CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
NINTH SESSION, HELD JUNE 26TH, 1899.
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,
Held on Monday, June 26th, 1899, and following days,
Before the Right Hon. SIR JOHN VOCE MOORE, KNT., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir CHARLES JOHN DARLING , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court; Sir REGINALD HARSON, Bart, M.P, LL.D., F.S.A., one of the Aldermen of the said City; the Right Hon. Sir CHARLES HALL . K.C.M.G., Q.C., M.P. Recorder of the said City; Sir JOSEPH CROCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Knt., JOHN POUND , Esq., and WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq. other of the Aldermen of the said City; and Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., Q.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CLARENCE RICHARD HALSE, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
MOORE, MAYOR. NINTH 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, June 26th, 1899.
Before Mr. Recorder.
454. GEORGE CLARK (52) , to obtaining 30s. from William Grimsdick and 30s., from Harry Howard by false pretences; having been before convicted.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
455. FREDERICK MILLER (19) , to robbery with violence on Martha Lewis, and stealing 16s., her money; also, to assaulting Albert Thwaites, a constable, while in the execution of his duty; having been convicted on February 21st, Six other convictions were proved against him.— Fourteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
456. WILLIAM LEACH (38) , to uttering three forged orders for the supply of the Licensed Victuallers and Catering Trades Journal, with intent to defraud; having been convicted on October 12th, 1897.— Six Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]And
MR. LAY Prosecuted, and MR. HORACE AVORY Defended. During the progress of the trial the JURY stopped the case.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. MAURICE Prosecuted.
FREDERICK JOSEPH CLAPINSON . I am a painter, of Kensal Rife, and Jessie Rose Clapinson is my daughter—she was 16 on January 16th—the prisoner lived with me as a lodger from February, 1896, until last October—during that time my daughter was living with me—the prisoner was living with us, with his wife and two children—I only saw
the prisoner and my daughter walking out once, and I promised the prisoner if ever I caught them again I would give him a good thrashing, which I did—that was about last Christmas—I knew they had been out together before—my daughter left about May 20th—two letters were left on the table at home, one in my daughter's writing, and one in the prisoner's—I did not give her permission to go, or ask the prisoner to take her away—these are the letters—(The prisoner in his letter asked Mr. and Mrs. Clapinson not worry as to Jessie's absence; that he would do the best he could for her, and that his life was hers. Rose Clapinson's letter was to her father, saying that she did not leave to dare him; that he had never loved her as a father, and she felt it very much; asking to be let alone, and that he would not try to find them; that she knew the prisoner loved her, and she would trust him.)—my daughter did not return—I applied for a warrant and the prisoner was arrested—my brother brought my daughter home; she has been living in my house since.
JESSIE ROSE CLAPINSON . I am the daughter of Frederick Joseph Clapinson, and until May 25th I lived with him—I was 16 last January—I hare known the prisoner 2 or 3 years—he lodged with my parents—before May 20th he asked me to go away with him; I said I would—in week or two before I went away I told him I was 18—I told mother I should go away with the prisoner; she told my father, and he said the sooner I was gone the better—that was after the prisoner had asked me to live with him—he said he would do everything to make me happy, and he would be as true as if he was married to me—I knew he was a married man—I knew my father had given him a beating, and that he disapproved of my going out with him—I went away with him on May 20th, and lived with him as his wife—my uncle came and took me away—the prisoner was present then—he said to my uncle, "She told me she was 18"—I said I did not want to go away from him, and he said, "I cannot tell you to stop, as you are under age"—I think I was about 15 when I first had my hair up; I did not have it up when the prisoner came to lodge—I had it down last October.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I went with you of my own free will; you did not entice me away—when I went out of an evening I used to put my hair inside my coat; I did not have it up—I knew that you were separated from your wife last September—I told you I was over 18 years of age.
Cross-examined. You had half the house.
TOM ANDREWS (Police Sergeant). At 1 p.m. on May 27th I saw the prisoner in Queen Anne Street, Covent Garden—I asked him his name—I told him that I had a warrant for hii arrest; I read it to him—he said, "She told me she was over 18 years old"—I took him to the station; I had no difficulty in taking him there.
Cross-examined. I knew exactly where to find you.
F. J. CLAPINSON (Re-examined). My daughter did not tell me she was going to live with the prisoner—I did not tell her to go—I told my wife that the sooner she cleared out the better—there have been many troubles over this affair—I have not spoken to the girl for the last 12 months—I made inquiries directly I got her letter—I know that she had her hair up since last October—there is no question about the prisoner not knowing her age—she was at school when he first came—I did not say anything to him about her age; there was no question about it.
Cross-examined. She was at school for 8 months while you were in the house—I knew you were separated from your wife—while you were in the house you saw the girl much too often; you lived in the bottom part of the house, and we lived at the top.
The Prisoner, in his defence, said that the girl told him she was over 18, and that her actions were always consistent with that age.
GUILTY .— Judgment respited.
MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted, and MR. PORCELL Defended.
CHARLES BUARD . I am a cook, and live at 158, Tachbrook Street, Pimlico—on June 4th, between 12 and 1 a.m., I was going home through Denbigh Street, but I did not know the way—I saw Glynn and another man—I asked Glynn to show me my way—they took me by my arms, and took my chain and watch—another man came up and Glynn gave my watch and chain to him, and he went off—I called for the police—Barr came up and said, "Shut up!" and struck me on my nose—a policeman came up and I gave Glynn in charge, and he was taken to the station; while I was there Barr was brought in—I told the inspector that she was the woman who had hit me on my nose—my watch and chain were both gold—I paid £7 for my watch, and £4 10s. for the chain—Barr did not rob me, she only hit me.
Cross-examined. When I first asked my way there were two men, and another came up afterwards—when Barr came up she pointed to Glynn and said, "He is my husband"—I had not seen any of them before—I did not touch Barr.
WILLIAM FELL . I am a plumber, of 21, Romney Street—on the early morning of June 4 I was outside the Plummers' Arms, in Islington Street—I heard cries, I went in the direction of them, and saw the prosecutor holding Glynn by the arm; he said that Glynn had stolen his watch—Glynn said, "I ama respectable man"—the prosecutor said that he had asked Glynn the way to Tachbrook Street, and that another man came up and stole his watch—Barr came up, and struck the prosecutor a blow in his face, which caused blood to flow from his nose—shortly afterwards another man came up, and struck the prosecutor two or three blows in the face—I asked someone to go for a policeman, but nobody went; I turned to go and somebody struck me behind my ear—a policeman came, and Glynn was arrested—I went to the station and gave a description of the man who got away—Barr described Glynn as her husband—he did not answer.
Cross-examined. When I first came up only one man was there; the woman came up before the second man—when I heard the noise first I was between 40 and 50 yards off—there were about 12 other people there then; they were bystanders—the prosecutor was very excited; he pushed the woman away with his elbow; she struck him in the face—I did not go to the station with the policeman and Glynn; I went afterwards—I did not see the woman taken into custody.
GEORGE CLEMENTS (405 B). About 12.15 a.m. on June 4th I was called to Mortimer Street—I saw the prosecutor and Glynn and some other people there—the prosecutor asked me to take the prisoner into custody, which I did—Glynn said, "It is all right, taking me for nothing"—he struggled, and another constable came up—the prosecutor was bleeding from the nose.
Cross-examined. The words Glynn used were, "It is all right, taking me for nothing"—he gave a correct name and address.
CHARLES WALTER . At 1 o'clock on Sunday morning I was at the station—I saw Glynn charged with stealing a watch—he said, "My wife is outside"—I went out and brought her into the station—when the prosecutor saw her he said, "That is the woman who struck me in the face"—they were charged together—Glynn said, "All right, constable"—Barr said nothing—no watch was found on them.
Burr's statement before the Magistrate: "I admit to the assault, but not to the watch; I know nothing about it."
Glynn, in his defence, said that he was standing in the roadt when the prisoner came up and accused him of stealing his watch, and two policemen took him to the station; that he did not see anybody strike the prosecutor till Barr struck him in self-defence; that he did not take the watch, and did not see Fell there. Barr said that she dia not see Fell; that the prosecutor struck her in the mouth, and she hit him on the nose.
; GUILTY .—Barr then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at this Court on October 22nd, 1894, and three other convictions were proved against her. Both prisoners were stated to be the associates of thieves. GLYNN— Ten Months' Hard Labour. BARR— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday, June 26th, 1899.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
462. HENRY TAYLOR (18) and ERNEST CASTLE (18) , to stealing 2 gross yards of elastic web of the Great Western Railway Company, and HENRY ELLIOTT (21) , to feloniously receiving the same; Elliott having been convicted at this Court on January 7th, 1898. TAYLOR and CASTLE— Nine Months' Imprisonment each. ELLIOTT— Judgment Respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
(463) OWEN MURPHY (19) , to robbery with violence on Edith Nicholls, and stealing from her person a purse and contents, her property; having been convicted at Clerkenwell on July 6th, 1896. Nine other convictions were proved against him,— Three Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
HENRY WILLIAM MORRIS . I am cashier at the Salvation Army shelter, Quaker Street—the prisoner has patronised the shelter—he came for a bed on May 23rd, and gave me an 1894 half-crown rather suspicious—I should know it again—this is it (Produced)—I put it on one side and gave him the change—I did not mark it, but it is marked—he came again on the 24th about 7.30 for a bed, and gave me a half-crown—I gave him the change and a ticket, and he left—he came back in half an hour, and asked for two food tickets, and gave me another half-crown—I gave him the tickets and the change, and put the half-crown on one side—he did not sleep there that night; he came next morning, and said that he did not come back because his wife was taken ill, and he had to go home with her—I gave him the change—Mr. Baird, the manager, had examined the coins—I sent for the police, and Sergeant Brogden came.
WILLIAM BROGDEN (Detective) I received information, and attended at the shelter—I saw the prisoner there on May with a number of other men, and said, "Is your name Desmond?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I shall take you in custody for passing 7 counterfeit half-crowns, commencing on May 21st"—he said, "I know nothing about it"; but, going to the station, he said, "I passed four; I know nothing about the other three"—he afterwards said, "Aman gave them to me whom I don't know"—I found 2s. on him.
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, said that a man gave him the coins, and he did not know that they were bad.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, June 27th, 1899.
(For cases tried this day, see Surrey cases.)
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, June 27th, 1899.
Before Mr. Recorder.
465. FREDERICK CHARLES WESTWOOD (19) PLEADED GUILTY to 3 indictments for forging and uttering endorsements, etc.; also to forging and uttering an order for £20; having been convicted at High-gate on February 22nd, 1897. Other convictions were proved against him.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour ,
467. FREDERICK WILLIAM STENNING (34) to unlawfully falsifying the books of his master; also to 2 indictments for embezzling £3 £4, and £1 4s. 3d., the money of his said master; also to forging and uttering an endorsement to a cheque for £10 1s. 11d., with intent to defraud.— Judgment Respited.,[Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
(468) GEORGE CAMPBELL (18) and JOHN BARKER to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Anderson, and stealing 25 boxes of cigars and cigarette-holders, his property. Previous convictions were proved against both prisoners.— CAMPBELL— Six Months' Hard Labour. BARKER— Eight Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. GOFF Prosecuted.
EDWARD LAMBERT . I am a clerk to Spencer and Co., of Walthamstow—on June 5th there were a number of packages belonging to the Great Western Railway—I identified a parcel before the Magistrate; the value of it was 10s. 3d.
JOHN JOSHUA NORRIS . I am a Great Western clerk—on June 5th I received some paper from the last witness, among which was the subject of this charge—I identified it at the Police-court—I left duty in the evening, and when I left my van there was no sack in it.
JOHN ANDREW CANEY . I am a foreman in the employ of the Great Western Railway at Smithfield Goods Station—on the evening of June 5th I was on duty at the station at 7.45, and saw the prisoner loitering between two vans, one of which was laden with parcels of paper—I asked what he was doing there—he said, "Nothing"—I saw him near the van, and coming away from it—my attention was drawn to him because he had a sack round his waist when he was in front of the van—I then saw a parcel of paper in the sack, the mouth of which was hanging over—this parcel had been taken out and put into the sack—it was a Great Western Railway sack.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I followed you, and asked you what you had been doing—you said, "Nothing," and I went back to the van and found the parcel.
By the COURT. He had not finished his job—he had handed in his payers, but he had an empty van to drive away from the premises—his own van was not unloaded.
SAMUEL WILLIAM TRIPP . I am a Great Western carman—on June 5th I was with Caney in Smithfield Goods Station, and saw the prisoner and another man there, and this parcel, partly in the sack and partly out—the prisoner threw a sack into the van—they left the van—I spoke to the prisoner—he said, "I have been round to the urinal"—there were 30 or 40 vans there, and it was possible for him to get between 2 vans without my seeing him—I afterwards saw the sack; it was the same as he was wearing round his neck—it was a Great Western sack—the van was open at the ends.
Cross-examined. You took an apron from the van, but not a sack.
Prisoner's Defence: On June 6th I went to the Great Eastern Railway and booked my van, and half filled it; and as I came back a man
asked me if I would take a sack, as the boy had left it. I said, "No." The foreman said, "What are you doing here?" and accused me of putting a parcel in a sack. Any carman of the Great Western Railway can pick up a sack. I was not between the vans; they are so close that a man cannot get in between them.
S. W. TRIPP (Re-examined). When they walked away he had hold of the van—when he saw he was detected he walked away—the paper was in the sack then.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted, and MR. ROOTH Defended.
WILLIAM THOMAS MAYHEW . I am superintendent of the Brewers' Quay, trading as Barber and Co.—on Friday last we were a cask of butter short—I found it at the prisoner's house, 56, Lower Thames Street—I said, "Pittman, you have a cask of butter here which is stolen"—he said, "I don't know anything about it"—he then said that he had got a cask in the cellar—we went down, and I saw it and said, "I wish you would tell me who brought that cask here"—he said, "If you will let me off I will tell you all about it; a man named Wensley brought it here"—he afterwards said at the station that he was not sure it was Wensley it was like Wensley: and we let Wensley off—I said, "Where is the top of the cask?"—he said, "I wanted firewood, and I burnt it."
Cross-examined. He said that the boy might have burnt it—he was nervous and confused—he was in our employ for several days 5 years ago, and would know every one in the place—he would not have an opportunity of abstracting the cask himself—he said that it was in the cellar to keep it cool, but I thought the cellar was rather warmer—the butter was worth £2 5s.; there were 56 1b. of it—there was another cask there with a little butter in it, which I felt sure was one of ours—there was nothing by which a man could detect that it came from our place, but the man would know at once that it was not a Belgian cask; it was Dutch.
By the COURT. I have no doubt at all that it was one of the consignment.
JESSE CROUCH (City Detective Sergeant). I went with Mayhew and Pearson to the prisoner's premises—it is a low class of eating-house—I said, "We are police-officers; we are making inquiries respecting a cask of butter which came into this place yesterday morning"—he said, "I know nothing about any butter"—I accompanied him into the cellar, and saw a cask of butter and some margarine—I said, "That resembles the cask I am inquiring about," and asked if he had any receipts—he said, "Yes, upstairs," and that he bought all his butter from Ruck—he said that it had been there 10 days—he produced these 3 receipts—I said, "Which of these refer to butter?"—he said, "I don't know"—I said, "Where is the cask?"—he said, "It is burnt"—I asked the boy, and he said that he had not burnt it—Mr. Mayhew arrived, and identified the cask—I returned to the shop, and heard a conversation between the
prisoner and Mr. Mayhew, in which the name of Wensley was mentioned—the prisoner then told me that the whole matter which he had been telling me was a pack of lies—I told Wensley that I should arrest him for being concerned, with a man in custody, for stealing butter—the prisoner said to Wensley, "About that butter, Bill?"—Wensley said, "I don’t know anything about the butter’—the prisoner said that he thought he was the man; he was very was very much like the man, and Wenaley was discharged—the prisoner said that he man brought the butter to the shop and put it down, and he took it to the cellar to keep it cool, but that he ought to have taken it to the police.
Cross-examined. He offered to take me into the cellar, but he did not say that he had the cask of butter there—I could not avoid seeing it, because it was in the centre of the cellar.
By the COURT. He said that he bought all his butter at Ruck's, "Come down and see," and I followed him down—he touched the oil paper which covered the cask, so as to make it appear that it had been done by him—I did not say that before the Magistrate, because I have just remembered it for the first time—he stayed for a minute before he could answer, and said that he could not cut any more bacon—I think he knew what he was talking about.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that a man, whom he thought was Wensley, brought the butter to his shop about 7.30 a.m., when the shop was very full, and that it laid there all day without any address or mark on it; that there was only a little bit of the lid left, and that he then took it downstairs, and when the police came he showed it to them; and that he did not know that it had been stolen.
The prisoner received a good character. GUILTY .— Judgment Respited.
MR. PASMORE Prosecuted.
WILLIAM MCLAUGHLIN . I am a fish porter, of Alexander Buildings, Brick Lane—on June 17th, about 10 minutes to 1 a.m., I was standing under a lamp in Dean Street, talking to an unfortunate woman, who, by the prisoner's account, is his sister—I had 2s. 3d. on me—the prisoner and two more got hold of me, and the prisoner took my money—a policeman crossed the road and came up, and the other two ran away—the policeman said to the prisoner, "Come along with me, Joe"—he said, "You have had me before; I will go quietly with you," and pulled out his two pockets, and said, "I have not got a penny"—I am quite sure he is the man—I had not been drinking.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I was not shouting very loud—I was not requested to keep quiet—I was not drunk—three men were standing there, and you were one—I did not ask them what they were looking at—we went about our business, but you molested us—I gave you in custody 3 seconds afterwards—I was standing—I said at Worship Street that you held me by my throat with your left hand—you turned out your pockets in the open street—I did not know you in Whitechapel.
a.m., and saw the prosecutor and prisoner and two others—I went up to them, and the prosecutor said that the prisoner had robbed him of 2s. 3d.—I took him in custody—the other men ran away before I got up, but the struggle between the prosecutor and the prisoner was still going on—the prisoner said, "They had not time to do it; I took the man's part, and kicked the man who done it"—the prosecutor had been drinking, but he knew what he was about, for he described the coin he had in his pocket—at the station the prisoner said, "He has lost nothing; the other two had not time to rob him"—as far as I can judge, the other men saw me while the prisoner was struggling with prosecutor.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor was on the ground, and you were on top of him on the footway—you were on him when I got up—I could see you, but I was not close to you—I did not see the woman.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I was walking about all night; I had no lodging, and I had not broken my fast all day. I saw the man talking to a woman; I took the man's part."
Prisoner's Defence: I am perfectly innocent of the robbery; the man was fighting and quarrelling with three men, one of whom had him by the neck and another by the arm. I had had a row with the man once before, you can see that by the bitter way he speaks against me.
GUILTY of the robbery.—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at this Court on July 26th, 1897, of robbery with violence; three other convictions were proved against him.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, June 27th, 1899.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted, and MR. BIRNIE Defended.
DANIEL HORAN . I am a labourer, of 33, Macclesfield Street—the prisoner and I went to school together—I have worked with him—on Saturday, June 10th, about 9.30 p.m., I went into the Cock public-house—the prisoner was in the bar—I was under the influence of drink—I asked him for a penny—he said, "I have not got one"—I said, "You have been working during the week"—I insulted him, and challenged him—I made a strike at him—we had a fight—I slipped down—I made another hit at him—we both fell, and I was struck with a knife—we are only friends—I was not wearing this coat—we had a fight outside the public house—it did not last two minutes—he did not strike me in the back—I could not feel my coat cut; I never saw it cut—I have not got it; my mother sold it with the rags—I was bleeding in my back—outside the public-house there was a mob, and no one saw a knife used—I was taken to a surgery, where I had bandages put round my chest and back, and then to a doctor.
Cross-examined. If the prisoner had used a knife I should have seen it in his hand—I never saw a knife—I was out of work for a week—I was with my brother.
Re-examined. I cannot say if I had quarrelled with anyone else in the crowd; I was under the influence of drink.
CHARLES SWEENEY . I am a jeweller's assistant at 2, Old Street, St. Luke's—I was not examined before the Magistrate—on Saturday, June 10th, about 9.30 p.m., I was walking along Goswell Road towards the City Road—passing the Cock public-house, at the corner of Golden Lane, I saw two men struggling—I assisted a man to carry Horan into a surgery—I did not particularly notice the fight—I did not see any weapon—I saw Horan struck several times up and down the back—the man who struck him ran away—Horan was in a fainting condition—I saw small punctures in his coat—I saw some of the wounds when the doctor looked at them—when the men were standing on the pavement I was about two yards away.
Cross-examined. There was light from the public-house, and a lamp at the corner—the men were against some hoardings—several people were standing closer than I was; more than a dozen; I should not like to say 20—the fighting was going on when I came up—I saw the man who struck Horan with his left hand lifted—his left hand was on the top of Horan's neck, and Horan was stooping down.
Re-examined. I was five or six yards away—there was no obstruction between me and the struggle—Horan's shirt was covered with blood when the doctor lifted his coat up.
JOSEPH GIBSON . I am a packer, of 165, Weston Street—on Saturday, June 10th, I was passing the Cock public-house about 9.30 p.m. with my brother-in-law, who is a member of the Metropolitan Police—I saw the prisoner and Horan fighting in the roadway just off the kerb—Horan was sparring up to the prisoner, who was standing passive, and Horan said something about, "I will put you through it"—after I had spoken to my brother-in-law I looked round and saw Horan fall, and the prisoner run-away—I assisted Sweeney to pick Horan up—I saw no knife—I rejoined my brother.
Cross-examined. Several chaps were standing outside the public-house, but no one near the fighting—when I looked round the second time several people were standing on the kerb—the pavement is narrow—I was about six feet away—Horan fell in the road about two yards away.
Re-examined. I did not notice anybody fighting but Horan and the prisoner.
CHARLES GORDON WATSON . I am House Surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital—I examined Horan—I found a punctured wound in the left side oi his back, about an inch and a-half to two inches deep, and a similar wound on the right side, and a slight scratch on the right side of his neck—the injuries must have been inflicted by a narrow-pointed instrument, like a pocket-knife, which punctured the coat and shirt.
JAMES KING (25 G). On Saturday, June 10th, about 10.40, I saw the prisoner in Old Street—I had received information, in consequence of which I said, "I shall arrest you for stabbing a man in Golden Lane"—he said, "I never stabbed the man"—I took him to the station, where he
was formally charged—he made no reply—whilst being detained when the man was in the hospital he said, "I wish I had done him in; he deserved it; he came cadging pennies off me. If you go to the hospital, and bring back the news that he is dead, I will give you a shilling"—I saw Horan—I produce his shirt; it is covered with blood—there were severa holes in the back of his coat, as if cut with a knife; also in the shirt back—he had been drinking.
The prisoner, in his defence, denied stabbing the prosecutor or having a knife, although he was annoyed by him.
GUILTY of unlawful wounding .—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in March, 1896; and eleven convictions were proved against him, including assaults and drunkenness.— Six Months' Hard Labour.
JAMES BROWN (48, City). On June 12th I was called into 127, Holborn, the bicycle warehouse of Messrs. Gamage and Co.—I took a boy, Henry Galt, into custody for stealing 12 cyclometers and 12 spanners.
JAMES BRACEBRIDGE (City Detective). On June 12th I saw Rarp at his place in Edmonton—I said, "I am a police-officer, and shall charge you with being concerned, with another person, in stealing cycle fittings, being 1 dozen cyclometers and 1 dozen screw hammers"—he made no reply—I had seen him on Saturday, June 10th, when his employers asked him how he accounted for having these things in his possession—he said, "To tell you the truth, I am agent for Mr. Chipper, after I have done work of a night I sell these things for him, I did not tell you, because I was afraid you would give me the sack"—I made inquiries; and in consequence I took the prisoner into custody.
Cross-examined. I found these parcels (Produced) at Snow Hill Police Station—the corner of this packet was torn—they were in the condition they are now—the label has, "Half-dozen King Dick spanners," but no name of the firm—he seemed agitated.
ALFRED VINCENT . I am a director of A. W. Gamage and Co., Limited, 127, Holborn—these goods are similar to what I have lost—one packet has our mark on it—the value of the cyclometers is about 3 guineas, and the spanners 24s.—Galt was given into custody and charged with stealing the missing property.
WILLIAM CRAWLEY . I am a mechanical engineer, employed by Messrs Friswell, of Holborn Viaduct—I found on premises opposite our work-shop a lamp belonging to a motor-car, and three parcels of cyclometers and spanners—these two parcels I found behind some doors which had been removed, and put at the back of a disused stable—in consequence of finding them I gave information to Mr. Friswell—the prisoner had been working: with me on the opposite side of the yard.
Cross-examined. The yard is 25 to 30 ft. wide—the stable is not used—I went there to make water—I saw the prisoner's coat hanging on the ears, which I used myself—persons could not see the parcels, because they
were hid behind the doors—I first saw a lamp, which, being made of brass, was bright.
FREDERICK CHIPPER . I am a dealer in cycle accessories, at 38, Mortimer Road, Kingsland—I have known the prisoner about nine months—he does not act as my agent; I have not asked him to do any business for me—on June 10th he called on me about 10 a.m.; he said, "We have got a bit of stuff in the place near where we work, and it has been found," and he asked me to say that it was mine, or he might lose his situation—I said, "All right"—on the police calling I disclaimed it; at least, I never laid claim to it.
Cross-examined. I believed he had bought it—the police came about 1 o'clock the same Saturday—I afterwards went to the Police-court; I made a complete statement before the Magistrate—I said at the Guildhall that Rarp never acted as agent—T did not think I was assisting the prisoner to commit a felony; I believed that he did not want Friswell's to know he was doing business—I knew him as a bicycle maker and dealer—Friswell's make motor-cars—I thought he was doing business of a night.
HENRY GALT . I am 15 years of age—I was employed by Gamage and Co.—I live in Liverpool Road, Islington, with my parents—I took these cyclometers and spanners from Gamage's stores, and took them to Rarp when he was down his yard—he knew I was employed at Gamage's, and that they dealt in cycle accessories—I took the goods of my own accord—I did not tell him where I got them from—he did not ask.
Cross-examined. I took them to Rarp about 2.50—I go to dinner from 2 to 3—he is my uncle—Friswell's place is close to the Old Bailey—my uncle was working at the time—his place is only a few minutes from Gamage's—he did not ask me to steal them—I gave them to him and said, "Here you are," and did not stop—he said, "Thank you"—I went back to my work—I have never taken any before that—I was arrested the next week, on the Monday—I gave them to him on Friday, 9th—the goods are in the same condition—I took them to my uncle after I had been to dinner—he is my mother's brother-in-law—I never touched anything else—about 150 hands are employed at Gamage's.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he was employed as a driver at Friswell's; that he never said he was agent, and that he had not the cariosity to see what they weret and did not know they were stolen.
GUILTY .—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction of felony at the North London Police Court on May 26th, 1894.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, June 28th, 1899.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. GRIFFITHS Defended.
LOUISA MILNE . I am the wife of Henry Milne, a carman—I live at 3, Senior Street, Paddington—I only knew the deceased on the Monday before her death—I did not know the prisoner—about 12.5 a.m. on May 27th I saw the deceased coming out of the Old England public-house—I was at the corner of Delamere Crescent, in Ranelagh Road—I saw a man call her out of the public-house—I should not know him again—the deceased and the man walked away together—as she passed me I heard her make a remark to the man—they went up Ranelagh Road, towards Clarendon Street; I lost sight of them, and 3 or 4 minutes afterwards I heard two screams, which came from the direction in which the two people went—I went in that direction—Mrs. Reece ran out of the public-house first, and I followed her—I saw a woman in a leaning position, near Clarendon Street, on the Old England side, on the pavement—it was past Senior Street; she was opposite the fishshop—I spoke to her, and she spoke to me, and caught hold of my wrist—she made a request of me; I saw something on the pavement like porter or beer, but it was blood; it was underneath her—we lifted her up; we partly carried her—I did not notice anything coming from her then, we were too anxious to get her home—we took hor to her home, 108, Clarendon Street; we took her down the area steps and into the back kitchen, and put her on the bed—her clothes were saturated with blood—she was eventually taken to the hospital; I assisted to take her up the area steps—going up the steps, we saw a great deal of blood—she made a remark to Mrs. Reece, and then became unconscious—she was put into a cab and taken to the hospital.
Cross-examined. I know Ranelagh Street very well; it is a steep road—I have never noticed it to be slippery—a good many people go along the road to the bridge—I noticed on the Monday before that the deceased was in the family condition—on this night she was quite sober; she walked quite straight out of the Old England—I thought the bleeding was in connection with her being in the family condition.
ANNIE REECE . I am the wife of Percy Reece, of 88, Clarendon Street, Paddington—on Friday, May 26th, I was in the Old England public-house about 11.55—the deceased came in—we were there for a few minutes—some beer was called for, and as it was placed on the counter the prisoner looked through the door—I had known him and his wife for some time—he called his wife—he said, "Come along, Alice; it is time you go home"—she did not go for a minute, and I opened the door for her, and she went out; as she was going out I just, pushed her through the door—it was only a friendly push—she was all right in regard to drink—I poured the boer I had called for into a can, and was going to leave the public-house with it, when I heard a scream, and then another—when I heard the first one I was at the bar taking the change up—the second scream was as I went through the door—they were loud screams—it sounded like a woman; it was really a shriek—it came from the direction of the corner of Ranelagh Road—I went in the direction—I saw two men standing on the right side of the road, not close to
the deceased, who was in a kneeling position on the pavement—I saw a rare qyanitity of blood on the pavement—I knew her condition of pregnancy—she made a statement to me—with the assistance of Mrs. Milne, I helped her upon her feet, and took her home—there were traces of blood from where we found her to her house—she was taken down to a room in the basement—eventually she was taken up the area steps—there was blood on the steps—she became unconscious, and never spoke again while we were with her—the prisoner was not at home when I got there—I never saw him after he looked in at the door of the public-house.
Cross-examined. When I heard the voice calling her home in the public-house it did not seem harsh or rough—I did not offer the man a glass of beer; I offered him a piece of cheese which I has in my hand—I thought it proper for the woman to go at once—when I found her she was in the direction fo her home—Senior Street is not in the direction of her home—if she was giong home, and he was giong down Senior Street, they would have parted at the place where I found her—she was quite fit to walk home—it was not longer than two or three minutes after she left me that I saw her on the pavement.
LOUISA MILNE (re-examined), I know now that the man whom the woman joined was the prisoner—I know now, because I have seen him since—I heard the woman speak to the prisoner as they were walking away—she said, "All right, joe, I willl come home; don't hit me."
Cross-examined. She came out at the door of the public-house sideways, as if she expected to be hit.
HARRY THOROGOOD . I am caretaker in charge of 28/4, Elgin Avenue, Paddington—I was in Ranelagh Road about 12.10 a.m. on May 27th, standing against a greengrocer's shop opposite the old England—I saw a man and a woman standing opposite; they went up the hill leasing to Ckarendoin Street about 12 or 14 yards, when there was a scuffle—the man said to the woman, "Will you go home? will you go home?"—he then up with his fist and struck the woman, and as she fell he kicked her with his right foot and said, "Go home, you cow!"—she screamed very loud for three or four minutes, and the man crossed the road to wards Clarendon Street—the woman was lying on her back; she then struggled to her knees—I walked towards the man, who was across the road; he wwent up Clarendon Street—two females came and assisted the woman up—I thought it was only a common occurrence, and I turned away—I did not want to be drawn into the raw—I went to see which way the man had gone, so that I could tell a policeman—I did not help the woman—I heard the next night that the prisoner had been arrested—I did not hear of any investigation before the Magistrate or before the Coroner.
Cross-examined. I had someone in charge of my house on this night—I have business out at night—I know now that the man was Mr. Spearing—I have heard it—there was only one man there, and he was the man who kicked the woman—I think the greengrocer's shop is 14 or 15 yards from the spot—there were several lamps about; I could see very plaintly—I heard next day that the woman died—I trist gave information that I had evidence to gibe on Thursday week—I did not know the name of the man till I was told.
Re-examined. I first made a statement on May 28th to a constable.
ALFRED PAINE . I am a builder's labourer, of 38, Delamere Crescent, Paddington—on this morning, about 12.5, I was passing down Ranelagh Road—I saw a woman on the pavement in a kneeling position—I saw blood about her—two women were helping her—as she was lifted from the pavemeut I saw blood come from her—I followed the women to 108, Clarendon Street—I remained outside—when the woman was brought up the steps she was in a state of collapse.
Cross-examined. I said before the Coroner that when I saw the woman on her knees I found a pool round her, which I thought at first was water, and then I found it was blood.
THOMAS POPLETT (Inspector). Shortly after 2 o'clock on May 27th I was on duty at the Paddington Police-station—from what I was told I went to 108, Paddington Street, where I saw the prisoner in bed in the basement, asleep—I awoke him, and told him I should take him into custody for violently assaulting his wife, and it might be something more serious, as the doctor said she was likely to die—he replied, "Oh, don't say that!"—I told him that it was alleged that he had kicked her—he replied, "No, I only pushed her"—I took him to the Paddington Infirmary—when we got there I found that his wife was dead—on hearing of it he said, "That is what comes of drink; she had been out all day since 1 o'clock, while I was at work—I sent for her five or six times, and she would not come home'; I did not hit her; I only pushed her"—I took him to the station and charged him with manslaughter—he made no reply when the charge was read over to him—when I arrested him I saw him put his boots on; they were a pair of blucher boots, recently soled and heeled—the toe-tip was missing from the left one—Thorogood made his statement on June 8th to me.
Cross-examined. That was about 13 days after the events at the hospital—the prisoner made no reply when I told him of her illness, but he did when I told him she was likely to die.
WALTER SHURDER . I am secretary to Mr. Danford Thomas, Coroner for Central London—I was present at the inquest held on the body of this woman on May 30th—the prisoner was present in Court—he was asked by the Coroner whether he desired to give evidence; he said he desired to do so—he was cautioned in the usual way that he need not give evidence—he gave evidence, and I took it down, and after it was read over to him he signed it as correct—this is his signature, and this is his evidence. (This stated that his wife being out on this day, he sent his mother for her, and he went also; that he found her in the Old England, and said, "Come out; it is time you were home "; that she came out, and in doing so fell against the door; that he walked away, thinking she was following, and toent and got some supper and went home; that he found a pool of blood outside the door; that he did not hit or kick her.)
JOHN LEON . I am registered medical practitioner at the Paddington Infirmary—on the early morning of May 27th the deceased was admitted to the Infirmary—she was unconscious, and had the appearance of a person who had lost a large quantity of blood—I noticed blood on her legs and clothing—she was placed in bed, and I found that the bleeding proceeded from her private parts—she was about six months advanced in
pregnancy; she rallied slightly—she did not say anything that I could understand, and she died about 40 minutes after her admission—a day or two afterwards I made a post-mortem examination, and I found a small lacerated wound in the vagina, about 1 1/2 inches deep and about 1 inch long—I think it was the wound which caused the bleeding—the body had a very bloodless appearance—the cause of death was loss of blood and shock following the injury—I examined the organs—I found nothing else which would cause death—she appeared to be a woman who drank; the valve of the heart was bad; the kidneys presented signs of disease.
Cross-examined. There was no delivery of a child—I am sure she was not about to undergo labour—I think a man could give a kick like this outside a woman's clothes—I thought it was improbable at first—it is possible that it could have been caused by the woman falling on to a chair when putting pegs on to a line—if it was 12 months ago I do not think the wound would open and cause that amount of blood now—if she had had a wound which had healed she would have signs of it; there was no sign—I could tell the difference between an old wound and the one I found.
Re-examined. The wound I found was a recent wound—she did not lose much blood after admission; she must have lost a great deal of blood before admission.
MARIA SPEARING . I am the widow of William Spearing, and I live at 92, Clarendon Street, Paddington—the prisoner is my son—I knew his late wife—we were on very friendly terms—I knew she was about six months gone in the family way—on the day of her death she asked me for some money—I said I could not give her any, and I gave her a waist-coat to pawn—I next saw her at 6 o'clock at 108, Clarendon Street—she seemed as if she had had a drop of drink—I next saw her in the Spotted Dog about 10 o'clock; she wag not drinking—about 11 or 11.30 I saw her going down the road as fast as she could go; she had had a drop then—she went out once a week charing—that was the last I saw of her—my son came in and said, "Where is Alice f"—I said I had left her in the Harrow Road. Between 1 and 2 a.m. on Saturday morning he came in again and said, "Will you go and see Alice? I think she has fallen down, and had an accident"—he was perfectly sober—he said that he had fetched her out of the Old England; that she was coming home, and bad fallen down on her knees—he said that he had given her a push—he did not say anything about her getting up—when I got to the place she had gone to the Infirmary—then I went to my son's house; he was not there, and I went home—he came in—I cannot remember whether I told him that his wife had been taken to the Infirmary, or if he told me—he then left and went in the direction of his house.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that about 12 months ago his wife had had an accident and hurt herself; that she fell against the door of the public-house as she came out; that he went on to get some supper; that he did not hit or kick her.
GUILTY of Manslaughter .— Five years' Penal Servitude.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, June 28th;
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, June 29th, and
NEW COURT, Friday, June 30th, 1899.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
477. WILLIAM ARTHUR CORNALL (33) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a ring, value £10, the property of Caroline Barkas, in her dwelling-house; also to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £5, with intent to defraud; to obtaining, by false pretences, from Caroline Barrett £6 10s., and from John Bagot de la Bere a bicycle, with intent to defraud; and to a conviction of felony at Bow Street Police-court on May 11th, 1897, in the name of Arthur William Cornall.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
478. GEORGE GABRIEL WOLFF, SEIGMUND WOLFF , and ADOLF WOLFF, Conspiring to cheat and defraud Her Majesty's subjects by means of a lottery; other Counts, for obtaining postal orders by false pretences, etc.
ALICE ANN CHESTER . I am the wife of George Chester, an outfitter, of 1, Twyford Street, Caledonian Road—about December 21st, 1897, I saw an advertisement in Reynold's Newspaper, similar to this (Offering prizes of £1 to £3 to competitors who accurately filled in letters forming a word chosen by the advertisers; upon payment of 1s. 3d.; and other sums for marking inks and other goods, in order to advertise the said goods, and giving examples of sentences to guide the competitors, and stating that there were testimonials from the principal laundries.)—I sent 1s. 3d. for a bottle of marking ink, and enclosed my answer to the missing words from the examples given, believing it to be a genuine competition, and hoping to get a prize—I believed I should find the marking ink useful—I received this solution from Wolft and Co., of 25 and 26, Redcross Street (giving as the accurate solution of the puzzle: u Wolff's inextirpable marking ink," "indubitably uninjurable," "remains cohesive," and so on; regretting the non-success of the competitor, and suggesting a further trial.)—I received other similar documents.
Cross-examined. This was the first solution I have attempted—it did Dot take me long to find an answer—it did net occur to me at the time the catch might be in the examples given—I expected to get a prize if I found the word.
CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH TIDY . I reside at The Hellies, 161, Mare Street. Hackney—I answered an advertisement similar to that produced, and entered into a competition—I was not successful—I received a circular setting forth the good qualities of Woolff's marking inks, and an invitation to try again—I was guided by the words belew in the marking ink, but not in the second competition—I received a solution of the second puzzle, which I have lost—I could not find in any dictionary the word "ferly"—I received 3 bottles of marking ink for my 2S. 6d.; two were for my servants—they ate full now—it is quite useless—I used Nuttall's and Johnson's dictionaries—I believed the statements in the
circulars—seeing the name of "Deacon" on them, I thought they were the bankers.
Cross-examined. I had done business with Williams, Deacon, and Co., and took that name as a test of the genuineness of the competition—I have tried to solve a puzzle before, and was told I succeeded, but I never got anything—if "ferly" was an obsolete word, I should not have selected it—I had no assistance—I had 6 bottles of ink altogether—one was like green water—I tried to write with the ink several times, but gave it up at the first sentence.
ISABELLA COOK I live at 23, Milton Grove, Upper Holloway—seeing an advertisement in Answers, I sent a postal order for 1s. 6d. for a bottle of black marking ink, and sent in a solution by writing in the words Wolffs imperishable marking ink," "Scientific invention," "Demonstrably inimitable," "No precipitation or corroaibility," "Doubtlessly liquid," and "Effectively received"—I received the defendant's solution of April 23rd, giving other words and inviting another trial—the ink I received faded after 3 or 4 times washing—I believed the competition was genuine, seeing the name "Deacon, Leadenhall Street," and the testimonials wrapped round the bottles, and the statements, "Testimonials from principal laundries," and that the prizes were offered to push forward the marking ink—I selected words from below the advertisement in Answers.
Cross-examined. I hoped to get a useful marking ink and a prize—I used the ink on handkerchiefs—it washed twice—after the third wash you could not read the marking—the handkerchiefs were washed about 3 days after marking.
MAUD AGATHA THOMAS . I am single, of 13, Alwyne Road, Canon bury, N.—about June 16th, 1898, I answered an advertisement in Answers, offering prizes up to £10 by Messrs. Wolff and Co. in their new education competition, to advertise their wonderful discovery of Egyptian jet-black and brilliant red marking inks, and giving examples of words and sentences, such as "irrevocable." "irremovable," and "even resists chlorate," and stating that the accurate solution was "sealed and deposited with our solicitor, Mr. H. Lenton Lilley"—I believed the statements, and sent 1s. 6d. for a bottle of marking ink, and filled up the skeleton words—the ink I received was useless, and faded in twice washing.
HARRY LENTON LILLEY . I am a solicitor, of 21, East Arbour Street, Stepney—I know George Gabriel Woolff slightly, but not the other prisoners—I collected a debt for him—I have never held any solution of his competition—I know nothing of his ink business—I first saw the advertisement referring to me at the Police-court—I had a branch office at 25, Worship Street—I have not seen him for 15 months.
Cross-examined. I had a clerk named Maurice Ralph a short time—he never mentioned anything about the deposit of a solution with me—I locked him out of my office.
Re-examined. I locked him out Because I thought he was using my name more than he ought to.
—believing it to be genuine, I sent a postal order for 1s. 6d., and competed—I received some marking ink which I have not opened.
ERNEST GEORGE WALKER . I am a clerk, living at Lower Edmonton—on January 3rd I answered Wolffs advertisement, offering prizes up to £35 to successful competitors—I grasped the opportunity of competing, believing it was bona fide—I sent 1s. 6d., and received a solution and a bottle of ink—I never took the cork out, but returned the bottle—I wrote the letter produced, telling Wolff and Co. that the whole thing; was misleading, that I ought to have a consolation prize, and that I did not intend to let the matter drop—Wolff and Co. replied by letter of February 13th, 1890, staling that they did not send goods on approval, and did not bind themselves to give a consolation prize.
Cross-examined. I saw the other people had consolation prizes, and I thought I was as much entitled to one as anybody else.
ALGERNON EMERIC CLEMENTI SMITH . I am a clerk in Holy Orders, of Henry Road, Sunningdale, Ascot—I saw an advertisement in Home Chat relating to a competition connected with Wolff's marking ink—I assisted my wife in forming a solution of the problem, and after sending it in with 1s. 6d., Mrs. Smith received a solution, containing, among others, the word "parasson," whereupon I wrote, asking its meaning, as it was not to be found in the dictionary, and was not known to medical men or chemists, and stating my intention to take such steps as I might be advised in the public interest to expose gross conduct which I did not desire to characterise—their reply of May 28th, 1898, was that "parasson" was a preparation used in every steam laundry.
Cross-examined. I do not peruse laundry newspapers—I never heard of "parazone."
CLARA DRACKFORD I am a dressmaker, of 62, Clinton Road, West Green, Tottenham—on June 12th I read an advertisement of cash prizes for a word competition, connected with the sale of Petroline, "a new remedy for the hair," the object being to make this preparation known—I competed—I tried the stuff I received once—it made my hair very sticky and unpleasant for about a fortnight, and I could not get it to look nice. (The solution contained the words: "Prevents wontless hoar," white hair; and "detersive," detergent; and so on.) EDWARD NEWNHAM. I am a furnisher, of 75, Chiswell Street, and formerly of 12, Finsbury Street—I have done printing business for Gabriel Wolff, including the Petroline documents—I held two solutions of competitions (One being "Prevents wontless hoar," etc.)—seeing it did not agree with the printed solution or the advertisement when I opened it, and particularly with regard to "households" and "homesteads," I declined to verify it—then he said it was a slip on his part; he had made a mistake—I held one solution for ink and another for Petroline—I have known Gabriel Wolff a year and ahalf or two years—with regard to the statement that "All our competitions are deposited with Newnham and Co., 12, Finsbury Street, E.C.," certainly not all were deposited with us, nor all the solutions unsealed in our presence—I afterwards did odds and ends, but no competition work for Wolff.
Cross-examined. I did work for Wolff from November, 1897, to
August or September last year—I do not think the amount was over £100—he discharged his obligations honourably.
HENRY ALLAN ASHTON . I am manager of the A B C Cycle Company, 59 and 60, Chancery Lane—the original of this receipt referred to in Woolff's advertisements was signed by me: "June 25th, 1898, received of the Petroline Company the sum of £300 on account of cycles supplied to their order.—For the A B C Cycle Company, Limited"—£300 was not deposited with my company—I gave it because we supplied cycles to that amount.
Cross-examined. We contracted with Woolff's to supply to the amount of £300—in consequence of that 1 gave the receipt—we supplied bicycles to the public at £20 which we supplied to Woolff for £14—we would have allowed 50 persons to have 50 £20 bicyles at £14 each—I thought it was exactly the same as if Wolff had paid £300.
Re-examined. We do something in the competition line—to everyone who wins a second prize in our competition we give a bicycle at the reduced price we would give in this case—we have our showrooms in Chancery Lane.
EDGAR WINTERBOURNE . I saw the advertisement, "Do you want a £25 bicycle for nothing?" etc., and the receipt referred to—I believed the statement, and that the receipt was genuine—I sent a notation of the competition named in the advertisement—I also received a bottle of Petroline for the 1s. 6d. I sent—I gave the Petroline to my mother—I believe she used part of it—I received a solution with "plausibly incorruptible," and other words, and a certificate, but nothing is said in the advertisement about anyone holding the solution.
Cross-examined. I received another circular about Petroline—I did not think the words under the advertisement were the right answer, nor that I should receive a bicycle withoout the right solution.
ERNEST BERMAN . I saw a similar advertisement in Snap Shots—I was asked to insert it in Cycling, for which I am manager—I declined, unless I was furnished with a sealed solution, in order that I might see fair play—having been furnished with one, I kept it in the safe—in it I see, but did not notice at the time, "phenominally" wrongly spelt, whereas in the printed solution it is spelt with "en"—I never heard of the word "perfixes"—when I noticed this I called the attention of Woolff, or oe of the staff, to it—when asked for a certificate I would not give one—the certificate at the bottom is that of someone else.
Cross-examined. The gentleman who called on me was not Mr. Woolff, but Mr. Syer—he made no objection to my suggestion that he should deposit a solution.
[The word "perfix" was stated to be marked in the last edition of Webster as "obsolute" and" rare"]
Third Court—Thursday, June 29th.
THOMAS KIMBIR . I saw this advertisement for a £21 silver tea and coffee service and other prizes, to be offered in a word competition in connection with the purchase of the Houcheas Dream book"—I replied by sending in a solution and 2s.—I got the Dream Book—I have not made my fortune—after an interval I got this Look of dreams interpreted
—I also entered the Dido Dentifrice competition for a gold watch, and received the solution of it. (This contained several obsolete words.) I also had a shot at the Petroline.
Cross-examined. I thought this solution was a very favourable one; there is always a knack in everything.
CHARLES MARSHALL . I am part proprietor of the Parish Laundry, Fulham, which is one of the largest in London—I am acquainted with every detail—I never heard of parasso or parazone being used in laundry work, or any name approaching it—I have made experiments since yesterday with this marking ink; I marked this pocket-handkerchief with the Wolff marking ink, with the black here and with the red here, and the red has gone out with one washing, and the black has nearly gone out—the word "Morrell" is the original ink—I have heard that they have been trying to find a red marking ink for some years—here is another specimen on this towel of Wolffs marking ink: I marked it in large printing letters with a gold pen, with black and red ink, and the washing was ordinary washing, with other things—I did not use any special chemical to get it out.
Cross-examined. This slight mark was the red—the bottle was given me in Court, and had never been opened—the Laundry Record is one of the best publications in the trade—I have heard of the Paraffin Company, Limited, but not Parazone—parazone would affect the fabric and the name written on it.
Re-examined. Parazone is not sold to eradicate marking ink; it is a blancher, and is used to whiten linen.
ERNEST WALTER SYER . I am an advertising contractor, of 118, Fleet Street, and did business with Wolff and Co. in advertising their competitions—the sealed copy of Dido No. 1 was deposited with me; that was published in the News of the World of October 15th, 1898—I only held one solution—I got that from Pitman; I took it to their office—the father and the eldest son were present, but no representative of the competitors—it was compared with the manuscript which was going to be sent to the printers—I glanced my eye down the words to compare the spelling, but I looked at the printed copy afterwards—I should have asked for the printed document which contained the solution, but I saw it in the office casually—I had not got my sealed solution at that time; I had parted with it, and I kept no copy.
Cross-examined. I have been engaged in that business 5 years—I have known Woolff since July, and have done business with him up to about £1,200 for advertising—they honourably discharged all their obligations to me except one account, which was printed in error—I was the agent—the principal publication was Harms worth's—there were printer's errors on several occasions, and they complained about it. (A letter was here put in, dated November 8th, 1898, stating that the skeleton had one dot too much, so as to debar people from getting the words correctly.) I have a claim against them—Beda was the competition in which I was requested to hold the solution—it was in an envelope—I kept it in an American roll-top desk.
Re-examined. I was not written to by anybody with regard to the solution—in consequence of the letter of November, 1898, I gave them a
free insertion in consequenceof the alleged mistake—no notice was put in the papers, as far as I am aware, to say that the first advertisement had been wrong—these orders (Produced) are written and signed by Adolphus Woolff, while Seigmund was away for a holiday—the dates are August 25th to September 6th.
By the COURT. I went to the place of business—the father was generally there, and I saw Adolph there when I went, apparently engaged in the packing departme: t—when they were all there Seigmund was the one I did business with.
THOMAS HIBBERD . I am a printer, of 57, Mare Street, Islington—I printed 16,000 of this Dream book for Wolff and Co.—the price was 6d., and the 2nd edition 4 1/4 d.—some were bound—a solution was deposited with me, and I printed it—I printed, "We hereby certify that the solution opened in our presence was the above"—I looked at the spelling of the word "phenomenally," I do not remember saying before the Magistrate that I did not—I said, "It is not usual to correct mistakes in spelling solutions—if a person, by a miraculous inspiration, gave the spelling of the word "phenomenally" in the way it is usually spelt, I should not consider that to be a solution—I sent the solution back; I do not think I kept a copy—I did not set it up—when printers set up MS, if they find a word incorrectly spelt they set it right—I saw that "phenomenally" was improperly spelt, because I gave the certificate—I said at the Police-court that it was the only solution I held for them, but I have doubts about a second—I said in cross-examination, "I held no solution in that competition," and now I say that I did—although I printed this, and it is correct, I did not give any certificate; if you notice that advertisement you will see that my name is struck out—I did not like the work; I did not think it was quite honest; I formed an opinion that it was not a fair competition—I swore, "I never held any other solution," and" I would not swear that no solutions were opened in my office," and now I say that I did—I have not been in communication with the defendants since their committal for trial—I offered myself as bail for them—I made very little out of this.
Cross-examined. They were the only customers I had—I do not remember other transactions—I printed these solutions before I parted with, the copy, so there can be no mistake about it.
OCTAVIUS DEACON . I am senior member of the firm of Samuel Dean and Co., advertising agents—we have done business for Wolff and Co. from 1882 to 1897, and since 1897 we have advertised some of these competitions for them, and held the sealed solutions—about April, 1898, we made objections to continuing to do so, and received this letter of April 19th. (From Wolff and Co., expressing their surprise, and ordering the advertisement to be altered, saying that the solutions were deposited with their solicitor, H. Linton Lilley, Esq.,'at whose office they would be opened on the appointed day.) In July, 1898, I had a conversation with Gabriel Wolff, and then wrote him this letter. (Asking to have a serious talk with him.) I thought he was gradually drifting into an unsatisfactory business, and we did not like it—it was at first carried on perfectly—in November, 1898, I received this letter,
signed "G. Wolff," and that closed the business—these (Produced) are solutions of competitions deposited with us, Nos. 20, 21, and 22—No. 20 is signed by me, and so is another of February 16th, 1898, with the word "furly" in it—No. 22 is dated April 18th, 1898—it says, "Wolff's, ineradicable marking ink, determinately," etc., "no prevarecation," spelt with an "e" in the middle—"empemically recorded"; I do not know what that means, but in the one published "prevarication" is properly spelt, and also in what purports to be a copy of my certificate.
Cross-examined. I have known them since 1892, and done business with them, except in an interval—not a penny is owing to me—I did not receive any letters from them complaining.
WILLOUGHBY DEACON . I am the son of the last witness—I have known the three prisoners some time—some of these solutions were handed to me—I opened the one about the ink in Seigmund's presence—I am not certain whether the father was there—I noticed that "prevarication" was spelt with an "e," and I said that it should be "a"—he said that it was not meant for "preverication," but for "prevarication," and that the word" was in the dictionary, but he did not show it to me—my father wrote this letter to Wolff and Co. (Requesting that his name should not appear as the City Solicitor had threatened to take action, and, being a member of the Corporation, it was very awkward.) I am not certain whether the advertisement was altered after that to Mr. Lilley.
Cross-examined. I did not want our name to appear, because there had. been a number of fraudulent competitions; not Woolff competitions—I had three solutions—I noticed that other words were rather peculiar, but I cannot remember them now—I tho'ught there was an error in using "e" for "a" in "prevarication."
Re-examined. As far as I remember, that was the only word I discuesed the spelling of with Seigmund—both my father and I are in the business, but not as partners.
ARTHUR E. TUCKER . I live at Thurston, Brackley, Northampton—about the end of September I entered the competition, Petroline No. 2, after reading the advertisement—I sent in what I thought was a solution of it; I filled in the words with a dictionary—I afterwards saw the true solution in a newspaper, and I had not got it—I ignored the sentence below the skeleton words, altogether, as I thought it was a catch—having sent it in, I received the published solution; that was nothing like mine—I do not know what "Petroline perfixes" means; I only got one word right, but I got the bicycle because my solution was the best—I rode the bicycle, rode over a dog, and the bicycle crumpled up.
Cross-examined. I had about 10-mile rides on it 7 or 8 times—I tried the Petroline, but did not like it, because it smell of paraffin—I went in for the ink, and got it; I tried it once—I was not taken in by the skeleton, words—I was not dissatisfied with the competition.
Re-examined. I got no prize in the ink competition—I tried the black ink; it was the same as other marking ink, but the mark is very faint now.
SARAH ANN TAYLOR . I live at East Dulwich—in November last I saw an advertisement, "Do you want a £25 bicycle for nothing?"—I sent in a solution—I found the words in a dictionary—I received a bottle of Petro
line, but only tried it on the children—I received a consolation prize of 2s. 6d.—I did not get a bicycle.
Cross-examined. I do not complain; only the Petroline was sticky—any answer was nonsensical, but it fitted in.
JESSIE TWIST . In October, 1897, I entered George Gabriel Wolffs employ as a clerk—the office was at 25 and 26, Redcross Street—neither of the sons were in the business then, and no other clerks, only three packers—there was no description on the door—the business carried on was marking ink, and competitions in missing words—I opened the letters—there were postal orders in them—there were about 500 a day, and they gradually increased up to 900or 1,000—the orders were for 1s. 3d. at first, and then 1s. 6d. each—on November 9th, 1897, there was a fire behind the office, and we had to turn out, and the business was moved to 39, Grosvenor Road, Highbury, where Wolff lived—when I first saw Seigmund Wolff he used to take part in the business, but I did not see Adolf at all—the business went on till January 5th, 1898, when we left Highbury and went to 82, Sidney Avenue, Milton Street—it was called 82, Milton Street on the note-paper, but for the Dream book it was "Sidney Avenue, Moor Lane"—that was the same houue under another name—there was no plate outside the door about the Dido dentifrice—the business ini reased at Milton Street—the first competition was in marking ink, No. 1—that closed in December, 1897—the 2nd marking ink ran into 1898, and the 3rd from April 30th to July 31st, 1898; No. 4 from August 8th to October 31st; and No. 5 from October to January 28th, 1899—No. 6 was current at the time of the arrest—the first Petroline began in March, 1898, and ran to June; No. 2 from July 14th to September 30th, 1898; No. 3 from October 11th to December 31st, 1898; and there was another Petroline competition running at the time of the arrest—the correspondence was not dealt with at Highbury—the three defendants used to bring it from Highbury—I first saw Adolf at Milton Street, but not taking part in the business—when the business was flourishing 25 to 30 clerks were employed, not all lady clerks; some were packers—most of the 1,000 letters a day contained postal orders—I did not see a book in which the names of the winners were recorded—with the exception of the gentleman who won a bicycle and killed a dog with it, I did not dear of other consolation prizes—a consolation prize was 2s. 6d.—all through 1898 the postal orders were for 1s. 6d., and 1,000 letters a day would be the average—2s. was sent in the Dream book competition—I studied it; it has not given me bad dreams—the Dido dentifrice, No. 2, began in January, and was current at the time of the arrest—the Petroline was madein the office in pails, and Adolf assisted in making it—I never tried it—the dentrifice was also made there in pails but not in the same place—it was made of chalk—Gabriel made both the black and the red ink—there was no business in the marking ink apart horn the competition, except sometimes it was "Repeat order"; that would give them another chance, if they sent another postal order; if not, we did not send the marking ink.
Cross-examined. Persons gave orders for Petroline, marking ink and dentrifice apart from competitions, and we were always ready to sell them—the dentifrice was 1s. 6d., including postage, and we let the trade have
it at a discount—I sold some of the ink myself—if they came to the door they got it cheaper—those who wrote for the ink wrote to one address, and fur the Petroline to another address; that made it easier to classify the letters—I have sent off prizes of half a crown and 5s., but not of £1—Adolf made the ink; he has been an ink manufacture for some years; I do not know that he was making it by the directions of anyone else.
Re-examined. I have sold more than one bottle of ink at the door, but very seldom—I sold ink to other laundries—I had occasional applications at the door for the Dream book—I knew that there was a gold watch in the safe; he showed it to me at the beginning of the competition—it stopped there all the time, as far as I know, and the silver tea service; two ladies called to see them.
ANNIE SAYRRS . I was a clerk in Mr. Wolffs service from October, 1897, till the arrest—Mr. Gabriel Wolff engaged me—he came there every day, and made the ink and gave orders—I first saw Seigmund soon after we went to Sidney Avenue, and Adolf came in the spring of 1898; he was the manufacturer of the Petroline and the dentifrice—when Wolff went out Seigmund took his place, and if Seigmund was out of the way, Adolf—the greatest number of assistants was 27—about 1,000 letters a day came, and a great many vans came to take the packages away.
Cross-examined. My principal business was packing; I packed all these ingredients—as time went on the amount made increased—people sometimes came and bought the manufactures apart from the competition; I do not think the number of those increased—there was a place called the laboratory—I did not see the ink manufactured—I have been in the laboratory when the Petroline was being made, but the dentifrice was not made in there—there were bottles and measures there—the bottles were filled up with tubes—I was away in the week when Adolf came into the business—he was with me part of the time—Siegmund had an office.
Re-examined. I heard of Mr. Tucker having a bicycle given to him—I saw it printed in a notice—he was the only one I knew of having a prize.
PERCY ASHTON (Re-examined). I gave them one bicycle between the three, so that the one Tucker got cost them nothing—they gave that one free in consideration of the benefit we derived from his mentioning the AB Cycle Co.—I got from the defendants a list of some of the names of the people who sent in competition**, and sent our circulars to 2,000 of them.
By the COURT. The bicycle competition went on for 3 months—about 36 people took out bicycles through the advertisement, but not from winning prizes—they had coupons which got £6 off the machine, but there was only one free—38 got coupons, and got our bicycle cheaper—we got about £90 from the Tyre Company for advertising their tyres.
By MR. AVORY. The papers said that Wolff and Co. were not a respectable firm, and we stopped this system with them—some newspapers expressed surprise that our company should be mixed up with such people as Wolff and Co.—we wrote thein this letter (Produced), and ceased to supply any more.
LIZZIE ROGERS . I was a clerk to Wolff and Co. at Highbury, and afterwards at Sidney Avenue—I used to open letters—the average was 1,000 a day; mostly with postal orders—the only prize I heard of as being
given was one bicycle—this gold watch (Produced) was kept there to show anybody who came—they asked to see the watch, but not the bicycle—the silver plate was also shown to them, and then put into the safe.
Cross-examined. It was part of my duty to open the letters—I did not sort them—out of 10 letters 9 might contain the same solution and one different, and I should arrange the 9 in order.
FRANK JOHNSON . I am chief clerk at the London and South Western Bank, Finsbury Branch—Seigmund Wolff opened an account there on January 24th, 1898, in the name of Wolff and Co.—no one but Seigmund had a right to draw on it—he signed "Wolff and Co."—the account continued till April 24th—this (Produced) is a copy of it—the turnover during the whole period exceeded £1 1,000, and the balance on the date of the arrest was about £145, which was drawn out on the 24th—a cheque for £100 was drawn on April 18th—the current balance was generally more than £100; money was paid in every day—on April 1st the balance was £130.
WILLIAM HARDY KING . I am one of the firm of W. H. Harnell and Co., chartered accountants—I have examined the books of S. Wolff and Co., and have embodied the result in a document—the first marking ink competition brought in £1,158 7s. 4d., with a total of 18,000 subscribers; and No. 2, £730; No. 3, £581; No. 4, £1,126; No. 5, £433; and No. 6, £46—the green ink competition was £33; the Petroline, £1,135; and No. 2. £3,096; No. 3, £694; and No. 4, £175—the Dream book, No. 1, £991, and No. 2, £266; the Dido, No. 1, £601; makin; a total of £11,423 received from these competitions in a little more than a year and a half—the business expenses are: Advertising, £3,075; stamps, £1,341; and, including office furniture, rent, rates and taxes, I make a total of £8,128, including an estimate which does not appear on the books, showing a profit of £3,921 in that period—from the banking book, Gabriel appears to have drawn out £1,969; Seigmund, £203, which is entered as wages; and Adolf, £49 10s., which is entered as wages; and there are two further amounts of £50 and £13 5s. d. entered to S. Woolff—other payments are made out of the business to S. Wolff and Co., amounting to £310—I cannot tell where they went to—I found no business done in the marking ink apart from the competition, or of any trade except for jewellery purchased and sold again.
Cross-examined. There are two accounts in the ledger to G. Wolff which show about £1,000 drawn by G. Wolff—there is no distinction between them, only in regard to the date; and there is another for £300, and another for £400 to "self"—that is how the £1,900 is made up—the books have been kept very well; better than many which I have had to examine—I have been able to trace all the transactions through the books—all the postal, orders appearin the books numbered, and if the letters were also numbered I should be able to trace each payment to each competitor and each postal order—the numbers of the postal orders are entered in the books, and, taken roughly, the books show what competition it is in each case—some books contain more than one competition, and it is spread over 3 or 4 books—I thought G. G. Wolff was the propeoptor and therefore I put dowm
cheques drawn to "Self" to him—all my information came from the books; I saw no vouchers—Adolf Wolff was paid weekly 10s. for some time, and subsequently £1; he only had £49 10s. altogether, but he was only there from February, 1899.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am an official of the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file in the adjudication of G. G. Wolff of May 24th, 1895; the liabilities are £1,690, and the assets 9s. 6d.—the business was that of an ink, and gum, and seal manufacturer—he applied for his discharge last August, and it was suspended till August, 1901.
Cross-examined. The petitioning creditor is Allen Robinson, for £1,155 14s. out of a total of £1,600—I do not know that all the creditors were paid in full except the petitioning creditor.
ARTHUR HAILSTONE (Detective Sergeant). On April 21st, at 1.15 p.m., I arrested the three prisoners at 82, Sidney Avenue, City, with the assistance of Sergeant Parsons—I said to the elder prisoner, "Is your name George Gabriel Wolff?"—he said, "Yes"—I repeated the question to Seigmund and Adolph—they said, "Yes"—I read the warrant, and Seigmund said, "Who is Mr. Kimber?"—I said, "I do not know: I suppose it is one of the competitors"—on the road to the station Gabriel said, "I have been in business for years, and have never defrauded anyone; but never mind, this will be the best advertisement we ever had; it will be worth £1,000 to us"—I took possession of a very large number of documents at 82, Sidney Street, and this letter-book, in which is a letter of June 15th to a dissatisfied competitor, returning 2s., and saying that he was the first person who bad complained, and there are 14 others in the same words, and saying that if there are 100 others they will give a prize for grumbling—I found some letters from Gabriel to Seigmund. (One of these stated: "Dolly ought to have given the man the articles, they are of full value for the money, and not denied the Petroline." Another, of October 28th, said:" Do you watch the Star, Leader, and Truth?") I know that the Leader and Truth have published articles in connection with these advertisements another letter, to G. A. Thorpe, Esq., states: "We have just found that the skeleton words are incorrect"—another states: "On looking over our results, we found that they were practically nil; we now find that it is owing to a printer's error, in 'v' instead of 'w'; we must ask them to give us a free insertion"—another states: "There is a dot or dash too many; this will explain the absence of replies."
Cross-examined. I arrested them at their place of business, and the name was up—they had never given their names to me.
Re-examined. I found no testimonials from well-known laundries, but I found a letter from the Sun Laundry Company, saying, "I am sorry to" say that the ink does not stand boiling in soda water, neither does it stand chloride; 30s. is a long price to pay for a useless article."
EDWARD PARSONS (Police Sergeant, S). I went with Hailstone to the prisoners' premises—I found the account-books, which were handfd to Mr. King, and Nuttall's Dictionary, but no big dictionary—I found these books (Produced), "The Grumbling World" and "The History of Grumbling in England"—T found a tea and coffee service and the watch in the safe—the word "furly" does not appear in this dictionary.
JESSIE TWIST (Re-examined by MR. ELLIOTT). Persona would not be allowed to go into the competition unless they paid for it—the postal order would not be sent back if they did not require the ink or the Petroline.
By MR. AVO RY. If Seigmund and Adolf were both away together, the old gentleman managed the business—they were both away together for a fortnight shortly before the arrest—I do not know whether he wrote for instructions—I looked to Adolf for instructions.
Seigmund Woolff, in his defence, stated that he was employed in the advertising business between 1895 and 1897, and saved about £100, and advanced about £50 to his father to advertise the ink competition, and then went into the business himself and engaged his father to help him, not at a fixed salary, but allowing him to draw what was reasonable for house expenses; that they looked in the dictionary for words which began and ended the same as the skeleton, and had some application to the articles in question; that through carelessness on his part, "household" had been printed "homestead "; that if anyone spelt "prevarication" wrongly it would be considered correct if it was intended for the correct word; that Miss Chester spelt "phenomenally" correctly and got a consolation prize; that his father was a Roumanian subject, and a chemist, and came to England 14 years ago and, prepared the dentifrice and the Petroline, which were good articles; that the two addresses were given to keep the letters separate, but they never pretended to be separate firms; that his father made an arrangement with Mappin and Webb to supply articles if correct solutions were sent; and that the solutions were always deposited, except in the case of Mr. Lillsy; thai all cheques were drawn by himself and that his brother Adolf was simply a clerk, and he produced receipts from persons to whom prizes had been given.
Adolph Wolff, in his defence, stated that he was only a clerk, and took his orders from his father and brother, and assisted his father in the manufactory, but had nothing to do with preparing the advertisements; that during his father's and brother's absence he only took the letters from the box, and the girls opened them, and if anyone called he told them that hit father and brother were away; and that he was in Africa in December, 1897, and, therefore, not with his father.
Evidence for the Defence.
JAMES COLLY . I am Chairman of the Works Committee of Southampton, and proprietor of a laundry—I met Mr. Wolff on the continent 4 years ago, when he was making experiments with ink; I tested both the red ink and the black, and found them remarkably good, the marks on one pocket-handkerchief I marked lasted 12 months—in 1898 I sent to him for a small bottle of his red marking ink; I only used it for a fortnight, because it was very expensive—I was not a competitor; I have not seen the red ink which the competitors received—I know parazone; it is 90 per cent, of chlorate of potass and chlorate of lime mixed together; it would not take out good marking ink.
Cross-examined. We adopted the black ink—we should mark a thing a second time, even if the mark was still there—I only got a small bottle, and do not know the price, but probably half-a crown.
Cross-examined. The elder defendant went with me to the office—I was not a partner to the arrangement; I had no interest in the matter—Mr. Lilley never held the solution.
Cross-examined. The book says: "To dream you have spilt ink on a white cloth denotes that you should be careful in your correspondence; in the case of business men they should take precautions against forgery and treachery."
Cross-examined. I do not write to my grocer to say that his things are all right—I got a watch as a prize, but not from these people—I possibly may have thought that if I wrote a testimonial I might get a prize.
MARY CURLEY . I am a nurse—in November, 1898, I purchased a tin of Petroline in a competition, and subsequently a further tin—it was satisfactory, and I wrote this testimonial. (Stating that she had been quite bald after typhoid fever, and that her hair had been restored by Petroline.)
Cross-examined. I know, as a nurse, that the hair falls off after typhoid fever, and I know that it generally grows again—I have gone in for the Petroline competition, but have not got a prize.
Rre-examined. Though I did not get a prize, I sent for another bottle, because, in my opinion, it assisted the growth of the hair.
ALICE CHESHIRE . I live at 11, Claremont, Hastings—I went in for one of these competitions, and this is one of my solutions—I got two prizes, besides three consolation prizes, one of 5s., and two of half-a-crown—I was satisfied with the first bottle of marking ink.
Cross-examined. The second did not wash out, but I could not write with it—I could with the first, and it has not washed out—I got two prizes in the first competition—I bought 5 bottles of marking ink, and sent 5 solutions, but not all in the same name—I never succeeded in getting one of the chief prizes—I wrote, "I have found your black ink excellent"—it did not strike me that if I praised it I should get a prise.
MR. JORDAN. I entered for some of these competitions, and received two consolation prizes.
The prisoners received good characters.
GEORGE and SEIGMUND— GUILTY of conspiracy, and of conducting a lottery . G. WOLF— Ten Months' Imprisonment. SEIGMUND— Four Months' Imprisonment. ADOLF— GUILTY as an accessory — Discharged on his own Recognizances.
The COMMON SERJEANT considered that the officers of Scotland Yard deserted greet credit for their conduct in the case.
NEW COURT.—Thursday, June 29th, 1899.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. C. MATHEWS and MR. W. H. LEYCESTER Prosecuted, and MR. C. F. GILL, Q.C., and MR. SCARLETT Defended.
MR. MATHEWS , for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
481. HERBERT ADAMS (30) , Conspiring with Henry Fisher and other persons unknown to obtain from John Pullan Phibbs divers goods, with intent to cheat and defraud;other Counts, for incurring a debt and liability, and obtaining credit by means of fraud.
MR. ELLIOTT and MR. DRUMMOND Prosecuted.
JOHN PULLAN PHIBBS . I am an electrical engineer—I am agent for Geoffroy and Delore, of Clichy, France—my offices are at 16, Wool Exchange—I first saw the defendant on April 10th, when he called and gave me this card, "Herbert Adams, Electrical Engineer, 46, Brigham Street, New North Road, N."—he said he was an electrical engineer, and had been in business in a small way some years, and said, "I shall be placing an order with you; my reference is Mr. Fisher, 16 and 16A, Dean Street, Soho"—I knew the firm—on the 11th he came for some electrical cables—between April 11th and May 4th he gave me several orders—he said he wanted the cable for installation work, amongst others the lighting of a church, which I do not remember, and a private house near Ascot; and the cable was to be taken by the first train from Waterloo—that was on a Saturday in April; I think 29th—some orders were in writing, and some verbally—I think I had 1 order by post—I supplied £65 worth of goods to the order of Herbert Adams—in May a man called representing himself as a buyer for Owen and Kemp, electric lighting engineer, of 140, Sloane Street, S. W., and 146, The Grove, Denmark Hill, S.E.—the next day, May 4th, he gave me a written order for different sized wires and cables to the value of £75 odd—he said the cables were to go straight to the American Oil Works at Purfleet, and he would call with a cart in one or two hours to take them away, and the rest were to go to some grove in Brixton for the installation of electric bells—the wire is sold by the mile or 110 yards the 16th of a mile—he afterwards came with a man and a cart, and took the goods away—I have never been paid—I made inquiries—I afterwards went to the Marlborough Mews Police-station, and saw cable I estimated at the value of £35, which formed part of the order I executed to the order of Herbert Adams—I applied for a warrant—I attended at Moor Lane Police-station, where I saw wire to the value of £6, forming part of Owen and Kemp's £75 order—the same day I went to 58, Fenchurch Street, the premises of West and Co., electrical engineers, where I saw cable to the value of £50 or £60, part of the order of Owen
and Kemp, and what I delivered to Herbert Adams on the Saturday—I went to 140, Sloane Street—I found it was a private-house—I parted with the goods believing they were for installation contracts, and on the reference of Fisher and Co.—I also found at Mr. Cox's, electrical engineer, 10 and 11, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane, nearly all the balance of Owen and Kemp's order, that was said to go to Purfleet and Brixton, about £28 worth.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You did not mention Mr. Owen—I did not apply to Fisher and Co.—I said, as far as I can remember, that the name of Fisher was good enough—my traveller called on them.
Reexamined. The prisoner distinctly told me he had an order for Ascot, and he was in a small way of business as an electrical engineer.
ALFRED OULDS . I am employed by my father as carrier at 47, Shaftesbury Street, New North Road, Hoxton—on May 4th the prisoner came into our yard and said he wanted a van at once to fetch some wire from the back of the Wool Exchange—I was to go to Fenchurch Street—I put my pony in the cart, and drove to a public-house in Finsbury Pavement—I saw two more men standing under the Finsbury clock—the prisoner beckoned to them, and they came over to him—all three went in the public-house with me, and gave me a drink—then one jumped in the van, and we drove to Basinghall Street—on the way he said, "If anyone asks who you are working for, say Owen and Kemp"—I knew Adams by sight when he came for the van, but not by name—we loaded at the Wool Exchange—the other man called himself Owen—I saw Mr. Phibbs, when we were half loaded, standing at the door—when loaded we went down Basinghall Street, into London Wall, and up Moorgate Street, when another man, who had been in the public-house, came and got into the cart, and we went to Fenchurch Street—we stopped opposite a tobacconist's—the prisoner came up when they had got some stuff out, which was taken across the road, I did not see where—the prisoner sat in the van picking the stuff out—the twoother men took the best part of the wrappers off in the road—only part was unloaded in Fenchurch Street—then the prisonerand two men who werein the van told me to drive to Bigham Street—Owen jumped out at 46, Bigham Street—the prisoner and another man took the rest of the stuff in there—I was paid for my work—the man I do not know collected the labels and papers as soon as I got back to the yard.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You said you used to live next door to the yard—I asked, in Fenchurch Street, if you were going much farther, as I had not a lamp, which I am obliged to carry after dark.
JAMES WILLIAM KEMP . I am an electric light wire man, of 140, Sloane Street—I worked with a Mr. Owen 2 1/2 years ago, at Rawlings Brothers—this is a circular of mine when I carried on business with Owen—during my overtime I did small jobs in partnership with him—I wrote to him 3 months ago, putting an end to it—I had not seen him for two or three months before that—it was before Easter when I saw him last—I know his writing—I have only seen Adams when he was under remand—I was not carrying on business in Sloane Street in May—the other address was Owen's mother's house—the house is now empty.
Company, at their City office—their head depot is at Purfleet—we never did any business with Owen and Kemp—we have our own electrician.
GEORGE WESTON . I am an electrical engineer, of 58, Fenchurcb Street—in April last a Mr. Owen called and said he was giving up business, and had stock to dispose of, and he asked me if I would call and inspect it, to see what I could buy out of it—he gave me his business card, of Owen and Kemp, of Knightsbridge and Denmark Hill—I did not go; I had no time—he said he would bring samples—he brought some stuff, and I bought to the amount of £4 10s., about half a mile—£12 10s. a mile is the price of the best stuff, but I bought this for what it was worth—he gave me a receipt for the £4 which I paid him on account—he said he would call again and show me some more, and he telegraphed the next day, or in a day or two, asking what time he could see me in the office—I said I should be in the office at a certain time, and he came down with some small material, for which I paid him £6—I bought one large coil for £19 16s. or £19 18s., about May 4th—this is his receipt—Owen sent some stuff by messenger, and I sent the money back—I paid him £6 off the £7 10s.—I valued it as the best class of 16 coils to a mile at £18 per mile—you cannot tell the quality by looking at it—it was covered over with sacking—on May 4th I said the £19 16a. or £19 18a. was a large size, and we did not know about stocking it, but there was no harm looking at it, and I gave him a cheque for £12 2s. on that occasion for 3 coils—all the letters were in the name of Owen and Kemp, electrical engineers, and I understood he was in a good way of business, and was disposing of his stock—he asked me to buy £100 worth of his stock, but I had not time to go through the stuff—I afterwards saw Mr. Phibbs at my place.
HARRY WILLIAM CHARLES COX . I am manager to Harry W. Cox, Limited, electrical engineers, 10, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane—on May 8th a Mr. Ingold, whom I knew, called and asked me if I wanted to buy electric wire, as Owen and Kemp, who had dissolved partnership, had a lot for sale—he left two samples—I told him I did not want the staff at the price he asked me; I could supply him at a cheaper rate—he said he would look in again—he called in two days—he afterwards saw the secretary for the first time—the next time he saw me I had talked the matter over with the secretary—I told nim I did not think much of the bargain; I did not know whether to have it or not—ultimately I paid him £14 for some—he allowed me 9s. off for cash—the secretary took the cheque to get it cashed, but could not, and 1 gave him £6 on account—he said he wanted the money that afternoon—he brought it in a cab, and I got there just as the cab was going away—the prisoner Adams used to work for me years ago—I was present when Mr. Phibbs called and saw 8 coils of electric wire.
ARTHUR CLARK (Detective, C). On May 1st I went to 16, Dean Street Soho, and arrested Henry Fisher on the charge of receiving stolen property—I took possession of two van loads of electrical fittings and wire—I conveyed them to Marlborough Mews Police-station—on May 9th Mr. Phibbs identified 45 coils of wire which were obtained from him by a man named Adams—this coil (Produced) is one of the smaller coils identified by Mr. Phibbs—I also produce three pawn-tickets, one for a banjo-case pledged
for 15s. in the name of Herbert Adams, on February 4th, 1899; one for four tools in the name of J. Adams, of 2, Charles Street; and the other for lathes pledged by Mr. Adams, of 12, West Street.
JOHN WISE (City Detective Inspector). On May 13th I arrested the prisoner at his house, 46, Bigham Street—I told him I was inspector of police—I had other officers with me—I held a warrant for his arrest for conspiracy, with a man named Owen, to defraud Mr. Phibbs—I saw two coils in the bedroom—this is one (Produced)—I said, "How do you account for these? where did you get these?"—he said, "I have written to Mr. Owen to fetch them"—I said, "A lot of goods supplied by Mr. Phibbs to you have been found with a man named Fisher, who is in cusody for receiving where are the other goods?"—he said, "They went away last Tuesday in a cab"—I said, "A man named Fisher is in custody for receiving a lot of goods supplied to you by Mr. Phibbs, and found in his possession"—he never spoke from that time to this in reference to the case, except that he applied for the pawn-tickets—when I alluded to Fisher he shook his head, but never replied—I went to a private flat in Denmark Hill, which was kept by Owen's mother—I did what I could to find Owen—he has deserted his wife and child—the house has been empty since March 25th.
JOHN PULLAN PHIBBS (Re-examined). The coils of wire produced are a part of what I identified at the Marlborough Mews Police-station, and a part of the order given by the prisoner and by Owen and Kemp.
ARTHUR CLARKE (Re-examined). Fisher is now undergoing a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for receiving stolen property—he was charged with 10 cases—in connection with those charges I found property belonging to Mr. Phibbs.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that Owen used to work with him, but since then fie had never seen him till after April 19th; that he lent him £5; that Owen told him he had a big job at Ascot, and wanted him to do it for him, but he never received a farthing from Owen; that Owen took the greater part, and he (the prisoner) sold some goods for him; and that he had been in business three years. GUILTY .— Judgment Respited.
MR. NOLAN Prosecuted, and MR. BERNARD O'CONNOR Defended. GUILTY on the second Count.— Five Months' Hard Labour .
483. THOMAS THOMPSON (2l) and HENRY MARSH (23) Robbery, with violence with others unknown, upon Henry Archibald Stonham, and stealing from his person a watch and chain, and a match-box and 15s. his property.
MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted.
HENRY ARCHIBALD STONHAM . I am a surgeon and medical officer to the Stepney Union, and public vaccinator—I live at 30, Albert Squares—on June 15th, about 4 p.m., I was coming from the passage leading off Twine Court, after visiting a patient—I was surrounded by five men—Thompson came in front of me; I looked at him—the others crept up
quietly behind me; I turned and looked Marsh in the face—an instant after that an arm was passed round my throat, my head was drawn forcibly backwards, a hand was pressed under my chin, and I was robbed of my watch and chain, some silver and coppers, and a match-box—the original value of the watch was at least £50; it is an heirloom of my family—all the men got away—I complained of pain to two doctors whom I saw afterwards, but I have not a distinct recollection of it now; I was so much upset—I received a great shock—a man passing his arm in that way round the throat might have a dangerous effect—I gave information to the police, and a description of the men—on June 21st I identified the prisoners from about ten ora dozen without the slightest difficulty—I have no doubt the prisoners are two of the men.
Cross-examined by Thompson. You had brown clothes—I saw your face perfectly I noticed the mark you have under your eye—there were 2 hands robbing me; I feel certain one was yours, as you did not get by me, but were on the left as I came up the passage.
Cross-examined by Marsh. Your features were exposed; I should recognise you amongst a million—a most important point about you in my description to the police was your pale face and broad features, and you had on the drab or grey jacket which you have now—whatever you had on your feet must have been soft; you made no noise—you had a soft cap, as far as I can remember and no overcoat—you had a waistcoat.
Re-examined. The whole thing took place in a few seconds—as a public officer my practice is to observe faces.
EDWARD VICKERS . I am a dock labourer, living at 5, Twine Court—on June 15th I was sitting at my door, about 4 p.m., where Dr. Stonham had visited my mother-in-law—when the doetor was in the house Thompson asked me, "What is the matter with your leg?"—I said, "Nothing"—I saw the doctor leave the house and walk away down the passage—as T was sitoing on the doorstep, with the baby in my arms, I saw five men, about 30 yards away, had got the doctor against the wall—the prisoners are two of the men holding him—I afterwards picked them out at the station—I am sure of them.
Cross-examined by Thompson. You are a stranger to me—I had a bandage round my leg and I have now—when I got up I had a walking-stick—I was resting my leg on the stick.
Cross-examined by Marsh. When Thompson spoke I was standing against the window-ledge—you were with him when he done it—you had another black coat, not the one you now wear—cannot tell what sort of clothes you had—I knew your face at the Police-station—you followed Thompson after the doctor—I could not follow to see what you did—I heard screaming.
WILLIAM CRIDLAND (Detective, H). I had received a description from Vickers, in consequence of which, about 9 p.m., on June 20th, I took Thompson in custody in Ship Alley—I charged him on suspicion of being concerned with other men in robbing Dr. Stonham—he said, "I was there, but I did not assault him"—he was put with others, and identified by Dr. Stonham the next morning—when charged he made no reply—he gave a lodging-house address; I do not believe he gave the correct name.
Marsh in Ship Alley inside a public-house at the same time as Thompson was arrested outside—I said, "What is your name!"—he said, "Henry Marsh"—I said, "Ishall arrest you for assault and robbery"—he said. "All right"—on the way to the station he said, "When did this take place?"—I said, "At Twine Court on Thursday"—he said, "I know I was there, but I did not rob him"—immediately after he got to the station he said, "If that is what you call assault and robbery, I will do something for the next one"—he was identified by Vickers and Dr. Stonham the next morning.
Cross-examined by Marsh. I arrested you because you answered a, description given at the station—you said, "I was there, but did not rob him."
Re-examined. Marsh contradicted that statement at Worship Street—when charged at the station he made no reply.
The Prisoners statements before the Magistrate, Thompson says. "I am quite a stranger to Vickers, and do you think it probable, he being a stranger, that I should stop and ask what was the matter with his leg? I have never been in Twine Court in my life. I swear before God I am innocent. I want to call Mr. and Mrs. Smith." Marsh says: "On the morning of the 15th I was passing up Leman Street with Isaac Levy. At the corner of Commercial Street we accosted another man named Harry Parr. As we accosted him two detectives wished to know what was in the parcel we were carrying. Levy replied, 'Washing.' I said to the detective, 'Do not open the parcel in the public street; either take us to the Police-station or a quiet place, and there examine it.' He told me he should do as he pleased, and he opened the parcel. I complained about being shown up in the street. He threatened to pick me up hands down, whether I was innocent or guilty. He trod on my heels, pushed me, and otherwise assaulted me. I took the parcel to Commercial Street Police-station, and there lodged a complaint against the detective. As I did not know his name, the inspector told me he could give me no advice, and told me to find his name and then come back to him. The same evening, about 9, I was in the Russian Eagle with Levy and several other companions, when Detective Richardson and the one who had opened the parcel of linen walked in. Richardson stood looking at me for the space of 40 seconds. He was on the point of leaving me, when the other detective told him to take that fellow down. Richardson then asked me my name, I told him. He told me I should be wanted for highway robbery. I said, 'All right' On the way to the station I asked him where it occurred, he told me at Twine Court. I said I knew well enough where it was. I have made a mistake. I mean it was on the morning of the 20th, not the 15th, that I was stopped with the linen, and the evening of the 20th when I was arrested. On the 15th I was with Isaac Levy and a woman (Sarah Chattaway) at the bottom of Leman Street. The time was half-past 3 by the Co operative Stores' clock. I and Levy went to my father's house, to polish our boots, put on a clean shirt, have a wash and come out again. Wo came out about 25 past 4 and went up Brick Lane, and there we stayed for the remainder of the day. I wish to call my stepmother if she is in Court; she can tell you the neighbour's name."
Evidence for Thompson's Defence.
ELLEN SMITH . I am the wife of Alfred "William Smith, a tailor—I have known Thompson five or six weeks—he has been staying in my house u a friend, as I know his mother through doing a little work—about a fortnight ago, on a Thursday, as he had nothing to do, I asked him and he cleaned my windows, as he said he did not mind, at about 3 or 3.30 p.m.—I live near the Victoria Park end of St. Thomas's Road, No. 6—I recollect the Thursday because I got my laundry home, and after the prisoner had finished cleaning I said he had better stop and have a bit of tea—I cut him some tea, and he said, "I have a shirt at the laundry; I would like to get it home;" and I gave him 1s. to get his shirt home.
Cross-examined. I do not know why he said he was at Twine Court—he went out that night, I think about 8 o'clock—he had been in all the afternoon.
Evidence for Marsh's Defence.
CATHERINE MARSH . I am Marsh's stepmother—he came in on the day of the robbery about 3 o'clock, a Thursday, a fortnight to day, before 3—he went to lie down—he told me to call him at 4 30, and I called him at 5.15, when he got up and went out—it was Thursday, because they took him at night time after Thursday, on a Tuesday, to the Police-station, ana they said the robbery took place on a Thursday, because he came in in a hurry—he lay down on the sofa—I do not know why—he came home alone—he sluiced himself in the yard, and went out in a hurry.
Cross-examined. If he says he was in Leman Street at 3.30, opposite the Co-operative Stores, that could not be true; what he says is true, and what I say cannot be what he said in the deposition—I cannot account for hib story not being the same as mine.
The prisoners, in lheir defences, denied all knowledge of the robbery, and that they said they were there, Marsh adding that he wore a crimson bdly band, which must have been seen.
GUILTY .—THOMPSON then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Clerkens well, on August 4th, 1897, in the name of William Andrews; ana five other convictions were proved against him.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour and 20 strokes with the Cat. MARSH Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Newington on August 13th, 1897, in the name of Henry Wright; five other convictions were proved against him.— Three Years' Penal Servitude and 20 strokes with the Cat.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, June 29th, 1899, and following days.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
484. ARTHUR KIRBY and MORRIS JOHN CLIFFORD , indicted with Sir Alfred Kirby (who was stated to be too ill to attend), for unlawfully conspiring to obtain money by false pretences and fraud in connection with the Coolgardie Mint and Iron King Gold Mines, Limited.
MESSRS. C. W. MATHEWS, MESSRS. GRAHAM CAMPBELL, and COYLS prosecuted; LORD COLERIDGE, Q.C., and MR. GORDON DAVIES defended Arthur Kirhy, and MR. ELLIGHTT defanded Clifford.
JOHN PITTMAN . I am clerk in the offices of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I prouduce the file of the Coolgardie Mint and Iron King Gold Mines, Limited; it was registered on November 14th, 1894, with a capital of £150,000, in £1 shares—I find among the signatoried to the memorandum of association the name of Sir Alfred Kirby and Arthur Kirby—the offices of the company are at 170, Cornhill—I find on the file an agreement of April 29th, 1895, Arthur Kirby and the Coolgardie Company are parties to it—by it Arthur Kirby was to sell to Coolgardie Gold Mines, Limited, the Iron King and Royal Mint Properties—the consideration was £130,000, payable as to £75,000 in £1 shares, £50,000 in cash, or by shares, and £5,000 in cash—that agreement was executed, among others, by Sir Alfered Kirby—I find on the file a return of the shareholders on August 17th, 1895—I find there the names of Arthur Kirby, Henry Carrol, Hubert McLaughlin, and Joseph Henry Kennett—I do not find the name of Tomlinson—Carrol held 5,000 shares, McLaughlin 5,000, Kennett 5,550, at the date of the return, and Arthur Kirby held 15,600—on July 21st there was a special resolution cast to wind up voluntarily, and confirmed on August 20th—I find that Joseph Tingle was liquidator—I find he was authorised to form a new company, which was to be called the Kalgoorlie Mint and Iron King Gold Mines—I find the draft of the agreement between the old company and its liquidator was approve at this meeting—it was confirmed by the shareholders on August 20th, 1897—Sir Alfred Kirby appears as a director, and he sighned the consent for the registration of the new company—I also produce the file of the Kalgoorlie Company—it was registered on August 26th, 1897, with a nominal capital of £150,000, in shares of £1 each—the memorandum and articles of association appear on the file—there was a reconstrucition agreement of September 1st, 1897—it appears that as part of the consideration from the old company toe the new, every member of the old company was to have the right to claim for himself or his nominee 16s., 8d. fir every share held by him or her in the old company.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I have been quoting from a return of shareholders in the company on August 17th, 1895, prepared for Somerset House—the number of shares in the new company was originally the same as that in the old company 150,000.
Corss-exanined by MR. ELLIOTT. The return is signed by the acting secretary, Richard Lakeman.
Re-examined. I find on the file a resolation increasiong the capital of the new company by £50,000 in £1 shares, registered on June 21st, 1898—the meeting was held on June 7th, 1898, to increase it—that made it up to £200,000.
FREDERICK JOSEPH TINGLE . I am a chartered accountant of 110, Cannon Street, in partnership with my son, Mr. Frank Tingle—I was appointed liquidator of the Coolgardie Company in August, 1897—I had the carrying out of the reconstruction agreement, in which the Coolgardie Company was to be reconstructed into the Kalgoorlie Company—I was familiar with the cluse under which shareholders in the old company were to be entitled to have shares in the newcompany—for the purpose of carrying that into effect I caused circulars to be issued to the shareholders
in the old company, inviting applications from them, if they desired it, to become shareholders in the new company on the basis of the old company—in response to those circulars I received a number of applications from persons who were, or professed to be, bona fide shareholders in the old company, and allotments were ultimately made to the writers of the applications to the extent of 146,848 shares in the new company out of the 150,000 which it was my power to allot—there then came forward a number of applications greatly in excess of the authorised issue of shares in the old company—one application came forward which opened my eyes—it was for 10,000 shares from the banking firm of Brown Janson, and Co.—the number of those shares were 5,061 to 10,000, 10,301 to 10,360, 15,398 to 20,397—that application reached me on November 5th, 1897—the first information I got in regard to the existence of those shares was from a managing clerk to some stockbrokers, named Galloway and Pearson, on November 5th, 1897—I had seen Mr. Clifford from time to time—I had been in constant communication with him at the office of the company—I did not hear of Messrs. Brown, Janson, and Co. having forwarded to Clifford transfers of 2,850 shares under the date of October 13th, 1897, or of his having given Brown, Janson, and Co., any receipt for those transfers—he told me nothing of it—I expect they are in my possession now, but I did not have them till a long subsequent date—it should be entered into the books of the company—there were no more transfers then; the oompany was in liquidation—if Mr. Clifford received the receipt he should have entered the fact of its acknowledgment in the transferbook—this company had a transferbook, and in the ordinary course of business it should have appeared that a receipt had been given for the transfers—Mr. Clifford never informed me of the receipt of the transfers, and I have never seen them—my conversation with the stockbroker's clerk led me to see Sir Alfred Kirby the next day—I had frequently seen Sir Alfred between then and the date of my appointment, and alpo Mr. Arthur Kirby—No. 70, Cornhill, the registered offices of the company, was, in fact, the business office of Sir Alfred—in consequence of the excess of applications, I referred the matter to the directors of the new company, and, upon their instructions, I caused a search to be made in detail, and the result was to satisfy me that there had been other cases of excessive issue of shares over and above the authorised capital of the old company—there had been two sets of certificates in existence in relation to the same shares, and there were certified transfers in existence, showing that the same shares had been dealt with by means of certified transfers twice, and I discovered that there had been a dealing with shares which were not in the transferors' names in the books of the company at the date upon which those transferors' names appeared—Mr. Tomlinson is an example—he was a clerk in the service of Sir Alfred Kirby—according to the books of the company, he never was registered as a shareholder in the company, but, notwithstanding that, his name appeared upon transfers as the transferor of shares which he held in the company—the first instance of his name appearing in the books was as a transferor of shares which he did not possess—there was a statutory meeting of the new company held on December 22nd, when I was instructed by the shareholders and the directors to
make a fall investigation into the affairs of the Coolgardie Company, and to report the result of that investigation to them—it was a lengthered investigation, involving a very detailed and a somewhat difficult inquiry—I. entrusted the greater part of that to my son and partner, Mr. Frank Tingle—it was not completed until the middle of March, 1898—we made the discovery that there were share certificates in existence contemporaneously, which were duplicates, and which related to 18;184 shares, and in addition to those I discovered that 14,000 shares were claimed by holders whose title was derived from transfers certified by the secretary to the company—some of them had been issued with the certificates attached to them—the transferee had got the transfers and the certificates, but he had never come to the office to register them; they were in addition to the first 18,000—I found a duplication in the Coolgardie Company of 32,184—the Coolgardie Company was registered on November 14th, 1894, and the first minute is dated November 24th, 1894, which says that Mr. Doolette and Sir Alfred Kirby were invited to discuss the contract to be entered into with Mr. Arthur Kirby, and after the meeting some modifications of that agreement were discussed and agreed to—on January 10th, 1895, I find a minute in which Sir Alfred Kirby and Mr. Doolette were invited to join the board; and under the date of April 29th, 1895, I find a minute: "That the Board authorise the sealing of the agreement as between the company and Mr. Arthur Kirby," and the seal was fixed accordingly—on May 31st there was a board meeting, and there is a minute to the effect that 20,000 shares, numbered 70,001 to 90,000 were allotted to Mr. Arthur Kirby, as vendor's shares, as part payment of the purchase money payable to him under the agreement of April 29th, 1895—on July 22nd, 1895, there is a minute of another board meeting, in which it was resolved to allot 5,000 shares to Henry Carroll, 5,000 to McLaughlin, and 5,000 to Kennett—at that meeting Sir Arthur Kirby was present as director—the number of Carrol's shares were 15,398 to 20,397—McLaughlin numbers were 10,301 to 10,360 and 5,061 to 10,000, Kennett's 20,398 to 25,397—I do not know who those three people were—in the minutebook, under date of November 28th, 1895, Clifford was appointed secretary to the company—Sir Alfred Kirby was in the chair—Clifford remained secretary down to the time that I was appointed liquidator—it was in July last year that, criminal process was first issued in this matter at the Mansion House—the delay was caused because the proceedings were heard at a number of adjournments, and they were seriously interrupted by the continued illness of Sir Alfred Kirby.
Cross-examined by LORD COLKRIDGE. I have no recollection of obtaining a contract for the purpose of purchasing these mines from an Australian vendor—I do not remember investigating that contract—I had very littlp to do with Mr. Arthur Kirby's handwriting; I should not know it if I saw it.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. When I was appinted liquidator there was no clerical staff to the company—Sir Alfred had an agreement with the company by which he found office and clerical staff—Mr. Clifford had the assistance of two other clerks in Sir Alfred's office—their names are Mr. Wace and Mr. Tomlinson—I subsequently came in contact with
Mr. Clifford nearly every day—he afforded me every assistance up to a point—he was quite a young man at that time—I had known him about six months before in connection with another company of which Sir Alfred Kirby was a director—this letter, acknowledging Brown Janson's receipt by Mr. Clifford, is in Mr. Tomlinson's writing, but it is signed by Mr. Clifford—while I was liquidator no transfers were executed by the company—the directors have ceased to exists and therefor no transfers would be entered into the transferbook; no transfers could be executed after the liquidation had begun—Mr. Clifford had not got the transferbook I had it—if he got any transfers he ought to have given them to me—in October he had very little to do; in September he assisted me in sending out the notices—he had nothing to do with the company; he was entirely wrong in sending this letter to Brown, Janson and Co.—he had no authority to do anything of the kind—in September he was writing letters for me, not accepting transfers—he wrote in my name—I had two clerks of my own, at the office of the company, receiving the applications, taking any money that came in, and getting it ready for me to hand over to the new company, and sending receipts, and generally forwarding the business of the reconstruction—I should think the numbers of documents Clifford handed me would run into thousands, including transfers—I did not keep a list of them—among them he gave me documents in connection with the duplicated shares, but I did not know that they were duplicated then—those documents have assisted me to trace the duplication—Clifford handed me over a whole body of shares, and some of them related to the duplicated shares.
Re-examined. There has been no loss of any papers handed over to me by Clifford, as far as I know—Clifford had no official position in the other company of Sir Alfred Kirby; he assisted one of Sir Alfred's sons, who was secretary; that was six or seven months before the Coo Jgardie business.
FRANK TINGLE . I am the son of the last witness, and a chartered accountant, carrying on business at 110, Cannon Street—I was present at the meeting of the Kalgoorlie Company when the application of certificates was made known to the directors—directions for an investigation were given to my father—I took the allotments of the old shares and traced the shares from 1 to 150,000—I began to see to whom share No. 1 was allotted, and I ascertained to whom it was transferred, and so on to the various shares up to 150,000—that enabled me to see who were shareholders in the old company—I found that in some cases there were shares in the share registers which had not got my tick on them, which proved they were not in the 150,000 shares I was dealing with, and that shareholders had shares in their names twice, never having acquired them—I found in some instances that shareholders had shares which were not transferred—one instance was Arthur Kirby, who had transferred shares which he never held, as well as transferring shares twice over—I found that to a large extent shares had been dealt with twice over—Arthur Kirby had transferred shares without acquiring them, in several instances, and he had transferred shares which he had never held, of which he was not a registered holder—shares No. 7,001 to 90,000 were transferred to Arthur Kirby on May lst, and I find on January 16th, 1896, he transferred 2,150 of these shares, No
84,901 to 87,0.50, to Mr. Sidney John Messenger—this is the transfer (Produced)—the consideration was 5s—it purports to be executed by Mr. Arthur Kirby, and was witnessed by Mr. Bradley—I find on the transfer, "Certificate lodged, Kalgoorlie Mint and Iron King Gold Mines, Limited, January 16tb, 1896. M. J. Clifford, Secretary"—Messenger was a clerk at 70 Cornhill—the number of the certificate is 949—Messenger transferred them to other people, who dealt with them in the ordinary way on the market—the share register shows that Messenger was the jobber—between January 14th and July 3rd, 1896, I do not find that Arthur Kirby ever reacquired any shares in this particular block—share No. 84.901 was transfered to Henry Mears Marshall, who transferred it to James Bull, who held it to the date of the liquidation—on July 2nd, 1896, Arthur Kirby transferred to Messrs. Borrodaile and Capper Nos. 84,901 to 86,400—they stood in the name of Marshall in the register, and purported to be executed by Arthur Kirby, witnessed by Charles Tomlinson—the consideration is 10s., lodged on February 7th, 1896, and signed "M. J. Clirflord"—this is the transfer (Produced)—it was registered on August 12th, 1897—the certificate is numbered 2.873, signed by Arthur Pomeroy, Alfred Kirby, and M. J. Clifford—Messrs. Bi rrodaile and Capper transferred them to different persons—the total consideration shown on the transfers is £412 8s. 9d.—Arthur Kirby transferred 650 shares of the same block to a Mr. Flemming, 79,751 to 80,400—that transfer is missing; it was registered on March 5th, 1896—the books do not show the consideration; it was numbered 1,266, dated February 27th, 1896—it is signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and another director, and countersigned by Clifford—up to April 27th, 1897, Arthur Kirby never re-acquired any of that block of shares—on that date he transferred 500 shares Nos. 79,751 to 80,250 to Borrodaile and Capper—the consideration is 10s.; it is witnessed by Tomlinson—these are the words: "Certificate lodged November 13th, M. J. Clifford, C.T.—registrred on August 12th, 1897—Messrs Borrodaile transfered These same 500 shares to a Mr. Allcaid for £125—this is the transfer, dated May 12th, 1897 (Produced)—I find that Arthur Kirby transfened 650 shares of the 70,001 to 90,000 (Nos. 77,951 to 78,600) on January 14th, 1896, to Mr. Messenger—between January 14th and November 14th, 1896, Arthur Kirby never re-acquired any of that lot—on November 14th, 1896, I find that Arthur Kirby transferred 500 shares, Nos. 7*7,951 to 78,450, to Messrs Lomer and Rennie; this is the transfer (Produced), purporting to be signed by Arthur Kirby; the consideration is 10s.—it was registered on August 19th, 1897—certificate No. 3,283 was issued in respect of that lot of shares; it is signed by Arthur Pomeroy, Arthur Kirby, and counter signed "M. J. Clifford"—I produce a block of shares from Lomer and Rennie to Mr. Halstead, dated December, 9tb, 1896; the con ideration is 5s—I also produce the certificate issued in respect of those shares, numbered 2,777, signed by Alfred Kirby and another director, and countersigned by M. J. Clifford, secretary—I produce another amount of shares, from Mr. Halstead to Mr. A. C. Jay, dated January 13th, 1897; the consideration is 5s.—I also produce the certificate issued in respect of them, numbered 3,232, signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and another director, and countersigned by Mr. Clifford, secretary—on July 16th, 1897, Mr. Jay
transferred 200 of the shares to Messers. Rae and Donaldson—this is the transfer (Produced)—the consideration is £100—it bears the words, "Certificate lodged 14-7-97, M. J. Clifford"—it was registered on July 14th, 1897—I produce the certificate issued in respect of those shares, numbered 3,044, signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and another director, and countersigned "M. J. Clifford, Secretary"—on July 20th Mr. Jay transferred the remaining shares, 17,151 to 78,450, to Mr. K. Christopherson—I produce the transfer, dated 20-7-97—it sho ws a consideration of £128 2s. 6d., and has the words, "Certificate lodged 14-7-97, M. J. Clifford"—it was registered on August 5th, 1897—I produce the certificate issued in respect of those shares, 2,081, dated August 5th, 1897, signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and another director, and countersigned by Mr. Clifford as secretary—on the liquidation of the company I found twosets of persons claiming these shares—the newcompany isstillio existence; it has not paid any dividend yet—in some cases both the old shareholders and the new got their shares, because we did not know of it at the time—I find that on February 12th, 1896, Arthur Kirby transferred 800 shares of block 70,201 to 71.000 to Cooper and Janson—I produce the transfer, which purports to be executed by Arthur Kirby—the consideration is 10s. registered on March 26th, 1696—it does not bear the words, "Certificate lodged"—I produce the certificate issued in respect of those shares, No. 1,034, dated March 26th, 1896, signed by two directors and countersigned by Mr. Clifford as secretary—Sir Alfred Kirby was not ooe of those directors—between February 12th, 1896 and April 14th, 1896, I do not find that Arthur Kirby ever re-acquired any of those 800 shares—on April 14th I find that he transferred 500 of them, Nos. 70,201 to 70,700—to Mr. Jay—I produce the transfer, dated April 14th, 1896; it purports to be executed by Arthur Kirby in favour of A. E Jay for a consideration of 10s., witnessed by Charles Tomlinson, and has the words, "Certificate lodged March 19th, 1896. M. J. Clifford, Secretary"—the transfer was registered on April 17th, 1896; the certificate issued in respect of that transfer is dated April. 17th, 1896; it is signed by Sir Arthur Kirby and another director, and countersigned by Mr. Cliford, secretary—I find that subsequently Mr. Jay transferred all those 500 shares to various persons—I produce the certificates for those transfers: the total consideration is £479 13s. 9d.; they are all signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and one of the directors, and countersigned by Mr. Clifford.
ERNEST OXLEY . I am a clerk in the London and South-Western Bank, Finsbury Park Branch—Clifford had an account there during 1896 and 1897; it closed on August 21st, 1897; it was opened on July 2nd, 1896—I have examined this copy (Produced) with the books of the bank, and find it correct.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. It opened with £35 18s. 3d.—we balance our books quarterly—the balance at the end of the first quarter was £19 13s. 5d. j the next quarter he had £1 16s. 11d.; in March, 1897, £5 16s. 10d.; and the next, £1 10s. 10d.—the balance left in the bank was 1s. 2d., which has been taken by the bank for charges.
Re-examined. During July and August, 1896, £638 was paid in; and from January 1st to August 25th £79 17s. 7d. was paid in; roughly speaking, for the whole year, £1,239 2s. 8d.
Friday, June 30th.
HUGH CHARLES BROWN . I am a clerk in the employment of the London and City Bank, which was formerly called the London and Midland Bank—Sir Alfred Kirby was our customer—I produce an examined copy of his account from July 22nd, 1896, to August 31st, 1897—it has been examined with the books of the bank which are in use—I certify it to be correct—Arthur Kirby was also a customer—I produce an examined copy of his banking account from January 1st, 1896 to January 4th, 1897—this copy has been examined with the bank books, which are still in the care and custody of the bank.
CHARLES HENRY SCANNALL . I am a clerk at MacFaddyen's Bank, Winchester House, Old Broad Street—Sir Alfred Kirby was a customer—I produce an examined copy of his account from July 23rd, 1896, to August 31st, 1897; the copy has been examined with the bank books, which are still in the use and custody of the bank—we make returns to Somerset House.
FRANK TINGLE (Re-examined). In the minute book, under date, January 16th, 1896,1 find certificate 949, dated January 14th, in favour of Mr. Sidney John Messenger, was passed by the board—to the best of my belief, the minute is in Clifford's writing: "Resolved, that certificates 943 to 950 be signed, sealed and issued"—under date August 12th, 1897,1 find certificate 2,873 was issued to Borrodaile and Capper—that entry is in Clifford's writing—share certificates,.84,901 to 87,051, were transferred to Sidney John Messenger—I find that at a subsequent date Arthur Kirby transferred 1,000 shares, Nos. 84,901 to 85,900, to the London and Union Trust and Agency, Ltd.—the transfer purports to be executed by Arthur Kirby, and witnessed by Charles Tomlinson—it bears the words, "Certificate lodged 5-11-96. M. J. Clifford"—it is signed by Clifford—the other transfers are signed by Clifford, where the signature is "M. J. Clifford"—certificate No. 2,175 was issued in respect of those shares to Borrodaile and Capper—the London Unipn Trust and Agency, Limited, held those shares at the date of liquidation of the old company—I prepared this abstract (exhibit 31) from the same source of information as I prepared the other abstracts—I find that on May 13th, 1896, 950 shares, Nos. 75,001 to 75,951 were transferred to Messenger; I produce the transfer dated May 13th, 1896—it purports to be executed by Arthur Kirby for the consideration of 5s., and bears the words, "The certificate lodged 13/5/96, M. J, Clifford," in Clifford's writing—I do not think the certificate was ever issued—the shares were dealt with by Mr. Messenger as though there had been a certificate—at the date of liquidation of the old company there were persons on the register who derived their title from Arthur Kirby—between May, 1896, and February 2nd, 1897, Arthur Kirby had not re-acquired any of those 950 shares; but on February 2nd, 1897, I find he transferred 300, Nos 71,351 to 71,650, to the London Union Trust and Agency, Limited, for a consideration of 10s.—this transfer (exhibit 32) purports to be executed by Arthur Kirby, whose signature is witnessed by Charles Tomlinson—it states, "Certificate lodged"—the transfer was registered on March loth, 1897—a certificate was issued in respect of those 950 shares to the London Union Trust and Agency, Limited, No. 2,479—at the time of liquidation of the old company that Agency was on the register in
respect of those shares—I prepared this abstract (33)—the shares allotted to Carroll and McLaughlin are Nos. 20,393 to 20,397—between November, 1895, and November, 1896, Carroll transferred all his shares to various persons, with 2 exceptions; a block of 200 shares and a block of 5 shares, which are shown on exhibit 36—I produce a bundle of those transfers purporting to be executed by Carroll—the consideration appearing on the face of those shares is £3,120 6s. 3d.—this bundle contains the certificates issued in respeot of these shares in most cases; in most cases they are signed by Sir Alfred Kirby as a director, and countersigned by Clifford as secretary'—between November, 1895, and June, 1896, I find that McLaughlin transferred all his shares, except 6,061 to 6,410 and 8,561 to 9,060, to various persons—the total consideration shown on the face of the transfers is £2,370 12s. 6d.—this bundle (exhibit 35) contains the transfers by McLaughlin; it contains the certificates issued in respect of the transfers, and the transfers all purport to be executed by McLaughlin—the certificates in most cases are signed by Sir Alfred Kirby as a director, and countersigned by Clifford as secretary—this is a transfer, dated July 14th. 1896, of shares No 7,061 to 8,060 to Mr. Baker; it purports to have been executed by McLaughlin, and shows a consideration on the face of it of £1,750—it bears the words, "Certificate lodged, M. J. Clifford, C.T., July 14th, 1896"—the transfer is registered on July 23rd, 1896—the certificate was issued to Mr. Baker in respect of those shares; it is not signed by Sir Alfred Kirby, but it is countersigned by Mr. Clifford—it is the same number as the share referred to in Arthur Kirby's affidavit—abstracts 36 and 37 show the dealing by McLaughlin and Carroll with their lots of shares; they were prepared from the same source—I produce a transfer, dated October 31st, 1895 (exhibit No. 78), by which Carroll transferred all his shares to Brown, Janson and Co.; it includes the same numbers to which I have been speaking in exhibits 36 and 37—he conveyed the 205 also—he conveyed the whole 5,000 shares to Brown, Janson and Co. on October 13tn, 1895—Attached to the transfer is the certificate issued to Carroll—I produce a similar transfer of all his shares to Brown, Jansen and Co. by McLaughlin on October 30th, 1895—one t ransfer purports to be executed by McLaughlin, and the other by Carroll—these transfers have never been registered—they were subsequently brought to my father's notice at the time of the liquidation—an application was made by Brown, Janson and Co. to register them—I find on October 30th, 1896, McLaughlin transferred 1,000 shares, Nos 5,061 to 6,060, to Messrs. Woolner and Jones for 5s.—this synopsis represents the dealings with these shares—exhibit 44 shows that the shares transferred to Messrs. Woolner and Jones, and which are in the bundle of transfers to McLaughlin, were transferred to Mr. Smith—the details in connection with that are shown correctly on exhibit 44—the transfer to Smith is by Arthur Kirby—I do not find that Arthur Kirby ever acquired those particular shares in any way—this is the certificate (39) which was issued—the transfers and certificates dealing with these shares are exhibits 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 44—the certificates are all. signed "Alfred Kirby,'* and countersigned "M. J. Clifford"—abstract 51 shows a transfer to Cooper and Greig; the next transfer its by Cooper and Greig to Arthur Kirby, 500 shares; then by Arthur
Kirby of pare of thorn to A. D. Chainey, and of the remainder to Borrodaile and Capper—the abstract 51 correctly gives the details in connection with those transfers—Kennett transfers to Cooper and Greig. and they convey the same shares to Arthur Kirby, who got them back again, and then he transfers to Chainey, Borrodaile, and Capper—in the next transfer he transfers the same 300 which had gone to Chainey to Borrodaile and Capper—I produce the transfers and certificates in respect of those share, Nos. 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. and 50—the transfers to Chainey and Borrodaile and Capper purport to be executed by Arthur Kirby—the transfer by Kennett is signed by Clifford—one is signed by Sir Alfred Kirby—the transfer to Borrodaile and Capper is signed by "Clifford, C.T."—I do not find that Arthur Kirby re-acquired any of those shares between the date—of the transfer to Chainey and the date of the transfer to Borrodaile and Capper—this abstract shows a transfer by Kennett to Dorsay of 1,000 shares, by Tomlinson to Marshall of 500 of the same shares, and by Marshall to various persons, for consideration, which is shown on the abstract—all the details with regard to those transactions are given in the same way on this abstract—I did not find anything to show that Tomlinson ever acquired those shares—I produce the transfers and certificates in respect of those shares (exhibits 52 to 58)—exhibits 52, 54, and 56 bear the words, "Certificate lodged. M.J. Clifford"—in most cases the certificates are signed by Sir Alfred Kirby and countersigned by Clifford—I find that 18,184 shares have been duplicated; that certificates were actually issued by the company in respect of that number of shares, and that number does not include shares which were deposited with persons who subsequently failed to register those shares—there is a considerable number of such cases—an example of that is the shares transferred to Brown, Janson and Co.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I had no previous knowledge of. The affairs of the company till I was appointed, with my father, to assist in this investigation—so soon as I had made that arrangement, the whole books and papers of the company were placed at my disposal, and I have had an opportunity of going through all the books which were used by the officers of the company in connection with their accounts—I believe the first secretary appointed by the company was Mr. Wright—the minute says that at the first meeting Mr. R. S. Wright was appointed secretary pro tem.—that is on November 24th, 1894—the only books I have examined relate to the bhare transactions of the company—I have not seen the ordinary ledgers of the company—from the share, books in my possession I should be able to adequately and accurately show what shares had been issued without certificates in the first instance—I have not done so; it was hot necessary—I should not be able to know by glancing at those books what shares had been issued with blank transfers—I did not discover among the company's papers any list or entry in any book giving an accurate account of shares issued in the first instance with blank transfers—my knowledge is limited to the sharesbooks, and not to the general books of the company—I had not been assisting my father in the liquidation before discovery of the duplication—I first took pari in the liquidation on December 7th, I think—from that moment I devoted myself entirely to the investigation
of the company's books and shares—it took me about three months to make a thorough investigation, working every day and for very long hours—I had the assistance of three clerks from our own firm—I met neither of the defendants, nor Tomlinson—I think the matters I had to investigate were of the most complicated character—each of the certificates was signed by two directors—in half the instances of which I have given evidence the first signature is that of a director other than Sir Alfred Kirby, I think—I believe each of the transfers was properly recorded in the minutes as having been properly passed by the directors; I have not checked every one, but I have been through a great number—I have not looked for an instance where it was not so—I have not examined whether the transactions were properly recorded in the minutes; it was not necessary for ray purpose, but in my general experience it is so.
Re-examined. From the date of his appointment Clifford appears to have kept the minute-book, and to have made all the entries in it.
HENRY CARROLL . I am an accountant, of 16, Tokenhouse Yard—I had a conversation with Arthur Kirby just before the allotment of shares in the Coolgardie Co—to the best of my belief, it was Arthur Kirby—he asked me if I would have a few shares put in my name—I objected at first, afterwards I consented—he did not give me any numbers of shares—I understood them to be a small quantity—after that I frequently saw Arthur Kirby and Clifford—they came in relation to the execution of transfers of these shares—Iasked Clifford if the transfer was in order, and he assured me it was, and I asked Arthur Kirby the same thing when he came, and he gave me the same assurance—I asked them both, "Now, is this transfer in order?"—on one occasion I said to Clifford, "I am signing these transfers, and I think it would be as well if I kept the registered numbers"—he replied, "That is quite unnecessary; the things are all in order"—the numbers were attached to the transfer—no transferees were named in the transfers brought—I am not sure if the consideration money was in—I never received 6d.—I did not pay for them or receive them—I understood I was the nominee of Arthur Kirby—I executed a number of transfers in this way—I remember the transfer executed by me to Brown, Janson and Co.—that was an instance in which the transferees names were in the transfer—that was exceptional, and, I believe, before Clifford was secretary to the company—I saw that the number of shares on the transfer was 5,000, and T told Mr. Kirby that I was not aware of such a large number of shares in my name—he said, "Oh! that is all right; you are my nominee"—I do not know what the object of having nominees is—I never borrowed any money on these shares—I did not regard them as mine to deal with, and I left the dealing with them entirely to their raal owner, Arthur Kirby—I had no idea what was being done with my shares—I did not know they had been hypothecated to anyone for the purpose of raising money—I read in the Financial News the report of an action brought by the old Coolgardie Company against Dane's Discount Bank, about September, 1896, I think—in that report was some reference to myself and to Arthur Kirby, saying I was his trustee for 1,000 shares in the Coolgardie then—that was evidence given by Arthur Kirby—next time I saw Arthur Kirby I said, "I was surprised to read that report in the Financial News; you stated that I
was your trustee for 1,000 shares"—he remarked, "Oh! that is all right; you need not trouble about that"—I said I felt a little annoyed at my name being introduced into the case, and he mentioned something about my having some consideration for having acted as I had—I never received 6d.—in 1895, 1896, and 1897, as transfers were brought in from time to time by those three persons, I went on executing them—the last were brought to me for execution in July and August, 1897; that was the balance of the shares—Clifford brought them—he said, "That now closes up your account; that is the balance of the shares standing in your name"—he mentioned the balance was about 600 or 700 shares, or whatever it was—I executed the transfer in blank—I heard no more in relation to the shares until publicity was given by this case—I know Hubert McLaughlin—he is not in England now; he has a post in Constantinople—I know his writing well—these transfers in bundle 35 are in his writing, to the best of my belief, and so is this transfer (exhibit 78) to Brown, Janson and Co.—this is the transfer of 5,000 I executed to Brown, Janson and Co.—I know Arthur Kirby's writing—exhibits 4 9, 12, 23, and 49 bear his writing.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. The first time the matter was mentioned to me was at th; beginning of 1895—Clifford was not then associated with the company at all—it was after 1 had signed transfers brought by Clifford that I said I thought he should keep a register of the numbers—I cannot say if I had at that time signed transfers amount ing to nearly £18,000—I only signed 1 or 2 after that—I had had transfers brought to me before I saw Clifford; the transfer of 5,000 to Brown, Jaason and Co. was brought to me before Clifford appeared on the scene—that was the first transfer I signed, I believe—I cannot remember any others, but there may have been several.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I signed these transfers, but I always asked whether they were in order—I entirely trusted Clifford and the other secretaries, as being honest people—I was not aware I had signed twice over transfers with the same numbers; I kept no register of the numbers, so how was I to know?—I was a mere nominee—I had no access to the books—unless I had kept in an account-book, or something of the kind, a careful entry of the numbers of the shares that I had transferred, I had no means of ascertaining whether I was transferring them over again—when I saw my name in the paper as being trustee of a number of shares I did not go to Arthur Kirby and complain, nor did I go to Mr. Lakeman—I did not suggest it was rather hard I should have to be put in the position of trustee for the shares without receiving anything out of it.
WILLIAM JAMES RAWLINS . I am managing clerk to Brown, Janson and Co.—I produce a copy of Arthur Kirby's account with us from January, 1896, certified under the Bankers' Evidence Act—the book from which it is taken is one of the ordinary books of the bank, and is in the custody of the bank now—it is correct.
GEORGE PHILLIP DOOLETTE . I am a financial agent, of 9, St. Mildred's Courtin October, 1894, I was the agent of the Coolgardie Exploration and Prospecting Company of Western Australia—at that time I had for disposal, on that company's behalf, 2 mining properties, called the Royal
Mint and Iron King, and I entered into negotiations with Sir Alfred Kirby for the sale of those properties—I first discussed the particulars of sale with Sir Alfred Kirby and his solicitor, Mr. Bradley—eventually we came to terms, which were embodied in his written agreement, dated October 13th, 1894, between myself, as the agent, and Arthur Kirby, who was his father's nominee, as Sir Alfred Kirby was desirous of going on the board of the new company that was to be formed for the purpose of taking over these properties—it was after Sir Alfred Kirby had made that statement to me that I first saw Arthur Kirby—Sir Alfred and I were present when the agreement was executed.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I had no negotiations with Arthur Kirby; they were all with his father—Arthur Kirby was a mere nominee—there was no preliminary contract, so far as I remember—I signed the contract for sale as the attorney for the Coolgardie Company, and Arthur Kirby signed it as his father's nominee—Sir Alfred asked that a nominee should execute it instead of himself—the agreement is signed "Arthur Kirby, by his Attorney, Alfred Kirby," so that Sir Alfred signed for hi son.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I was not brought into contact with Clifford at all.
STEWART HERMANN PRELL . I am a merchant, at 72, Bishopsgate With in—I was a director of the Coolgardie Mint and Iron King Mining Company from the beginning of the company to its reconstruction—I was present at the meeting of May 31st, 1895, when 20,000 shares were allotted to Arthur Kirby; I signed the minutes—I was present at the meeting of July 22nd, 1895, when 5,000 shares were allotted to Henry Carroll, 5,000 to Joseph Eenry Kennett, 5,000 to Hubert McLaughlin, and 3,000 to William James Bradley—I allotted those because the certificate was drawn up in the certificate-book, and we were instructed by the solicitor that it was in accordance with the contract that they should be allotted, I believe—I should say they were allotted at Arthur Kirby's request—our custom as to the registration of the transfers and issue of new certificates was that one director took the transfer-book, another the certificate, and another the certificate-book, and called over to each othe the numbers of the shares in the transfers—when issuing new certificates in place of old ones, the old certificate had to be put on the table of the board-room, marked "cancelled," with a stamp—that was not always done; sometimes we were assured by the secretary (Mr. Lakeman) or Mr. Clifford the certificate was in the outer office—Clifford gave us that assurance—I frequently asked about the company's books—I was generally told they were not completed, owing to the absence of accounts from Australia, but that they were being written up—sometimes the secretary told me that, sometimes the solicitor—to my knowledge, no certificate was ever signed or sealed without the transfer being certified—it was Clifford's duty, as secretary, to certify the transfers—I do not think an auditor was called in till just before the reconstruction, when Messrs. Tingle and Co. were called in—I asked the secretary what they were doing, and if the books were complete, after they were called in, and he said they were making up the accounts; they could not be quite completed by the reconstruction meeting, because there were certain papers not to
hand from Australia—if a man got a transfer signed from one man to another, he would bring it to the company's office, and bring the certificate of those shares purported to be transferred to him, and the secretary would take that certificate into the office, stamp the transfer, certify the scrip, and then the bearer would probably leave the transfer there for his new certificate to be made out, which could not be done until the board met again.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I became a director of the company when it went to allotment—R. S. Wright was the secretary; he continued to be so for about three months—Richard Lakeman was then appointed in his place, and he continued till Clifford came on the scene—Clifford was introduced by Mr. Bradley, who at that time took a rather prominent part in the company's affairs—he arranged the first advance with Brown, Janson and Co.—when Clifford was appointed secretary his position was naturally subordinate to Mr. Bradley, who was solicitor to the company—we paid Alfred Kirby so much for managing the office and secretarial duty, and he put Clifford there under Mr. Bradley's advice, I suppose—I should say that at that time Mr. Bradley was taking a rather more prominent part in the company's affairs than a solicitor usually does, and was something more than a solicitor—he superintended the purchase of the shares of the Bank of Adelaide—he attended all the directors' meetings at first, certainly; and, apart from questions of law, he took a prominent part—at that time it was apparent Clifford was a very young man; I thought he was altogether incompetent—it occurred to me that Clifford relied to a great extent for advice on Mr. Bradley—Clifford and Lakeman were not there together—Lakeman left when Clifford was appointed; I never saw him after that—I do not know that Lakeman continued to conduct the company's business after Clifford was appointed, or that he kept the share list—I know Mr. Waoe remained on and assisted; I used to see him in the office—I don't know who kept the transfer-book; someone did—in addition to Mr. Bradley, there was, at any rate, Mr. Wace to assist Clifford in carrying out his duties—but for the fact that Clifford had that assistance, I should not consider him competent to discharge his duty as secretary.
Re-examined. Mr. Wace was another employe* of Sir Alfred Kirby, presumably—he used to sit on a stool just inside the door of his office—I spoke to Mr. Pomeroy about Clifford's inoompetence; to no one else—it was a matter of discussion between me and Mr. Pomeroy.
PERCY ELMORE . I am a cashier, employed by the London and District Bank, 58, Old Broad Street—Mr. Capper is manager, and Mr. Borrodaile a director of that bank—in February, 1896, there was a discussion, in which Arthur Kirby took part, as to our bank advancing money on some Coolgardie shares—I was not present—Arthur Kirby was in negotiation to obtain a loan on the deposit of some shares of the Coolgardie Company—consequent on that, this agreement was entered into, dated February 8th, 1896—I should say this was Arthur Kirby's signature to the agreement. (This woe an agreement to accept a transfer of the company's shares, value £1,500, in consideration of an advance of £500.) £500 was advanced on the security of the shares in the schedule—at that time our bank was called the London and Discount Bank; it
afterwards became the London and District Bank—exhibit 4 was then deposited with the bank by way of collateral security for the advance of £500—the deposit was made on the date of granting the loan—this letter (exhibit 82) is signed by Arthur Kirby. (This was to the effect that in consideration of the bank advancing £500 on the security of 1,500 Coolgardie Mint and iron King shares, and £400 on 1,000 Stray Shot shares, Kirby stated that the shares were unrestricted, and could be registered by them in his name immediately such registration became necessary under the agreement for thejormer advance of £500 on the same security.) As a consequence of that request, on July 3rd a further sum of £900 was advanced to Arthur Kirby by the bank, and the memorandum produced was added to the agreement, which was resigned by Arthur Kirby. (This wis to the effect that in consideration of the bank advancing him a further sum of £900 on the above security, together to the the deposit of 1,000 Stray Shot shares, fully paid, he agreed to repay the same as and wlten the loan of £500 became payable, and subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.) I produce (exhibit 83) a copy of one of the ordinary securities books in use at the time—it is 'correct—under certificates 9 and 49 the account shows those 2 advances, and a further deposit of 500 Coolgardie shares in December, 1896—on transfer (exhibit 49) the number of shares is 500, Nos. 22,698 to 23,197—they were further deposited by Arthur Kirby in respect of that original advance—the deposited transfers are in blank—the money so lent to Arthur Kirby was not repaid, and in consequence we had to realise the security—towards the time of the realisation we sold some of these Coolgardie shares—we sold in all £593 14s., and the sums so realised were placed to the credit of Arthur Kirby's account at the bank—these 500 Coolgardie Mint and Iron King shares were also deposited with the bank in December for the purpose of securing the loan, and part of the security realised afterwards was by the sale of those shares—firstly, there was the transfer in blank deposited with Arthur Kirby; and secondly, there was the transfer executed by my principals—that completes all the transactions—in the aggregate a sum of close on £600 was realised by the sale of those shares—I saw no one in connection with those transactions but Arthur Kirby, until after default was made; he was the person to whom the loans were made, and he deposited the shares as security.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I do not know whether Arthur Kirby was present at the discussion in February, 1896, but our books show a discussion took place—the books do not show that Mr. Bradley had anything to do with it—I was not present—discussion would naturally take place before a loan would be granted.
Re-examined. I was present, and saw the document of July 3rd, 1896, signed by Arthur Kirby.
By LORD COLERIDGE. Our manager, Arthur Kirby, and myself were present, and, I believe, another gentleman, a friend of Kirby's; I do not know who he was.
FRANK TINGLE (Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE). I have had no documentary writing of Arthur Kirby except his signature, so far as I remember—all I have are his signatures to certain documents—I have not got a power of attorney given by Arthur Kirby to his father, nor have
I seen it; I believe it was put in at the Mansion House—if certificates or transfers are sent out in duplicate, the day must inevitably arrive when those shares must be eventually presented for registration, and when probably the company will be called on either to pay twice over or to repudiate one or other of the duplicates—anybody cognisant of business would know that—the new company was reconstructed with the same number of shares, and an invitation was given to all old shareholders to become shareholders in the new company; that was inviting discovery that there were duplicates—if those duplicates existed it would not be a prudent course to issue a new company without a further issue of shares—we saw no list of duplicates drawn up when suspicion arose that duplicates had been issued, whether by mistake or otherwise—it would have been a prudent thing to have issued a new company with a larger number of shares, and have reserved some of those shares to meet the duplicates; but it would not get over the difficulty, because the original capital was £150,000, and therefore you have only to meet £150,000 in the reconstructed company—it would be wise, if you had the opportunity, to issue a new company with a capital of £180,000 inatead of £150,000, and reserve £30,000 to issue against the duplicates that had been already issued; that would be a way out of the difficulty, and conceal the fraud—I saw Arthur Kirby's share account and the ledger account, which is a very muddled account—Arthur Kirby would have nothing to do with those entries in the company's books—they do not run in sequence of dates—the ledger account, when it is carefully scrutinised, shows the issue of duplicate shares—I was 3 months investigating these accounts; they gave me a good deal of trouble—I have no reason for thinking that blank transfers were not executed; we have heard that Mr. Elmore had a blank transfer—I believe it is a usual way of doing business—it is a common practice to deposit blocks of shares, without the name of any transferee with various persons, brokers for instance, who hold the shares, and await a favourable moment for selling them—in some cases a long interval may elapse before the favourable time comes—transfers in this case have been put a good long time before they were registered—on the registration you see in the books who are the owners of the shares—Mr. Messenger got a call on 50,000 shares, I believe; I do not think there is any documentary evidence of that at all—I should not find it by any entry in the book; it would not affect the company—it would be only when the shares were realised that Messenger would appear on the books as the certified holder of the shares—I cannot say whether he had a blank transfer up to that time—I cannot say if on May 25th, 1895, Messenger had a blank transfer of 50,000 shares—Messenger, according to the register, held no shares till August, 1895—if he had a blank transfer of 50,000 shares in May, and he registered some of them in August, the first entry in the books would be the registration—nothing would appear in the books about the blank transfer—the transfer would be produced (for the purpose of registration—the shares (Produced) were transferred to Messenger on August 17th 1895—the first large block was of these 5,000 shares, according to this book, that Messenger got from Arthur Kirby—that was January 14th,. 1896, I think—I cannot say that was the first transfer to Messenger—the date of the transfer is very often the date of registration—I do not know
that Messenger had a large block of shares transferred to him as far back as May, 1895; I cannot say one way or the other—it would not go in the books at all—the date in the books would be that of the registration—there was no transfer for so large a number as that, not in one line—Messenger would have a separate transfer for each one he registered—he had 1,000 shares transferred to him in a block, and having sold 100, he came to register 100—he would produce the transfer for 1,000, and he would be certified as holding 1,000; the 100 would be registered and transferred out of the 1,000—supposing he had a call on 50,000 shares, he would have a right to demand at any moment a blank transfer of 100, 200, or 300—in speaking of the books, I was only talking of "share" books—I presume they start from the allotment—I should have the allotment-book—the first shares were allotted on November 24th, 1894, and that would be when these books would start—Arthur Kirby would beentitled, prima facie, to £13,000 in meal or malt.
Re-examined. The old company went into voluntary liquidation, and there was a reconstruction—the new company had a different board to the old company; on the board of the new company were 2 directors (Sir Alf.'ed Kirby and Mr. Pomeroy) who had belonged to the old company's board—the 3 new directors were Johnson, De Rose, and Tweedy—a condition was inserted that the directors of the new company were to receive shares in the new company at 6s. 6d. paid—that condition in the agreement led ta the investigation which was followed by the discovery.
JOHN WHITTAKER COOPER . I am one of the firm of Brown, Janson and Co. bankers, of Abchurch Lane—T produce a copy, duly certified under the Bankers' Evidence Act, of Arthur Kirby's account with us; it is headed "Stray Shot Account," beginning 1892—it is taken from the ordinary books of the bank which are in use there—I have examined it and certify it to be correct—under date November 24th, 1896, I find an entry in the account that we discounted bills amounting to £6.000 for Arthur Kirby to meet an overdue promissory note of about £5,000—we took as security for that advance 5,000 Stray Shot shares and 10,000 Coolgardie Mint and Iron King shares—those shares had been in our possession since 1895, and they formed part of the security for the loan of £6,000, which appears in our books under date November 21th, 1896—I also produce another account of Arthur Kirby, from January 1st, 1896, to August 14th, 1897—it is a duly certified account—it shows that on February 11th, 1897, we discounted bills for Arthur Kirby to the amount of £4,600—the securities are enumerated in Lloyd's underwriting policies; amongst them are 2,850 Coolgardie Mint and Iron shares, Nos. 70,201 to 71,000, and 89,020 to 89,069; and 2,000 shares, Nos. 18,898 to 19,897, and 7,061 to 8,060—we sent the transfer of the 2,850 shares to the company on October 13th, 1897, I believe—we received this receipt for those shares—this is transfer by Arthur Kirby to our firm of 800 shares, Nos. 70,201 to 71,000—this is a transfer by Mr. Kenett to our firm of 2,000 share, Nos. 21,697 to 23,697—exhibit 46 is a certificate that was issued to us in respect of those shares—at the time we took these transfers we considered they were in respect of valid shares.
Crossexamined by LORD COLERIDGE. The first dealing we had in this matter was a dealing on the footing of the transfer or deposit of 10,000
shares—10,000 shares, 5,000 belonging to McLaughlin and 5,000 to Carroll, or in their names, were deposited with us in September, 1895, in respect of a loan of £12,000—I believe we got a deposit of 20,000 shares for the loan of £12,000—I cannot tell you if of those 5,000 were in Bradley's name, 5,000 in McLaughlin's, and 3,000 in Bradley's; the books would tell; they are not here—I cannot be positive whom I saw with reference to that first transaction; I think it was Mr. Bradley—I do not think it was Arthur Kirby—I do not say he may not have come, but he did not transact the business—part of that loan was paid off in November, 1895, by the sale of 10,000 of those shares—£10,000 was the first loan we made in May, 1395—I think it is very likely that when we made that loan of £10,000 those 20,000 shares were deposited, I feel pretty certain they were—there was a Lloyd's policy also by way of security—I believe that the 20,000 shares, or a great many of them, belonged to Carroll and McLaughlin, but I am not perfectly certain—£10,000 was the whole amount of the loan—after that there was another loan of £12,000, when the £10,000 loan was paid off, about September 25th, 1895—I cannot say that Mr. Bradley told me that those 20,000 shares were Arthur Kirby's shares, as vendor; I have always understood them to be so, but who told me I don't know; it was what was represented to me—I think I saw others than Mr. Bradley in the transaction; I think Sir Alfred Kirby was there—I do not say Mr. Bradley told me at the original transaction that the shares were Arthur Kirby's, as vendor; I understood it—I cannot say if I saw anyone else—I cannot say if Arthur Kirby or his father was there; I have no remembrance of it; it is a long time ago, and I interview 20 or 30 people every day—the £10,000 loan was paid off; no part remains unpaid—I believe it was paid off by the sale of 10,000 of these shares; we did not sell them—they were taken up out of our hands by a cheque—I don't know if they were sold or not; he may have got an advance on them—interest and so on was paid—I think we got £9,000, and £1,000 remained unpaid, and was renewed—I said before the Magistrate, "I don't think any part of that original loan remains unpaid; no part remains unpaid"—I thought so, but you are asking me that which I cannot tell—I am only following our books as best I can—I believe it was paid—when it was paid we had no right to retain the other 10,000 shares; they ought to have been handed back, and they would have been if they had been demanded; they were not asked for—it did not escape our attention—the 10,000 shares we retained were in the names of Carroll and McLaughlin; we had been told they were Arthur Kirby's vendor's shares—we have not yet given them up; we have them now—I cannot say if we brought the fact of our possessing those 10,000 shares to anybody's attention till this investigation began; I don't remember our giving any notice at all—those 10,000 shares were quite distinct from the 2,850, shares which were deposited as partial security for the £4,600 advance—I saw Mr. Bradley, Mr. Fleming, and Arthur Kirby about the £6,000 loan—I think I only saw Arthur Kirby about it once, when the transaction was completed; that was after negotiations bad gone on, before the ultimate contract was arrived it—Mr. Fleming and Mr. Bradley conducted the negotiations—Arthur Kirby's signature was essential to the performance of the contract; I do not think he
took any part in it except putting his hand to the cheque and the bill—I don't think I knew whether the money so raised went to the company or not; I knew it did not go to Mr. Arthur Kirby—I do not remember the £4,600 transaction at all—the £6,000 transaction is impressed on my mind by the fact that I refused it at first, and Mr. Fleming came and asked me to do it, and pressed me, and on that account I did it—Mr. Fleming is a friend of mine; he is an underwriter—I can answer nothing about the £4,600 further than that we made the loan—I should think it was the same sort of thing as the £6,000 loan, and had the same relative features—Sir Alfred Kirby was not, to our knowledge, at that time a man of great wealth—he was well known to us—I had known him a good many years—I knew then he was no longer a man of wealth—I had had banking transactions with him for a good many years—I knew Arthur Kirby was his son.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I do not think we were the company's bankers—I do not think we had an account with them then; I am not quite sure of that—it was not in our capacity of bankers that in the first instance the 20,000 shares were brought to us to secure us for the loan—I have had that name before me so often I cannot tell whether we had the account or not—all the original transactions were carried out with Mr. Bradley—from first to last I had nothing to do with Clifford, I think; I should not know him—I should think the deposit of 20,000 shares was by Bradley—I think Stonham and Messenger paid off the first loan of £10,000—I did not know at that time that they were acting as brokers to the company—at the last account I knew it—I believe Mr. Bradley negotiated all the loans—I cannot tell who paid off the second loan; I think it was paid off—the £6,000 loan is not paid off yet—we retained the 10,000 shares for the £12,000 loan, and we also retained them for the £6,000 loan after—the other was paid—the 10,000 shares were retained in the case of each loan, and never parted with—it was not likely that we should notice that 2,000 of the 10,000 shares were duplicates; not suspecting anything, we should not look to see—it never entered our heads to look at the numbers—it had never happened to us before.
Re-examined. The first loan was £10,000, on a deposit of 20,000 shares, in May, 1895—it seems by this memorandum that £9,000 Was repaid, leaving a balance of £1,000—originally I think the whole £10,000 was paid off—our accountant, Mr. Rawlins, will tell you—it has all been discharged now; but in September, 1895, £1,000 was outstanding on that loan, according to my memorandum—on September 25th, 1895, we made a fresh loan of £12,000 on what amounted to be a redeposit of those 20,000 shares, because they remained in our hands, among other securities—I think the whole £10,000, the first loan, was paid off at maturity on October 15th, 1895—I do not think that by September 28th £22,000 had been advanced—the loan of £10,000 was paid off—a fresh loan of £12,000 was made on the remaining part of the 20,000 shares—£4,000 of that was repaid in December, 1895, and the balance of £8,00 remained owing down to November, 1896, the date of the loan of £6,000—£6,000 is now due—the shares deposited in September, 1895, for the loan of £12,000 remained with us down to November, 1896, as security for £6,000—there were a great many alterations down to November 24th
1896—when the £6,000 loan was made, according to our books, £5,000 of the original bill remained unpaid at that date—the £8,000 balance had been reduced to£5,000, and that£5,000 was met by a loan from us to Arthur Kirby on November 24th—I do not think a cheque was drawn for £5,000; I think it was credited to the account, and he drew out £1,000—Arthur Kirby drew 2 cheques for the difference between the £5,000 and £6,000 about that time—these 10,000 shares were redeposited as security for that fresh loan, with a fresh underwriting letter—the loans of £10,000, £12,000, and £6,000 were in our books under the name "Arthur Kirby's Stray Shot Account"—the Stray Shot was a company of which Sir Alfred Kirby was director, and in which Arthur Kirby was interested—I think it was for the purposes of that company that this money, or the balance of it, was required and used at that date, so far as I know—for the loan of £4,600, on February 11th, 1897, 2,850 of the same old shares were deposited, it appears—we did not notice it, or objection would have been taken—we tried to realize the shares—we sold more shares of the new company against our holding of the old shares, and had to bring them in again, because we could not deal in them—we made money over it—we expected to get shares in the new company for the old shares, and we sold shares in the new company, and then could not get them delivered—on October 12th we sent in our certificates and transfers for the purpose of registration, with a view of getting share per share under the reconstruction agreement; the company agreed to give us the shares—they made us a conditional offer, that we should take them up in the same way as other people did, that is, by paying 3s. 4d., to make them fully paid—at this time I feel sure we were not the bankers of the Coolgardie Company—this seems to be a prospectus of the company, with Prescott Dimsdale and Co. as bankers—it is quite possible they had an account with us.
Monday, July 3rd.
HICKS BEACH . I am a clerk in the Central Office of the Royal Courts. of Justice; I produce an affidavit of September 15th, 1896, filed by Arthur Kirby. (1)Stating that he instructed Paul Nassif to obtain a loan for him upon 1,000 shares in the Coolgardie Company, among which were the 750 shares, the subject of the motion; (2) that he caused a transfer in blank of, inter alia 1,000 shares, Nos. 7,061 to 8,060, to be made by McLaughlin, who held the same in trust for him, to be handed to Nassif (3) that subsequently Nassif informed him that he had arranged for a loan to be made on the said shares by Mr. Basil R. Wood, of 2, Copthall Buildings, stockbroker, but that Wood would not make the said loan except to him, and a further registration of the shares in the name of Paul Nassif; (4) that he (Kirby) consented to the transfer being filled up by Nassif to himself as transferee; (5) that he had inspected the transfer, and found that the witness to the execution by Nassif is Joseph Mann; the consideration in the transfer is 10s.; (6) that Nassif informed him that Wood wished to have 750 of the shares transferred to the present applicant, and that it was consented to by him (Kirby); (1) that he had inspected the transfer, and found that the execution is attested by Joseph Mann; the consideration expressed is 5s. (8) upon his consenting to the transfer, Nassif gave him a letter dated May 29th, in which he (Nassif) undertook to return the shares. Nos. 7,601 to
8,060, that he had lent him (kinrby) £500 upon as soon as he redeemen the loan; (9) that he received the £500 in respect of a loan upon the 1,000 shares; (10) that prior to the day when the amount of the loan became dus he endeavoured to fing Nassif, in order that he might be informed that he was prepared to repay the amount, and required the 1,000 shares to be transferred to him (Kirby); (11) that he was informed at his office that Nasnif was away; (12) that about August 11th he sent a letter to Nassif, asking him to deliver the 1,000 shares and receive the amount of the loan; (13) that he went and saw Nassif, who promised to return them at once; (14) that the next he heard was that the shares were being transferred by the present applicant, and that he (Kirby) therefore asked the Coolgardie Company not to register the transfers; (15) that he bekueved that Wood declined to act upon a transfer in blank; (16) that he submitted that no order should be made upon the present motion; and (17) that this action is really the action of Wood in the name of the said applicant.)
WILLIAM JAMES BRADLEY . I am one of the firm of Morton, Cutler and Co., solicitors, of 99, Newgate Street—my firm was appointed solicitors to the old company in December, 1894—I looked after the affairs of the company—the first secretary was a Mr. Wright—he was succeeded by Mr. Lakeman, and Clifford succeeded him in November, 1895—I think that I was a party to every transfer before Clifford was appointed—I think every transfer that was issued during that time was initialled by me—this active supervision of mine ceased in May or June, 1896—Clifford had then been five or six months in his office, and from that time the secretarial dities of the company were lelf to him; he had been learning those duties while I was there, between November, 18958, and May, 1896—when I left I considered him fairly familiar with his duties—Iknew that he had been ontroduced as secretary to the company by Sir Alfred Kirby—I have known him since he was a small boy, he is related to a great friend of mine—Sir Alfred asked me if I knew of a clerk, and I introdeced Cleffored—before that Clifford had been in the counting-house of Marshall and Snelgrove, and I believe he had been in the same position in Maple's—in both places he had charge of books—he left with excellent references, as being competent in the discharge of his duties—in May or June there was some erroe with regard to numbers of shares; two transfers came in which contained the numbers of shares which had already been transferred—it was reported to me—I called in Mr. James Lakeman, and he and his clerks examined the books, and he found that these were shares which had been issued twice over—he had the numbers put right, and there was a balance in favourof Arthur Kirby—it was apparently a clerical error; they had been transferred by Arthur Kirby or his nominee—I thpught it was a mistake made by Lakeman while he was secretary—Aruthur Kirby was not responsible for it in any way—I think it related to just over 3,000 shares—I did not know of any subsequent duplication till after the company went into liquidation—working capital had to be found for the company that the vender was bound to provide them with the working
capital—it was to have an available working capital of not less than £30,000; that was the agreement with the Australian vendor—the subscriptions which came in were very small—the directors, including Mr. Doolette, negotiated for some time, and eventually arranged for a loan from Brown Janson of £10,000—I carried that out with Brown Janson—the £10,000 went to pay part of the purchase money to the Australian vendor—Arthur Kirby went to Stonham and Messenger, who had the right to call on 50,000 shares in the company at 17s. per share—by means of that option, the £10,000 was repeated to Brown Janson, and the whole £20,000 was paid to the Australian vendor, and, by a second option, the full £20,000 was provided for working capital—the vendor required £30,000, so that, in the end, the £30,000 was provided by the sale of vendor's shares—everybody interested in the company knew perfectly well of the loans—Stonham and Messenger exercised their right of call, and with the proceeds of that exercise Brown, Janson and Co. were paid off—when that was completed I gave up my active interest in the affairs of the company—this transfer is the last one I initialled; it is dated April 22nd, 1896; I initialled it on May 2nd, 1896—when I left, everything was in order; most of the transfers were intialled by Clifford as accurate; he had been in the habit of initialling them up to that time—from the date of his appointment he attended the board meetings; he was responsible for the minutes—three directors were always responsible for those transfers as well as myself—the further duplication did not come under my notice till the company went into liquidation—I was consulted by Sir Alfred Kirby professionally about it, after this prosecution was started, when I learned the number—at that time the shares were delivered to Stonham and Messenger—all the shares had distinct numbers—they did not have a number of transfers with the numbers of shares on them; they simply had the right of call; they never had blank transfers given to them to hold—there is no more difficulty in keeping the account than of keeping an account of £ s. d.—if Stonham and Messenger exercised their right they simply sent down the number of shares required, and the company's officer would fill in the transfers, indicating the shares—I believe there was one case for a small amount in which they had a blank transfer, with regard to the number of shares transferred by them; the transfers coming forward contained the name of the transferee, and the company would add the name of the transferor, and the distinct numbers of the shares—this document (102) shows that 3,140 shares were duplicated; I thought it was a mistake—the 6,748 shares mentioned would be available for the purpose of rectifying the 3,140 duplicated shares—I do not think there were 6,748 after allowing for the duplication.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I had been familiar and friendly with Sir Alfred Kirby and his business for some time, and had every confidence in him—I cannot say that I was of opinion that at that time he was a man of considerable wealth; at one time he was; I thought everybody knew that—at the time that young Mr. Kirby had anything to do with this matter he had just come from school—I looked upon him, certainly, as the nominee of his father, and I think that was so understood by everybody—it would be true to say that his father practically managed the whole thing—I considered that he acted under his father's control—I
cannot remember his ever attending any of the board meetings—I believe he did not—he may have been there—I have no recollection of having said that he did attend the board meetings; I believe he did not—I believe whatever he did was under his father's direction—I did not understand that from him then—that was my opinion at the time things were going on—I still acted as solicitor to the company—I attended whatever I was asked to attend—I knew in June, 1896, that there had been duplication of shares signed by transferors—they had been signed at the request of the secretary of the company—I knew that was a matter for Mr. Lakeman, he was an accountant—I think I drew up the power of attorney which enabled Sir Alfred to act for his son when he was going abroad—that would give his father ample power to act for him—the contract for the sale of the mines to Arthur Kirby was signed and executed by his father in his absence under the power—when I drew up the contract I have no recollection of seeing Arthur Kirby about it at all—the arrangement to raise the money necessary was with Brown, Janson and Co. and Stonham and Messenger, about May, 1895—I did not negotiate the first loan of £10,000; that was negotiated by Mr. Doolette, Sir Alfred Kirby, and, I believe, Mr. Pomeroy—the first time I heard of it was when I was asked to attend the meeting at Brown Janson's, when I was asked to put it in proper form—I believe Arthur Kirby was present then, because he had to sign documents—I attended at Brown and Jansen's twice, I believe—I would not like to pledge myself to say that Arthur Kirby was present on the first occasion, but I believe he was—Mr. Doolette and Mr. Stonham were there—Arthur Kirby was not an officer of the company—I do not know if he perused the books; I have no knowledge of his doing so—a blank transfer would bear the signature of the transferor, but not of the trans feree—I never knew of Arthur Kirby ever being asked to sign transfers with the name of the transferee and the number of the shares on them—I did not see all the transfers signed—I do not suppose I saw 1 per cent, of them signed—in May, 1895, shares had been deposited with Brown Janson, and they would remain with them till they wished to realise on them; some time would elapse before that—the pencil note on this document (102) is mine—I wrote, "Will come back"—I should think it means that the 5,420 shares had been put out as security, and would return—after the loan was paid the things would come back, whatever they were—I know that Brown Janson held 10,000 shares, and hold them now; that is a liability—if Brown Janson had delivered up those shares, they would not be assets to the company, they belonged to Arthur Kirby and his nominee; it had nothing to do with the company—Arthur Kirby's account did not show that there had been duplications; I did not observe it—I was solicitor to the Stray Shot Company.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. Clifford is not responsible for any duplication mentioned in this statement, as I understand—I had nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Wright as secretary—I do not know that Mr. Wright did not keep a complete and accurate record—I believe Mr. Lakeman did his best to make the books up when he became secretary—I cannot say what books were kept when Mr. Wright was secretary;
my impression is that they were not complete, or anything like it—I always understood that Mr. Lakeman was a chartered accountant; there could be no doubt about his competence—I was ignorant of any duplicatioa up to June, 1896, although I was taking an active part in the company—a very large number of transfers called for by Stonham and Messenger had been delivered before Clifford came on the scene—Mr. Lakeman continued to look after the books after Clifford was appointed—I introduced Clifford to Sir Alfred Kirby, but as a clerk, and not as secretary to the company—he had had a good deal of experience of books in counting-houses, and he was perfectly competent to keep a set of books—his experience of company work was absolutely nil—I thought he was going to be simply a clerk in Sir Alfred Kirby's office; he wanted to improve his position—the introduction did not lead at once to employment; it was not very long after he went into the office that he was appointed secretaty—I do not think he actually kept any books—I think Mr. Lake-man continued his supervision of the books till May, 1896—I believe the entries in the share ledger are to a very great extent in Mr. Wace's writing—I find a lot of signatures in the transferbook of Clifford, "Wace "; those were signed for Wace by Clifford—at first I was satisfied with Clifford, but later on I spoke to Sir Alfred Kirby more than once about him—I thought he was not attending to his duties as be ought to do; I thought he was too big for his boots—I do not remember Mr. Pomeroy or Mr. Prell making anv remark about him to me—he did not take sufficient interest in his work; he did not know what was going on, and he did not look after things—I spoke to him more than once about it—I do not remember his asking me questions about things which I thought he ought to know—if I wanted him I could not get hold of him, and if I wanted information I found I could not get it—he did not know what he ought to have known—I told him that he had a responsibility, and if properly discharged, he ought to have known things instead of relying upon others—I believe there was no balancesheet made out till the liquidation—at the time of the liquidation Stonham and Messenger had not been settled with—Mr. Tingle was going to do so, and I believe did do so.
Re-examined. I believe Arthur Kirby had been employed in an office as secretary by his father, and I think he was a shareholder of the Stray Shot Company—the loan from Brown, Janson and Co. of £12,000 was in relation to the Stray Shot Company—all the companies were conducted at 70, Cornhill—it was not through incompetence that I could not get information from Clifford; I do not now consider him incompetent—if the books had been properly kept there was no difficulty in tracing every share and ascertaining what was going on—there was no difficulty, as far as Arthur Kirby was concerned, to see what the real state of things was—he was entitled to look at the books of the company.
By the COURT. When Clifford neglected his work I do not know what he was doing—he was not available to me—he may have been engaged on Sir Arthur Kirby's other business, for all I know—there was no complaint at that time of his drinking—I did have to speak to him on one occasion with regard to drink, but on one occasion only.
Kirby to sell 500 Coolgardie shares—about January 27th we made a loan to Sir Alfred, and received as security 500 shares, and certificate 17 we obtained in respect of transfer 16—on June 28th he told us to sell the shares, and we sold them for £225, which was put to Sir Alfred Kirby's credit—I have had no dealings with Arthur Kirby.
ARTHUR POMEROY . I am a mining agent, and was a director of the Coolgardie Company from November, 1894, until it went into liquidation. in 1897—Sir Alfred Kirby was a director, and Arthur Kirby was the vendor—I was present at the board meeting on July 22nd, 1895—the allotments were made at the request of the vendor; the usual course was for one director to have the transfer before him, and another the transfer register, and another the new certificate, and if the new certificate was correct it was initialled and registered—usually the old certificate was on the table duly cancelled, but if it was not the directors had the assurance of the secretary that it had been cancelled, and that was accepted; we relied on Clifford to give us correct information with regard to the cancelling and of the regularity of the certificates produced—it did not come to my knowledge, or, as far as I know, to the knowledge of any of the other directors save Sir Alfred Kirby, that there had been any duplication of shares; it was a revelation to me, after the company went into liquidation—so far as I knew, the books were properly kept.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I do not remember how it was brought about that I joined the board—I had every confidence in Sir Alfred Kirby—I only knew that there was a son of Sir Alfred, called Arthur Kirby—he did not attend any board meetings—I knew that he was his father's nominee—I did not know officially that shares had been deposited for money advanced by way of security—I may have had some knowledge of what was going on, but as a director I knew nothing—I know it now—so far as I know, there was no record kept of the deposit in the books of the company—I had entire confidence in Mr. Bradley; he took a more prominent part in the company than is generally taken by the solicitor to the board; he was a man of influence, and to whom we all paid great heed—he was intimately connected with the matter of raising funds for the company.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I have now had considerable ex-perience in mining companies—I never knew a solicitor take so prominent a part as Mr. Bradley did in this company—I remember Clifford being appointed secretary; it occurred to me that he was not competent to fill the position—I thought he had a lack of knowledge of company work; he appeared to rely entirely upon Mr. Bradley as to what he did—if, at a board meeting, a question was asked on an important matter, Mr. Bradley would answer it; if on a small matter, Clifford—I spoke to my fellow directors about his incompetence; I said that, except that Mr. Bradley was watching all the details, we could not tolerate it.
Re-examined. Clifford attended the board meetings regularly, and would give the directors information in regard to transfers and certificates.
about my bank advancing some money on Coolgardie shares—it was decided to advance £500, and as security we took these two transfers (Produced)—the nominal consideration is 10s.—the cheque was dated November 2nd, 1896, for £475—the 1,000 shares were afterwards increased to 1,300—this is the transfer that was deposited for the extra 300 (Produced)—we made the further advance on February 1st of £250—we afterwards took these two bills from Sir Alfred Kirby as security, and advanced £150—we deducted some interest that was due on the £500 deal, and the cheque was drawn for £107 17s. 6d.—that was the balance due to him on the further loan—those loans have never been repaid; we renewed the loans from time to time—after the first loan was unpaid and renewed we registered the transfers, and we obtained these two certificates (90 and 91)—when we accepted the transfers we thought the shares were valid and of value for the loan—if we had not thought so we should not have done so.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. The negotiations for both loans were practically the same; beyond sending round to the office, and there seeing Arthur Kirby, there was no communication with him.
WILLIAM ALFRED WACE . I was at one time a clerk employed by Sir Alfred Kirby—it was part of my duty to keep the share registers of the companies over which he presided, at his office in Cornhill—I kept the sharebooks of the Ccolgardie Company—the entries in them are mostly in my writing—there were in turn three secretaries to the company, Mr. Wright, then Mr. Lakeman, and finally Mr. Clifford—I received my instructions from them all, which I obeyed—the entries made in Clifford's time were made in accordance with his instructions—about June, 1896, I found that there was duplication in a block of shares to Stonham and Messenger—the matter was gone into by Mr. Lakeman, and an account taken out against Arthur Kirby—Clifford was secretary down to the liquidation of the company—I remember from time to time communicating with him about entering duplicate numbers of shares upon transfers which bad come forward for registration—I told him that these shares were duplicated, and about July or August, 1896, he instructed me to give all the transfers to him, and said that he would give them out at the board meetings as he thought fit—I did so; he kept them till the board meeting, and he gave out such as he thought fit for entry—he gave them to me; those which were duplicated were kept—those which were in order were given out to be entered for the board meeting—Clifford kept the duplicated ones—people would come and ask for their certificates, and after a time they would be prepared, and then the entries would be made in the books, showing duplicate transfers—I entered them by Clifford's orders—I told him of the duplication, and told him the only way to rectify it was to repurchase the shares in the market—he did not reply to that; I was subordinate to him, and in carrying out these instructions I was obeying his orders.
Cross-examined by LORD COLERIDGE. I had some shares—they passed into the hands of Stonham and Messenger—they were put in my name as nominee—I think Mr. Richard Lakeman asked me—they were sold through Stonham and Messenger; they supplied the purchasers' names,
and I would sign the transfer—it was an arrangement by which they could have 1,000 shares.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I was in Mr. James Lakeman's office soon after the books were started—Clifford was appointed about a fort night after I went there—I did not know that he was absolutely ignorant of company affairs—he had "The Secretary's Guide"; he asked Mr. Bradley and me questions—Clifford constantly sought Mr. Bradley's advice—about May, 1896, I told Clifford that there was a block of 5,000 shares, and Mr. Bradley said that they had been promised to Stonham and Messenger—I pointed out to Clifford that there were about 1,000 duplications among them—nothing was done about them—they were given to Stonham and Messenger—during the first part of the time Clifford never acted on his own part—whenever there was a duplication I knew it, and Clifford knew that I knew it—when persons called for the shares which had been kept back I entered them in the books in the usual way, and gave them out—I do not know whatsalary Clifford was getting—I was getting £100 a year.
Re-examined. When the transfers came to be executed by me all the details were filled in—after August, 1896, Mr. Bradley came much less, and when he gave up the control Clifford took it—when these duplicated transfers came in I knew something irregular was going on, but I felt myself bound to take these transfers in as they had been sold in the market—a man had paid money for them, and he was bound to have them—I should think Clifford understood what I said to him about them—the transfers which were kept back were sometimes kept two months—nothing was done unless people called and demanded them—Clifford kept them in a tin box in his office, where he kept all the securities—I often said to him, "So-and-so has called for his certificate;" he would say they were not ready, and the man was told to call again; and if he came many times Clifford gave up the transfer to be entered.
For the Defence.
Arthur Kirby (being sworn) stated that he was merely a nominee of his father in the purchase of property from the Australian vendor; that he knew nothing of the purchase price; that he was really a dummy acting under the directions of his father, Mr. Bradley, and the directors; that he never knowingly signed any of the duplicated share transfers; that all he did, was under the directions of his father; that he had not made a farthing out of the duplications; and that the business was all done by his father.
Clifford (also sworn) stated that he knew nothing of company business; that he relied entirely upon Mr. Bradley, who attended to the business of the company till its liquidation and who knew of the duplications; that Mr. Bradley told him not to report the fact to the directors, as it woidd only cause a bother, and that it would right itself; and that he was not responsible for any of the duplications.
W. A. WACE (Re-examined). Arthur Kirby was about the office, but he very seldom looked at any of the books, that he had not much to do with the business, he talked to people, and was secretary to one of his father's companies.
. Tuesday, July 4th.
Road, Hampstead—while he was with me he lived in a quiet, modest kind of way—he paid me £3 10s. a month, including everything.
W. J. BRADLEY (Recalled). The only transfers I ever asked Arthur Kirby for were for the purpose of loans made by Brown, Janson and Co.—I never knew of any other duplications than the ones I mentioned before, and if they are examined they will be found to be correct—I never asked Arthur Kirby to sign one duplicated transfer—I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of the preparation of the affidavit of September 15th, 1896, if I did so, and if I did not it was prepared by one of our clerks—it was prepared upon instructions, and I can find out by whose instructions—the only transaction in which I was mixed up in reference to shares in this company was for the benefit of the company, and not in the transaction which related to the loan to Sir Alfred Kirby or Arthur Kirby—I never had anything to do with that—my only interest was to look after the company, and see that the money required was provided—it is absolutely untrue to say that I knew of the duplication of the 3,000 shares—when I did ascertain it I understood that Mr. Lakeman, the accountant, would have all those shares put straight—they were put straight, and I never heard any more of anything being wrong till after the liquidation—I had nothing to do with transfers after the last one that I initialled—I was never present at any board meeting when any transfer was passed—I only attended to business which concerned me—my impression is that transfers were always taken at the end of the meetings, and I left before the transfers were touched—if I had had the least suspicion of the duplication I should have told the directors immediately, and had all the books examined—I have no recollection of saying in the British Tea Table Company's refreshment room that the contents of exhibit 102 should not be communicated to the directors, as it would only cause a bother, and the matter would right itself—the only time Clifford said he wanted to leave the company was after the liquidation, when he said he could not get his salary paid.
MR. ELLIOTT. I did not tell the directors of the duplication of the 3,140 shares which I knew of—the accountant said it was a mistake, and that he had put it right—I do not know now that it has not been put right—I do not know that duplicated shares passed to Stonham and Messenger—I did not have an office of my own at the offices of the company—Sir Alfred Kirby put a desk at my disposal in his room; I did not frequently work at that desk—I do not know that I spoke to Mr. Wace more than 20 times.
Re-examined. I did not mention the duplication which I knew of, because I thought it was only a clerical error, and had been put right—every transfer I had to do with I initialled, and I think I am right in saying that every transfer is correct—the last transfer I initialled was in April, 1896.
GUILTY .— Six Moths'Hard Labour each.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MESSRS. ROUTH and METCALFE Prosecuted.
WILLIAM GEORGE DENNIS . I am a house decorator—on June 3rd, at 10.35, I was going home—I was sober—the prisoner came up and without a word struck me a hard blow, and cut my head open—I do not know whether he struck me anywhere else, as I fell and became insensible, and when I came to I found myself at the Policestation, and missed my watch and chain—this is my chain (Produced)—I have two stitches in my forehead, and my arm was injured by the prisoner; I was taken to Poplar Hospital, and am still under a doctor.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I was on the right side of the road—you struck me on my right temple.
WILLIAM BRISTOW (86 K). On June 3rd, about 10.35 p.m., I was with my sergeant in Nelson Street, and saw the prosecutor about 20 yards from me—I saw the prisoner knock him down—I hurried up aud caught hold of him—he said, "I have done nothing; I was going to pick him up"—there was another man with him, who ran away—I took the prisoner to the station; he was charged with assault, but when the prosecutor said, "I have lost my watch" he was charged, with both offences—I found 2d. on him—he gave his correct address at a lodging-house—on June 4th, at 3 a.m., I found this piece of chain in a gutter in Emily Street.
HENRY ALLEY (Police-sergeant, 6 KR). On June 3rd, about 10.35, I was with Bristow, and as we came round a corner Dennis was nearly in the centre of the road, and I saw the prisoner deliberately strike him; he reeled, staggered, and fell—I went up, and saw the prisoner standing over him—another man ran away—the constable caught hold of the prisoner—he said, "I have done nothing; I was going to pick him up"—I took Dennis to the station; he was bleeding very much from his forehead.
Cross-examined. He did not fall in the road; you hit him with such force that he fell on the pavement, where he was when I went up.
WILLIAM EWART GIBBS . I am a surgeon attached to the Police Division—I was called to Canning Town, and saw Dennis—he had a wound over his right eye—I asked if he had other injuries—he said, "No," but on the Monday morning I found his shoulder was injured by falling on it—he is a decorator, but he will not be able to use his hands for some time—the shortest time he must be under medical treatment is a fortnight or three weeks.
Cross-examined. He could not get the two injuries at the same time; he was struck, and staggered and fell.
Prisoner's Defence: I came round the corner, and saw the prosecutor
lying on the path; I went to pick him up, and the sergeant came and took me in custody.
GUILTY †.—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Stratford on May 27th, 1899.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.
Before Mr. Recorder
487. WILLIAM TEMPLEMAN (32) PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling £2 11s. 5d., 6s. 1 3/4 d., and 16s. 5 1/2 d., of Roberts' Stores, Ltd; also to stealing 11s. 7d., the money of the said Stores.— Judgement Respited.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
488. MATHEW ARTHUR ELKINS (42) PLEADED GUILTY to indictments for forging and uttering cheques for £23 4s. 10d. and £11, burglary in the dwelling-house of Evelyn Swinton Skinner, and to two other and to a conviction of felony at Olerkenwell in November, 1898. Three other convictions were proved against him,— Nine Months' Hard Labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MARY ANN HOGG . My husband keeps the Hand and Flower, Union Street, Borough—on May 16th the prisoner and two others came in—they ordered some ale, and all drank together, and paid with a crown piece—the prisoner then called for more ale, and gave me another 5s. piece—I tested it, and found it bad—I then tested the first, and that was bad too—I showed them to my husband—he went round to where the men were, and one man left before the others—these are the coins.
CHARLES QUAY (283 M). Mr. Hogg gave the prisoner into my custody, with these coins—he said that a man gave him the coin for a pot of better, and that the man who had passed the first coin gave him the second, and that he had no more money—I found two pennies on him—one man got away while I was holding the prisoner.
The Prisoner put in a written statement before the Magistrate that a racing man inquired of him what horse had won, and took him into the house and gave him the coin to pass, and that being, taken to the station, he could not find the man.
have seen them, but they are not customers—one man had gone before I came out.
GUILTY .†—Four other convictions were proved against him.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.
MR. SYMONS Prosecuted.
JOSEPH REYNOLDS . I shall be 81 years old next September—I live at 21, Great Dover Street—on May 23rd I was going home through Peter Street, Borough, between 6 and 7 p.m.—a man knocked me down senseless, and I have not been the same man since—my son-in-law assisted me to the station—I lost my watch and chain, which I was wearing—the man left this bit of chain in the buttonhole—it cost £2 10s., but I have had it many years—the police showed the watch to me, and I identified it—I could not see for blood, and my arm has not been right since—I had enjoyed good health.
WILLIAM SMITH . I am 10 years old—I go to school; I am in the Third Standard—I live at the Winchester Buildings, Orange Street—one evening I was in Peter Street—I saw that old gentleman (the prosecutor) knocked down by that chap (the prisoner)—he hit him in the face with his fist—when he was down he took his watch out of his waistcoatpocket and ran away—I am sure the prisoner is the man—I saw him again down the lane, when the detectives caught him, about half-an-hour afterwards.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner, You had the same clothes on you have now, and a cap.
WILLIAM SMITH (Detective Sergeant, M). About 7 p.m. on May 23rd the prosecutor came to the station, accompanied by the boy Smith—he was bleeding from cuts in the face, appeared very dazed, and his hand was much swollen—in consequence of what he told me, and the lad's description answering to what I knew of the prisoner, I arrested him in Gravel Lane about 7.30—he said. "What is this for, Mr. Smith?"—I said, "I arrest you for violently assaulting a man and robbing him in Peter Street"—he said, "That is right; I suppose someone has put you up to this. I did not have no watch"—I instructed the officer Pusey to hold his hand—I found he was feeling down to his pocket, and I felt the watch in the pocket—he jumped in the air and struck Pusey behind the ear—I closed with him, and then commenced a struggle—in the struggle I tore his trousers and pulled the watch out of the hole in his pocket which had the watch in it—I blew my whistle for assistance, and three officers came—he was very violent, and showed none of his present emotion—I saw no signs of intoxication.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You afterwards walked quietly when I had assistance, and allowed two officers to walk behind us—on the way to the station you threatened to kick our f——g testicles in.
FREDERICK PUSEY (Detective, M). I was present when the prisoner was arrested—he was very violent—I saw Smith tear his pocket out, with the watch in it—he hit me on the left ear and threatened to kick my testicles—it took three to hold him.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You afterwards said you would walk quietly.
JOHN MAKEPEACE (433 M). I saw thr prisoner struggling with Smith Pusey—I got hold of him—he struck Pusey a violent blow in the ear—he kicked at my private parts, but I put my leg up, and caught the kick on my shin—he said, "Take that, you bastard; I'll kick your f——g balls out."
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not show the mark of your kick at the station; I did not think it necessary—I caught your kick on the top of my boot; that is, on the shin—the Magistrate did not ask what I said to you.
Re-examined. The prisoner had been drinking, but was not to call drunk.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I am fairly innocent of the charge; the watch has been put into my pocket. I was drunk."
GUILTY .—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction of felony at this Court in April, 1898, in the name of Edward Dwyer. Other convictions were proved against him. There was another indictment for assaulting the police, to one Count of which (that of the assault on Pusey) he Pleaded Guilty.— Five Years' Penal Servitude and 12 Strokes with the Cat.
491. GEORGE DRADEN HOWARD (32) and PERCY JOHN MORGAN (25), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously possessing a mould for making counterfeit coin; also to unlawfully possessing counterfeit coins.— Six Years' Penal Servitude each. And
(492) ARTHUR WELLS (39) , to stealing a bottle of whisky, and £2 15s. 9 1/2 d. of Charles Savage; also to stealing £2 14s. 6d. of the said Charles Savage; also to stealing £2 5s. 3d., the money of Andrew John Hawkins; having been convicted at this Court on April 22nd, 1895.— Judgement Respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
Before Mr. Justice Darling
MR. DRUMMOND Prosecuted, and MR. WYLIE Defended.
ELIZA WISE . I keep a coffeeshop at 103, Lower Mortlake Road, Richmond—I am married, but I do not live with my husband—I have known the prisoner about 5 years—he has lodged at my house about seven weeks—on May 20th, about 5 p.m., he asked me to get him some steak, and to have some, which I did—he then went out to go to town—I went across the road to the bootshop, and returned in about eight minutes—the prisoner was upstairs—he came down and asked me where I had been—I said, "To see about my little girl's boots being mended"—he said I had been with his friends, and that I should never see them any more, as I had got to die—he bashed me over the head with a poker which was in the fireplace—I did not see him pick it up—I said, "For God's sake, don't do it!"—he said, "I mean it; you have got to die!"—I do not know where the poker had been; it was hot—I caught hold of it, and my hands were blistered—I was sitting down when I was first attacked—I got up; the struggle with the poker went on for about three minutes, then I felt the prisoner creeping over me to get a knife; I was then on my knees under the table—he got a knife, but I did not
see it—I felt it on my throat, which was cut, but not much—my right hand was also cut; it is not well yet—the prisoner has always been the best friend I ever had—I remember somebody coming in—I did not scream—I do not know how I got away—I believe somebody pulled him off—I got into the street—I was bleeding—I saw a doctor at the hospital about 20 minutes after—I remained there for a week—this is the poker and the knife (Produced).
Cross-examined. The prisoner has been very kind to me and my children before this happened—he had brought in some pinafores, but I was going to pay for them—there was no quarrel—he has been a great sufferer from gout in the eyes—I do not know that he tried to jump from Putney Bridge—I know he tried to injure his son—I should not like to say that he was queer in his head—I can assign no motive for this attack on me—I do not think he was accountable for his actions, because it was all over in less than five minutes—he has been taking colcicum wine for his gout—I do not know anything about the quantities—I know his two sons.
Re-examined. He had never objected to my going to any of his friends—I do not know anything about injuring his son, except that one day his son said that he thought his father was a little bit funny.
ARTHUR LEVIN . I am a furniture dealer, of 150, Lower Mortlake Road, Richmond, opposite Mrs. Wise—on May 20th, about 6.20 p.m., I was sitting in my shop—my attention was drawn by the screams of the children in Wise's coffee-house—I ran over to the house, and found the prisoner kneeling on Mrs. Wise, under the kitchen table, with a knife in his hand, trying to cut her throat—I tried to pull him off, but he was too heavy, and I got a chair and hit him across the back with it—I could not shift him, and I went out and called for help—somebody came in, and he was eventually got off—Mrs. Wise walked out of the house, streaming with blood—the poker was lying underneath them—we shut the prisoner into the room until the police came—he did not say anything during that time to me—when I first went in I said to the prisoner, "What are you doing, you scamp?"—he only glared round at me.
FRANK DAY I live at the Malvern Road, Hounslow—I am a horse keeper—about 6.20 on May 20th I was in the Lower Mortlake Road—I heard shouts of "Murder!"—Levin made a communication to me, and I entered the house—I went into the kitchen, and found the landlady on her knees under the table, and the prisoner on top of her, with a poker in his right hand, and a knife in the left—he was in the act of striking her with the poker—I took the poker and the knife away from him, and stopped him from striking her—the poker was hot; it burned my fingers—I got her away from him—she had her throat cut—I secured the prisoner till the police came—he said, '* I won't hurt you"—he had not said anything be fore that—I said, "I will take good care you don't"—he was sober—when I took the knife from him it had blood on it.
Cross-examined. I was a perfect stranger to the prisoner—I knew nothing about him—he looked more like a madman—I have seen a madman loose on Tower Hill—I came to the conclusion that the prisoner was mad.
Re-examined. I have seen a man in a passion—that was on Tower Hill—I think this man was mad, and not in a passion.
FREDERICK HOLLAND (285 V). About 6.40 p.m. on May 20th I was on duty in the Kew Road—from information I received, I went to 103, Mortlake Road—I found the prisoner sitting in a chair in the kitchen, which was very much disarranged; the chairs were upside down, and there was a large pool of blood under the table—the witness Day was with him—in the prisoner's presence the poker and knife were handed to me, and Day said, "This is what he did it with"—the prisoner made no reply—these are the implements (Produced)—I said to the prisoner, "You will have to come with me"—he said, "All right; I will go quietly"—he was not drunk—I took him to the station—on the way he said, "I am not drunk; I know what I have done, and I mean it"—I heard him charged—in reply he said, "That is all I have got to say."
Cross-examined. He was sitting quietly in the chair when I saw him—I looked at him all over—I think he was excited—I cannot say that his eyes were those of a madman.
FREDERICK CLEVELAND (Detective, V). At 7.30 on May 20th I went to 103, Lower Mortlake Road—I examined the kitchen, and found signs of a struggle—there was a large pool of blood under the table—I was handed a knife, and on the table there was a knifebox containing a number of knives similar to the one produced—I heard the prisoner charged at the station—he said, "That is all I have got to say."
Cross-examined. I went to the house before the prisoner was charged—I charged him.
EDWARD GRAVILLE HILL . I am housesurgeon at the Richmond Hospital—I examined Mrs. Wise on May 20th, about 6.40—she was suffering from a contused wound on her forehead, another on the left side of the scalp, and another on the back of her head—I should say they were caused by some blunt object—the poker would have caused them—there was a slight incised wound on the left cheek, and one running across the neck, caused by some sharp instrument; a knife like this would produce it—it was not a serious wound—there had been some considerable bleeding, but it had stopped when I saw her—there was an incised wound between the thumb and the first finger of her right hand, a slight burn on her right forearm, and another just above the wound on the hand, and other burns on the second and third fingers on the right hand—they might have been caused by taking hold of a hot poker.
Cross-examined. They were not dangerous in any way. By the COURT. The wound on the back of the head might have been caused by a fall, but the others were two distinct blows—on the two wounds at the back there was no broken skin.
Re-examined. The cut on the cheek and the cut on the throat were quite distinct.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I have nothing to say. I do not remember anything about it. I do not desire to call any witnesses."
Witnesess for the Defence.
WALTER HERBERT DUNSTON . The prisoner is my father—he has lived at Richmond since 1858—he is a builder and contractor—at one time he was doing a large business—he is now 60 or 61—my mother is dead—there are four of us all grown up—about 14 or 16 years ago I drove with my
father to Albert Wharf, and as he was getting out of the trap he caught his foot in the rein and pitched out on his head; he then weighed 19 stone—he was laid up for three or four days; hecomplained of pain in his head—since then he has been very strange at intervals for a fortnight, and he has goneoff and done the most outrageous things—on Saturdays he would goto the bank and get the money, and not return until 4 or 5 to pay the men, and when asked he could not recollect whore he had been—he used to go about in Wandsworth and Putney; he would stand and gaze at things, anything—when he did return he would have the money in his possession—on June 18th, 1891, he left home, and in consequence of what I saw I followed him to Putney Bridge—we had to pass over Barnes Common—he saw me and rushed across the common to the bridge, mounted the parapet, and attempted to throw himself over—I got assistance, and detained him—afterwards he was perfectly calm, and walked back home with me—he remembered it afterwards—he said that several times he had meant to do it, when business troubles worried him—in 1891 I received a telegram from Ewell—the police had stopped my father—he had a live chicken in a fishbasket—we had been waiting up all night for him, and when I got to Ewell a policeman told me he had stopped him wandering—I asked my father what he was doing—he said, "I am going to my daughter's"—my sister was a schoolmistress miles away—my mother died in January, 1897; it affected my father—I have been present on several occasions when he attacked my brother Thomas—he is 1 1/2 years younger than I am—my father has always attempted to pick quarrels with him—my father has been a great sufferer from gout—for two months, in 1897, he had gout in his eyes, and was totally blind—he has been taking colcicum wine in great quantities, 2 or 3 drachms at a time—I believe the ordinary dose is 1 drachm—he has spoken kindly of Mrs. Wise—there has never been any quarrelling between them—I can assign no motive for this attack, except that one of his fits came on—when one of his fits came on he would go and take a chicken out of the chicken-house and chop its head off, and leave it there—it was not for dinner.
Cross-examined. My father was only ill 3 or 4 days from the effect of the fall—the doctor said that blood was underneath where the bruise was—he has been unable to carry on his business through these attacks, and I have taken it over—I have managed it for 10 years—the chicken my father had at Ewell was his own—he is not of a hasty temper—he was always in a good temper—he was certified insane by a doctor in 1894—he was locked up then and fined 35s. for creating a disturbance, and Dr, Bolter certified that he ought to be sent away—Dr. Bolter was our family doctor—he remained at home after that—he has drank very heavily indeed.
Re-examined. I saw him in prison on the 27th—I said, "What have you done?"—he took no notice whatever; he did not know me, and he did not speak to me while he was in the station where he was charged—his eyes were glassy.
WILLIAM THOMAS DUNSTON . I am the prisoner's son—I live now at Victoria Villas, Richmond—my father has a good temper to a certain extent—he has had rows with me since I was 14—after one of them I walked tg Somersetshire, and when I got there I found my father was
there, and he said to me, "I am sorry; we will go back by train"—he had forgotten everything—I cannot account for these fits at all, except that he is not sane—on May 8th he came to my house at 58, Mortlake Road, and broke open the door—he had a carving knife in his hand—he said to me, "It is very nearly time you died," or something to that effect—he threatened me with the knife; I took it from him, and the next day he asked me to come to dinner with him, and I went—he suffers from gout—he has been taking colcicum wine in excess—I saw him at the station on the 20th—he said, "My boy, have you any money?"—I said, "Yes, plenty; have you got any?"—he said, "I want to see Walter"—I told my brother, and when he went to see him my father would not speak to him, and in the Court he would not speak to me, only to my brother.
Cross-examined. I think that between the fits he is quite natural—I did not think it was necessary to put him under any restraint.
HENRY SMITH . I live at Hammersmith—I am an accountant—I have known the prisoner about 28 years—I was once in the son's employ—the father seemed to me at times to be most peculiar—I was at his house once, and we were all sitting together, when the prisoner got one of these fits—he got a chopper, and threatened to kill us if either of us moved—there was no provocation by any of us.
Cross-examined. He eventually left the room, and we were able to get out—he had not been drinking, to my knowledge—that was about three years ago.
GUILTY of attempting to murder, not being responsible for his actions at the time .— To be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.
MR. PURCELL Prosecuted, and MR. SANDS Defended. JAMES ANDREWS (Police Inspector). I photographed this house—this is an enlargement of my photo.
Cross-examined. There are a number of stones in the passage—children play there.
ANNIE HOLLOW AY . I am the prisoner's wife, and I was living at 4, Lithcoe Street, Battersea—on Tuesday, June 13th, my husband had been away since the previous Saturday—on the Tuesday morning I was in bed about 6 a.m.; my sister, Nora McAuliffe, was sleeping in the same room—the lower sash of the window had been broken on the Monday night—the bottom pane was broken; the glass had not been removed—about 6 on the Tuesday I was aroused by something; I did not know what it was, but I found a stone two days afterwards—something caught me under the back of my ear, and I awoke and saw my husband looking through the window; his head was through the window—I got up, and felt a little blood coming down the back of my ear—my husband went away—I aroused my sister; she was not in the same bed—I went and sat by her bed—my husband came back 4 or 5 minutes afterwards—I do not know what he said, I was so excited—he has been a good husband and a good father—it is my fault; I am to blame—I went to the Police station.
Cross-examined. I was able to walk to the station; it was three quarters of an hour's walk—my wounds were dressed at the station—I went to work the next day—the prisoner was arrested on the Thursday—he worked for a bookmaker—I told the police where to find him, and there he was found—I was living with my mother—on the Saturday my husband had noticed me the worse for drink—the door of the house was locked on the Monday night—his clothes and things were in the house—my sister found the stone two days after; she gave it to me—this is it (Produced)—she said she found it between the bolster and the wall.
Re-examined. I did not see the detective when he came to my room—the stone was found after I gave evidence before the Magistrate—I have not complained of the prisoner having beaten me—I sleep in the room on the ground floor—my bed was near the window, with the head towards the window, and my husband might have reached me if he had reached through the broken window—he has been in trouble about me, but it has been my fault—he got 12 months once—he knocked me about—that was the first time he had been before the Magistrate.
NORA MCAULIFFE . lam the prosecutrix's sister—I live in the samehouse, and sleep in the same room with her, the front room on the ground floor—on this Tuesday morning I was asleep, and was aroused by my sister saying, "Oh, mother!"—I got out of bed; my sister ran across the room—I saw she was bleeding from the neck—nobody was at the window then—she came over to me and said, "I do not know what is the matter"—she went out into the street, and she was all right—I was holding her up, as she was faint, when the prisoner returned to the window—I said before that he said, "I mean doing for you altogether, you b——cow; and you, too"—I was so excited, I do not know what he said; I do not think he said that—I did not see him there the first time; the second time I saw him put his head and shoulders through the window—I was at the house when the detective came—he looked all round the room—he did not find the stone; I found it two days later, the day I gave my evidence before the Magistrate—the window had not been mended when I found that on the Monday night all the broken glass had been cleared away—there was none there on the Tuesday.
Cross-examined. I had not been on friendly terms with the prisoner—I knew that he had tried to get into the house on the Monday night, and found it locked—I have not seen the prisoner since, except at the Police-court.
ANNIE HOLLOWAY (Re-examined by MR. SANDS). I have not seen my husband except at the Police-court—I have not had any letters from him—I have been charged with assaulting him—I was remanded and discharged.
FELIX CHARLES KEMPSTER . I am Police Surgeon for Battersea—I saw the prosecutrix at 8.30 a.m.—I found a clean cut at the back of her left ear, just missing the large vessels of the neck, cutting right down and even into the bone—the wound was over 1 in. in length—she had lost a great quantity of blood, her clothing being covered—a considerable amount of force must have been used—it must have been caused by a
sharp-pointed, narrow weapon, such as the blade of a knife or a small trowel—it would have been impossible to have occasioned such a wound with this stone.
Cross-examined. I dressed her wounds at 8.30 in the morning; it was a clean cut wound, and it healed up by first intention.
JOHN CARTER (234 V). About 11 a.m. on this Tuesday I went to 4, Lithcoe Street, Battersea—the prosecutrix had come to the station—I did not see her there—the height of the window from the pavement is 33 in., and the prosecutrix lay on a bed between the window and the wall—anybody reaching through the window could have reached her head with his hand.
Cross-examined. The other bed was the other side of the room; the wife's bed was on the floor.
WILLIAM STEPHENS . I arrested the prisoner at Ascot on June 14th—I said to him, "I am going to arrest you for feloniously cutting your wife at 4, Lithcoe Street, Battersea"—he said, "I went to the window, and broke the window; she knows very well what I did to her"—I took him to the station; the charge was read over to him—he said, "I suppose this means five years for me"—I went to the house the same day as the wounding—I looked over the room to try and find a weapon—I searched very carefully—I do not think this stone could have remained in the bed without my finding it.
Cross-examined. I heard the prisoner was with a bookmaker, and I thought Ascot would be a likely place to find him.
WILLIAM PARKER . I measured the room—the height of the window outside from the pavement is 33 in.—the pillow of the bed is 18 in. below the sill—the height from the floor is the same as outside—the windowpane is 19 in. wide and 2 ft. deep; it was mended when I went there.
Cross-examined. It is 33 in. from the bottom of the stone ledge. The prisoner, in his defence, said that when he put his head through the broken window he knocked some broken glass down; that he never touched his wife with anything; that he did not use a stone; and that he did not say that he meant doing for his wife.
GUILTY of wounding, with intent to do grievous bodily harm . He had been several times charged with assaulting his wife, and three times with assaulting other women.— Three Years' Penal Servitude.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JULY 24TH, 1899.