples assured me that he never had been a bankrupt, a petition had been presented against him, but no order had ever been made—I should not have made any advance if he had told me he was an undischarged bankrupt—Staples denied the letter, Jellicoe said nothing—I had advanced £40 before reference was made to the bankruptcy—Staples went into some family matters about Mr. Lticas, and said it was through that that he had written this unfriendly letter, I thought I had done them injustice—on August 24th I made a further advance to Staples of £5; he made a pathetic appeal to me—I gave Jellicoe £5, because there was some talk of Staples and Jellicoe going to Combmartin for information, and I gave him the £5 for expenses—I never saw him again—I wrote many letters asking for the result of his journey; I got no reply—I, amongst others, received a writ in reference to some Chancery proceedings dated October 9th, 1897—it is a writ to bring the settlement into Court; I had suggested months before that that step should be taken—I was one defendant; I have never heard any more of it—all the advances I made up to July 24th were made on the faith of the statements made by the two prisoners.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. I said I would rather be a defendant than a plaintiff—I do not know if I was the last witness at the Police-court—I had my clerk there all the time, and I think it quite possible he was here yesterday—he has not told me a word about the evidence, and if
he had I should have stopped him—Kent told me that Captain Staples wished to have this business transacted, and had I a client who would undertake it—I said yes—Kent is not always in and out of my office—I have not seen him for six months—I wrote this letter to Jellicoe on June 29th, 1897. (Asking that as the matter of Staples was first mentioned by Mr. Kent, if it had not better be arranged through him.)—I will not swear that Kent had not shown me the declaration—I did not wish Staples to be my client—all the explanations about his family history were very sad-most of the questions I asked about the trustees were answered by Staples—Mr. Barnett's name was mentioned, as it was before him the declaration was made—Jellicoe said he had written to Barnett, and I saw his replies—I wanted to know all I could about the declaration; I was endeavouring to ferret out all that had taken place—I knew a large portion of the securities were invested in Parr's Bank—I was shown the declaration—Kent is a solicitor—after I had a letter from him I sent process to Uckfield; he used to have an office there—I never met him personally—I have known Kent the last few years; he was a friend of another client of mine—the date of the first advance was July 2nd, the next the 9th, and the next the 15th or 16th—I believed at this time that business was going on—I had no intimation that they declined to proceed—the letter from Bircham's was never brought to my notice—I was endeavouring to find out what the position was; I was making inquiry—I wanted to clear up the whereabouts of the settlement and the identity of Captain Staples—I read the letter of July 23rd in the presence of the prisoners, and Jellicoe had it for a quarter of an hour—the serious matter was the non-existence of settlement—I received no letter from Dr. Foquet; I never wrote to him—I have my notes of the names given: Foquet is not mentioned—I have four names—the only question was whether Staples was the son mentioned in the settlement; legitimacy was never mentioned—I wrote to Barnett on the 14th, and he replied on the 17th—I told Jellicoe later in the afternoon Barnett had called to see him—I am not conscious of Jellicoe having sent me letters; he showed me one or two—when the prisoners called, Kent was not present more than three times—Kent may have called on the same day; I only recollect Kent being present twice—after receiving letters I sent to Mr. Wyndham, of the Primrose Club—he said he was a friend of the family; he was well acquainted with the family generally, and I was favourably impressed with what he did—he satisfied me that he was the son of Staples, of Combmartin—he told me he never knew about the marriage settlement; I asked him that—after Lucas' letter I made one advance—I showed the letter to Jellicoe—I advanced the £5 because he came to me as I was going for a holiday and explained that unless the money was paid that afternoon he should be taken to Holloway, and I said, "I do not want you to go to a place like that after what has happened, and I will give you £5," and I gave it—there was £5 paid to Jellicoe subsequently at Combmartin—the correspondence with the solicitor was very unsatisfactory, and I put it to Jellicoe that he ought to go down; he gave me a reason why he round not go, and I gave him £5; I parted with two cheques—what I complained of in Jellicoe was he said he had inquired and found it was bona fide; I
bad no such knowledge—I was prepared to obtain an advance—I had arranged to be paid a fee, roughly, of £75, the drawing of the mortgage and attendances—it was not good business, it appeared to be—I never said I was willing to back it to the extent of 50 per cent—Chorley's solicitor was going to make inquiries—he was in Brighton before he died—I frequently made advances, not to a large extent, on reversionary interest; I thought I understood it—if Jellicoe had told me on July 9th that on July 8th a letter had been received from the solicitor declining to advance I would not have advanced anything.
Re-examined. If I was advising a client as to advancing money upon the reversion to a marriage settlement, the usual points would be the legitimacy of the person said to be the reversioner, another the legality of the marriage between the alleged patties to the marriage settlement; but there might have been a special provision.
EDWARD DREW (Detective Inspector). In October and November last the papers produced were put before me to make inquiries, and I went to see Mr. James Staples at Combmartin, from whom I took a detailed statement, which was read over to him—he thoroughly understood it—his mind was quite clear—I had also seen a number of other persons in reference to the case—on June 8th I received a summons from Bow Street Police-court, which it was my duty to serve upon Jellicoe—I served it on him on June 9th at his office, I, Wardrobe Place, St. Paul's Churchyard, where he had moved from 3, John Street—it was for unlawfully conspiring and agreeing to obtain from Thomas Cleaver, with intent to defraud, and that he did obtain £10 in February, 1896, and £2 in March, 1897, etc.—he made this statement, after I had cautioned him that it might be used against him: "It is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. Staples came to me and said he was entitled to a lot of money, and showed me a declaration made by his mother, and said he wanted to raise money, and I arranged to obtain a loan of £10,000 from the North British Mercantile Company, and then he afterwards came to me and told me to prepare him a mortgage to Cleaver, whom I did not know any more than a new bora babe, and I did so. He told me that Cleaver had lent him money from time to time, and he wanted to secure him. I never had a single fraction from Cleaver, and only had just my costs from Staples. I made inquiries of the solicitor who took the declaration, and found it was correct; I afterwards instituted proceedings in the Chancery Court to bring the marriage settlement into Court. I made out from the declaration that the trust funds were at Parr's Bank, and I went there and made inquiries of the manager, who told me that it was so. The Chancery proceedings are still pending, and Counsel has been instructed in the case"—then Jellicoe read a copy of instructions to Counsel, and went on to say: "I wrote to Mr. Barnett, at Ilfracombe, the solicitor who took the declaration, before I drew the mortgage to Cleaver for Staples, and I was satisfied that Mr. Barnett took the declaration"—I said if he wished to show me any papers or books I would see them—he said: "I have no papers, relating to the matter except the declaration and letters that have passed between Mr. Barnett and the defendant, at Combmartin, and myself: Everything is perfectly in order, and I am still acting for Staples;
that is, he has never revoked his instructions; even supposing I have been acting as solicitor for Mr. Cleaver he could not say that I had been guilty of any negligence, as I have taken every precaution, the money was granted to Staplen before I know anything about it; I have never had an account with Staples, he agreed to pay me a lump sum on the completion of the loan by the North British"—on June 11th I read the warrant to Staples—it had been granted at Bow Street on the same day as the summons, and it charged him with conspiracy—he said: "It is true I borrowed money from Mr. Cleaver on mortgage, and Jellicoe acted as my solicitor"—he asked me who was prosecuting, and I told him the Public Prosecutor—Cleaver was arrested on a warrant against Staples and the other man.
Cross-examined by MR. CHAMIER. Prince's name was not mentioned on the original summons at all.
The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate; Staples says, "I reserve my defence," Jellicoe says, "I went to Parr's Bank. I saw a gentleman who brought a book to me showing that James Staples, of Combmartin, held shares of the nominal value of £22,500. The clerk took me to the sub-manager, who asked me if I knew Captain Staples, and they identified him as being the son of James Staples, of Combmartin. I had a gentleman with me who waited for me outside the bank. That was the only statement I made to Cleaver. I investigated the matter, as any other solicitor would have done, and when I found out Mr. James Staples' solicitors I wrote and asked them for copies of the marriage settlement and of the certificates of the defendant Staples' birth and of his father's birth, and they wrote that they would make me out copies. I did not know of defendant Staples bankruptcy. He called on me and instrucced me to draw the mortgage as he wanted to secure Cleaver for money he had lent him from time to time before I knew him. Staples was introduced to me on or about April 12th, 1897. The sum advanced to Knight's £150; those notes have been traced to me. They came through Knight's mortgage. So far as Mr. Prince is concerned he himself wrote privately to the solicitors who investigated the matter. I made no statement whatever except that I had been to Parr's Bank."
Evidence for the Defence.
JAMES ANTONY JELLICOE (The prisoner, sworn). I am a solicitor—I was admitted in 1866—I have been in practice ever since—my address is on the letters: John Street, Bedford Row—down to 1896 I had not met Cleaver or Staples—I first came across Cleaver I think on April 15th, 1897—Captain Staples was introduced to me on April 12th at 3 p.m.—I am referring to my call-book and little attendances I make out from it—I can positively rely on the notes there—a mortgage broker made the appointment at 10 a.m. to bring him at 3 p.m.—I visited Parr's Bank on the 15th, after I had seen Mr. Cleaver—Mr. Glenister called that day and asked me to see Cleaver, as he would like his friend to know I was carrying out a loan for Captain Staples—Staples, Glenister, and I went to Cleaver's house—we were asked up into the sitting-room, and were sitting round a table when he came in—Glenister said, "Tom, it is all right; Jellicoe is a solicitor; I hare heard of him some time ago, at the time he was in partnership with another solicitor, and is it true that he is carrying
out a loan of £10,000 for the Captain with Messrs. Barley and Cumberland, of Bedford Row?"—they are solicitors of high standing—Glenister seemed as if he had known Cleaver all his life; I was a perfect stranger—I did not know that Glenister and Cleaver were known to each other—I assented—on April 23rd I saw Cleaver again—I had received a telegram from Staples in the morning—I fancy it was the 21st—I was to meet Mr. Barnes, a solicitor, at 12 o'clock, at his office in West Street, Finsbury, opposite the railway-station in Moorgate Street—he was acting for Mr. Harris at London Bridge, a wine merchant and money-lender—Mr. Williams had tried to discount a bill for Staples there—the appointment was made by Barnes—Mr. Harris had gone—Mr. Cleaver was passing, and I told him Harris had just left and gone to Eastbourne—I wrote a letter about Knight's mortgages, and gave it to Glenister—I asked him whether he could negotiate a loan for my client, who was entitled to a share of £3,772 Consols, that he was entitled to on the death of an old lady aged 72—that was a kind of make-weight—there were £30,000 Consols—it was worth £2,000—the mortgage I introduced to Cleaver was well secured; it could be paid off at any time—I had a cash account with Knight in connection with some building at Ramsgate—I received from Cleaver £150, and credited it in that account by giving notice to produce it—on the second visit to Cleaver's house on April 23rd, Glenister wanted to explain to Mr. Cleaver the cause of the delay, as he had learned I had been to Parr's Bank and he would like me to report to Mr. Cleaver—I said I had been to Parr's Bank and ascertained that Mr. James Staples was a customer at Parr's and had shares there standing in his name, and that Cleaver could go and satisfy himself—I had been to Parr's Bank—I paid Glenister £15 for commission for negotiating proceedings in Knight's case—I handed the notes to him in a cab—they were the tame notes I had received in respect of Knight's mortgage—the notes reached Staples by changing them—Staples and Glenister I think called upon me one day and asked me if I could change a £50 or £20 note for smaller ones—they said, "You have a banking account, you can easily pay it in, and I gave them smaller, I think £5 notes—I took in return a note from Glenister and Staples—I wrote to Nash field and Co. more than one letter and called several times—I drew the mortgages on Staples' instructions—he called upon me and asked me to draw him a mortgage for Cleaver—I am looking at my day sheets; on the 21st I think it was—these sheets are made the following morning—I was not aware Cleaver had lent on mortgage—I handed him both Staples' and Knight's mortgages—I left them with him—on April 27th, a date I identify from my call book, Mr. Williams saw me and said he was trying to get a bill discounted with the captain—the following day I went to see Mr. Blaiberg or a Mr. Sair—I said that Mr. Williams had mentioned the matter to me, "If it is all right I am quite willing to let you have £500," this man said "Yes"—he called himself Sair—he says he is Blaiberg—Mr. Williams asked Staples if he had been a bankrupt—Staples said "No"—up to that time I had not heard that Staples had been a bankrupt—whenever a person is brought to me on such a matter the first question is, "Have you any judgment?" or "Have you been a bankrupt?"—I said "I think you ought to make a declaration that you
have not been a bankrupt"—he said, "Do you want it?"—I said "No, if you assure me you have not been"—I think from my attendance sheets I went again the following afternoon to Blaiberg—he promised to write to us—he said, "Is it correct that Staples has been bankrupt?"—I said "I am not aware of it"—I expressed surprise—I was very much surprised—he still said if I could satisfy him he would lend £500—after that I saw Staples, and told him what I had heard—he denied it in to—he said he must have been taken for somebody else—I had correspondence, made inquiries, and did all I could to investigate the thing—on July 22nd I had seen Prince, been through the matter with him, and handed it over to him—Prince was then raising £2,000 for his client—I communicated with Barnett, and went down to the club and met him—I had heard from Dr. Foquet as to his legitimacy—I had seen the manager of the Primrose Club—I wrote Baraett that the matter was progressing favourably—on the 29th I wrote to Cleaver, asking him to come—we discussed the matter, and decided that the only course was to commence an action against the old man—I said of course the matter could not be commenced without money for fees, affidavits, and so forth, and I wanted to know whether he would assist, as he held a charge on the estate, and it was necessary for him to protect his own interest—I showed him the correspondence, and how badly the old man had treated him, and he said if it had been his father he would have punched his head for him, or something like that—I never asked Cleaver for money except in Knight's case—I first heard of the second advance to Staples at Bow Street Police-court—Mr. Kent had known Mr. Prince fifteen years—I had never met him, and was not aware such a person existed—Kent took me to Staples and Prince—Prince knew all about the affair—the whole matter was discussed at great length, points in the family history, and a declaration on various other points, and I showed him Mr. Barnett's letter—Mr. Barnett had a faint recollection of taking the declaration of the old man as to being a wealthy man—Kent said Staples wanted money; "The captain wants a refresher, "I think he termed it—Prince said that, provided the old man was the person referred to, he was quite good enough to back £25, and if he lost it would not break him—Prince made a remark after seeing the declaration—Staplessaid that the settlement was in the safe, and he had the keys—we discussed the declaration, and I told him I had been to Parr's Bank, and found out there were shares standing in the old man's name there—I fancy Kent told Prince a loan had been applied for, because Kent knew all about it, and I had the letter—the matter would have been proceeded with with the North British "subject to title," which does not mean that the matter is concluded, but on the contrary, requisitions have to be produced and answers sent—having heard from the North British, I repeatedly said, "Your solicitors can satisfy themselves by the usual inquiries"—the deeds would have to be inspected in the usual way—Princeadvised the captain not to proceed; he thought it was ridiculous to have a policy for £10,000, as he could get money from a farmer in Sussex, and it would be absurd to go to the expense—that conversation was on June 29th, I think—I was rather disappointed, because he called upon me to know if I could introduce any business, and
there would have been a large commission received on the policy—I heard Bireham's objection that we showed no title, and that if a title were shown perhaps an advance might be made—I got the epitome back at the end of August, and I promised to complete the abstract—it is true that Mr. Bradley, of Bircham's, told me it was worthless, and "we must have the names and statements of the funds"—I am willing to complete the transaction and carry the matter out—on July 8th I received their letter that they were still willing to advance—the matter was still open between me and the insurance company; in fact, I never withdrew from them—wequestioned Staples about the trustees—we thought his uncle Joseph was a trustee, and I went to Somerset House and found "Josephs" were solicitors—it was known the old man had a secret document, or had destroyed it—Prince gave me that impression—we held that opinion during the whole of the interviews, and that we ought to force the old man to bring the document into Court, when we ultimately served him with a writ to make him a codefendant—he wrote back—he first advised an originating summons—that was just before the vacation, and it was too late, and we tried afterwards to effect a reconciliation of the old man with his son, and I adopted the initiative—there was no complaint in his letter—Prince never said we had deceived him as—to these securities—I showed him the letters, and some I left with him—the only question in his mind was whether he was the person referred to in the statutory declaration, as he thought the defendant was personating Captain Staples—the only report I made to Prince was that I had been to Parr's Bank, and found shares standing in the old man's name, and he said the settlement was in the iron safe—if the loan had been carried out there would have been a considerable appropriation fee, and, perhaps, a life insurance—I saw Barnett at the Constitutional Club on July 26th—Princetold me Barnett had been to London, and gave me an address where I could see him, and I went to the bank and had a long interview—I went to his club, Barnett came in, and after shaking hands, I said: "About this declaration?"—he said: "I recollect it quite well Mr. Jellicoe, Mrs. Staples was staying on your visit to my office at the Clarendon, I think it was, and I went over there for a declaration from the old man; a man there had sent for him"—I said, "Do you know anything about the family?"—he said, "I knew the old man many years, and I understand he was either a bankrupt or had lost a considerable fortune"—then he said he traced him to another place, and said, "If I were to go to the old man he would slam the door in my face"—heunderstood the old man had made a will, and that the son had been met with—he promised to prosecute all inquiries he could, with a view to get an assignment, and let me know—after that I reported what I had done to Mr. Prince—I saw the charge taken by Prince from Staples—he said he would take it for what it was worth for professional services, and if he lost money it would not break him; he could well afford that—he said the letter which he refused to show me was a privileged communication, but he said, "The gist of it is about his legitimacy, which I wane to clear up; I believe he has personated Captain Staples"—I went to Somerset House and searched for his birth certificate, but could not find it; then I wrote to Dr, Foquet to prove the point, I also threatened the old man with
proceedings, and Mr. Seldom replied that the old man had I never made such a will—I wrote to the rector for certificate of birth and baptism—Staples was writing to Prince, and was annoyed at the accusation of being a bastard, and asked whether he thought he was a swindler—Prince said, "I do not impute that"—then he handed his photographin his regimentals to Prince—Staples gave him the names of various people," including Air. Wisdom, of the Primrose Club, and promised the following day to bring him a batch of letters from his mother—a batch of letters was handed to Prince—on August 18th I wrote to the father's own solicitors, making inquiries, also to the family banker, a retird publican, for the declaration—I got the address from Nashfield and Co.—that was the first time the declaration was produced—I wrote to Mr. H. Biggs, of Bristol, for the original settlement, or a copy of it—I did all I could—I showed Prince the result and the correspondence—I wrote Mr. Seldon for the marriage settlement—I have had experience of getting copies of documents, £10 would be little enough to pay—I do not remember the date, but Prince said to me, "I am getting tired of this matter; you had better take this charge over, and give me £50"—I think £85 had then been advanced—I had no opportunity of making any charge—previous to that he said to the Captain, "I think you have bagged to the extent of £80; you ought to get Jellicoe to help you"—I was served with a notice of change of solicitors, and I did not think I ought to disclose any information; it was not my duty to attend to the Chancery action, and my name was taken off the record.
Cross-examined. I have been a solicitor thirteen years—I have negotiated advances several times—in negotiating an advance upon a reversion of a marriage settlement it is usual to commence inquiries about the identity of the person—not necessarily the legitimacy—you would get a certificate of the marriage of the parents—I went to Somerset House, but could not find the date—I looked for the name James Staples—I did not get information that this man was a bankrupt—I was assured he was not a bankrupt—I never mentioned to Cleaver the bankruptcy—Cleaver never mentioned it—I did not say it would be an additional expense to employ another solicitor and that I would act for both—I prepared the mortgage at the request of Staples—I got for him the statement that Mrs. Staples bad not exercised the power of appointment—the declaration stated it—I drew the document for a precedent—I thought Cleaver was business—like and an exceedingly sharp chap—I went with him to the Bank on April 23rd, 1896—he drew out £150 in notes and handed them to me—I put them in the safe—I do not think I had a book, I have one now—I kept the notes in the safe about a couple of months—Staples asked me to cash them, and I went to the safe and got them out—every one of the £5 went into his hands within three days—there is no entry because I could not charge for it; it was a personal favour—I suppose the second time he brought me a large note and I gave him the money—I had a lot of money in my safe at the time—I did not attempt to raise the balance of £100—it was wanted for the purpose of proceeding with certain works—Knight and myself had the £150—I rendered accounts—I paid the wages on the building at Ramsgate—I heard Cleaver state that he had seen Knight, who said he only got £12—that is not correct—
Cleaver would not lend without the 20 per cent—Cleaver would reap the benefit, as I was acting for him in Knight's mortgage—he told me to make the best terms I could—the rate is high, but I have known cases where there is absolute security and people pay more than that—I have an entry of Glenister and Staples, not Cleaver—it was Cleaver's business—Glenistercalled to know whether the mortgage was stamped—these daily sheets are written the following morning in pencil—I make my charges from these sheets and the call book—part of the £90 I changed for Knight's money—I do not admit that I had £90 worth of notes, part of the £170—I exchanged £5 notes for £20 or £10 notes—Staples handed me one or two for costs—I have no account to show it—£10 was paid to Wag staff towards the purchase of a house; not for Staples—I think he gave me the note on account of my costs about April 24th in a cab—I did not know that Staples had a banking account, or why should he come to me?—prior to the letter I wrote to Pinniger on May 20th, 1897, I made inquiries into the truth of Staples' story—I went to Parr's Bank, who identified him—I did not see him at the bank—I went on April 15th—a gentleman turned to an index, and said James Staples was a. shareholder—there was nothing to show that the shares were the subject of any trust—Pininger said neither he nor any of the family knew anything about the marriage settlement—I do not recollect receiving Messrs. Rendell Todd's letter of May 28th, stating he was not aware of the existence of the settlement—I did write to that firm, and they could not supply me with information—I have no recollection of receiving Mr. Barnes' letter—I think Mr. Bradley must be wrong when he stated that he said on June 14th that he would have nothing to do with this matter—I do not recollect the conversation—on June 14th I have no attendance entered except upon Mr. Radeliffe—on July 7th I wrote to Bircham's modifying my proposal from £10,000 to £7,000—on 8th they replied that they were not prepared to advise the insurance office to make any advance, and suggesting two sureties—Barnett never advised me to be careful about advising people to advance money on this reversion—nothing of the kind; he promised to get the document up, and write to me at the end of the week—on July 29th we wanted the borrower to lend money towards the Chancery action, and put an end to the whole thing—we wanted £12 for stamps and Counsel's fees—I did not tell Prince that Staples had borrowed from Cleaver—I found that Cleaver had no more money about July 29th—I did not mention about Cleaver or Staples bankruptcy, nor Pinniger's letter, nor Rendell Todd's letter—I showed him Bircham's letters on June 29th—I did not communicate the fact that the insurance company had cried off the proposal, I did not consider they had cried off, because when I saw them in August they stated they were prepared to go on with the matter if I furnished them with proper abstracts—I went to Somerset House about 3.30 p.m.—I never went to Combmartin, nor Barnataple, nor Ilfracombe—I wrote a long letter—my brother is now in the country—I got £5 from Prince to go to Ilfracomte to try to get a reconciliation between father and son—I did not go because he did not send me the money—he sent it at a later date—my brother was down there, and it took considerably over £5 to make inquiries—I have no accounts
I merely make up day sheets—I do the whole business myself, and I have not time to keep proper accounts.
Re-examined. It was as open to Prince as to me to go to Somerset House or the Bankruptcy Court—Blaiberg put the bankruptcy to me as more as a question than as a statement—I communicated with Staples afterwards—he denied it—the mortgages were after most of the money had been advanced—I was not aware that any further advances were going to be made: so far as I knew, they were to secure money already advanced—Knight's was quite different to the usual case—I acted on Cleaver's behalf—it was a reversionary interest in Consols, which command a higher rate of interest—I credited the receipt in respect of Cleaver's £150 in Knight's account—I have been given notice to produce it (produced)—this is the bill of costs—Glenister was always with Cleaver when I saw him—he told me he had negotiated a loan with another solicitor—Knight signed a mortgage in my presence—he changed the solicitor—a summons was served upon me, and the Master ordered me to render a proper account, which was rendered in the usual way; that showed a credit, and he was satisfied—it would be madness to buy property without the solicitor examined the documents—Bircham's were prepared to proceed if I could show them the original settlement—my brother went to Combmartin—I went to Prince to talk the matter over; he said, "I am getting tired of this; you had better try and get a reconciliation," but my brother said reconciliation was impossible.
HENRY PRINCE (Re-examined). This is the first time I have heard Mr. Jellicoe's statement as to my having expressed my view about the policy of £10,000—I never said it would be absurd to take a policy for £10,000 when you could get money for him without it—Jellicoe said, "Do you think you will want a policy?"—I said, "No; obviously no policy is required in a case of this kind if the title is all right."
GUILTY .—The police stated that the Statutory declaration had been used in about a dozen other cases, and that in one case Staples had obtained £5,000 from a solicitor, and that he was convicted of bigamy at this Court in November, 1895 (See Vol. cxxiii., page 29); also that proceedings had been taken against Jellicoe, which proved abortive.
STAPLES— Five Years' Penal Servitude. JELLICOE— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, November 2nd and 3rd, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
717. MARIE CAHAGNE (53) and MARIE JOSEPHINE HENRIETTA CAHAGNE (31) were indicted for Unlawfully obtaining from Florence Garment £10, and postal orders for £5, by felse pretences, with intent to defraud; and, with CHARLES CAHAGNE (30) , for Obtaining from Thomas Boxall £5, with intent to defraud. Other Counts, for Conspiracy to obtain several sums.
MESSRS. C. F. GILL and BIRON Prosecuted. Mr. H. R. HODSON Defended
Charles Cahagne, and MR. SELLS Defended M. J. H. Cahagne.
mother, keeping a lodging-house, called Glenloye, at Westgate-on-Sea—she is seventy years of age, and a good deal of the business arrangements are left to me—Marie Cahagne came on June 16th, 1893—I had received this letter from her: "C/o H. Bamford, 201, Great Portland Street." (Stating that the party would arrive on Friday, and ordering a seven o'clock dinner)—she engaged one sitting-room and four bedrooms, at five guineas a week, and paid £2 deposit—she gave her solicitor's address, 201, Great Portland Street, and said that she was staying at an hotel in Craven Street—she arrived with Miss Josephine on the 19th, with another son Joseph, a Mr. Smith, and a Mr. Tyler—the rent was paid up to July 22nd—their style led one to believe they had plenty of money, and were used to it, having the best of everything, and plenty of it, dealing with the best tradesmen for the best meat, poultry, oysters, and that kind of thing, and wines from a wine merchant, with white wine with their oysters—they engaged from livery stables a carriage, one horse, and one man at so much a week—the accounts were paid the first three weeks—they lived on most friendly terms with my mother and me—she said she had been divorced from her husband five years ago, she had money in Chancery, and a quarterly allowance paid through trustees of £1,250, and that her daughter was engaged to be married in the early part of the year to the young gentleman who was with the party—she said her estate in France was left by her or her daughter's grandfather—about the end of July she said she had run very short of cash, and asked mother to pay the tradesmen for the week, she was going to London to see her trustee, and on her return she would settle all up—my mother paid the tradesmen the sixth week—she went to London and came back, and said she had not seen her trustee—she went to London again in August to see her trustee—she returned, and said her trustee was ill, and on the following morning he had gone on a Cook's tour, so that she would have to manage the best she could for two or three weeks—mother said, "What about the tradesmen?"—she said, "Oh, it won't hurt them to wait a week or two"—about August 14th she said, "I hope I am not putting your mother to inconvenience in not settling the account"—I said, "No, if we have ft by the end of the month"—she said, "Oh, you shall have it long before that; the trustee is away, when he returns I shall be able to settle up"—on August 16th she said that they would have to go to Paris at the end of September, would I like to go with them; they were going to their castle at Orleans—that was the first I heard of Orleans—that there were a lot of pictures, tapestry, and valuable things that she wanted to get to London, to her daughter's house, before she married; she thought I should be handy, and I was delighted with the idea—I had never been to Orleans or Paris—I was to have stayed at the old castle—I was most anxious to go—I consulted mother at once, and madam being a very nice lady she thought I could be trusted with her, and it would give me an opportunity of seeing a little Continental life—about August 25th madam called me into the back-room, and asked if I thought mother would lend her £5 as she was short of cash, and wanted to go to London to see her trustee the next day; I asked mother, who gave it me—she did not go the next day—on the 30th she had another £5—I did not ask for a receipt, because of her tales about going to see her
trustee, and she seemed so straightforward; we hardly treated it as a business transaction, but did it out of kindness to her—I made notes at the time on an old almanack that used to be in the kitchen, and I hare compiled these notes from it—on September 1st Madam borrowed £12 for the purpose of going to Somerset House, and on the following Monday she was going to London, and some of it was for her invalid son Charlie who was about to be sent to Long Milford—I wired myself to him—on September 6th we advanced £5, 9th £5, 11th £10, 16th £3, 17th £10, which I took to Craven Street myself—on September 16th there was a telegram for me to send, addressed "Ayres, Bremen, Germany. Send £500 this week without fail," to the best of my recollection—the next day she asked for £10—an answer came to the telegram, and madam told me it said, "I am writing. Letter follows"—she had a letter, which she said enclosed an authority to draw money, and she went to London and had £3 to go with on the 16th—on the 17th we received a letter, in consequence of which I went to her in London with another £10, for stamping fees—she told me to go from Victoria to her hotel in Craven Street; she there told me she had been to the lawyers; the elder one was away, and the younger one said it was more than he dare do to let her have the money without the other's signature—that day I had lunch with her at the hotel—she said she was expecting a gentleman to see her about a house she was about to purchase at Streatham Hill; that they wanted £5,000, which the trustee thought too much, but she was going to pay £4,500 for it—I went back to Westgate; she did not return for two days afterwards—some of the tradesmen continued to serve till the end of the month; some would serve no longer—madam gave me Mr. Bamford's address to take to some of them as a reference, because they asked me for a reference, and I took it to them—Jackson called with the carriage; she used to write from London and order it—on September 21st she borrowed £7, and on the 27th she went to London, borrowing another £4 or £5—then I received this telegram, "Ask your mother to let you come up by Granville. Very important. Don't mention it to Mignon. Come in hansom to hotel from Victoria"—Mignon is the daughter—I went up to the hotel—she said a Mrs. Warple in the hotel had suggested that she should go to some solicitors and raise money on the fixtures she had at Mr. Bamford's office, and that she had been to see a solicitor, who thought one of his clients at Tonbridge would advance money, and she expected a telegram, to say he was coming up to see her about it—they were valuable pictures for her daughter's house from the Castle—I next received a letter from the Alexandra Hotel, Craven Street (of September 29th, for another £5)—I sent £5 on the morrow—when she came back on the 30th she borrowed another £5; on October 1st, £5; October 2nd, £7 10s.; and on October 4th, £2—she asked for £5, but mother said she could not, she had other accounts, but would send the other later on—she went to London that day—on October 6th she wrote for more money—we sent her 30s. in two postal orders—she returned on 9th and went to London on 12th—on 8th we got a telegram, "Too ill to travel till tomorrow"—we thought she had settled her business and got her money—she said her trustee had sent her a cheque for £2,000, which was going through the bank, and she would not have it till the following Tuesday—
I had asked her if it was possible to pay the tradesman that evening and she said, would I tell them all they would be paid by Thursday evening and thank them for having served her so long, and whatever interest was due they could put on the bill—she asked for more money and said her son Joe was going yachting—this was Saturday, on the Monday she took mother for a drive—Mr. Jackson supplied the trap—on October 20th she borrowed another £5—she was unwell in her room—on October 22nd she was still in her room—she wrote in pencil to mother this letter for £10 (Stating that she was so grieved at not receiving her money and asking £10 to pay a debt of her son Joe to a young fellow who leaves tonight.)—mother lent her another £10—on October 27th madam borrowed £3 to go to London—she went to London on the 28th—I saw Miss Cahagne from time to time—she said they had plenty of money, a quarterly allow-ance through her trustee, but her father was always putting obstacles in the way to prevent them having the money and that the trustee was annoyed at her engagement—she said she and her mother had £2,000 a year each—before her mother went to London she called me into the back room and said, "She is going to take you as a witness with Mr. Ramford and his clerk to the bank to sign her name in the ledger and then she would have her money handed over"—she came of age twice that year; in the spring, and she had another birthday in November—believing these statements I got a cab and went with madam to London—we went in a cab to Mr. Bamford's office—I paid—she asked me to pay for everything—she said, "You shall have your money at four o'clock"—we went into Mr. Bamford's office and waited a long time, the clerk told us Mr. Bamford had gone out, and would not be back till four o'clock—Madam said, "It is no use waiting here till Mr. Bamford comes back, it will be too late for the bank to-day"—we went to Uxbridge and stayed at my sister's, going backwards and for wards for five weeks—on 29th we went again to Mr. Bamford's office—madam discharged the cab, and went inside—she came out and said, "Well, they are not coming"—she told the cabman to drive to Portugal Buildings, Lincoln's-Inn-Fields—that was the bank she said—she went in—I remained in the cab—when she came out she said, "Oh, it is all right; I shall be able to get it before 4 o'clock"—it was about 11 a.m.—we went to Mr. Bamford's office—she went in—she asked me to go to Charing Cross Hotel, and get her a wash for Mignon—on coming back to the office I heard Mr. Bamford speaking French—some time after Mr. Bamford came out and put his overcoat on in the outer office, where I was sitting—madam came out looking angry, and said, "It is a great nuisance; I cannot get the money to-day"—I said, "Why not?"—she said, "Because I cannot give them my three certificates of birth, marriage and divorce; I can get two, the other one is in Paris; I cannot get that till Tuesday"—she said Mr. Bamford had drawn an affidavit, which she had signed saying the pictures were hers, and that they were trying to get money till the following Tuesday, and she was going to the lawyers to get the orders—I was to go home, and she would wait till the following Tuesday—if she got £100 by Saturday morning she was going to wire it home—she arranged to go back to Uxbridge to my sister, who did not expect her—Madam Cahagne never returned to Westgate—some of the party left at the end of the week—Miss Tyler went a few days before madam, Joe a few
days after Miss Cahagne left; she was there about nine weeks—my mother had advanced Madam Cahagne £106 10s.—their board and lodging and our payments to tradesmen came to £216 17s. 6d.—on November 16th I went to Uxbridge to my sister's—I saw Madam Cahagne there—exactly the same story was told. (Letters were here read from Madam Cahagne and her daughter to the witness in November, stating"God must more than bless a woman like you," and otherwise expressing friendship and willingness to pay, and referring to a "scene")—there had been a summons served and an attempt to serve—there was a scene after madam left; mother told madam of a summons while she was ill—the daughter addressed my mother, "Dearest grand-mother"—on November 13th my mother asked me to go to Uxbridge to see madam, to whom I said we had so many expenses, and she said would I take two bracelets, and get something on them; I did not know whom to ask for money on the bracelets, and did not like the idea of going to any one, and mother said, "Well I will take the bracelets and you will take the £2"—the telegram "Sum arranged here" Miss Cahagne told me meant that they had the money—madam sent it—she signed my name—I did not send it, I was at Uxbridge and this was sent from Euston Road (Another letter dated Wednesday to" Dear Florrie," stated: "Passed this day at 2 o'clock Board of Directors;" "Hope to pay before bank time closes," and "No reason for more trouble";—the trouble was with the tradesmen—(Another letter of November 25th from Madame Cahagne addressed" Dearest friend" stated: "Parted from all I love in this world and alone to fight their battles "; "I hope by faith to be able to hold up," and"I am too much alone,"—that referred to her stay at Uxbridge.
ELLEN O'BRIEN . I am a housemaid—I was employed at the hotel in Craven Street—Mrs. Cahagne came there on several occasions in September and October—I attended to her—on September 23rd she said to me, "Have you another situation to go to? A girl like you ought to have saved a little money"—I said I had about £12—we were then interrupted, and next day she asked me to do her a favour and lend her £10, that she bad spent over £40 in buying presents for her daughter, that she had plenty more at home at Westgate, but could 'not get home yet, she would give me the money on Tuesday, the 6th—I believed what she said and I drew £8 17s. from the bank, and I let her have that and what I had in my pocket—she told me to keep it secret, and not on any account to tell my mistress—on the Tuesday she asked me to get a cab, and in the cab she asked me to lend her £5 as her solicitor had not done her business, that she had pictures worth £3,000, but that all she had in her pocket was 2s.—she paid me three instalments of 10s., 3s., and 5s.—that was all I got—I parted with all the money I had; I only left a penny in the bank just to keep the account open.
Cross-examined by Mrs. Cahagne. I did not say at Bow Street that you had borrowed the money for a fortnight—you said you had money at Westgate. (At this stage of the inquiry the prisoner Charles Cahagne stated that he would plead guilty to obtaining the money from Mr. Box all)
—the first time was in June, 1897—she stayed with me at various times up to September 25th—her daughter was with her on the first occasion—she paid her way till the 25th—then a bill was due for £1 18s. 6d.—she left on October 16th—at that time she owed me £22 15s. 2d.—on the 9th I lent her £5 till she could get a cheque cashed—on October 16th I received this letter from her (Asking me to lend her £3 till Monday, as she, wanted to buy things for her daughter and son)—on getting that I went to see her at the hotel and said I could not lend her any more—she said she had a cheque for £2,000, but she could not get it cashed as it was for so large an amount—I said I could get some on it—I did not see the cheque; I did not believe in it—the same morning she came back and said she had not been successful in cashing the cheque, and I then gave her another 10s. to pay her fare, and she lelt—I had some information from my cook, and I told the prisoner she had annoyed me very much by borrowing money from my servant—she said, "You are mistaken; she has been borrowing money from me"—I told O'Brien what madam had said—I never saw Bryan in madam's presence, but I told madam that I thought she must be very low indeed to be borrowing money of a poor servant girl, and it caused me great annoyance—she once told me that she had some very valuable papers at Mr. Box all's.
Cross-examined by MR. HODSON. The daughter left my house on June 19th—the account went on to the end of October.
THOMAS BOX ALL . I live at 40, Portland Place—I became acquainted with the elder prisoner on February 26th this year—I was called in in the middle of the night to see her daughter, who was ill—she was a complete stranger to me at that time—in the first week in March the elder prisoner spoke to me about her affairs—she said she was in temporary embarrassment for want of money on account of the illness of her son and daughter, and she could not get the money that was due to her until she got the papers; that it was £2,000 or £3,000; that it was practically settled, but she had to sign some documents before the money was paid over to her—I think she said that the signatures of both her daughter and herself were necessary, and I think she said her son's also—I believed her statement implicitly, and I lent her at first an odd sum, and afterwards £5, for which she gave me an I O U—that was for £11—she said her daughter would come of age in about a month or six weeks, that she would then be twentyfive, which, according to French law, would be of age; that she had telegraphed to Paris for the money, but her solicitor was away, he was coming over, but owing to her daughter's illness she was unable to complete the business, so they would have to go to Paris; that she was afraid to go to Paris with her daughter, as it might make unpleasantness before she received the money, but until she came of age she could not exercise authority over her daughter or son—on March 26th I received this letter. (This purported to come from 28, Langham Street, and requested a loan of £25, as by her husband's interference she was unable to get money till May, when he would receive £200)—I thereupon sent her a cheque for £25—she sent me an I O U for the amount—I continued to attend the daughter, thinking they were well-to-do people, and able to pay my fees—she had another cheque for £24 on that date, and another £10 and £3 and £5, and she sent me an I O U for
£100, being double the amount she owed me—I had refused several times to advance her more money—I attended her daughter as a married woman in the name of Smith; that was for a confinement—I received other letters, some from the daughter signed Mignon Smith, asking further sums—altogether I parted with £82 19s. in various sums—at last I refused to advance any more.
Cross-examined by Mrs. Cahagne. You were introduced to me by a medical mar, who you said was an old patient of your father's.
Cross-examined by MR. SELLS. I was called in by another doctor, who was attending the daughter—it was undoubtedly a dangerous case; she was ill for an unusually long time—it was a premature birth, and the child died—the son was also ill—I was in daily communication with the mother, not with the daughter.
JANE CLARK . I live at 8, Belvedere Crescent, Lambeth—I know the elder prisoner—I was originally a servant at 124, New Bond Street, at a business which was first carried on by the prisoner's husband, Harry Cahagne—the daughter was four years old in 1869—the shop was carried on till 1883 and was then closed, and then the elder prisoner and the children came to 8, Belvedere Crescent, where I was letting apartments—in 1887 the daughter was then grown up—they used to get letters there—I have seen them with money frequently—the husband was not there then—they had one room at 5s. a week—the sons used to come and have meals there—I do not know how they got their money at that time—I last saw the elder prisoner in 1896; she borrowed £2 of me, and paid back 30s.—they occupied the room six weeks.
RONALD SOUTHEY . I am a clerk in the Record Office of the Divorce Court at the Royal Courts—I produce a file of proceedings in the case of Marie Cahagne v. Harry Cahagne, in which there was a decree made absolute on June 17th, 1890.
FREDERICK SOUTH . I live at 138, Great Portland Street—I am a bookkeeper and clerk, and my wife is a dressmaker—Madam Cahagne and her daughter came here to lodge from January, 1896, till 1897—they occupied one room for living and sleeping, by Mrs. and Miss Cahagne. and ultimately by Mr. Cahagne and a young lady named Annie, all in one room—there was no bed in the room, they slept on chairs—they did not pay anything; they had meals there; we paid for them, they had no money—Mrs. Cahagne was always writing letters—they had small amounts of money, no particularly large sums—during the latter part of their stay they had no furniture at all in their room—we were obliged to sell the furniture, they paid nothing; they all turned out like so many thieves—Mrs. Cahagne said she was about to bring in some money, but I never saw her again till she was at Bow Street—they were £60 in my debt for food and lodging.
DONATIEN ALLWARD . I am a florist—my business is in Paris—in 1888 I made the acquaintance of the elder prisoner—she was then staying at the Grande Hotel—she purchased flowers of me to take to the Holy Virgin for the purpose of a religious vow to bring her luck—she pretended that she was in France for setting some sort of guns; that the house in London was in communication with the great house of Schneider and Co., of France, and that she was the medium between the
two, and it was in connection with that she was hoping for good luck—she said she was rich, and had a very large house in London, and that she mixed with the largest and highest people in England—later on I was introduced to the daughter and son when they came over from. England, and I asked them to my chateau in the country, the two ladies and the two sons—that pleased her very much, and she took the place furnished for two years—the first year's rent was paid with difficulty; I never got any more—they lived therein very high style—at last I issued a writ of ejectment, and got her out in that way—I produce photos of the chateau—I produce a number of telegrams and letters which they received about money matters—here is one addressed to Miss Mignon de la Mar, and others asking for money, and some saying "I cannot lend you any more till you repay me."
Cross-examined by Mrs. Cahagne. You did not lend roe £150 before I went to your place; you never had any money, you never lent me any;. I never went down on my knees and begged you to lend me £120.
Cross-examined by MR. SELLS. I stated at the Police-court that when the lady first came to me she had plenty of money—some days she had plenty and some days none—she said on some days Mr. Gildermaster had sent her money, and that was the reason I let her my chateau—I have 200 or 300 letters in my possession, but nothing else worth any thing; no silver or gold; some of the letters were addressed to the daughter, all about money matters.
ELLEN ELIZABETH NATER . I live at 201, Great Portland Street—the prisoners lodged at my house from December 24th till they weft arrested—while there they never left my house to sleep—at the time of arrest they owed me £25.
Cross-examined by Marie Cahagne. On June 15th you asked me to change a £50 note to pay me money owing, I could not, and you sent your son to change it—you paid me £20 for rent and £5 borrowed money.
Cross-examined by MR. SELLS. I saw the note and tried to get it cashed—the woman told me it was left by a gentleman named Gilder minster.
WALTER DINNIE (Inspector). I arrested the older prisoner on June 29th, at 28, Langham Place, at 10.30 p.m.—I told her I had a warrant for her arrest, and I read it to her, she said, "Oh, that servant, but I paid her some back"—I said, "Yes, I understand you paid her 20s. back"—she said, "Yes, and I intended to pay back the rest"—I said, "Other charges may be preferred against you"—She said, "I will pay them all"—I had cautioned her before that—she said, "Where is the false pretence"—I said, "In this case by representing you had money at Westgate and that you were buying wedding presents for your daughter's marriage and that you had a large income derived from a large property you owned in France"—she said, "I have a friend, Mr. Gilder minster, who helps me, cannot you wait till I get the money and pay her"—I said, "No, you must go with us to Bow Street Police-court"—I took her there, she made no statement—on July 13th I arrested the younger prisoner at the same address. I said, "I hold a warrant for your arrest"—she said, "What
for"—I read it, and she then said, "What have I done?"—I said, "You are accused of sending this letter to Dr. Boxall—I showed it to her—she looked at it and said "Yes, but that is not my writing"—I took her to Bow Street, and she gave her age as thirty-one and single—in consequence of inquiries I went to 71, Rue Caumartin, Paris, the place where the letters were written from—an old lady and gentleman live there in a small room—I could not find a solicitor named Lemare—I found the prisoner's husband Cahagne—Mr. Gilderminster I could not find; he was abroad.
Cross-examined by Marie Cahagne. I did not say it would not be a case for bail; I said the bail would be a case for the Magistrate.
ARTHUR HAILSTONE (Police Sergeant). I arrested Charles Cahagne—I searched 28, Langham Street, and out of a trunk I took a lot of papers and fifty-six pawn tickets—I found two letters in the name of Lemare purporting to be from the solicitor in France; they had not been used, He said, "What did I do in the conspiracy? "I showed him the letter, and said, "We allege you wrote this letter which is supposed to be from a solicitor in Paris, and which states falsely that your mother would be able to draw large sums of money on May 26th. We believe there is no such solicitor and that you have no property in France. "He said "Yes, my mater gave me the letter."
Madame Cahagne called.
ALICE TYLER . I am single, and am a clerk; I have known you a great many years; I remember you had a dispute with Alluard; we left all our things with him when we went to Westgate; you were not destitute; you said you were going there for a fortnight or three weeks. I do not think it was only my illness which prevented you leaving. I have known you to receive large sums of money.
Cross-examined. I was invited to France as a visitor—I stayed there about eighteen months—I had been very ill—I do not know what Mrs. Cahagne received large sums of money for—I was invited to Westgate as a guest.
STEPHEN SMITH . I am a commission agent, of 12, Lawrence Lane—I do not know how much money you borrowed from me last year—I did not borrow £25 from you. I have a letter here in which you admit owing me £25.
By the COURT. It was written by the mother; I do not know when I received it—(Read) "Tuesday, 12 a.m. My darling, one of our friends writes that he wired me £5 last night as he could not get back till Wednesday, and gives me an appointment at the Savoy to pay me the £100. This £5 may I use for my Mignon, if you can wait till Thursday for the £25 that I owe you now.—Your little mater, M. Cahagne."—It is quite possible that I had been having intimate relations with her daughter at the time—I believe the mother was aware of it.
Marie Cahagne, in her defence, said that she would have paid her debts if she had not lent Smith, over £150, that she would not have called in Dr. Boxall if she could not have paid him; that she had a business, which her husband took from her; and that she. was quite innocent of fraud.
GUILTY .—MARIE CAHAGNE— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
MARIE J. H. CAHAGNE— Eighteen months' Hard Labour. CHARLES CAHAGNE— Six Month's Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Thursday and Saturday, November 3rd and 6th, 1898.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted.
GEORGE SEARS . I am a clerk, and live at 95, West Green Road, Tottenham—on October 4th I was at the corner of Britannia Road, City Road, and went into a public-house on business, and saw the five prisoners there, and others with them—I called for some drink, and after I had been there three minutes Warner came up and asked me to treat them, which I did, and stopped an hour or more in the bar, but not drinking with them—I then walked down the street, and when I got to the City Road they surrounded me and kicked me on my legs, while I was standing up—Warner took hold of my coat, and forced his knee between my legs causing me great pain, I had to go to a doctor—they knocked me down—I had nearly £2; I got it into my hand and they twisted my hand round—Brophy held my wrist, and so did Aston—they ran away, but Brophy stopped to pick up the money from the path, and I held him till a constable came—I afterward went with a sergeant to a public-house, and pointed out Ashton, Padbury and Hutton—two or three weeks afterwards I saw Warner at the Police-station with other men, and identified him.
Cross-examined by Brophy. The money was mine—I did not go out with you.
Cross-examined by Ashton. I did not go out and have a fight with Warren for 5s.
Cross-examined by Padbury. Warren demanded beer of me—I did not leave because I had business which kept me there—I did not go out with Warner.
Saturday, November 5th.
GEORGE SEAR (Cross-examination continued). Women were in the public-house; they did not drink with me—I did not. go out with two women and some men—I saw you in company with the other prisoners—I could not say which way you ran—it was not a minute and a half before the constable came to my assistance.
By the COURT. Padbury was with the prisoners in the public-house—afterwards, when I was assaulted, he held me from behind; he did not strike me—it was about 5 or 5.30.
Cross-examined by Warner. When I came into the Crown and Sceptre I saw you and the other prisoners and two or three more—you were the first who came and spoke tome; you said, "We want some more beer"—you said I was going to treat the company—my business prevented my going out of the house—I did not see a policeman on point
duty outside the house—I had some money of my own with me and some for expenses that was given to me in the morning—I had to account for it when I got home—I could account for my money on this day—I did not go over to another house and have some drink there—I did not leave the Crown and Sceptre till I was followed by you—I did not speak to you till you came up and said, "You have got to give us some beer"—I was not drunk—I did not spend my governor's money—when I left the public-house I had 30s. or £2—I don't know how much I spent, about 1s. 5d—I came out from home with £2 10s.—I spent 5s. or 6s. on eab fares before I met you, and half-a-crown for lunch—I pulled out 40s. in silver and coppers from my pocket in my hand—they had to twist my hand before they got it out—I was walking with my hands in my pockets, and they took hold of my wrist and forced my hand out, and the money was in my hand—I went into the public-house after 3.30 or 3.45, and left it about 5.10—there was a meeting there between a man and the man I was following—I did not say I came there for a man named King—I had a collar and tie on, but they were snatched off in the struggle with you when the assault took place—it happened where the police could not see—I do not say my collar and tie were wrenched off purposely—I did not say I was Ted Beech the fighting man—two or three of you mentioned that name, I did not.
By the JURY. Since the prisoners' arrest I have been threatened; the prisoners have been in custody.
ARTHUR DAVEY (388 G). On October 4th, at 5 p.m., I was on point duty outside the Crown and Sceptre—about 5.5 I saw Sears come out of the public-house—he went through Britannia Street towards City Roadfour or five minutes after he had left the bouse seven or eight men came out and followed him—Brophy, Ashton, Padbury, and Hutton were four of those men—Warner was not one of them—I do not know him by sight—I know Oxton, Padbury, and Hutton well by sight as being in the neighbourhood—the prosecutor appeared to be perfectly sober—I did not hear anything—I saw them come out of the house, and knowing three of them well as loiterers, I watched them and then lost sight of them—the next I saw of any of them was when I saw Brophy in custody—on the evening of the day after the robbery I arrested Ashton in the Crown and Sceptre—the detective officer told him what he would be charged with—he made no answer.
Cross-examined by Brophy. I do not know you as a labourer; I have seen you in the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by J. Padbury. I have seen you loitering about there for four years.
By the COURT. I saw Sear at 7.30 after he was robbed, when he was with Detective Hodson—he was walking about—he did not appear to be in any pain, nor did he make any complaint to me—he did not appear to walk with difficulty.
WILLIAM WALL (365 G). On October 4th, some time after five, I was on duty near the City Road—I heard a row, and in consequence I ran to the corner of Britannia Street and saw Sear wrestling with Brophy—I took him into custody—Sear said he had been assaulted and robbed and Brophy
was one concerned—I saw some men running up Britannia Street—I knew Ashton, Padbury and Hutton.
Cross-examined by Brophy. You were wrestling with Sear and he had hold of you till I came—you were trying to get away from him.
Cross-examined by Athlon. I was on duty at the corner of Britannia Street—I patrol down the City load—you ran up Britannia Street—two of you ran in the road, and one on the pavement—you disappeared as soon as I got to the corner—I had all my work to hold Brophy—Sears came to the station with me—the other point duty man was not far away when I arrested Brophy; he followed to the station with Brophy.
Cross-examined by J. Padbury. I had not been on the point five minutes—I had just come on duty.
By the COURT. Sear was perfectly sober when I reached him—he said he had had a smack in the face, and been kicked in the stomach—he walked to the station with me quite properly, and did not limp at all; he complained at the station of being assaulted.
RANDALL HODSON (Detective Sergeant, G). About 7.30 p.m. on October 4th I went with Detective Pride and Sear to the Crown and Sceptre—Sear complained of being slightly assaulted; that he had been hit "in the private parts and the face—he appeared able to walk—that was not consistent with having received much violence in the private parts; although it would be about two hours afterwards—he pointed out to me Padbury and Hutton in the public-house—I arrested Padbury, and told him he would charged with being concerned with others in robbing a man in the City Road about five that afternoon—Padbury said, "I know nothing about it; I was in a coffee-shop at the time; I have never seen the man before"—on the 11th I went to 120, Wenlock Street—I there saw Warner and charged him—I arrested him on suspicion—he said, "I know nothing about it, I was at Somers Town on that day"—I took him to the station; he was placed with seven other men for identification; Sear identified him—when charged he said, "I was there and drank with him, but did not rob him"—Sear was sober when I saw him.
Cross-examined by Padbury. You said you never saw the man before.
By the COURT. I cannot say that Sear ever told me what part Warner had taken in the matter—at the time of the first examination, on October 8th, Warner was not in custody—he was arrested on the 11th, before the remand on the 13th.
GEORGE PRIDE (Detective Officer, G). On October 4th I went with Hodson to the Crown and Sceptre, and there arrested Ashton, who said, "I expected this, as I had been boozing with him"—I saw the prosecutor that evening—I noticed nothing about him—I did not notice any marks on his face—he said he had been kicked in the private parts, and complained of being in pain—he could walk—I noticed no indication of his suffering lameness—I should have if it had been marked—he went with the police and did what was necessary, and went before the Magistrate next day—he did not ask for the divisional surgeon to see him.
Brophy's statement before the Magistrate: "I am innocent. I would not have been with him, but the prosecutor came up and asked me if I knew a man named King; then he asked me to have a drink."
Witnesses for the Defence.
WILLIAM BROPHY (The prisoner, sworn). I am a carman living at 6 Eleanor Road, Finsbury Park—I work for Nolan, a carter's contractor—on Tuesday, October 4th, I was in the Crown and Sceptre with Ashton—Sear came in, and came up and asked if we knew a man named King—Ashton asked him what he was—he said "A professional boxer"—Ashton said "I don't know him"—Sear said "I have just come from America; I should like to see him, because I see a challenge in the Sporting Life concerning him; I am Toff Wall's brother and train in the name of Tod Beech"—he asked me to have a drink—I had a glass of ale with him—he told me to show him the best place to hit a man—a lot more men, strangers, came in and he went over to join them, and I did not see him again till I saw him in the City Road when I was going home—he caught hold of me and said, "I have been robbed; you are one of them"—I said "It was not me; let me go."
Cross-examined. Ashton was with me in the Crown and Sceptre—no one was with me in the City Road—if the potman says he saw other men running away with me it would be a lie—I left the public-house a little after 4 p.m. in daylight—it was not 5.10—the potman did not know me—I left by myself—the prosecutor was a quarter of an hour in my company—while I was in the house he went out; I don't know where to—three or four chaps went out with him—that was at 3.30 or 3.45—when he caught hold of me I was filling my pipe and waiting for a tram-car to go home; I was not picking anything off the ground—he seized me in Britannia Street, outside the Britannia—I do not know if that is a quiet street; I am a stranger to it—there were a lot of people about—there is no tram in that street, but there is in the City Road—I had been out for a walk that afternoon—I have been about there on Sunday nights with Ash ten's father, but not in the Crown and Sceptre; this was the first time I had been in there—I did not know any of the other prisoners before.
WILLIAM WALL (Re-examined). The Britannia Road is a narrow road, leading into the City Road at one end and the Nile Road at the other—I came on duty at 5.15; it was daylight then—there were not a great many people about, but there were some passing and repassing—I saw nothing of any actual robbery of the prosecutor—when I arrived Sear was holding Brophy—I asked him if he was perfectly sure he was one; he said he was—there were several people there; no one volunteered any assistance, or said they had seen any robbery or anything of the kind—I cannot find anyone who saw the robbery—I saw Davey when I looked round about five minutes after I got along the City Road—he was on point duty in the street leading to the City Road—when I got up to the Britannia I could have seen that point man, but I did not see him till after I got away from the City Road about five minutes—Sear and Brophy were on the pavement—the road is up for the sewage—standing at that spot you could not see the point man if he had been in his right place, but he came up very shortly afterwards.
MRS. SAMUELS. I lodge at 77, Britannia Street, in your mother's house, which is not many yards from the Crown and Sceptre—on October 4th I was standing at the street door at 3 p.m. when you came in—you did not go out again till between 7 and 7.30—I know, because I was in the kitchen—at 7 or 7.30 you asked your mother for a penny—she was in the parlour making the bed, and she said, "I have not one to give you"—I said, "Here is a penny/' and gave him two halfpennies.
Cross-examined. I was in the public-house that afternoon between 2.30 and 2.45 with a friend, and the prosecutor came up and said, "I have paid for 1s. 6d. drink, and each time I have turned round to take my drink it has been taken"—I said, "You are nothing to me; mind your own business," and I drank up and went home—my kitchen is downstairs in the basement—the door into the street is on the ground-floor—Ash ton lives with his mother on the ground-floor—I was in the kitchen the whole time between 3 and 7 talking to his mother—I did not go out at all—the prisoner was in the kitchen sleeping on the sofa from 3 till between 7 and 7.30—he wanted 1d. to buy tobacco or beer; he might have gone across to the public-house then; I do not know any more.
Padbury, in his defence, stated that he went into the public-house with Button, and saw Sear there treating women and strange men; that he said he was Ted Beech, and asked Ashton if he knew King; that at 3.30 he and Button went out; that he went home and thence to a coffee-shop, where he had 2d. of tea and bread and butter; that he went back to the coffee-shop, and saw Hutton and Ashton there; that Sear came in; that Ashton said to him, "fulloa, you back again?" that the prosecutor said, "I won't drink in your company, I will go to the other bar"; that the prosecutor went and fetched two detectives, and gate him into custody for robbery, and that not a halfpenny was found on him.
GEORGE SEARS (Re-examined). All my money was in my hand when. I took it out of my pocket; it was snatched out of my hand, and' a few coppers fell on the pavement—there were several passers by; I called on them to help me, but no one came to my aid except the potman—I caught hold of Brophy when he went to stoop to pick up something from the pavement—I had about 4s. left in my hand after the robbery; the prisoners took about 35s.—it was in coppers with two or three pieces of silver—I had about £2 in my hand when I withdrew it from my pocket; there was one half-sovereign and not many coppers; it was mostly in half-crowns—I held the 4s.—I went to the station without a collar and tie.
WILLIAM WALL (Re-examined). I found on Brophy at the station 4 1/2 d.—the prosecutor did not tell me his money had been knocked on the pavement; he said he had lost a lot of money; he did not know how much—he did not say some had fallen on the pavement—he said on the way to the station that his money had been knocked out of his hand, and some had fallen on the ground, he did not say how much had been picked up.
Warner in his defence stated that he went to the Crown and Sceptre about 3 or 3.30 and saw Sear there with men and women and two or three of the prisoners; that the prosecutor handed him a pot to drink from and begun
talking about King, saying "I am a bit of a fighter, I am Toff Wall's brother; I am training in the name of Ted Beech; King had a challenge in the "Sporting Life" and have come to see him "; that he (Warner) said, "You don't look much of a fighter, I don't mind fighting you," as Warner was getting somewhat drunk; that Sear went to the Westmoreland, where they refused to serve him, and then to a beer shop; that he (Warner) went book to the Crown and Sceptre, and Sear returned there; that he (Warner) went home and saw no more of Sear till he was arrested a week afterwards.
Brophy and Hutton received good characters.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. ROBERTS Prosecuted.
THOMAS BAILEY . I am a sawyer, of so, Slater Street, Brick Lane, Whitechapel—I was walking up Brick Lane on the night of October 1st coming from my sister's—I support my mother—I was followed by three men—one struck me on my right eye—I do not recognise the prisoners—I was in liquor—I had been to a public-house, and left about 7.30—I had 24s., and after giving my mother 2s. I bought some articles for about 7s. or 8s.—I found myself in the bandit of the police at the station house—I was changed with being drunk, but they let me go, and I appeared before the Magistrate as a witness, when the detective came for me on Monday morning—I did not go to a doctor—I had blows on my forehead and bruises on my left side.
WILLIAM SERGEANT (Detective Serjeant, H). I was in Hanbury Street shortly before 8 p.m. on October 1st with Detective Smart—I saw. Barlow and Bailey arm-in-arm walking through Hanbury Street, Brick Lane, followed by Kelly and Jones—I knew them before by sight—Barlow tried to force Bailey down a turning by the brewery, but he objected—Barlow let go his arm, and struck him two or three times on the face and seized him by the back of the head and placed his hand over his mouth—Kelly and Jones rushed up and started rifling his pockets—I seized Kelly and Jones, and Smart took Barlow—Jones also struck Bailey in the face—some money dropped—Kelly got away—I fell—Smart called out, "You need not run, Kelly; we know you"—he blew his whistle and we got assistance and took them to the Police-station—about 8 the same evening we saw Kelly outside a public-house and arrested him—I charged him—he said, "I know nothing about it"—Barlow was arrested about 8 and Kelly about 11.
Cross-examined by Kelly. I met you in Hanbury Street—you were about forty yards done when I took you—I said the next morning you were the man who got away, and that I had you in custody with Jones—you were taken about eleven o'clock in Commercial Street, outside a lodging-house where you lodge—I saw you in the doorway of a ware-house—Smart said he believed it was you—we were outside the Princess Alice—I charged you with being an accomplice of two other men—when I arrested you you said, "Why didn't you arrest me when I was there?"—I said, "We did so, and you got away."
THOMAS SMART (Detective, H). I was with the sergeant and saw the prosecutor in Hanbury Street in liquor—Barlow was leading him by the arm—we followed the prisoners—the other two were following—they went down Brick Lane—there is a dark road leading to Truman and Hanbury's premises—Barlow struck the prosecutor in the face—they passed the brewery and doubled back—I went over and seized Barlow, and Sergeant took Kelly and Jones—Barlow said, "It's all over; it's a fair cop; hands up"—Jones put his hands towards the prosecutor's pocket and something like money fell to the ground—I blew my whistle and assistance arrived—Jones struggled very violently—shortly after 11 the same evening I was with Sergeant in Commercial Street and I saw Kelly in a warehouse doorway between two other men—he was then taken—he said, "Why didn't you arrest me when I was there?" Sergeant said, "We did so, and you got away."
Cross-examined by Kelly. I saw you in Hanbury Street just outside the Black Swan—I have seen you before—you went down towards Brick Lane when Barlow tried to get the prosecutor down the dark turning, he would not go, and Jones got in front, and Barlow struck the prosecutor twice—I saw you struggling with the prosecutor—you put your left hand in his right hand trousers' pocket—you ran towards Buzton Street.
By the COURT. The prosecutor was very drunk—there was a swelling on his right eye and a slight graze on his nose.
The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate—Jones says; "I did not strike the man." Barlow says: "I never struck the man—I never saw the man at all." Kelly says: "I was not there when the man was robbed."
Jones's defence. I never struck the prosecutor.
Barlow's defence. I never saw the man at all—I was miles away from there—I was coming along Brick Lane when the constable stopped me—I went to the Police-court with him.
Ketty, in his defence, said that he was never charged with having been in custody before, but with being an accomplice of the other prisoners; that he was not charged with striking a man, but the next morning he was charged with being in custody and getting away, and that he knew no more about the case than the other prisoners.
WILLIAM SERGEANT (Re-examined). I searched Jones and Kelly, and found nothing.
GUILTY of robbery with slight violence. They then PLEADED GUIKTT to previous convictions, Jones at Southward Police-court on August 13th, 1895, in the name of William Sherman; Barlow at Worship Street on Stptmber bth, 1897; and Kelly at the Thames Police-court on November 18th, 1897. Other convictions were proved against them. JONES— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. BARLOW and KELLY— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each.
OLD COURT.—Saturday, November 5th, 1898.
Before Mr. Recorder.
720. HERMAN CARL W. L. SCHELLENBERG (42) , Obtaining by false pretences from the Banking Corporation, Limited, a cheque for £2,000 with intent to defraud. Other Count, for forging and uttering a certain telegram.
MR. C. F. GILL and MR. ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted, and MR. C. MATHEWS and MR. MOSES Defended.
The prisoner stated that he was GUILTY of forging and uttering the telegram, and the JURY found that verdict. To enter into recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon. Upon the other counts no evidence was offered.—
MR. SELL: Prosecu'ed, and MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES Defended.
The prisoner during the progress of the case withdrew his plea and
PLEADED GUILTY .
GUILTY.— Six Months' Hard Labour.
MR. HABBISON Prosecuted.
FRANK BEAVIS (Detective H). On Saturday evening, October 8th, I was in Commercial Street with Detective Smart—shortly before 12 we watched the prisoners stopping drunken men—about 12.15 Green and another man were sitting on a door-step drunk—the prisoners and a man not in custody went up to them—Slaney took the prosecutor by the right arm; Dillon by the left—the man not in custody was leading the other drunken man—when they got to Wentworth Street, the other man said, "I can see your game/' and ran away—the other man joined Dillon and Slaney—we were about twenty yards away—Dillon struck the prosecutor and knocked him up against some shutters in a dark place in Wentworth Street, and Slaney and the other two rifled his pockets—Dillon had him by the throat—I arrested Slaney—he said, "I have only the wages I have taken to-day"—Smart arrested Dillon, who put his head down, and Smart knocked him down with a walking stick, dared him to get up, or he would knock him down again, and ran after the prosecutor and brought him back—he lay with his head on the ground—Slaney said, "I give you credit for catching us; it is in your work; this is what you get for getting into bad company"—at the station the prosecutor said he had lost 2s. 9 1/2 d.—I found 2s. 9d. on Slaney—the prosecutor called out "Police"; each struck him and knocked him into the roadway—a table knife was found—the prosecutor said at the station, "That is my knife; they stole it from me"—I saw Slaney drop it out of his hand.
Cross-examined by Sliney. I could hear a chink of money—you put your hand to your right side, but there is no pocket—you produced the money in your hand at the station and said, "This is the 2s. 9d. I took for my day's work"—at the station the prosecutor said he had lost 3s.—
Smart and the other witness did not after the search at the station stand by the prosecutor before he said "2s. 9 1/2 d."—I did not on your saying something about it strike you—nobody struck you—you said you had been to work—I have made inquiries; you have worked at the docks.
By the COURT. I knew Dillon before.
Cross-examined by Dillon. Smart hit you two or three times—I believe Smart picked up the knife—this is it (produced).
THOMAS SMART (Detective H). I was with Beavis in plain clothes—we watched the three men—the prisoners are two—I know the other by sight—they were under my observation from 12 till 12.15; they went up to two men sitting on a doorstep—the prosecutor was one—Dillon and Slaney took hold of the prosecutor and led him down Wentworth Street—the other man had gob another man, who said, "I know; I see what your game is" and got away—the third man then joined the prisoners—Dillon seized the prosecutor by the throat with his left hand and struck him with his right, and Slaney and the man not in custody went towards his pockets—I crossed the road on my toes; Dillon saw me, and was going to dodge past, and I struck him with this walking-stick—he had this table knife in his right hand—as I hit him the knife fell on the ground—Green had been knocked into the gutter—he shouted out "Police"—I followed him as far as George Yard, and brought him back—assistance in uniform came, and we took the prisoners to the station—Green owned the knife, but has since said it is not his property.
Cross-examined by Slaney. At the station the prosecutor said he lost 3s., afterwards he said 2s. 9d.—we are not allowed to say anything to a prosecutor—afterwards you took something from your pocket, and said, "I have 2s. 9d., part of my day's work," and gave it to Beavis—I never struck you in the dock—there were others in the station connected with other cases.
Cross-examined by Dillon. I know you by name—I have seen you, but never away from the neighbourhood.
EDWARD THOMAS GREEN . I am a rivetter—on Sunday morning, October 9th, I was drunk in Commercial Street—I was knocked down by the prisoners, and robbed of my money, 2s. 9 1/2 d.—I did not feel much, as I had beer in me—this knife was shown to me at the Police-station—it is not mine; I said that it was—I know I lost 2s. 9 1/2., because I saw it taken from the prisoner—it was 2s. 9 1/2 d. or 3s., something like that—that was the amount I reckoned—I said it was 2s. 9 1/2., because I saw it in the prisoner's hand—I arrived at it by the amount I spent.
Sidney's statement before the Magistrate: "I am innocent of the charge—I was at work all the week—I gave the name of the foreman."
Evidence for Slaney's Defmoe.
THOMAS SLANEY (the Prisoner) sworn. I was at work at Fresh Wharf—I earned 6s. 6d.—Dillon waited for me—I gave 1s. 6d. for a pair of second-hand boots and 1s. 2d. for beer—I saw the prosecutor on a doorstep with a man each side—the prosecutor said to Dillon: "Do you want to buy a coat for 3s.?"—the other man stopped there, and I walked towards the lodging-house to pay my lodging—I stood with my hands in my trousers' pockets when I saw Smart run across the road and knock the man
down with his stick, using the expression, "Jack Dillon, I know you"—Beavis crossed the road and said, "I want you"—I said, "You have made a mistake"—he said, "I know you"—I said, "You do not, because I work for my living"—when we got to the station the prosecutor said he had lost 3s.—they searched us—I took the money from my right-hand pocket, and handed it to Beavis—then they took the prosecutor to the inspector, and the prosecutor said, "2s. 9d."—I made a remark to the inspector—Smart smacked me in the mouth—I appealed to the inspector, who was busy booking the charge, and took no notice of it.
Cross-examined. Only the prosecutor, two witnesses, and the inspector were in the station—I told the Magistrate about the assault on me, and he said I had better leave it for the trial—the inspector never asked us anything—I said I was innocent of the charge, and the money I had in my possession I had worked hard for that day—I have known Dillon two or three years—I bought the boots in Charles Street of a man who stands there on Saturday night and sells old boots he has mended up—I wear sailor's trousers with flaps—there is only a pocket on the left-hand side—I have a broken finger, and a finger off my right hand—I carry small fruit boxes at the docks—I can work as well as others; I have to—I was arrested in Wentworth Street, and the prosecutor was ten or twelve yards away—I had not seen the knife on Dillon—I told them they had made a mistake, and said, "I will give you credit for catching us; it is your work, this is what you get for getting into bad company"—I am innocent.
GUILTY .—DILLON then
PLEADED GUILTY**† to a conviction in April, 1894, at Worship Street.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour and Twenty Strokes with the Cat. SLANEY— Six Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted, and MR. DRAKE Defended.
CORNELIUS DRISCOLL . I am a labourer of 7, Alltoss Avenue, Fisher Street, Barking—the deceased James Neale, was my cousin—I was with him the most of September 23rd—we went into the Barking Cross Tavern about 8 o'clock and the deceased went part of the way home with me afterwards—he left me in Heath Street, Barking—we had had some drink, but he was quite sober—I next saw him dead on September 26th.
Cross-examined. He had no money on him.
CHARLES COOPER . I live at 97, St. Paul's Road, Barking, and am a waterside labourer—I have known the deceased about six years—I saw him about 3 o'clock on September 23rd, in Fisher Street, Barking, and I
saw him again about 10.30 outride the George public-house—I went in by myself and saw the prisoner there—we came out together and found the deceased outside—he asked the prisoner for a drink—the prisoner gave him one and we all went down to the Barking Gross Tavern—the deceased remained outside—it was then 11 o'clock, turning out time—when we came out the deceased was outside and asked the prisoner for half-a-pint of beer—the public-house was shut—he could not have one; so we went down the street, the prisoner just behind—we got to Tribes Wharf, then deceased palled off his jacket and waistcoat to fight—I picked up his clothes—we were then in Fisher Street about twenty yards from Tribes Wharf—the deceased said, "I am going to fight"—he struck the first blow—the prisoner had said nothing to him—the blow knocked the prisoner down—I was three or four yards off—the prisoner got up, and I saw him make a blow at the deceased's chest—he showed me a wound; he had only his shirt and jersey on—I helped to put his jacket on—I was sober—the deceased said, "Charlie, Charlie, I am stabbed"—the prisoner went towards Tribes Wharf—I laid the deceased down; a woman helped me—I went for a policeman and a doctor—I did not see any blood—he showed me a cut through his shirt; I saw one stab.
Cross-examined. I am a labourer, and work at unloading barges—I met the prisoner that day on his barge; I tried to get work on it—the prisoner did not know the deceased until that evening—I did not notice Sawkins there; I knew him and the deceased knew him—I had met him that night—Mrs. Bailey helped me with the deceased—Sawkins came up about five minutes after the deceased was stabbed—I had not been at work that week—I had some-money in my pocket—it takes about ten minutes to walk from my house to the deceased's home; I knew where he lived—when the deceased left the Barking Tavern, if he had wanted to go home, his way would not be in the opposite direction to Tribes Wharf; he lived in East Street—when the deceased asked for a drink he wanted ld.; the prisoner refused—Sawkins did not follow me down the street—I was going home, not the nearest way—I did not ask the prisoner for a glass of ale, meaning 1d.—Neal only struck the prisoner once—the row lasted about fifteen minutes—I said it was a very serious row and that I should not like to see such a row again, it was so bad—I have not worked for Sawkins—I could not see if the prisoner was trying to defend himself—he had not got his coat off—he is only about eighteen years old.
FRRDK SAWKINS . I live at 4, Emily Cottages, Fisher Street, Barking, and am a dock labourer—I know Neal and Cooper—On September 23rd, about 11 p.m., I was going home—I came out of the King's Head—I went down Fisher Street—when opposite Tribes Wharf I saw Cooper, the deceased, and the prisoner standing on the pavement—I passed them, and turning round I saw the prisoner run across the road towards Tribes Gate—the deceased came towards me—he put his hand towards his breast—he said "I am stabbed"—the prisoner was then up Tribes Wharf standing in the road—Cooper went to fetch a doctor—I remained with the deceased and Mrs. Martin also.
ten they went out—I saw the prisoner and Cooper come in a little time afterwards—they went out at three minutes to 11—there was no quarrel inside the house—they were all perfectly sober.
SUSANNAH MARTIN . I live at 8, Fisher Street, Barking—I am the wife of Thomas Martin, a waterside labourer—on Friday night, September 23rd, about a quarter to eleven, I was in my bed-room—I heard a row in the street, quarrelling—I opened the window and looked out—I saw three young men on the opposite side of the road towards Tribes Wharf—they were quarrelling and used bad language—two of them were struggling, and they fell to the ground—I could not say which—one of them said "I am stabbed"—the other two went away towards East Street—I then came out of my house and went up to the deceased, lying on the ground—Mrs. Bailey was holding her hand over the wound—he was given some brandy, and was taken away in an ambulance—I had heard the quarrel going on for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour.
Cross-examined. Mrs. Bailey was with the deceased when I came up—the doctor came while I was there—Cooper was not there.
MARY BAILEY . I am the wife of Thomas Bailey, of 14, Fisher Street, Barking—about a quarter past eleven I heard quarrelling—I opened my door and heard a voice say, "For God's sake come here; a man is stabbed"—I went over and saw a man lying in the road—Cooper and Sawkins were there—I opened the man's shirt and saw blood come from a wound in his chest—the doctor and police came and he was taken away.
Cross-examined. Mr. Smith was there before me—there was a lamp just opposite—all the shops were shut—when I opened my door I only saw three persons there.
WILLIAM SMITH . I am a gas stoker, and live at 33, Fisher Street, Barking—on September 23rd about a quarter past eleven I was sitting in my back room—I heard a rush of people against my shutters—I opened the door and went out, and saw three men—the prisoner was stripped to his shirt—the deceased was lying on the ground—I sent my wife for the police.
Cross-examined. When I came out Cooper, Sawkins, and Neal were all there.
CHARLES LEARS (K. R. 46). On September 23rd about 11 25 I was on duty in the Broadway, Barking—I went to Fisher Street and saw the deceased lying on the ground bleeding from the chest—a doctor was sent for and he was taken to Poplar Hospital.
Cross-examined. I know this district, it is a very rough one.
WILLIAM PELL . I am a duly qualified medical man, and live at 30 Fenchurch Street Buildings—about a quarter past eleven on this night I was called to Fisher Street—I found the deceased lying in the road, and Mrs. Bailey holding the edge of his wound together; it had stopped bleeding, but he was very much collapsed—the wound was on the left side of the heart; in the pericardium there was much loss of blood—I examined the prisoner at the station; I found no marks on him.
PHILIP WILLIAMS . I am house surgeon at Poplar Hospital—the decease was admitted on September L' 4th in a collapsed condition, and he died at 2.30 that morning—I made a postmortem examination of the body
—the cause of death was a punctured wound in the heart—this knife would cause such a wound.
DANIEL ORDIMAN (K. R.) On September 23rd at 11.25 from information I went to Tribes Wharf, and saw the prisoner on a barge, I told him to come on deck—he was in the cabin apparently asleep—he said, "I know what you have come for; here is the knife" and he produced this knife—it was blood-stained—I said "I charge you with stabbing a man just now in Fisher street"—he made no reply—I took him to the station—he said, "I only did it in self-defence; he and that man (indicating Cooper) said, 'Stand us a pot; if you don't you will have to fight'; I said, 'No, let me go'; they said, 'No, you win have to fight; and they then started on me, and I up with this, and gave him one and ran away."
Cross-examined. I have made inquiry about the prisoner—he is a stranger in London—he came up with a barge on this day—he has lived with his grandfather almost from his birth, and bears a respectable character—I have known that district nearly four years—I have heard of people being molested on their way about there.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM JAMES GREENSLADE . I am a cab proprietor of Balmoral Road, Leyton—on October 1st, about 10.30 p.m., I was at a friend's house in Grove Road, Leyton, three or four minutes—I left a grey pony and a Ralli cart outside—an alarm was raised—my friend's wife stood with the door ajar, watching the pony, which is used to the neighbourhood and won't go away—I caught the prisoner driving away with it towards the Leyton High Road—he had turned the pony round—he was going slowly, being in strange hands—in about forty or fifty yards I caught hold of the pony with my friend—I gave the prisoner into custody—he had been drinking—he was a long way from being drunk.
GEORGE ELLIS . I live at 4, Grove Road—I am a publican and a friend of the last witness—in consequence of what I beard I followed and the prisoner was stopped—he was holding the reins—he was given into custody—there were not many people about—it was about 10.30 p.m.—I pulled him out and asked him what he did in the trap, he made no reply.
THOMAS MORAN (488 J). The prisoner was given into my custody in Grove Green Road, Leyton, about 10.30 p.m. on October 1st—he was taken to the station—he made no reply—he appeared to have been drinking.
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I had no intention of stealing the lot at all; I had had too much to drink, and it was a foolish. practical joke of my own; I wish to call witnesses to character."
He received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
725. ALBERT KERKIN *† (22) PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for stealing a handkerchief, gloves, coat, and vest, the property of William Page; to assaulting Hannah Sharp, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm; and to burglary in the dwelling-house of George Frederick Sharp, and stealing a tobacco-box and 1s. 11d.; having been convicted'of felony at Greenwich io April, 1892.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. ROBERTS Prosecuted, and MR. GOODMAN Defended Gough.
BENJAMIN ARONWITZ (Interpreted). I am a labourer, of 39, Beresford Street, Woolwich—on September 23rd I received from Mr. Barnett 13s. 6d. and stopped to supper—passing a public house between 7 and 8 p.m. with my hand in my right pocket on the money, I stooped to look at the time and took my hand out, when O'Cowley put his hand in my pocket and took the money—I caught his hand, and Donovan gave me several blows on my face and knocked me down and knocked me about—they ran away—Gough asked me, "How much money did you lose," and as I was going to leave him the police came up—I did not know the prisoners.
Cross-examined by MR. GOODMAN. My money was stolen outside the public-house, and near a baker's shop—as Donovan was knocking me about somebody kicked me from where Gough stood.
Cross-examined by O'Cowley. I did not catch hold of you by the throat while you were singing—Donovan called out "Give him more"—I tried to catch you but Donovan hit me on the head—you ran towards the lodging houses—I felt your left hand in my pocket.
Re-examined. There was a lamp at the theatre and public-house.
MORRIS BARNETT . I am clerk to a paper hanger's merchant at 5, Merser Square, Woolwich—Aronwitz has been in our employ 15 months—on September 23rd in the evening I paid him balance of wages 12s. 6d., 14s. 6d. he had in the week—he left the shop about 7.30 p.m.—he came back later and made a complaint—then he went to the station—he speaks the Jewish language.
SARAH CARTER . I live at 53, Fordham Road, Camden Town—in the middle of September I was working at Woolwich—on Friday, September 23rd about 7.30 I heard a row in Beresford Street near the theatre—just outside the publichouse I saw Donovan and O'Cowley—one put a handkerchief over the prosecutor's mouth, and robbed him, the other ran away—the prosecutor struggled, but could not get his breath—I picked them out on the Saturday morning—I had heard O'Cowley singing that evening.
Cross-examined by Donovan. I never said I saw the police kick the prosecutor—I saw him on the ground, and you holding him down.
Cross-examined by O'Cowley. I saw you run away.
WILLIAM VINE (286 R). The prosecutor pointed Donovan out to me on the evening of September 23rd—I arrested him—he said, "I can prove I know nothing about it; I have been to the play"—at the station he said, "I saw this man and another struggling; I went and parted them"—the prosecutor had got the other by the throat—one went one way, and one the other—he was searched—I found threepence on him.
JOHN JUDD (442 R). I saw O'Cowley on the early morning of September 24th—I said, "I shall take you into custody for being concerned with other men in robbing a man"—he said, "All right, I will go with you to the station"—going along the prosecutor came up and identified him—I found 5 1/2 d. on him.
O'Cowley's statement before the Magistrate: "I Plead Guilty to having a scuffle with the man on the ground, but Not Guilty to having his money. I know nothing about that."
Evidence for the Defence.
CHARLES EDWARD EMERSON . I am a crane-driver employed in the Royal Albert Docks—Donovan asked me to have a drink with him—I said, "Certainly," and he called for a pot of beer—I have known him some time as a hard-working man—I saw a disturbance outside the public-house, and a young chap knocked down and heard a cry for help; then O'Cowley left off singing—the door was shut quickly—after that we went to see what it was.
STEPHEN DONOVAN (the Prisoner) sworn. I was in this public-house about 7.30 having come from the Albert Docks, where I work—I had only a penny, and Mr. Triggs gave me a drink—O'Cowley was singing outside—I did not know him—I heard a bit of a scuffle outside—I saw a man fall down—O'Cowley asked for help, as the prosecutor had him by the throat—he said, "For God's sake, let me go, or you will strangle me," and I went to help him."
MICHAEL O'COWLEY (the Prisoner) sworn. I had come out of my lodging-house about 7.30, and was singing outside the public-house, which I have to do when I have not sufficient work—I had just done one song, and collected 5 1/2 d. or 6 1/2 d., and was counting the money in my left hand—the prosecutor looked at me, then thrust me on the ground and said, "I will have the money"—he he me by the throat, but I managed to get my hand loose and halloaed out for assistance—Donovan helped me—I got up and walked away exhausted; I could not run—the prosecutor followed, got hold of my ollar and dragged mo—I was excited—I said, "If you will leave off dragging me, I will come with you and with the police, so that they may search me"—I went back to the public-house to get my living—about 12 the police came and apprehended me.
MORRIS BARNETT (Re-examined). When the prosecutor came and complained he was very much knocked about; his bottom lip was almost split and he had marks all over his head—I had given him money and he came back without it—I did not go down an alley with a witness—I was present when the prisoners were identified.
GOUGH, NOT GUILTY .
DONOVAN** GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour and twenty strokes with the cat. O'COWLEY, GUILTY — Six Months' Hard Labour and twenty strokes with the cat.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MORTLAKE PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM BIRCH (Detective, L). On the morning of September 8th I went with Sergeant Cox to 27, Stangate Street, Lambeth—I saw the prisoners—I said, "We are police officers, and have every reason to believe you are in possession of counterfeit coin; we are going to search your room"—we searched, and in the first-floor back room I took this trunk (produced) from under a table—Croft then said, "You have got what you want now; everything is in there, bad luck to those who have put us away; I can guess who it is; what we have done has been very quiet, even the landlady does not know what we have been doing"—the box was locked, Mortlake gave me the key—I unlocked the trunk and found nine counterfeit sixpences, five moulds, three half-crowns, two big double moulds for sixpences and three for half-crowns, one battery, three jars, a ladle containing metal, a plating tin, silver sand, lamp black, a pail, a spoon containing metal, a brush, several pieces of paper, a piece of emery cloth, a milling and a knurling tool (produced)—the prisoners were taken to the station—Croft was charged; she made no reply.
DAVID COX (Police Sergeant L). I was with Birch—we teaiched two rooms—I took Croft to the station—on the way she said, "This is very bad for poor little Ben" (Mortlake is known as "Little Ben") "he has never done anyone any harm: I cannot think what they wanted to put us away for; I have lived with Ben for fifteen mouths and I have never seen him making "; nothing had been said about making—"I thought he was committing burglary, but then I do not care; bad luck to the dirty bounders that put us away.'"
Cross-examined by Crolt. You said "bounders" not "scoundrels.
EMILY NEWMAN . I am the wife of William George Newman of 27, Stangate Street, Lambeth—the prisoners have lived in my house fifteen months—they occupied the first floor back room as Mr. and Mrs. Croft, man and wife—they always conducted themselves respectably—this box has always been there except when it was taken out and brought back—they were away a couple of days; at least the box was away.
have seen these moulds and other paraphernalia for coining—one mould has not been used—trese coins are bad.
Croft, in her defence. said that she bought the dox, but Mortlake used it, and she had heard hem say that he would sooner earn 10s. a week than do what he did.
GUILTY .—MORTLAKE**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. CROFT— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM TURNER . I am a labourer, of 24, Providence Place, Epsom—on June 28th, about 2.40 p.m., I was outside the Railway Hotel at Epsom—Mr. Pratt is the landlord—I was holding his pony—I was on the doorstep as the pony was in front of the door—before that I had seen three men coming down the road, and I saw one, whose name I have heard is O'Connell, come in to get a drink and leave—they were about sixty yards from Mr. Pratt's house, sitting together on a little piece of coping with iron fencing for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—Clive was one—I saw O'Connell put his hand in his pocket and Chuck down a coin that looked like a 5s. piece—he ordered, I think, mild and bitter—when he came out he joined his two friends, who were then standing against the same place—they walked up the road—I saw them later, when I was sent for to the Police-station—I picked out from nine or ten the three men, Clive being one—I saw Miss Pratt take the 5s. piece—O'Connell called for a drink.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I saw no woman with a basket, nor man with a bicycle—the pony was quiet, and I was two or three yards off him—I was there ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—there are no gardens fifteen yards in front of the hotel—the railway station is opposite—on each side are two or three cottages and two big houses—the men were four yards from the road—the footpath is fifteen yards from the house; there is a draw up—one woman went down the yard to the right—I could see everyon, who went in—I could see all three compartments—I did not see you go in or come out—Mr. Spilbeck's house is about sixty yards off, on the right—I passed you all three when you were sitting on the coping—I do not know any bit wall—there is none—there is a wooden fence on the left.
ANNIE PRATT . I am the daughter of William Edward Pratt, the landlord of the Railway Hotel, Epsom—I was serving in the bar on Wednesday afternoon, June 28th—a man tendered a crown piece—I took it to my father—he paid for drink with good money, and went away—this is the coin, which I marked and kept.
Cross-examined. A carriage drove up—a gentleman got out, and asked if father was ready—I left tie bar to ask and came back, and said he was not ready—father came in his shirt sleeves, and asked if the gentleman had gone—there is no brick wall near—there is no wall or fence on the righ-hand side—there is no front garden—the house is open in front.
2 and 3 p.m. on June 28th—I examined the coin, found it was bad, and gave it back to my daughter—I went into the bar, saw the man, who paid for his liquor and went away—I gave the 5s.—piece to the police, who got to know of it.
Cross-examined. A gentleman called for me to attend a meeting—my daughter brought me the message, and I sent word I was not ready—then I inquired if the gentleman had gone—my house has a northern aspect, and stands back from the main road—about 20 feet from the pavement—there is no wall; there is a fence on one side, but the front is an open fore-court—the house is in a terrace of private houses—there are trees and shrubs—there is a dwarf-wall with fixed railings 18 inches high—we can see within a foot or two of Mr. Spilbeck's door-step from our front.
CHARLES LANG FORD (521 V). I was on duty on June 28th in High Street, Epsom about 3 p.m.—a communication was made to me in consequence of which I went in the direction of Station Road and the Railway Hotel—I saw Clive and English walking side by side in conversation on the footpath and near the public hall, about 120 yards from the Railway Hotel—I kept observation on them—they kept together—I saw O'Connell come from the direction of Church Street—after he joined the others at the junction of Station Road and High Street he turned, crossed the road and went into a coffee tavern—I was in uniform—after I got a description from the hotel I got the assistance of Galloway and Niepold and followed them into the coffee tavern in East Street—Clive and Inglis went in first and O'Connell followed—I waited in the vicinity of the coffee tavern, sent for the other officers, and the three went in together—there is a small room with about two tables and another room at the back, but no door between—there is a clear view from the front to the back—the men were sitting at different tables taking refreshments—I spoke to O'Connell first—I pointed Clive out to another officer—I arrested O'Connell—I searched him; I found on him 6d. in silver and 10 1/2 d. in bronze, good coins—I took him to the station; the others were taken by the other officers—that was about 3.5 p.m.—afterwards the landlord of the Railway Tavern came to the station—Clive said something which I did not hear—O'Connell was nearest the door—we passed through East Street, High Street, into the Ashley Road—we passed Wythe's stores in East Street—they are opposite Savage's coffee tavern and nearer the Police-station.
Cross-examined. Mr. Pratt's house faces Station Road—it is about fourteen feet from the pavement—there is a draw up for vehicles—I am not aware of any brick wall at the side of the house; if there had been I should have seen it.
Re-examined. Inglis and O'Connell were committed by the Magistrates at Epsom for trial here informally and it was necessary to have them discharged and rearrested.
ALFRED GALLOWAY (630 V). On June 28th, in consequence of directions received I went into East Street Police-station at Epsom shortly After 3 p.m. with Niepold—I met Langford near Savage's and went into the house—I saw Clive, Inglis and O'Connell—I arrested Inglis—I searched him in the coffee tavern—I found these four counterfeit crowns (produced) and 3s. 6d. silver, 4d. bronze, and a postal order for 3s.—I
took him to the Police-station at the same time as Langford took O'Connell.
ANDREW NIEPOLD (620 V). In consequence of instructions I went to the Police-station with the last witness, and from there to Savage's coffee tavern, where I saw Olive, O'Connell and Inglis—I arrested Clive—he said, "I have done nothing"—I searched him there—I found in different pockets 10s. in gold, 30s. in silver, three half-crowns, seven 2s. pieces, seven shillings, two sixpences, two threepenny pieces, and 2s. and 1/2 d, bronze—I took him to the Station—we crossed the road—Wythes' stores are some distance further down—the men were charged at the station—in answer Olive said, "I know nothing of these other men, but I admit being in the public-house a short time previously"—I think he said, "To wait for a train."
Cross-examined. There is one coffee-room—there has been a doorway—there is no partition—the coppers were mixed up with the silver.
JAMES FINLAY (25 V). On June 28th I was called to the Epsom Police-station about 4.30 p.m.—I made this note at the time—I said to Clive, "You say you were not with the other men; if you wish inquiries to be made in your favour I will make them"—previously I had cautioned him—he replied, "My name is John Clive. I am a general dealer. I came from Brighton to Horsham, where I sold a pony for £3. I took the train at Horsham at 12.20. Here I went on the Downs, where I usually go when I am in Epsom"—he was asked his address—he gave it after some delay and prevarication—the three men were identified, O'Connell by Miss Pratt, from about nine men, and all three by Turner—these four coins were handed to me by Galloway, and seven others by Horn.
Cross-examined. I came to your house—I was not asked anything about a horse—there are three rooms in the coffee tavern leading one from the other in a straight line—the shop has two rooms—there is a partition, hut no door—it was possible for you to have seen the other men—you were about six feet from them—you did not say you arrived at Epsom at 3.2, nor that you were going to catch the fast train to London—you showed me a small diamond pin, and said something about pawning it after you were charged, and that you dealt in that sort of thing—you did not say you left Brighton and was going to London by the 2.15.
MARY COX . I am the wife of William Cox, of Warple Road, Epsom—on the afternoon of June 28th I found my children, and some boys playing with coins like these produced—they come from school between 5 and 6 through East Street, passing Wythes' stores—I gave one to my daughter Louey Cox—six coins were afterwards handed over to the police.
WILLIAM EDWARD STANLEY . I am a licensed victualler and landlord of the Railway Inn, Epsom—on June 28th the girl Louey Cox, a child of ten or eleven, tendered a crown piece—I called a constable in—it was bad—I gave it to Constable Horn.
have examined these coins—they are all counterfeit, and from the same mould.
Evidence for the Defence.
FANNY SAVAGE . I keep a coffee-house at 17, East Street, Epsom, with my brother—the prisoner cance in after the two other men—about ten minutes after—I could not say, being busy—he was in the second room—the door between has been removed for the purpose of business—the prisoner was in the second room; the other men in the first room at separate tables.
Cross-examined. The police came twenty minutes or half an hour afterwards—they had scarcely finished their food—each paid for himself.
The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was in the public house and in the coffee tavern by himself.
GUILTY —He then
PLEADED GUILTY**†to a conviction at Manchester on July 27th, 1893, in the name of George Harris, of uttering and felonious possession of four counterfeit crowns. He was stated to be the agent of Mortlake (see p. 1322) in the disposal of counterfeit coin.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.
MR. LATHAM Prosecuted. GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
The prosecutor did not appear.
NOT GUILTY .—
The prosecutor did not appear.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
JULIA JOAN DEATH . I am the wife of Charles Henry Death, a cornchandler, of 65, Waterloo Road—on September 17th I was in my shop alone—I served the prisoner with a pint of pearl barley, price 3d,—she gave me a florin; it looked dark—I did not say it was a base coin, but put it in the till with the other money—I afterwards put it in a box with some other money, about 9 o'clock I gave our boy his wages and he took it home—he came back and made a statement to me—I am prepared to swear that this coin is the one the girl gave me—on September 27th she came again—I recognised her at once—she asked for a packet of bird seed, price 3d., and she tendered me half a-crown—I called my husband—he said he should call the police—he did not say anything to the prisoner—when I took the half-crown she said, "Do you remember the last time I was in the shop?"—I said, "Yes, I do"—she said that the baby she had in her arms then was now dead.
last witness's shop, who charged the prisoner with passing a bad half-crown—I asked her where she got it—she said she did not know; she had been up the New Cat and changed a 5s. piece—the last witness said the prisoner had come in and changed a florin on the 17th—the prisoner said she was willing to go to the station—she took out her purse and showed me 1s. 6d. in silver and 3 1/2 d. in bronze, good money—she said she lived in the Commercial Road—I asked her the number—she said, "I live anywhere in common lodging-houses."
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "The 2s. was good." Prisoner's Defence: "The 2s.-piece was good; I got the other in change."
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Justice Bigkam.
MR. GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted.
THOMAS GENTRY . I live at 26, Bowling Green Street, Kennington Oval—I am a stableman and an elder of the Peculiar People—I know the prisoners—they belong to that sect—I remember their little girl Ethel Grace dying on August 21st—I saw her shortly after she was dead—my wife was attending her when she died—she died in my wife's arms—I had been called in to attend on the child in my capacity as elder of the Peculiar People—I anointed the child in the name of the Lord, asking Him to it heal it for its own sake, for the parents' sake, and for the cause of God—was a very delicate child from its truth—the last time I was called in was on August 18th—we do not concern ourselves so much about the disease, because we believe that God is able to heal all manner of diseases—it was suffering from whooping cough some weeks before its death—no medical man was called in—the prisoners are quite in a position to pay for medical attendance—I should not call in a medical man myself—no medicine was given to the child—faith and physic don't mix with us.
Cross-examined by James Cook. I have never known you to neglect your child or ill treat it.
Cross-examined by Grace Cook. I know you to be a thoroughly good woman and a good mother.
DR. GEORGE NICHOL HENRY . I am divisional surgeon of police at Kennington Road—I made a post mortem examination with Dr. Roe on August 25th, of the child Ethel Grace Cook—the body weighed 141bs 3oz., which is normal—there were no marks of injury on the child—the brain was slightly dropsical, and the heart healthy—in my opinion the cause of death was asphyxia from accumulation of phlegm in the lungs and larger air tubes, the result of bronchial pneumonia—it is probable that if medical treatment had been adopted to a certain extent its life might have been saved, undoubtedly prolonged—if the whooping cough had been treated at an earlier stage it would have made a difference.
his evidence at the Police-court, and agree with him as to the cause of death.
JOHN WILLIAM BURROWS . I am Coroner's clerk to Mr. Braxton Hicks, and was present at the inquest on the body of Ethel Grace Cook on August 23rd—the prisoners both gave evidence—they were cautioned by the Coroner—their evidence was taken down in writing—it was read over to them, and they both signed it (Read: Grace Cook says: "I live at 67, Lambeth Palace Road, Lambeth. I am the wife of James Cook, a carman. I identify the body seen by the jurors as that of my child, Ethel Grace Cook, aged one year and eight months She has always been delicate. She was born at full birth and at that time healthy. She always suffered from colds and teeth. I did not think of getting medical advice as I trusted in the Lord; we refuse to have medical advice. Deceased often suffered from colds. About six weeks ago the child had cough which turned to whooping cough. We gave her nourishment, beef tea, eggs, and brandy. I gave her no medicine. The child got better; she remained about the same until about a fortnight ago. She had a difficulty in breathing and spat up phlegm, About a fortnight ago I kept her in bed. She did not get better, Sometimes she was better and sometimes worse. A day or two afterwards the child had diarrhoea. I gave her arrowroot and brandy but she did not get better. A week ago she had convulsions. On Sunday, August 14th, the child had twitchings. During the week they continued, and she died on August 21st at 7 o'clock. To relieve all this illness I had hands laid on her by the elder of the Peculiar People. We had her prayed for in the chapels that she might be relieved of her pain and get well. I never gave the child any medicine. I applied no dressing to the child, and object to obtaining medical advice; if it had been offered I should have refused it. This is my first child. "James Cook said: "I am a carman, of Lambeth Palace Road, Lambeth. I am the father of the deceased child. She was in the care and custody of myself and wife. I knew six weeks ago that the child was ill with whooping cough. I did not get medical attendance after that. I recognised the child was seriously ill. I had the means to pay for medical attendance. I decided in my own mind not to obtain it. I have no faith in medical men, and on that ground I decline to have medical advice. To relieve her I had her anointed and hands laid on her. I noticed she was getting thinner They anointed her twice with oil, and we prayed for her. She had several changes, and sometimes she got a bit better and sometimes worse. About a fortnight before her death I noticed her illness was serious. I was present at the death. After she died I informed the Coroner's officer. There was no other reason than my faith which led me not to obtain medical advice. I have been a member of the Peculiar People about ten years. If some medical man had prescribed for the child, I should not have given her medicine. When the child has had colds before and has been prayed for she has recovered. The Scripture is our guide as to obtaining assistance, and the Scripture says we should trust in the Lord").
as the Scriptures said; I can say that we two have put our trust in the Lord, and we have received many benefits from His hand—my child has been seriously afflicted at times, but never like this, as she was before she died—on one occasion she was suffering from eczema, and we had hands laid on her in the name of the Lord, and the Lord undertook for the child, and for those means I have cried many times, and the Lord has heard me in trouble on my wife's behalf and on my own—I am pleased to stand before you and recommend my Saviour who died for me, and if anyone had prescribed medicine I should not have given it—the Lord Jehovah is our guide—if I had not had faith in the Lord, I should not have left my child in his hands—people say, "Don't you call in a doctor for a broken limb"—no one I have ever heard of, who put his trust in the Lord, has had a broken limb.
GUILTY .— Discharged on their own recognisance.
MR. MORTIMER Prosecuted, and MR. PURCAELL Defended.
WILLIAM LEE . I live at 5, Wellington Mews, Ledbury Road, Bays-water, and am employed by a Mr. Harvey to look after horses and brakes—my duty was to stand behind the brake, and, if it drew up, to run and see what the driver wanted—on July 2nd I went with the second brake which went out with a builder's party—during the journey Deadman got into the brake on which I was—he started in the first brake—Low was very drunk—Deadman got into the second brake to quiet Low, and Low got up and Struck him three blows—Deadman returned them—when we got to Leatherhead I got off the steps and I saw Low get out—he fell off the last two steps—he fell down on the ground on his face—he lay there until somebody picked him up—I did not see Deadman get out of the brake.
Cross-examined. When Deadman got into the brake to quiet Low he was quite sober—Low was fighting them all round, in a mad state of drunkenness.
LEVI POWELL . I live at Poplar, Leatherhead—I saw these brakes come up—I was standing opposite the King's Head—they were moving when I first saw them—I saw a scrimmage in the back brake—I saw Deadman strike Low in the face—I did not know Low then—he then got on the brake step and lay there till they got to the Institute—he could not help himself—I did not see him fall—I saw him when he was on the road—I saw Deadman pick him up with one hand and strike him on the head and chest with the other—he let go of him, and Low said "I am done," and lay on the steps—he was removed into the lavatory of the Institute, where he died.
FREDERICK ROBERT PARROTT . I live at High Street, Leatherhead I am a photographer—I saw these brakes come up—I was in my garden facing the Institute—I noticed that a man was lying on the steps of the back brake—he seemed to roll to the ground—then the prisoner assisted him to rise, and he helped him with his left hand and struck him on the head and body with his right fist—he hit him on his side and on his
back—the prisoner let him go and he fell to the ground—he was taken to the Institute.
Cross-examined. When the man was picked up he was immediately behind the brake—it all happened very quickly—I am certain Deadman helped him up—there was a crowd—I did not see anybody else help him up.
DR. LAWRENCE POTTS . I am in practice at Leatherhead—I saw the deceased about 1.50 on July 2nd—he was dead—I only noticed then that there were cuts on the ear and face—I made a postmortem examination on July 5th, and found he had extensive wounds in the abdomen, and the surface of the spleen was lacerated to the extent of two inches—that was the cause of death—the spleen was diseased—the man had been in India for a long time, and that would account for the rupture much more easily than if it had been a healthy rupture—the rupture might have been caused by a blow—it must have been a severe blow—I did not find an extrordinary mark on the back—I did not expect to find one.
By the COURT. If he slipped and fell from the steps of a brake I think it would be enough to cause a rupture.
The JURY here stopped the case, and returned a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PENRHYN Prosecuted.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PBNRHYN Prosecuted.
GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.
NOT GUILTY .
MESSRS. CHARLES MATTHEWS and BODKIN Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON. Defended.
Cross-examined. I do not know if he was the worse for drink.
HENRY WILLIAMS . I am 14—I am a printer's reading boy living at 10, Pair man Street, Lambeth—I always wear spectacles, and I was wearing them on July 15th—on that day I was going through Oakley Street, Lambeth, and as I passed Coral Street, I saw the prisoner outside a chandler's shop, and as I passed him, he placed his foot in front of me—I stumbled over it, and went down on my knees—I got up and said, "Thank you for what you have done"—he gave me a blow—I passed on leaving him behind me; I felt a crack on my right jaw—I turned round and saw
the prisoner—I went on home in the direction I had been going, and so turned my back on him—I did not see what became of him—I saw Mrs. Taylor standing at her door at 32, Oakley Street, at the time he struck me—on July 19th I was taken to Lambeth Police-court and shown a number of persons, but failed to recognise the person I had met in Oakley Street—on July 20th I attended the inquest on the body of the deceased, and I there identified the prisoner as the man who struck me in Oakley Street—he was in custody then.
Cross-examined. When I was giving my evidence at the inquest I saw the prisoner sitting by the side of a warder—I knew he was charged with having committed this murder—he put his foot out to trip me; I had never seen him before—after he put his foot out I went on, and he followed me about ten yards—I did not speak to him then or turn round—when he struck me he was behind me—he did not knock me down—I went on at once then; I did not make any complaint to anyone—Mrs. Taylor first spoke to me about it the next day, the 16th—she told me the man who struck me was charged with murder—she did not give me his description—she said he was a young man of 18 or 19—she did not say his name was D'Arcy, or how he was dressed—we did not talk over his appearance—I went to the station to identify him three days after—I saw about twelve or fifteen young men there—I had a careful look at each man—I told the inspector that to the best of my belief the young man was not there.
Re-examined. This happened in broad daylight—on the Sunday I gave such description as I could to the coroner's officer of the man who had assaulted me.
MART TAYLOR . I am a dressmaker, of 32, Oakley Street—on July 15th I was at my shop door about 12.45 midday—I saw Williams going past my door—he received a blow on his jaw from the prisoner, whom I recognised at Kennington Road the next day—he was the same man that I saw at the inquest—Williams was struck with the left hand on the right jaw—he looked round and then passed on—I did not know him before—he was wearing spectacles—the prisoner returned to the door of No. 30, next to my house—Lockyer and the deceased were standing on the doorstep of No. 30—I did not know the deceased's name then—I knew Lockyer—they were talking together—the prisoner struck the deceased a blow with his right hand under his left ear—it was immediately after he had struck Williams—I saw no weapon—I did not hear a word before the blow was struck by either of the men; if they spoke it was too low for me to hear; there was a little blood after the blow had been struck—I thought it was an old wound which had commenced to bleed—then directly after the blood poured like a garden hose—the man began to reel, and someone laid him down on the pavement and gave him some water—he was struck near the door and he reeled towards the kerb—it is a narrow pavement, about two yards wide—the prisoner went round the corner quickly into Coral Street; he was close to Coral Street when it happened—he had on a dark coat and a white jersey, with a cap on the back of his head—the jersey was underneath his coat—the cap was a dark one—the deceased was taken to St. Thomas's Hospital in a cab—the next day I went to Kennington Police Station
between 10 and 11 a.m.—I saw about fifteen or twenty lads, and picked out the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I cannot say whether the prisoner was the worse for drink; I did not see enough of him—it all happened very quickly—the street was rather quiet—when the blow was struck the deceased was not more than a foot from Lockyer; I was two or three yards away—I did not see the deceased man push out his hand to the prisoner, or strike him, nor attempt to strike him—I did not see the prisoner nearly fall down on his knees—I saw Eaton, a butcher, there—he was closer than I was; he was passing through—the same kind of blow was struck at the deceased as at Williams—I thought the blow on Williams was a light blow—the other blow was much more severe, more force being used—the deceased did not fall down, he only turned away—I had never seen the prisoner before that day—I did not have a conversation with Williams; I did not see him till after I had identified the prisoner.
WILLIAM LOCKYER . I am a porter employed in Co vent Garden, living at 48, Gloucester Street, Lambeth—On Friday, July 15th last, I was in Oakley Street about 1.15, standing outside a boot shop, No. 30—the deceased came up to me—I had never seen him before—in consequence of what he said I gave him 2d.—as we stood there the prisoner came along on the pavement on the same side—I had seen him before—he came up to the deceased and said something, what it was I could not hear—the deceased answered him and said, "I don't want to have any argument with you"—the prisoner took his hand out of his pocket and struck the deceased on the side of the neck—I could not say which hand it was, or out of which pocket it was he took it—I did not see anything in his hand—after the blow I saw blood coining out of the deceased's neck, he staggered about five yards away from me and he was about to fall, and some passers—by came to his assistance—the prisoner ran off round Coral Street and I lost sight of him—to the best of my recollection he had on a sweater, a jacket, and a cap—I could not speak to the colour of his jacket—the deceased was shortly after removed to the hospital, I believe, on the Tuesday—on Saturday the 16th I had seen Baldwin the coroner's officer and Inspector Hayter—on Tuesday the 19th I went to the Police-court and somewhere adjoining the Court I was shown a number of people, I should say twelve or fourteen boys, something similar to the prisoner—I picked out the prisoner as the one I had seen in Oakley Street on the Friday.
Cross-examined. The deceased was a good deal bigger than the prisoner—the first thing he did was to come up to me and ask for money—he did not threaten me if I did not give it—he told me he had come out of prison that morning and I gave him the 2d. without his asking—I was talking to him about a minute or two before the prisoner came up, the deceased then moved away a little, a few inches, not towards the prisoner—he then stood still—I did not see him push out his hands towards the prisoner as if to strike him—I do not know Cooper—I could not say whether he was there or not—I did not see Eaton there—people came up immediately after the affair had taken place—I was standing there when the prisoner said, "I don't want to have any argument with you."
By the COURT. I am unable to say whether the deceased attempted to strike the prisoner or not—he asked for a drink, and I gave him 2d.
WILLIAM EATON . I am a journeyman butcher at 11, Lancelot Street—on Friday, July 15th, about a quarter-past one, I was going up Oakley Street on the same side as No. 30—I saw three men pretty well together—they were Lockyer, the deceased, and the prisoner—I did not hear anything said—I saw a blow struck by the prisoner with his right hand on the deceased's left shoulder—it was a fierce blow—I had no idea it was a serious blow—his hand was clenched—I cannot say that I saw anything in it—he gave him a slight push with his hand, enough to tell him to get away, that was all, then the blow followed, after a minute—I was not two yards away from them at the time—I walked on a little way—a woman caught hold of me and said, "Good God! this man is stabbed!"—I stopped and turned round, and saw the blood coming from his neck—he was still standing on the pavement—the prisoner stood there, and looked as if he was surprised at what he had done—he was on the kerb, as near as I could gather, for about half a minute—he then made off, and I ran after him—he outran me—I had him in sight a very little time, in Lower Marsh Street I lost sight of him, and went on to my work—a few minutes afterwards I went on to Oakley Street—the deceased had then gone—next morning, Saturday, I went to Kennington Bond Police-station—I was taken into a room there, where I saw twelve or fourteen persons, middle-aged men and young men mixed, and I picked out the prisoner—he is the boy that struck the blow—I did not particularly notice his coat on the Friday, it was a dirty, blue coat.
Cross-examined. When the prisoner came up the deceased was talking to Lockyer—then they were all three together—the deceased put out his hand—it did not go against the prisoner's face; it was a back-handed blow—the deceased only used one hand—I did not notice that the prisoner nearly fell to the ground—I can't say he did not—when he ran away I ran after him round the corner—he began to run before he got to the corner, immediately the blow was struck, he remained a minute or two apparently astonished—he showed no sign of drink.
WILLIAM COOPER . I am assistant to a greengrocer, of 3, Wootton Place, New Cut—I have known the prisoner about eighteen months—on Monday, July 15th last, I was walking along Oakley Street on the same side as No. 30—I saw a man standing outside No. 30—before that I saw the deceased just at the corner of Coral Street—he was a perfect stranger to me—he passed me and walked on towards No. 30—the prisoner came up to us—he went straight up to the deceased, and said something to him—I did not hear what he said—the deceased turned found and told the prisoner to go away—he would not go, and the deceased pushed him twice and told him again to go away—he pushed him with his two hands right away from him, and he well-nigh fell down—the prisoner then made a jump and struck the deceased on the side of the neck—I did not see anything in his hand, but after that I saw the blood flow quickly out of his neck, and he fell to the ground—the prisoner ran away down Coral Street, and I lost sight of him—on Tuesday, the 19th, I went to the Police-court, and identified the prisoner.
Cross-examined. It was a violent push that the deceased gave the prisoner—it was immediately after the push that the prisoner struck him.
15th about a quarter past one I saw the deceased bleeding, and took him in a cab to the hospital.
EDWARD DARBY (Detective E). About twenty minutes to one on the early morning of Saturday, July 16th, I was on duty in the Strand, with another officer, and saw the prisoner therewith two others—I stopped him, and said we were police officers, and are going to arrest you on suspicion of murdering a man named Mappin—he said "My name is John Smith"—I put him in a hackney carriage, and cautioned him that he Deed not' make any answer—he replied, "I did not come out till eight to-night"—I said, "Where do you live?"—he said, "I will tell you when we get to the station"—I took him there, and he was detained till the inspector arrived.
---- HAYTER (Inspector, L). On July 16th, at Kenning ton Road Station the prisoner was charged, the charge was read over to him—he made no reply to it—I have a certificate of his birth—he is not quite 19.
JOHN SPENCER HALL . I was house surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital on July 15th, when the deceased, Henry Mappin, was brought there about half-past one—he was bleeding profusely and was unconscious—he died about half-past three that afternoon—he remained unconscious until his death—on making a post-mortem I found a punctured wound on the left side of his neck, going down to the spine, about three inches deep—it had cut an artery, and had also cut the jugular vein right through right down to the artery of the top of the neck—it must have been done with considerable force—an ordinary pocket-knife would inflict such a wound.
Cross-examined. A good deal would depend on the sharpness of the blade—it could not have been done by a blow of the fist—any sharp instrument would cause it—the wound was small, about two inches long—it was quite a new wound.
GUILTY — DEATH.
Before Mr. Recorder
743. GEORGE HOPKINS (23) PLEADED GUILTY to Burglary in the dwellling house of Frederick Stevens and stealing two coats, a clock, a violin, and other articles, his property having been convicted at Marl-borough Street on August 10th, 1895. Seven other convictions were proved against him.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. And
(744) ARTHUR LUXFORD (18) , to Stealing post letters, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post-Office.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. BRIDGWATER Prosecuted and MR. PURCELL Defended.
GEORGE COOK . I am a labourer, and work at Stains Waterworks—I remember August 12th—I was alone in the evening; I was in my own house—it was between light and dark—I saw all the three prisoners—Smith came into the room first by the back door; he walked in pretty sharp, and wanted to know where the landlord was—I am the landlord—he knocked my wife on the forehead and then he came straight to me as I was sitting in a chair, and hit me on my eye and kicked me on my thigh—I had not time to get up—the others rushed in and they all three hit me at the said time with their fists, and kicked me with hob-nailed boots all over my body—I was black and blue—I was knocked on the floor, and at the time this was going on one of them put his hand in my pocket and took out 3s. and broke my watch chain—Taylor said "Kill the b—"—I did not hear Wood say anything, but Smith struck me with a chair and broke it—that was not the hair I was sitting on—he broke a corner of the chair off with the force of the blow—it was a new Windsor chair—they then went into another room and took some sheets and a pair of drawers—I got away first and was glad to get away, and went up the road to look for protection—I found three constables, one of whom is here now—I know their names—I went back to the house with them but did not find the prisoners there—I went with the police and found their clothes—I found one of the prisoners next morning and gave him in charge of the police—I saw Smith locked up and Taylor was locked up the same night—they were of my premises from twenty minutes to half-an-hour—I was seriously hurt, I had marks on my thighs and legs which I showed the police and I could not go to work for a week—I saw a doctor.
Cross-examined. Smith lodges in my house and Wood likewise—they work where I do at the Staines Water Works—I have known Smith about two months—they came to lodge there on the Saturday and this was on the next Friday—there was a little unpleasantness before this; my mistress and I had a little disagreement and I was in rather a bad temper—I did not go into the bedroom when I came home and break the windows, certainly not—I did not go up and break the two windows and the bedstead, nor did I take the mattress and bedclothes away—the disagreement was not about my mistress and somebody else—it is not true that I broke the window and took some things away—I took away the drawers and the bedstead, but I did not smash the window—after I had taken the things away to sell I came back and found Smith there—he and I did not have a fight that night, but blows were exchanged—I gave him a blow or two, and he gave me a blow or two—I have got a belt with a buckle at the end of it—Smith did not somehow get his head cut open with something hard—I did not hit him on the head with a belt with a buckle at the end of it—I did not use my belt, but it might have come off—I cannot say whether it was swinging about—I know Ploughman John; he is my next-door neighbour—I do not know whether he took Smith to a doctor—I cannot say whether Smith looked a little bit poorly—I had had no drink on that night nor the night after when they came to my
house—on the 11th, after I hit him and he hit me, he went out after he had had a few blows—before he came back I went into the front room, and locked myself in, but he could get in; he could walk all over the house—I was not selling some more of my things to the dealers the next morning, nor did I fell some the night before—on August 12th he came in very roughly and asked for the landlord—I had not a poker in my hand, there is not one in the house; nor did I have a long piece of iron—I did not hold a piece of iron in my hand in a way as if I was going to strike his head nor was it then that he struck me and knocked me into my chair—he did knock me back into the chair, but it is not true that I held the poker at his head—the other two men were not in the room when he knocked me into the chair I say that there was no poker in the house nor an a matter of fact did the other two men take it from me—I did not chrow a flowerpot at one of the men and cover his face with blood; that is not true—they did not go out of the house before I did, I went out first.
By the COURT. I have got a fireplace in the house—I poke the fire with nothing at all.
Mr. Purcell suggested that there was no assault. The RECORDER. considered that if the prisoners would
PLEADED GUILTY to a common assault it would not be necessary to go further. Mr. Purcell assented to this course.
NOT GUILTY .
The Prisoners PLEADED GUILTY to a common assault. — To enter into their own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21ST, 1898.