Old Bailey Proceedings, 23rd October 1899.
Reference Number: t18991023
Reference Number: f18991023

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

MOORE, MAYOR.

TWELFTH SESSION, HELD OCTOBER 23RD, 1899.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY

JAMES DROVER BARNETT

AND

ALEXANDER BUCKLER,

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.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the Queen's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

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

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, October 23rd 1899, and following days,

Before the Right Hon. SIR JOHN VOCE MOORE, KNT., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir A. M CHANNELL, Knt., And the Hon. Sir WALTSS PHILLIMORE, Knt., two of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court; the Right Hon. Sir CHARLES HALL , K.C.M.G., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; Sir JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Knt.; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., M.P.; JOHN POUND , Esq.; WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., and GEO. WYATT TRUSCOTT , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; 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.

WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Esq., Alderman

ALFRED HENRY BEVAN , Esq.

Sheriffs.

W. H. C. MAHON. Esq.

J. D. LANGTON, Esq.

Under-Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

MOORE, MAYOR. TWEFTH SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT.—Monday, October 23rd; 1899.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-636

636. GEORGE WILLIAM EVANS (25) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing, while employed under the Post Office, a post letter containing 5S., the property of the Post-master-General.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-637

637. THOMAS GEORGE WALKER (20) , to stealing a post letter and two postal orders, value 10s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., the property of the Post-master-General, he being employed under the Post Office.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-638

638. MARY ELIZABETH JACKSON (26) , to embezzling £25, and within six months a further sum of £4, and afterwards, within six months, a further sum of £30, entrusted to her by virtue of her employment in the public service.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Judgment Respited ,

Reference Number: t18991023-639

639. WILLIAM JOHNSON (32) , to stealing six orders for the payment of money, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Ten Month' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-640

640. JAMES MUSK (20) , to stealing a postal order, value 20s., the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Ten Months Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-641

641. ALFRED EDWARD HERBERT GEORGE RICE (26) , to stealing a post letter containing a pair of gloves and money, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Discharged on Recognizances. And

Reference Number: t18991023-7

642. KATE GREEN (21) , to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £7.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-643

643. GEORGE BLAKE (60) , Stealing 15 opossum skins aad other articles, the goods of Solomon Bernard Lothien, knowing them to have been stolen,

MR. MUIR Prosecuted and MR. WALL Defended

ABRAHAM LEVIN . I am a skin merchant, of 13, Edmund's Place, Aldersgate Street—my warerooms are on the second and third floors—on June 20th I had a case of skins packed ready to go to the carrier—they were placed in the passage on the ground floor at 12 a.m., and at 2 p.m. they were gone—the case contained 967 musk skins and 250 skunk

skins—I informed the police, and on July 24th I went to 6, Bridgewater Street, Barbican, where I identified 964 out of the 967 musk skins, and. 249 skunk skins—the value is about £80; they cost me over £70.

SIMON FERDINAND FELTHAM . I am one of the firm of Feltham and Woolf, auctioneers, of Duke Street—I know a man named S. Berenz—I think lie lives at Dalston—I discounted this bill of exchange for £18 (Produced) for him, dated June 26th, 1899—I do rot know the prisoner—. I paid £17 10s. by an open cheque, dated June 29th—the bill was dishonoured—I have not been able to find Berenz since.

WALTER PARKER . I am manager to Frederick Debenham and others, of 170, Oxford Street, trading as Nicholai—I identify this coat (Pro-duced) as ours; its wholesale value is £15—it was last in our stock in May—we did not sell any coat at that time—I do not know the prisoner—I do not know how it went out of our possession.

Cross-examined. I do not know anyone named Harrison—we did not give that coat out to anyone of that name—£10 would be a fair price for it second-hand—it is not second-hand; it is brand new.

By the COURT. £10 would not be a fair price for it if new—I was asked at the Guildhall if I knew a Captain Ogdon—I have never heard of him.

FREDERICK GEORGE ENSOR . I am a furrier, of 6, Newgate Street—these six pieces of squirrel skin and this black Thibet skin are my property (Produced)—they were never sold by me—I do not know how they were taken out of my possession—these eight pieces of sealskin (Produced) are mine—this whole sealskin (Produced)is one of some which were given co Mr. Muller, a manufacturer, to be made up for me—it was not returned to me—I next saw it on the premises where the prisoner was found—I do not know how it got there.

MORRIS WOOLF . I am a furrier, of 190, Aldersgate Street—I lost these 62 black Thibet skins—I do not know how they got out of my possespion—I did not miss them till we went through the stock—these 12 Persian skins I cannot swear to; we missed 12 very similar to these—the Thibet Skins are worth about £22 10s., and the Persian about £23 10s.

SOLOMON BERNARD LOTHIEN . I am a wholesale furrier, of 28, Monkwell Street—I identify these 50 white Thibet skins, 22 pieces black Thibet skins, and 15 opossum skins as my property—they are part of some I lost on February 24th, through a burglary—the total value of the property lost was between £110 and £130—the value of the property produced by the police is £12 or £15.

Cross-examined. The Thibet skins were in my possession prior to the burglary on February 23rd or 24th—I had had them over 12 months.

WILLIAM GARDNER . I am employed by Mr. Jackson, a tailor; he is the landlord of the two rooms occupied by the prisoner at 6, Bridgewater Street—Mr. Jackson occupies the ground floor—the prisoner was there before Mr. Jackson came—he took the place on August 13th—the prisoner slept in his rooms; there was no bed there—the rent was £30 a year—he paid up to the last quarter—I remember five bags of musquash skins arriving about three weeks or a month before the prisoner's arrest—they were brought on a barrow.

WILLAM WALLACE WILSON . I am a cashier in the Aldersgate Street Branch of the London and County Bank—I produce a certified copy of the prisoner's account—I am not acquainted with him personally—this is his pass-book (Produced)—in January he had a balance of £116, at the beginning of April he had £67, at the beginning of July £2 16s. 8d., and at the end of July £1 8s. 10d.

CHARGES DOUCE . On July 24th I went with Inspector Watson to 6, Bridgewater Street, Barbican, where I saw the prisoner—I said, "Good morning, Mr. Blake; I am making some inquiries respecting a quantity of skins stolen"—he was about to come out of a back room, and on right and left were skins—I then said, "Where did you get these from?"—he said, "I bought them of a man named Burns, of 19, Bridgewater Square"—I said, "What did you give for them?"—he said, "A cheque for £4 5s. and a bill which becomes due in the course of a day or two"—I told him I had reason to believe they were a portion of a quantity of skins which were stolen some days previously, and he was to consider himself in custody—Mr. Levin was then communicated with, and he identified the skins which he had reported stolen—the prisoner said the bill was for £18—I also found Mr. Ensor's property, and Mr. Woolf's, and Mr. Lothien's—the prisoner was taken to the station and charged—he said he bought job lots—I asked bim whether he kept; books or receipts, and he said he kept neither—every inquiry has been made about Berenz; we have not been able to find him—the witnesses Slinger and Muller were ordered to attend here today, but have not done so—I examined Mr. Lothien's premises on February 24th, and found that they had been entered by the door on the second floor.

Cross-examined. The furs were identified—the only marks on them were the small labels as used in the trade.

The Prisoner, In his defence said that He Bough; the must skins, But could not remember the name of the man from whom he bought them, and that they were not worth more than he paid for them, except for shipping purposes; that the fur coat he bought from a man named Harrison for £10, who told him that he had bought it from a Captain Ogdon; and that he bought the squirrel in a job lot, from whom he did not know, and that he bought all the goods in the regular way of trade.

GUILTY .—He was stated to be a receiver of stolen property.— Four Years Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT.—Monday, October 23rd, 1899.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-644

644. JOHN WOODMAN (19) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.— Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-645

645. WILLIAM DREW ** (18) , to a like offence. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Five previous convictions were proved against him,—Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-646

646. ROBERT REDMAN (21) , to stealing sheets and other articles; also to forging and uttering a request for the delivery of goods; also to obtaining goods by false pretences; also to stealing 96 yards of silk and other articles, the property of Joseph William Baxendale and others, his masters; having been convicted at Clerkenwell on May 25th, 1898.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Eighteen Months' hard Labour,

Reference Number: t18991023-647

647. JOHN SMITH (35) , to stealing a watch from the person of Edward Sweetman. Six convictions were proved against him.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Three Months' Hard Labour, having been seven weeks in custody,

Reference Number: t18991023-648

648. WILLIAM EUGINIO NYE MARTINUCCI * (23) , to two indictments for forging and uttering a bill for £50 and a cheque for £5, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Eighteen Month' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18991023-14

649. EDITH DADY to three indictments for stealing money and goods from children; having; been convicted at this Court on February 8th, 1897. (Thirty-Five children had identified the prisoner as the person who had robbed them.)— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Three Years' Penal Servitude.

Reference Number: t18991023-650

650. ARTHUR ANDERSON (26), GEORGE BROWN (23), and ELLEN JACKSON (27) , Feloniously possessing a mould for making, counterfeit coin. ANDERSON and BROWN PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (Detective Sergeant). On September 23rd, about 3.30 p.m., I went with Sergeant Grey and Lawrence to 44, Pannett Street, Commercial Road—the street-door was open, and I saw the prisoner Anderson—I went up to the first-floor front room with one of the officers, and Grey brought Anderson up—the other two prisoners were in the room, and I told them we were police-officers, and suspected them of making base coin—they said nothing—we searched and found 20 counterfeit florins in an earthenware basin on the sideboard—I also fvund some hot metal, some antimony, copper wire, a portion of a battery, whiting, and files, and all the stock-in-trade of a coiner; also some glass, with the impression of coins on it—I said, "To save trouble, tell me where the mould is"—Jackson said, "Have not you b——s got enough?"—she became very violent in her language and actions—they were all taken to the station and charged, and made no reply—I returned to the room, and in a cup-board found this mould wrapped up behind a loose brick—I returned to-the station, and told them I had found it—Anderson said, "I hope you are satisfied"—Turner said, "It is a b——y shame you did not find £100."

HERBERT GREY (Policeman), I accompanied Williamson and Lawrence—I took Anderson back from the yard to the room—he took his coat off and said, "I should like to see the man here, or the woman"—I had been there since 6 a.m. with another officer—I did not see Turner enter or leave-the house—Brown lived there with Turner as his wife; Anderson did not. live there.

Turner. I did go out; I went to the Market Place.

MARY ANN LEARY . I am the wife of Daniel Leary, cf 46, Pannett Street; No. 44 is rented by him—Brown and Turner came together, and took the first floor of No. 44—I did not go into the room while they occupied it—they paid their rent.

JULIA FLANNAGAN . I am the wife of John Flannagan—we have lived in this house two years—I know Brown and Turner as Mr. and Mrs. Kelly—I have seen Anderson come there.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to H.M.'s Mint—

these 20 florins are counterfeit, and all came from the mould (Produced), which has been made from a good coin—I have known as many as 30 coins made from one mould—these articles are the stock of a regular coiner.

Jackson's Defence: I used to be in the house; I went out to get some liver, and had only been there 10 minutes when the detectives came into the room.

WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (Re-examined). I saw no liver there.

GUILTY —JACKSON— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. ANDERSON— five Years' Penal Servitude. BROWN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, October 24th 1839.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-651

651. WILLIAM STUART and JOSEPH WALLACE PAGE , Conspiring to procure Alfred Piper to commit an offence against the Official Secrets Act, 1889.

MR. MATHEWS and MB. BODKIN Prosecuted; ME. AVOEY appeared for page, and MR. MUIB for Stuart,

MR. AVOBT submitted that the indictment was bad on the ground that Piper was not in actual" possession "of the documents required, and therefore could not be convicted under the indictment. The RECORDER, agreeing, guashed the indictment.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-652

652. EDWARD GRADY (20) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Epbraim Charles Harley, and stealing six seidlitz-powders, a bradawl, and other articles, his property.

WILLIAM CROSTON (Police Inspector). On the morning of September 22nd I received a complaint from Mr. Harley, an oil and colour merchant, of 26, Newcastle Street—I went there and found the place in confusion, and a window on the second floor held open by a piece of board—28. in copper was missing from the till and three threepenny pieces—looking out at the window which was open, I saw marks on the roof of the Globe Theatre, and leading to a common lodging-house in Wych Street—I went round to the lodging-house, and saw the deputy, William Field—I examined his room, and then went upstairs and saw the prisoner prepared to leave the room—he was very much confused; he was dressed—this was about 10 a.m.—I asked him what time he came in last night—he said, "I came in about 12 o'clock"—Mr. Field was present—he said, "That is a lie; you did not come in till 3"—I asked the prisoner where he Had been up to that time—he said, "I was at a coffee-stall the Other side of Waterloo Bridge "—I said, "All the time?"—he said, "No; I was at another coffee-stall in the Strand"—I searched him, and found 1s. 7 1/2 d. in bronze in his trousers' pocket—I asked him how he came into possession of all these coppers—he said he had Backed a horse the day before, and the bookmaker had paid him in coppers—he won 2a. 9d.—I asked him where the bookmaker was to be found—he Said that he generally stood outside the Lord Hill Public-house

in Waterloo Road—I then ascertained that he had paid for his lodging at 3 a. m. with two three-penny pieces—I told him he would be detained—I found Mr. Field's room had been entered by a skylight in the roof—a pane of glass was removed from the frame; the bed was immediately under the skylight, and the person who had entered the room had jumped on to the bed, and left boot-marks on the sheets—I compared the prisoner's boots with the marks, and they exactly corresponded—I handed these bradawls (Produced)to Mr. Field, and they were identified by Mr. Harley—the marks on the roof led from Newcastle Street to the lodging-house—I took the prisoner to the station—he said, "I am not guilty"—when I tried his boot on the marks he was present, and I pointed out to him that tha inside part of the toe was not worn, and there was a corresponding mark on the bed—he said nothing—the person who got into the shop came from the window of the lodging-house, by the tracks; he went back by crossing the leads and dropping into the room of the deputy—there was a latch on the door inside, which could be opened irom inside.

EPHRAIM CHARLES HARLEY . I am an oil and colour merchant, of 26, Newcastle Street, Strand—on September 20th I left the premises at 8,30 p. m.—I locked the front door—there was about two shillings' worth of q. coppers in the till, and three three-penny pieces—I went there at 9 a.m. r. next morning, and found the place in confusion; all the drawers were s. turned out, the till was on the counter, and the contents gone, and a t. large bowl which we keep coppers in was filled with the liquor from a u. bottle of pickles—this tin of salmon, these tools, these powders, and a v. bottle of rat poison (Produced)were taken—I went Co Bow Street Station.

WILLIAM CROSTON (Re-examined). The prisoner has got his boot on now.

WILLIAM FIELD . I am the deputy at the common lodging-house at 1 and 2, St. Mary's Buildings, Wych Street, Strand, called Waterloo Chambers—I Know the prisoner as a lodger—on the nights of Wednesday and Thursday, September 20th and 21st, I saw him in the kitchen shortly after midnight; he did not pay for his lodging then—the lodgers who are going to stay the night have to pay for their lodging before they go to their rooms—I said to the lodgers, "Those who have paid for their beds go upstairs, and those who have not get outside"—the prisoner went upstairs—I stopped in the kitchen to see them all out—the prisoner was not entitled to stay in the lodging-house, because he had not paid—I next saw him next morning, about 9 o'clock, in his room; I was with the inspector—I heard the prisoner tell the inspector that he had come in at 12 o'clock the night before—I told him he was telling an untruth—I found these articles on the roof of my room, which is on the ground floor; it has a skylight—I sleep there when I stay the night—the door has an ordinary latch—it can be opened from the inside—when I went into my room I found marks on the bed, and a suit of clothes had gone—the sky-light had been opened—a pane of glass had been taken out—I had left the room shortly after 1 a.m. the night before—I saw the prisoner produce a number of coppers—his boot exactly corresponded with the marks on the bed—I have not got the sheet with the marks on it now.

JOSEPH BASSETT . I am the porter at the common lodging-house at St.

Mary's Buildings, Wych street, strand—I know the prisoner as a lodger—I saw him there in the early morning of Thursday, september 21st—I saw him leave the premises at 1 a.m., and he returned at 3 a.m. and paid me two threepenny piece—he went downstairs first, and then upstairs—the front door is locked all night—a man could get out without calling me—it done frequently—if he wanted to come back again I should have to let him in—I heard the door slam between 1 and 3—that was after I let the prisoner in.

The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that he paid the threepenny pieces before he went upstairs, and that his shoe was the only one tried, and that there 60 men sleeping there.

GUILTY —He then pleaded Guilty to a conviction on April 3rd, 1899 and another conviction was proved against him.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT, Tuesday; and

THIRD COURT, Wednesday, October 24th and 25th, 1899

Before Mr. Common serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-653

653. FRANCIS DONOUGHUE (27) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the shop of the Holborn Viaduct Cycle Company, Limited, and stealing a bicycle.— six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-654

654. THOMAS BENNETT (28) AND ELIZABETH HUGHES (45) , to forging and uttering an order for £11. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] BENNETT— six months' imprisonment, second division. HUGHES— Two days' imprisonment.

Reference Number: t18991023-655

655. JAMES PHILLIPS (39) , to unlawfully wounding >Bridget Sullian. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] He received a good character.—three months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-656

656. GEORGE WASHINGTON THATCHER (39) , to unlawfully obtaining £10 from Scott Wilson by false pretences, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] eighteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-657

657. WILLIAM MARTIN (27) , Breaking and entering the ware house of John Horce Thompson, and stealing three piece of swiss muslin and other goods, his property.

MR. MACMAHON prosecuted.

JOB FEWTRELL . I carry on business at 13, East Street, Walworth—on August 24th and 25th I saw the prisoner selling curtains and spotter muslin opposite my shop from a barrow, between 10.30 and 12—I motioned to my sister to instruct Mrs. Berry to purchase three pairs—I saw the prisoner take these goods (produced)out of a sack—Mrs. Berry brought them to me about 11.30—the three pairs cost £1 0s. 9d.; their value is about 17s. each—I opened them, and saw Maple and co's label, of Tottenham Court Road—they were an extraordinary size—I took them to Rodeney Road Police-station.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I suspected you of buying stolen property.

HERBERT MILTON (Detective, L). In consequence of information received form Mr. Thompson on August 24th, I went to East Street Walworth, on September 27th—I told the prisoner he was charged with

breaking into a warehouse in Honey Lane Market, and stealing a quantity of curtains, the property of Mr. Thompson—he said, "You have made a mistake; I have never had the curtains, and I have not seen any"—I said, "You sold some in East Street a week ago"—he said, "You are wrong: my wife might have done so"—he was taken to the Police-station and detained—at his address, 16A, Steadman Street, Walworth, I found other lace curtains, including one pair and a-half, and a quantity of lace and sample curtains, and Swiss muslin, which has since been identified by the prosecutor; also felt hats and feathers, and a quantity of mateiials, the proceeds of larceny.

SAMUEL BACON (City Detective Officer). On August 24th I received a communication from Mr. Thompson, of Honey Lane—I went, and found the door of No. 10 had been forced open by someone pushing against it—I went to the prisoner's lodgings with Milton, and found a pair and a-half of lace curtains, 12 woollen shawls, and go felt bats, which had been identified, the hats by Mr. Webb, of Paper Street, City, and the shawls by Lipman; also a quantity of broche, since identified, and other miscellaneous property.

Cross-examined. When arrested you had a pocket-book, with a receipt for £3 10s., and other receipts dated a few days before—one was for a portable harmonium, others for buttons and cottons.

JOHN HORACE THOMPSON . I am a lace curtain merchant, of 10, Honey Lane Market—on August 23rd I left my premises about 6.15 p.m.—they were locked up—the next morning I found the door had been forced open—I missed 13 pieces of Swiss muslin and 10 pairs of curtains similar to these produced, and some samples of value only to us, all property in my trust—the manufacturer's price of these curtains is 17s. 6d. a pair—they are new—I could not sell one pair at £1 Os. 9d. to get a living profit.

EVELINE CARTER . I am a milliner, employed by Mr. Walter Webb, of 7, Paper Street, City—on September 4th we missed 75 hats from the third floor—I had seen them that morning—their value is about £5 5s.—I have seen them at the Police-station—these are some of them—I identify them by the trademark inside—they were new.

Cross-examined. I missed them about 10 minutes to 4—people were at work about the premises—I did not see you there.

ALBERT SANDERS . I am errand boy for Stephen Rogers, of 8, Paper Street, City—I saw the prisoner on Wednesday, October 4th, looking at some boxes about the place, about 20 or 25 minutes to 4—when I came down again he was putting some hats in a sack—some were dark, like this one—I afterwards identified him at the Police-station.

Cross-examined. I saw you about one or two minutes behind the door, looking at the hats—we are collar-makers.

ANTON LIPMAN . I am an agent of Philip Lane, Aldermanbury—on August 28th I was delivering woollen shawls packed in wooden boxes containing a dozen—I ought to have delivered 48; I delivered 45—five were taken away—they were found on the landing—these are some of them.

Cross-examined. I identify them by the pattern—they are made for Rylands and Son, according to special instructions—this was about the dinner-hour, which was late.

The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he attended sales and bought the goods of a dealer; that he never was in Thompson's place, and did not know they were stolen, or he would not have stood in the open market, where he had sold for two years and a-half, with no complaint of dishonesty, against him.

Evidence for the Defence.

ELIZABETH MARTIN . I am the prisoner's wife—I remember that he saw a dealer on the Monday, and bought these curtains on a Tuesday morning—I was present on the Monday evening; on the Tuesday I was attending to my sick child.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-658

658. BENJAMIN WILLIAM ELLIOTT (48) , Unlawfully obtaining from James Wilson 10s. 6d. by false pretences; other Counts varying the manner of laying the charge.

MR. MUIR Prosecuted, and MR. BURNIE Defended.

During the progress of the. case the prisoner stated in the hearing of the JURY that he was guilty on the Sixth Count.

GUILTY on the Sixth Count,— Six Months' Imprisonment, second division.

Reference Number: t18991023-659

659. WILLIAM WARD (20), CHARLES THOMAS (19) and CHARLES CATO (23) , Robbery with violence upon Howell Thomas, and stealing a watch and chain, key, and £14 5s., his property. WARD PLEADED GUILTY to robbery without violence.HEARS Prosecuted; and MR. PURCELL appeared for Thomas, and MR. WRBURTON For Cato.

HOWELL THOMAS . I live at 41, Barnard Street, Russell Square—I am. a clerk—on August 318t, about midnight, in Upper Woburn Place, on my way from Gower Street Station to my rooms, I was set upon by a gang of about half-a-dozen men; bands were placed over my mouth, my arms held, and my pockets rifled—I lost my watch and chain, and £14 10s. and some silver—some of the men came from behind me, and some from across the road—I recognise Ward, but I am not absolutely certain of the other two—I shouted—1 chased three or four, who Went one way—a. policeman came.

ARTHUR BASHFORD (29 E E). On August 31st, a out midnight, I was in Euston Road, opposite the Midland Station—I saw the prisoners and a man not in custody at the corner of St. Pancras Road about 11.50 p.m.—I have known them the last seven years—they went west, towards St. Pancras Church, and along the right-hand side of the Euston Road—I kept them under observation—when they got near ossington Street they crossed the road, and I lost sight of them—I saw them again 10 minutes afterwards, with the man not in custody, standing alongside St. Pancras Church—seeing me, they crossed the road into Seymour Street, and went into a public-house—when I returned into Euston Road the prisoners advanced out of Seymonr Street, and went towards Upper Woburn Place, about 12.25—about five minutes afterwards I was informed of the robbery—Thomas was wearing a light drab suit and a cut-away cap—Cato had a darkish suit and a skull-cap.

Cross-examined By MR. PURCELL. I keep observation on Thomas—he generally turns the opposite way.

JAMES GODFREY (42 Y). I was on duty in Euston Road, and saw the prisoners and another man going in the direction of Woburn Place a few minutes before 12—Ward and Thomas looked round—I lost sight of them—I know two—I saw four men—I heard of the robbery about 12.30.

Cross-examined By MR. PURCELL. I have seen Thomas with Cato on several other evenings—this evening Thomas wore a brown suit and a brown "Trilby"—I do not call a "Trilby" a cut-away cap.

Re-examined. I am certain Thomas was the man I saw—I have known him seven or eight years, and Cato four or five years.

WILLIAM WHITEHEAD (287 Y). I was on duty in Euston Road just before 12 on August 31st—I saw the prisoners and another man walking towards King's Cross—I followed, but lost sight of them—about 12.30 on September 1st I saw the same four men run across from Duke's Road into the Euston Road—I saw another constable pursuing, and I gave chase—they ran down Churchway, and got away—there was electric light—I had a good view—I have known Thomas and Cato about four years as friends—I have seen them with Ward nightly.

Cross-examined By MR. PURCELL. I have seen the prisoners together twice during August, during the latter end—I saw them this night, full face and side face, the other side of the road—I was asked before the Magistrate if I saw them side face—I did not see Thomas on the Saturday night—I have seen him at a coffee-stall—I have not seen him twice after this robbery—I did not see him on Sunday night, when I was with a constable of the Y Division, at a coffee-stall, nor say to him, "Mow then, Thomas, it is time you were home; you have been here Long enough"—I have told him to get along home—I was not at the coffee-stall on Saturday night—I had seen him about a week before the robbery—I did not say, "Now then, young Thomas, we don't want you here; clear out of it"—he said something at the station as to why I had not taken him, but I had not seen him.

Cross-examined By MR. WARBURTON. I have talked with other officers about the case, but not about the evidence.

HARRY HORXER (482 E). About 12.30 on September 1st I was on duty in Burton Street—I heard someone shouting, "help! help!" in the direction of Upper Woburn Place—I saw Thomas and Ward coming up the steps from Woburn Buildings to Burton Place—seeing me, they ran back into Duke's Road—I saw four men running—the prosecutor made a communication to me—I was 5C yards from the prisoners when I saw the prosecutor—I have known Thomas and Ward over three years frequenting the Euston Road—I had a good opportunity of seeing Thomas—there was gaslight—I am sure he was the other man I saw run down the steps—I was in uniform—I saw them running in my direction 40 yards off.

ALFRED REDDER (Police Sergeant, E). On September 6th Ward was brought in—I told him the charge—I arrested Thomas on September 7th—I told him the charge—he said, "I deny it; I had a quirrel with Cato six weeks ago, and I do not speak to him"—he was taken to the station—

Cato was arrested on September 13th—when the charge was read over to him he said, "I am innocent"—£2 10s. in gold and 5S. 6d. in silver was found on Cato.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I told Thomas he would be charged" with robbery with violence, in company with two other men—he said he had quarrelled with Cato over a game of skittles—I told Thomas the time of the robbery—I did not hear him say the time, nor that he was at the Middlesex Music Hall—Inspector Everett took the-charge—he baa retired—Thomas was excited.

The Prisoners in their defences, denied being near the spot where the robbery was committed.

Evidence for the Defence.

WILLIAM WARD (the Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to robbing the prosecutor—Thomas and Cato were not with me, those who were hailed from Tottenham Court Road—we followed the prosecutor from the King's Head public-house, at the corner of Euston Road—I told the Magistrate that Cato and Thomas were not with me—my statement before the Magistrate is correct, that "I pleaded guilty to the robbery and being concerned With three Other chaps from Hampstead. We followed the man-from the King's Head at the comer of Euston Road. Thomas and Cato are quite innocent."

Cross-examined. I have known Thomas about 18 months—I have not been constantly in his company—I have known Cato since 1893, when his mother died and I went in his mother's place for good—I have not been frequently in their company in Euston Road—the police are mistaken. in their evidence—I was in Euston Road, but at the other end—I saw the prosecutor near the King's Head public-house, standing on the kerb—he was reeling about, the worse for drink—I shared the proceeds of the robbery with the other men—I got more than the others—I only know-about taking the purse.

ELIZABETH THOMAS . I live at 49, Johnson Street, Seymour Street—I am the mother of the prisoner Thomas—the week before he was locked up I was with him at the Middlesex Music Hall—it was the last day of August, a Thursday—we left the music hall about 11.40, went to the Distillery public-bouse, close by, stopped about five minutes, then we-crossed High Holborn to Southampton Row, and reached home about 12.15—we had supper, and a conversation as to-what we had seen, and went to bed about 12.55—from coming out of the public-house to my. going to bed my son was in my company—I left him at the window smoking—he was not wearing a light drab suit, but a brown coat.

Cross-examined. I had been at the Middlesex Music Hall before—about half-a-dozen men and women were in the bar—my husband was ill in bed—I was with him three or four minutes to give him a drop of broth—my other sons were in bed; I have three—I cannot recollect what I was doing the previous Thursday, nor the Saturday after; I was doing my work—at 8 o'clock I was indoors minding my baby—I recollect the 31st, because I said, "Is not this hall crowded?" and my son said, "Yes, it is early-closing night"—I believe Mondays and Thursdays are crowded nights—I saw a sketch called "Drummed Out"—I saw two or three

sketches, I cannot tell you the names—in this parcel is the hat my son was wearing the same night (A brown indented cap).

Re-examined. I do not go often to a music hall; I went 12 months to-day—my son wears a light open cap.

FREDERICK CATO . I am the brother of the prisoner Cato, and live with him at 27, Peace Cottages—I sleep in the same bed—I am a car-man—on Thursday, August Slat, we started to Sadler's Wells Theatre about 9.15—we were tbere till 11.15—then we tad a drink in Swinton Street, and got home about 11.45, and went to bed about 11.55—about 12.30 I was awoke by a dog barking, and my brother was in bed then.

Cross-examined. It was a damp night that made us go—it was raining very fast—about 8.30 I was having tea, when he asked me to go—we saw bicycling, but I do not remember all; I had no programme—we had sapper and went to bed—William Tate was there eating—we all sat round the table—I cannot remember what occurred on the 24th—my brother was arrested two or three days before we went to the theatre—I gave evidence on the 13th, a week after my brother was arrested.

WILLIAM TATE . I am a beer bottle-washer, of 27, Peace Cottages Tonbridge Street—I occupy the same large bed with the brothers Cato—on Thursday, August 31st, I recollect putting the clock on right—it was just eight minutes to 12 when they came in—I was reading the paper—Mrs. Cato was having tea—she said, "I wonder if Joe is keeping his birthday"—that was the last day of the month—Joe is a soldier at Alder-shot—that impressed it on my mind as being the same night they went to the theatre—we went to bed just before midnight—the prisoner Cato did not leave his room afterwards.

Cross-examined. The Catos told me they had been to the theatre when they came home—I left work at 6 p.m.—I bought a paper, and returned about 6.30—I remained reading a paper and a book till eight minutes to 12—about 8 Freddy came home, had tea, and said, as it was damp, they would go to Sadler's Wells Theatre—they sat down to eat; I did not join—about a minute before they came in I was putting the clock on—I was sitting by the fire, with the paper in my hand—Charley went to bed first, Fred second, and I third, all together.

HOWELL THOMAS (Re-examined). I was not standing at the corner of the King's Head public-house; I do not know the place—it is untrue that I was reeling about when followed—I was not the worse for drink—I left my office at 9.30 p.m.—I went to a billiard match—I do not think I had two drinks during the evening; I had taken nothing to make me intoxicated—I had supper at Gower's, and some whisky—I left the Metropolitan Station and turned down Euston Road into Woburn Place—I have been at my present lodgings since February.

ALBERT PEDDER (Re-examined). Cato was arrested on the 5th, on another charge, taken before a Magistrate, remanded till the 13th, then charged with this offence—he was discharged in the other case.

GUILTY . THOMAS then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction of felony in the nameof Charles Taylor at this Court in January, 1897. There were seven other convictions and eight summary convictions against him. CATO then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Clerkenwell Police-court on November 14th

1897. Eight other convictions were proved against him.— Three Years' Penal Servitude each . WARD Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-660

660. WILLIAM CRONIN (26) , Feloniously assaulting Matthew Gibbona, with two other persons whose names are unknown, with intent to rob him.

MR. KERSHAW, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-661

661. GEORGE FRANCIS ROBERTSON (27) , Feloniously, and with menaces, demanding 10s. from Jeanette Aspeaslagh.

MR. RANDOLPH Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

The evidence is unfit For publication. The prisoner received a good character. GUILTY .— There were two other similar indictments against him.—Four Years' Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT—Wednesday, October 25th, 1899.

Before Mr. Recorder,

Reference Number: t18991023-662

662. HARRY BRIGHT CHRISTIE (21) and WILLIAM GEORGE OAK CRISP (23) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 91 bonds, value £10,700. the property of Sigismund Henmann, the master of Christian. Christie received a good character,— Three Years' Penal Servitude. CRISP— Four Years' Penal Servitude. The COURT Commended the conduct of Inspector Abbott.

Reference Number: t18991023-663

663. JAMES SHIPTON BIRKS (35) , to obtaining £5 15S by false pretences from Richard Blunden— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Judgment Respited.

Reference Number: t18991023-664

664. CHARLES MUSGRAVE BIRKS (25) , to stealing 10 cash boxes and 26 keys of John Frederick Tarn, his master.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Judgment Respited. And

Reference Number: t18991023-30

665. JAMES FITZGERALD , to feloniously wounding William Edwards, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] He received a good character.— Judgment Respited.

Reference Number: t18991023-666

666. ALFRED GARLAND, Feloniously marrying Rose Allen, his wife being alive.

MR. GEOGHEGAN, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-667

667. ESTHER GARLAND (30) , Feloniously marrying Albert Crouch, her husband being alive.

MR. GEOGHEGAN offered no evidence. NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-668

668. JOHN LEARY (38) , Robbery with violence on Thomas Powell and stealing a watch and chain, his property.

MR. MOBGAN Prosecuted.

THOMAS POWELL . I am a house-painter, of 54, Little Albany Street, Regent's Park—on August 10th, between 2 and 3 o'clock, I was in Endell Street, and was in drink—I received a blow on the left side of my face, and closed with the man—we were knocked down by a cab, and I was taken to the hospital—I missed my watch and chain—I was taken to Bow Street on September 3rd, and failed to identify the prisoner.

FRANK HEDGES . I am a journeyman butcher, of 9, Blackman Street—on August 10th, about 2.50, I was coming from Seven Dials towards Eadell Street, and saw the prisoner and prosecutor struggling four yards away—the prisoner was doing all he could to get away from Powell, and struck him on his eye—Powell lay there, and the prisoner got up—I picked Powell up, and he ran up a street—on September 3rd I was shown nine or ten men at Bow Street, and picked the prisoner out—I have not the least doubt he is the man—it was broad daylight, and this lasted four or five minutes—the prisoner was dressed in a dark suit, and a white muffler round his neck, just as he is now.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I believe another witness picked out another man at the Police-court; I came out last—your beard has grown since—I gave a description at the station of the man who robbed Powell.

SIDNEY TREMLETT (Detective, E). On September 2nd, about 9.30,1 saw the prisoner outside the Theatre of Varieties, and told him he answered the description of a man wanted for a robbery in Endell Street—he said, "I know nothing about it; you will give me a chance of identification"—I took a note of what he said, but have unfortunately lost it—he said something about "one of them."

ALBERT HAYNE (Detective Sergeant, E). On the evening of September 2nd I saw the prisoner detained at Bow Street Station—on the Sunday afterwards he Was placed with nine others, as near like him as we could get them—Hedges identified him, and he said, "You have made a mistake; I am quite innocent. I was in Charing Cross Hospital, and before that for three weeks. I know nothing about it."—I went to the hospital, made inquiries, and told him that there was no record of it—he said, "I was in the Alfred Ward, under Dr. Boyd, and went under an operation for an abscess in my chest; but it may have been in July."

Cross-examined. You said you were in Charing Cross Hospital on August 10th, the day of the robbery, and previous to that, and remained there three weeks—another witness picked out another man, to the best of his belief, but he was two or three inches taller than you.

H—ARTHUR PARBANK. I am House-Surgeon at Charing Cross Hospital—the prisoner was admitted there on June 13th, and went out on July 4th—he has not been an in-patient since that date, but he has been to the hospital since—the abscess on his chest was not quite healed when he went out.

Cross-examined. You were under another doctor.

Evidence for the Defence.

JULIA ANDREWS . I am the wife of William Andrews, of Turner's Court—I know that the prisoner was very bad in the week of the robbery; it was Bank Holiday week—he came to me on the Saturday before, and was with me all that time—he had been out of the hospital a month before he came to me, and he came just before Bank Holiday—he was not two hours away on August 10th—it does not take more than 10 minutes to go from our house to Endell Street—he did go out, but not for long.

Prisoner's Defence: I was taken on a Tuesday, and witnesses were brought to identify me on another charge. The first witness could not identify me, and then this witness picked me out. I have bee in

Charing Cross Hospital nearly three weeks. I had very low diet, and could hardly walk about for weeks afterwards. My statement that I was in the hospital on the day of the robbery is quite a mistake.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-670

670. JOHN LEARY was again indicted for assaulting Thomas Powell, upon which no evidence was offered. NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-671

671. HERBERT GEORGE WILSON (29) , Embezzling 14s., £1 10s. 3d., and 13s., 7d., the property of Joseph Waller, his master.

MR. SOPER Prosecuted, and MR. WARDE Defended.

ALFRED JAMES WALLER . I am manager to my father, a stationer—the prisoner was the collector—on July 27th Mayer and Co. owed my father 14s.—this receipt is signed by the prisoner, but the sum has not been accounted for to me or my father—on August 19th Pipe and Gordon owed us £1 10s. 3d.—this is a receipt for it, signed by the prisoner—it has not been accounted for—on September 15th Miss Hammond owed us two sums, for which these are the receipts, signed by the prisoner—he has not accounted for them—I spoke to him about it on September 15th,. and he signed this sitatement, accounting for £8 13S. 4d.: "I hereby acknowledge receiving the amounts, and appropriating them to my own use"—his salary was 25s. a week, and 2 1/2 per cent, commission on receipts—he had not five per cent, on all business introduced by him—he did introduce business—I am not aware that he has alleged that there is an account between us for commission—on September 25th he came back to business after being away a few days from illness, and I drew his attention to this—I did not tell him that he must pay in these amounts, or tell hinii. that we should projmute him if he did not, or that, unless he got the money from his friends, we should do so; but he asked leave to do so and came back and said that he could not get the money from his friends, but had got a form from a loan office—I did not say that, as his father-in-law was well off, he had better get the money from him; or that, unless-his father-in-law paid the money, we should prosecute him—I called on. him—I had been to his father-in law because he requested me to do so, and I acquainted him with what had occurred—on the following day I filled up a form for the London and Westminster Loan Office for him, and went there with him—I went to his fatherin-law several times, not to get him to pay the money, but to ask him about his son—I wrote him this letter (Produced), but it is marked "Confidential." (This asked him to pay £ 1 a week, rather than that the innocent should suffer for the guilty.)

By the COURT. I offered to pay the money myself, in order to get him. out of the mess—I was not acting under my father's instructions at all—I do not know whether my father was willing to take the money back—he was away ill, too ill for me to discuss the matter with him—this letter is in my father's writing—(to the prisoner, stating that unless he refunded the money by saturday next he should place the matter' in the hands of the police.)—The, letter was marked "Private," and I did not know that my father had written it—I saw the prisoner nearly every day—on October 16th he called with a friend named Elliott; I did not say that if Elliott

would guarantee the repayment he should not be prosecuted—I told Him I had no authority whatever—I do not know that he alleges that there was an account between us—a fortnight's salary was not due to him, that I am aware of.

FREDERICK EADY . I am a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Mayer—they owed the prisoner 14s. on July 12th—I paid it to the prisoner, and he signed this receipt.

GUILTY .— Judgment Respited.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, October 25th and 26th, 1899.

Before Mr. Justice Channell.

Reference Number: t18991023-672

672. EDOUARD PAUL LOUIS MARMAJOU (28), I was indicted For the wilful murder of Edouard Marmajou.

MESSRS. MATHEWS and MUIR Prosecuted, and MR. ABINQER Defended

FRANK GEORGE WAYLBTT (176 K) produced and proved the plans of the room on the second floor at 95, Shaftesbury Avenue.

ELIZABETH NAUGHTON . I am a domestic servant, and live at 9, Little White Lion Street, Seven Dials—I am in service at 31, Frith Street, in the daytime, with Mr. Needleman, a tailor, on the second floor—I Have seen two children sitting at the windows of a house in Shaftesbury Avenue—on Thursday, September 18th, I heard a baby's voice between 3 and 4 in the afternoon—I made a statement to an inspector, and I gave my evidence before the Magistrate—I do not know when I heard that the baby was dead; I heard a scream from the back window, where,1 was working—it was a terrible scream of a child—I have only heard the screams once or twice—the last time I heard it was on the Tuesday.

JANE MOSGOOSKT . I am the wife of Morris Mosgoosky, a tailor, of 31, Frith Street, on the fourth floor—our windows, back on to the windows of 95, Shaftesbury Avenue—I have seen the prisoner there—I remember September 14th—I am a Jewess, and it was a feast day—my little girl came and woke me—I heard a baby's terrible cry; it came from the house next door, in the yard—the cry came from the same house where I have seen the prisoner—it was 4 or 5 a.m.—it did not continue very long; it went on for about 20 minutes.

Cross-examined. Frith Street is very thickly populated—I woke up about 5.30 on the Thursday morning—I lay awake in bed for some time—my bedroom window was shut.

Re-examined. I got up about 6.30—I went to Synagogue on the Day of Atonement; the service began at 8 o'clock—after I woke up T did not sleep any more—there was a little light when I woke up, not much.

AKNIE MOSGOOSKY . The last witness is my mother—I remember the day of the Black Fast—I heard the terrible cry of a baby early in the morning; it woke me up, and I went into my mother's room, and she was up also—the baby was still crying—the cry came from the second floor, at the back of the opposite building—I had never seen the prisoner at any of the windows behind ours—I know his room, but I have not seen him about—the cry came from his room; the crying continued about 10 minutes—it was just getting daylight.

Cross-examined. My window was shut—I am sure my mother was up when I went into her room; I think it was between 3 and 4 a.m.—I did not remain in her room very long; then I went back and dressed myself.

Re-examined. My mother was awake, but in bed.

EDMUND CHARRIER . I am the cure of the French Catholic Church at Leicester Place, Leicester Square—I live at 5, Leicester Place—I knew the prisoner for a month prior to September 14th, and on each occasion that I saw him it was for five or six minutes—I had been to his room twice—I had never seen the wife before September 14th; I saw her at 10 minutes to six on the morning of September 14th—she called to ask me to baptise the child, and in consequence I went immediately to 95, Shaftesbury Avenue—I went to the prisoner's room, where I saw the prisoner; he opened the door for me—his eldest girl was in the Small bed, and his youngest girl was in the large bed—the little boy was in the large bed—I got to the prisoner's room about eight minutes to 6—the prisoner asked me to baptise the child at once—I asked that the child should be taken from the bed, for fear I should wet the sheet with the Holy Water—the father took the child delicately in his arms, and held it—I did not touch the child, I only baptised it—I noticed the child was very ill—it was enveloped in white clothes from head to foot; its breathing was very feeble—I do net think it was conscious then—it opened its eyes during the baptism, and I thought he was conscious enough' to be baptised—he was very ill, but he looked and breathed, he looked at me—I then left the room—I was there between three and four minutes—I spoke to the prisoner as I was leaving the room, to console him—I told him the child would soon be an angelin Heaven—before I left the room the father laid the boy gently on the bed.

Cross-examined. I paid the rent, and also gave them bread—on The two occasions that I saw the defendant, the room was in a little Disorder; it was not too clean—I remarked that the prisoner had nothing but affection and gentleness towards his children—on the morning of the 14th the prisoner's wife came to my door, and rang the bell—she had no cloak, only a dress, I think—she looked very troubled, and also very sad—she said to me, "Make haste; I want you to baptise my child, who is Very ill"—when I got to the room the prisoner was crying—I thought he was crying at the sorrow of losing his son—the child Was clean—I am sure it was breathing—the father held the child scarcely two minutes—he was crying while the child was being baptised—he was very gentle when he put the child back on the bed—I think he put the blankets over the child again—everything the father did while I was in the room was consistent with a kind and gentle parent—I have great experience in visiting the poor—I did not think the kindness was simulated.

Re-examined. When the wife came to me she did not say anything about the child having had an accident.

ADA SINGER . I am the wife of William Singer, and live at 53, Park Road, Clarence Gate, Regent's Park—I know the prisoner and his wife—bis wife is my cousin—she came to me on September 14th a little before 6 a. m.; she was very exhausted and excited—she had no hat or coat on, and only her slippers—in consequence of what she said I got up and went with her to Dr. Mondy's, which is next door to her own house—we

got there about 8 o'clock; we sent a message up to Dr. Mondy through the servant—we then went to my cousin's to fetch the baby to Dr. Mondy—I saw the child and the prisoner—the child was dead—it was laid out for the coffin, and dressed in a white gown—I saw some water and a sponge there—the husband and wife spoke together in French—I asked the wife what her husband said; I do not understand Freuch—she said the husband had said that the priest had been and christened the child—she asked what time the baby died, and he said, "Six o'clock"—then she asked him how the baby died, and she said he told her that it gave two gasps and died—he did not say where the child was when it died—the mother went to Dr. Mondy—I was there when he came—I did not have any conversation with the prisoner—when Dr. Mondy came back he told us he could not give a certificate, and instructed me to go to the Coroner's officer, and I went with Mrs. Marmajou—it was too early to go then, and we got there about 10 o'clock—I was not in the house when Dr. Mondy came back at 10.15—I went there between 10 and 11, and then went back to my house with Mrs. Marmajou, to make arrangements for the funeral—I left the prisoner's house to go home between 12 and 1—we returned to the prisoner's house about 3 o'clock—we remained there a short time, and then we had to go to the undertaker—I left Mrs. Marmajou about 7 p.m.—she asked me not to leave her—the prisoner was at home.

Cross-examined. I was on good terms with the prisoner's wife—I went to two doctors—I could not get them to come—one was out at a case, and another asked me to bring the baby to him; he was in his dressinggown—I said I could not bring a dying baby—my cousin seemed very distressed; she told me she thought the baby would be dead before she got back—when we got back to Shaftesbury A venue, at 8 a.m., the prisoner was kneeling by the bed side, where thecorpse was—I think he had bpen crying—he did not appear to be in prayer; he seemed quite calm—the room was in order--the other children were dressed, and they were playing about the room—I did not notice a glass with some port wine and water on the table—when the prisoner's wife was told that the baby was dead she did not burst into tears; she was too excited—the prisoner did not kiss his wife, that I remember—he can speak a little English, I believe—I heard that they came to England in March last—I do not know if my cousin was married in 1892—I heard of the marriage, but I do not know the year—they have had four children; the eldest child is eight, the think child is between four and five, I think—I have seen the little boy once, in the eary part of August—I do not know when the little boy came over to England—he seemed to be in fairly good health—he did not cough while I was there.

Re-examined. When my cousin came to me on this early morning she said the baby was cutting its teeth—I asked her if she had had a doctor, and she said she had been to two doctors, and that they would not come, because she had not got the money.

SAMUEL LEE CRAIGIE MONDY . I am a member of the College of Surgeons and a Licentiate of the College of Physicians—I live and prac tise at 99, Shaftesbury Avenue—on September 14th, about 6 a.m., I received a message from my servant, and about five minutes later I

received a second message, and, in consequence, I went to the prisoner's room on the second floor, at 95, Shaftesbury Avenue, where I saw the body of a child on a bed, dressed, and prepared for its coffin—I listened to its heart and lungs; there was no sign of life—the body was warm; roughly, the child had been dead about two hours—I arrived there at 8.15; the prisoner was present, his wife and Mrs. Singer—I said I could not give a certificate, as the child had not been seen by me alive—I had come out only half dressed, and I told them I would return later—I went home, and returned between 10 and 10.15—the child was still on the bed; they had laid two cloths over it—the prisoner and the two little girls were in the room then—I asked the father to undress the child—he did so after completing the toilet he was then performing—I then made a complete external examination of the child's body—I found there was over the left eye and cheek a big bruise—it extended right over the cheekbone and over the two eyelids—I formed the opinion that it had been inflicted within two days—over the breast-bone there was an abra sion—that might have been caused by the child itself—on the inner side of the right thigh, above the knee, I saw two marks—it looked as if the child had been gripped by the fingers—I think the injury had been inflicted about a day—there were three bruises on the highest part of the forehead, and another bruise about 1 in. behind the front limit of the hair—they were old injuries—there were some injuries on the right upper arm and right hand—on the left lower arm and left hand there were bruises—they might have been caused anywhere between one and three days—they were probably caused by one blow for each bruise—I examined the buttocks of the child—on the upper part of the right buttock there were six cuts into the skin, about 3 in. or 4 in. long—they looked to me as if they had been caused by a thin cane or whip, or the ribs of an umbrella—on the left buttock there were two. bruises parallel to each other, each about 1 in. long, caused, probably, by a broader stick or cane—each might have been caused by a single, blow—they might have been caused anywhere within 48 hours—there was a bruise on the right ankle, caused, I should say, by a blow; it might have been done a day or two before—there was a large bruise over the left ribs about the size of the palm of a man's hand; it was quite recent; within four hours, I should say—from my examination, I took the ribs to be fractured—on the vertex of the skull I found a large bruise, and on the back of the skull, slightly to the right side, there was another bruise—. the one on the top of the skull was the larger—they were quite recent, a few hours—there were other signs of bruises and abrasions—I think the bruise over the left ribs was inflicted during life, and also the ones on the skull—the bruise over the ribs was probably caused within a few minutes of death, and the ones on the head within a few hours of death—while I was examining the child the prisoner was standing over me; he could see what I was doing—I called his attention to the bruises I discovered then—he said they were caused by the child falling out of bed, and his ex planation of the marks on the breast-bone was that the child had scratched itself—his wife was present during the first examination at 8 o'clock, but not at 10.15—she told me in the prisoner's hearing that the child had been weak ever since its birth, and had been specially is for about three days, during

which time the child had had no doctor, as they thought the illness was due to teething; that the child had been brought from France six weeks before September 14th, when it had six teeth, now it had 12; that during its illness the child had vomited, and had coughed; Dr. Mitehell, the Divisional-Sur geon, was present when I made my subsequent examination, which was about 8 p.m. of the same day—I noticed the child was well nourished—on opening the chest I noticed the ribs were unnaturally movable—the heart was normal except for a clot in the right ventricle, and I afterwards found worms—the clot had nothing to do with the child's death—I found the lung was adhering to the eighth and ninth ribs; the left lung was lacerated, corre sponding to the ninth rib; on the left side of the chest the ribs were broken from the fourth to the ninth, inclusive, each being broken in two places while the cartilages were intact; there was also congestion of the base of the left lung; it bad nothing to do with the cause of death, in my opinion—the child had had bronchitis and pleurisy, the pleurisy being on the left side—the fractured ribs corresponded to the bruises on the left side—on the right side the ribs from the fourth to the twelth, inclusive, were broken, each in one place; the right lung was congested at the base; there were signs of bronchitis; there was no external bruise on the right side—the weight of the body was 14 1/2 lb.; the mother said its age was two and ahalf years—the normal weight of a child of two and ahalf years would be 23 lb. to 25 lb.—the cause of death was due to shock following these injuries to the ribs and lung—the injuries to the ribs on one side would have been quite enough, but both sides may be taken in—the left side would have been quite enough, where the injury to the lung was—a childof this age would lose consciousness almost at once upon receiving the injuries on the left side, at the outside I should say two minutes, and it would most probably have died within three or four minutes, at the outside seven minutes—they must have been inflicted with very extreme force—the violence was done over the bruise on the left side—the fracture of the ribs on the right side was probably occasioned by counterpressure against an unyielding object,. like an uncarpeted boarded floor—I do not think the injuries could have been caused while the child was on a bed; the bed would have been too yielding—mere pressure might have caused the fracture, but it would not have caused the bruise over the ribs—the bruise might have been done by a blow or a kick—the lines of fracture on the ribs were about 1 1/2 in. or 2 in.—I take it, all in all, that the child's death was due to violence, which was done to the child while alive by some other person—I noticed that there were two beds in the room—the height of the bed in which the child was supposed to have slept was 22in.—in my opinion, it was not possible for the child to have inflicted those injuries by a fall out of that bed—I cannot say that I noticed that the room was uncarpeted, or that some nails were protruding; I will take it as a fact that there were—I see on this plan that the nails protrude from 1/16 in. to 1/32 in., and the places are 2 in. at the nearest, and 5 in. at the farthest part—the injuries to the buttocks could not have been caused by the child falling on the floor—the stripes on the buttocks were only 1/2 in to 2/3 in. apart—they were parallel, except one of them, and that branched. off from a previous scratch—the nails are said to be 2 in. apart, and a child would not move to one side and scratch itself again probably—

the scratches ranged from 3 in. to 4 in. in length on the right buttock—the area of the six were within an area of about 3 in., at the outside 3 1/2 in.—on the left the area was about 1/2 in. to 2/3 in.—after the injuries had been received to the skull the child would not cry out or scream—it would pro bably lose consciousness—the child could not move itself after receiving the injuries to the ribs—I think the bruise over the left breast was about 3 in. back from the breast-bone—about two teaspoonfuls of blood were effused in connection with the fracture of the ribs on the left side—the cuts on the left buttock were just deep enough to cause a little effusion of blood—a few hours after I had made my post-mortem Dr. Mitchell called on me, and he went and examined the body, and I took down his notes as he dictated them—it was practically a separate examination, and at a. different hour.

Cross-examined. I was admitted to the profession in January of this year—I started practice almost immediately—I have been in practice be tween eight and nine months—that is the whole of my experience as a qualified doctor—this is the first case in which I have given evidence—I express these opinions to the best of my knowledge—I do not know Dr, Pepper—I did not see the prisoner's wife the first time, or the woman who was with her—when I went to the prisoner's room I did not notice what the prisoner was doing—the child was on the bed—the prisoner was not fully dressed—I did not notice him crying—when I went in the second tinie I think the prisoner was putting his tie on—I did not notice any signs of emotion in him—he answered my questions; he made no object tion—when I said that such and such an injury was caused two hours or two days, and so on, previously, I was going according to the colour of the bruise and the amount of blood I found effused afterwards—the bruise over the eye was blue, and had not changed colour, so I should say it was a matter of hours—I said that the death occurred within two hours of my seeing the body, and I said at the Police-court that the bruises on the left of the ribs were caused about an hour and a-half before I saw it—I am afraid I made a mistake there—when I speak of a fractured rib T mean that the bone is actually broken—the fracture of these ribs was about 2 1/2 in. from the breast bone—I examined the child's brain—I think it has occurred that, by its coughing, a child has detached the cartilage from the ribs—I have never known a case—a child could not have broken the rib from the cartilage if the fracture was. 2 1/2 in. from the cartilage—if the child was on the floor on its right side, and the other side was punched by the fist, that would be sufficient to smash the ribs on the right side—it might have been stamped by the foot; it would not then have had marks on the right side—it would not necessarily break away the whole structure of the child—if you received a blow, and had a perforated lung, I should not give you more than. half an hour to live—I think the child must have received the injury after the priest left—on the right buttock the skin was broken in sir places—I suggest that a blow from a whip would cut through the flesh—it is possible that the child might have caused the wounds on the buttocks by dragging itself across the floor, but not probable—worms would emaciate the child, and teething would also—the child also had bronchitis I do not think that would emaciate it—it also had pleurisy.

Re-examined. There was nothing in the brain showing the cause of death—a child, however violently it coughed, could not inflict such injuries as these on itself—I think that all these injuries could have been caused by one blow; supposing the child was on an unyielding object, one act of violence would have been sufficient to cause the injuries to both sides of the ribs.

ALEXANDER MITCHELL . I am an M.D., a Bachelor of Medicine, and a Master of Surgery—I have been in practice over 26 years—I am Divisional Surgeon to the C Division of Police—I made a post-mortem examination of the deceased on September 14th at St. Ann's Mortuary, at 8.30 p.m.—Dr. Munday took some of my notes for me—I have heard his evidence, and I agree with it—my impression is that as soon as the blow was struck the child suffered from shock, from which it did not recover, and probably died within a few minutes, if so long as that—I do not think it could have lived more than 10 minutes; it would probably have died within a few seconds—in my opinion, the cause of death was shock, resulting from direct violence.

Cross-examined. An adult with a perforated lung might recover; it is not necessarily fatal; but this child died from shock—I saw the body alter it had been dissected by another doctor—there was very little blood effused, showing that the child could not have lived very long—if the ribs were broken after death they would present a very different appearance.

Re-examined. I do not think these injuries could have been caused by The child falling about, or by its falling out of a bed—I think the whole of the injuries to the ribs might have been caused by one act of violence, and that that act must have been caused by some other person—one blow would have been sufficient—it must have been violent—the ribs of young children are very elastic, and unless the violence had been very great the ribs would not have been fractured.

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPKR . I am a Master of Surgery, a Bachelor of Medicine at the London University, and F.R.C.S.—and a lecturer of surgery at St. Mary's Hospital—I was not present at either of the post mortem examinations—I have read the depositions in the case—I entirely agree with the evidence of the two doctors—I should say that the outside limit that a child could have lived after receiving the injuries would be 10 minutes, possibly 15 minutes, but I do not think so much—I think the probability would be that the child would die immediately—I think it would become unconscious immediately—the injuries could not have been self-inflicted—the greatest height that it could have fallen would have been 28 in.—I think the injuries could not have been caused by the child falling out of the bed—if it had fallen on the floor the ribs must have been driven in—it is probable that the child's right side was in contact with some hard, broad substance, but it is not necessary that it should be—it would have to be very considerable force to break the ribs in two places—a blow with the fist would account for it if the child was against a resisting substance—I do not believe the child would recover in the slightest after receiving the injuries; it must have been an immense shock, And it is in the region of the heart—the blow might have been sufficient to kill the child; it would lose its power of breathing, of crying out,

and of moving—it would be in a state of utter collapse—I think that the injuries on the buttocks could have been caused by the fingers; there is not sufficient evidence to make me say that they were caused by a cane.

Cross-examined. I was consulted since the committal—I did not have a conversation with Dr. Munday or Dr. Mitchell—I have never spoken to either of them until today; I base my views on the depositions before the Coroner, and what I have heard in Court today—I absolutely exclude the possibility of a child of this description falling and injuring itself like this—I am speaking from a very large experience—a child falling from the height of 22 Inches on to the heel of a boot could not cause these injuries—an adult falling like that would not fracture his ribs—I think the child must have been on an unyielding surface—the punch might have come from the side—it would have only taken a little force to destroy the child's life by a pinch round the throat—the weight of a person getting out of bed on to the child would account for the injuries.

Re-examined. The injuries might have been caused like that in the dark or by accident—a person stepping on the child would cause them—of course, if the legs of the person were hanging out of bed it would make a difference—to cause the injuries you must jump out of bed on to the child.

DR. MITCHELL (Re-examined). There were five or six stripes on the buttocks of the child; six, if you count the double one running almost parallel about half an inch apart, and fully three inches long across the upper and outer part of the buttock—three went through the skin, drawing blood—those stripes looked as if they had been inflicted by deliberate blows—there was no scraping as if. by the finger-nails, or by the child dragging itself along the floor—on the left buttock there was an abrasion half an inch square, and two stripes somewhat smaller, but wider, passing off to the left side, on the right buttock—those could not have been formed by the finger-nails.

Further cross-examined. I described them as stripes, not as cuts—I think the stripes were caused by a man with a whip or an iron rod striking the child six times.

MB. PEPPER (Re-examined). I do not think the stripes could have been caused by the finger-nails—I think they must have been inflicted by some one else.

Cross-examined. A child suffering from worms would be almost certain to scratch itself on that part—if the child was thrown from one bed to another that would cause the injuries to the ribs.

CHARLES ARROW (Police Inspector). At 6.30 p.m., on September 14th, I went to 95, Shaftesbury Avenue—the prisoner answered the door—I said, "Mr. Marmajou?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, I hear your child has died from injuries received; it has five ribs broken on one side and nine on the other. I want you to come to Vine Street Police-Station to see what account you can give"—he said in English, "I will come"—he went to put on his coat, and then came with me—whilst in the room he handed me this statement, written in French—he took it off the mantelpiece as I entered the room—I took it with me to Vine Street Police-station—at the station I took down a statement from him in which he referred to a statement in French—Read: This stated that on September 14th the prisoner was awakened by his

wife on account of the baby, that she said to him: "Look at its little head; it can't hold it stills." That the prisoner took the baby in his arms, and perceived that its head was moving from side to side on its shoulders, and that it could not hold it still; that his wife dressed her self and went in search of a doctor; that they did not think it was ill, but wished to relieve their minds; that it had much difficulty in breathing, and was no longer conscious; that the prisoner made it take some spoonfuls oj warm port wine, inhale some smellingsalts, and rubbed it over with vinegar; but it was all to no purpose. That about half-past five the cure of Notre Dame de France arrived, and christened it; that he only remained a Jew minutes; that an hour afterwards the baby died in the prisoner's arms, and that, in his opinion, it had choked; that his wife arrived at 8 o'clock with their cousin, and that they sent for the doctor; who made a brief examination, and came back again at 10 o'clock; that he (the prisoner) undressed the baby, which he had washed, directly after it died; that the doctor addressed some questions, from the nature of which he understood that the doctor insinuated that the baby had died from the effects of ill treatment; that, in reply to tat and other questions, he immediately answered that the child had never been ill treated in any manner; that it had been corrected, as all children are, but never ill treated 80 as to affect its health; that the marks it bore were accounted for by falls it had suffered two or three times or more every nighty in spite of the precautions they took to prevent it; that they did not push these precautions so far as to bind it; that the falls had been frequent since last Friday, and on Monday and Tuesday of that week they had to keep out of bed all night; that this child, which they had scarcely had two months, had, when it arrived, only four teeth cut, and could hardly walk; that since then it had cut eight more teeth, and had begun to walk alone, but, unfortunately, not without falling on its seat; and that, on account of their financial position, they were living in a room of which the floor was worn in many places, where the nails projected; that when he had to go out he had to leave the child in charge of its sisers, who were too young to give it the necessary attention; that he had more than once found it in a pitiable condition when he came hack, with its seat red, and that on one occasion with scratches from crawling; that he was then out of work, and was obliged io go and seek it; that he was desirous that his wife should not. be suspected, that she alone had supported them at this time, but that she had ill treated the child; that this child was dear to them for many reasons, be cause it was the last born of four, and upon whom they rested their hopes, it being a boy, to perpetuate their name, he being the last representative of the name; that they had given it every possible care on account of its puny appearance, and that they were afraid io lose it; that it had had a milk and port urine diet to strengthen it, whilst at the same time they gave it more solid and variegated foods; that for about a fortnight it had suffered from fits of coughing, but that they attributed that to the after effects of bronchitis, from which it had previously suffered; that they had frequently made applications of french tincture of iodyine upon its stomach, and covered its back with a sheet of plaster; that it wasfrom scratching violently that it had abrased its chest and neck; and that they had dressed the abrasions with an ointment suitable; that they had brought up the three other children; that they were in good health, and brought up in the same

manner and with the same care as the deceased, who had been entrusted in France to the mercenary hands of a day nurse, and pined away from day to day as long as it was in her hands; that when it came back to them about two months ago, it presented the appearance of a child whose growing had been arrested at the joints; the bones at the joints of the arms and legs looking like balls, and the lower part of the body appeared out of proportion vnth the head; that the baby was just two and a-half years old, but did not look more than 18 months; that he wrote this statement in reply to the arguments which might be used against him, thinking that an inquiry might take place, from having been struck by the questions of the doctor; that on account of their poverty they were living in a room which was only large enough for two adults and a child, but was too small for five; that the child had been purged on the Tuesday morning with castor oil; and that the purgative had not operated much; that the few people they knew could testify as to the cleanliness and affection they extended to all their children, and especially to the deceated, and referred specially to the Curi, who in consequence of informal tion had been kind enough to extend charity to them.)—at midnight on the 14th I said to the prisoner, I am going to detain you on suspicion of caus ing your child's death—" Do you understand?"—he said, "Yes"—he wasafterwards charged with the murder of the child, the charge being interpreted to him.

Cross-examined. When the prisoner first went to the station I had notmade up my mind to charge him—he speaks very good English—I charged; him at 1.30 p.m.—the prisoner is not indicted here upon the Corober's Inquisition.

GODFRIED FAHRNEK . I keep a restaurant at 28, Greait Marlborough, Street, and am sometimes employed as an interpreter—I was sworn as interpreter in this case—I was called to the Vine Street Police-station on. September 15th at 12.15—this charge-sheet was handed to me, and I translated it to the prisoner—he said in French, "I do not know whether I am alive or dreaming"—I told him, by the instructions of the inspector, that he would be charged in the morning—he said, "That is what I ask."

LELO BOTTOMLY . I am a translatorof foreign languages—I have made a translation of this statement (produced), which is correct. (Read as before.)

Thursday, Octomer 26th, 1899.

The Prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had never illtreated the deceased, or beaten him; that he did not know how it came by its injuries, and that he was very fond of the child.

Witnesses for the Defence.

MAY MARMAJOU . I was born in London—I met my husband in Paris, and we were married in 1892—we have had four children—my husband. is a good father towards my children, and a good husband to me—he has never used violence to us—he was very fond of the deceased; I swear that he has never used any violence to him in my presence—it was a very weak child—it arrived in London in July; it was in a very bad condition then—but he could speak—15 days before September 14th the child was taken ill, and on the night of September 13th he was still ill—he had been in bed since the Sunday—on the 13th I went to the chemist, and

told him about the child, and he gave me a powder—he had not slept for two nights—I gave it the powder about 11 o'clock, and went to bed, too—I fell asleep, but was awakened by the baby screaming, and when I got outof bed I found him hanging out of the bed, with his hands on the floor—I put him back to bed—my husband did not wake—I returned to bed, and fell asleep again—I was awoke by the baby screaming again; it had fallen on the floor; the room was still dark; I picked up the baby, and gave it a drink of condensed milk, and it showed me with its little hands that it wanted to go back to bed—I tied it in bed with some towels, and put a chair and a pianostool against the bed; my husband did not get up—I went back to bed and fell asleep—I was woke up by the moaning of the baby, and my eldest little girl woke up ac the same time—the baby was kneeling on the bed and moaning, although it was tied—I took it up; its head was going backwards and forwards—the room was not dark, but I had to light a light; I could not see enough to go about the room—I got a bottle of smelling-salts and put it to the baby's nose; it did not move—I called my husband, and told him to look at its head; he got out of bed, and said "Warm some port wine," which I did; but the child would not take it—it looked as if it was dying—my husband said he would go for a doctor, I said, "I shall go"—I just put on my dress; I had no coat or hat, only my slippers—when I returned my husband was kneeling at the bedside, crying.

Cross-examined. I cannot account for 14 of my child's ribs being broken—I did not see a mark over the region of the heart—I undressed the child the night before—my husband did not knock the childabout on the Sunday in the dark while I was in bed—he got up and gave it a tap—it was dark then on the Sunday—I got up and lit a light—I did not say, "That is enough; it is no good going on like that"—I made a statement to Inspector Arrow on the evening that my child died; it was read over to me, and I was told to sign it—I initialled every page that was given to me—what I said to Inspector Arrow he frightened me into saying; I was in a very nervous state—I'said to him, "I say, if my husband has done it, he can say so himself. I know that lately he slapped him"—I do not remember saying, "He made him so cross"—the baby was cross for three or four nights running—I said that my husband corrects the children as I would—Inspector Arrow said I had been knocked about—I have not been knocked about; I have had a tap—the last time was because I was teasing the children—the statement Was not put down as I gave it—I do not remember saying, "He slapped me, but a woman is not tho same as a child," or that "My husband cannot work, and that makes him more irritable"—I did not say, "I have often seen him strike the children"—"Strike" is not my word—I did not say he knocked the baby about with his hands, or that my husband was in a terrible temper, or that I was afraid he would hit me; or that he has often done so—I told Dr. Clarke that the baby was cutting its teeth—I told Dr. Munday that my husband had slapped the child; I did not say he had knocked it about—I did not say that my husband was a very badtempered man—Dr. Munday said that he heard him hollaing out every night, and I say in English that it is a lie—I told him that I went to Mrs. Singer's on this morning, and walked back to Shaftesbury

Avenue—I did not tell her that my husband had been in a bad temper for 15 days, and that I was afraid of him—I know Mrs. Singer has never been a friend of my husband's; she has been kindness itself to me.

Re-examined. Arrow told me he knew all about my business—we were at Vine Street Station then—he said he would have to have me up for murdering my child—that frightened me—then he put all the questions to me—I did not say to him, "I resige with my children;" the language is his; I do not know enough English—he questioned me on the day my baby died—I was nervous then—he did not say that what I was saying might incriminate me—I answered his questions because I thought I had to—I did not use the word "strike," I said "tap"—he asked rae if I had ever had black eyes; he said he knew that I was knocked about—my husband has never given me a black eye—he did not ask me if my husband had struck the child in the ribs—I was happy with my husband, or I would not have stayed with him—if I knew that my husband" would strike the child I should not have gone for the doctor; I should have sent him—I went myself because I saw the baby was dying, and I was so frightened, I did not want it to die in my arms.

By the JURY. I stayed so long away because I had to go right up the Park Road to get some money, and I had to walk back—I went to Paris as a child; I have only been in England sines March—I told my husband what Dr. Munday told me, and what the Coroner's officer told me, and of what he was accused—I do not know when he began to write his statement—when I made my statement to Arrow two other officers were present part of the time; Mrs. Singer was not there at all.

WILLIAM HENRY INGRAM . I am a tailor, of 95, Shaftesbury Avenue, on the second floor front—the prisoner and his wife and family lived in the second floor back—there is a wooden partition between the front and back rooms—I work at home, and sleep there—I have been there about 14 years—I have had opportunities of seeing the prisoner and his wife and children on several occasions—I am fond of children myself—I have never seen any unkindness or cruelty by this man to his wife or children—I have never seen her crying, or as if in pain—I was sleeping in my bedroom on the night of September 13th—I did not hear any screams during the evening of the 13th or 14th—I awoke at 5 o'clock a.m. and was awake about half an hour—I then awoke again about 6; I did not leave my bed then—I went to sleep again, and woke about 6.30—I did not hear any sounds of violence or any cries in the adjoining room.

Cross-examined. I have not visited the prisoner and his wife in their room—I am a very heavy sleeper—we live just opposite the Shaftesbury Theatre, and I often take half a pint of stout to make me sleep more soundly.

ANN WHITE . I live at 95, Shaftesbury Avenue, on the third floor back, immediately above the prisoner's room—I have been there a year and nine months—I know the prisoner and his wife and children as living in the same house, but I have not had much to say to them—I have not heard of any acts of violence by this man to his wife or children; I have not heard any screams—I did not hear anything on September 13th or 14th—sometimes I awake at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock—I cannot say what time I awoke on this morning—I went out at 9 a.m., and I did not

hear of this till about 10 p.m.—I gave evidence before the Coroner—I am out all day—I am a heavy sleeper sometimes.

HARRIETT GLOVER . I am a married woman, living at 95, Shaftesbury Avenue, and am the landlady of that house—the defendant has been living there since June, and paid me 5s. a week for rent—I allowed them to fall into arrear with their rent—the prisoner is a very quiet man, quite clean and respectable.

DR. PEPPER (Re-examined). There is nothing in the account of the injuries to the child which would account for the child not being able to keep its head upright, because the child had not received the injuries to its ribs at that time—my view is that it would die almost immediately after receiving the injuries.

DR. MUNDAY (Refexamined). The child's body was opened by the porter at the mortuary—he has been there for years, and has had much more experience than I have; I stood over him all the time—there would be a distinct difference if the ribs had been broken after death.

DR. PEPPER (Re-examined by the JURY). I think it quite possible that if the child was tied at the foot of the bed, and two other children werein the bed, for them to have done the injuries accidentally with their feet.

DR. MONDAY (Re-examined by the JURY). My view is that on the fracture taking place the lung was perforated—I think it is possible that when the ribs were broken the lung was not perforated at once, but after a space of time, and that some movement might have caused the broken ribs to perforate.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Thursday and Friday, October 26th and 27th, 1899.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-673

673. ALFRED CAMBER (84) , Unlawfully conspiring with Adolf Flatou to defeat the ends of justice.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS, MUIK, and CAMPBELL Prosecuted; and LORD COLERIDGE Defended.

JOSEPH SHORT (Police Sergeant 6 B). I have been stationed at Gerald's Road Police-station 20 months—on May 18Th, this year, I received instructions and kept observation, from April 18th to May 24th, on 283, Vauxhall Bridge Road, kept by Adolf Flatou, who lived there with his wife and mother—I saw Flatou in the house from May 18th to the 22nd at the second-floor window, but not after that—on May 23rd some furniture was removed from 273 to 278, but I did not see it—my watching the house was prompted by the Vestry, and I made a report to my superior officer for him to send to the Vestry on May 24th—from what I saw 1 came to the conclusion that the place was a brothel—there was some delay on the part of the Vestry officials in acting upon the report—on June 17th a warrant was applied for and granted at Westminster Police-court for the arrest of Adolf Flatou and his wife and mother—I endeavoured to execute it with Inspector Henessey but unsuccessfully—on June 28th some goods were removed from No. 278, and I followed the van to Oswald Street, and saw Flatou meet it—I arrested him, and. read the warrant to him—he was charged at the station

and then searched, and six delivered copies of telegrams were found in a pocket in the lining of his waistcoat, five of which I produce—(these had been delivered in Germany.)—this pocket-book was also found on him, and these documents torn into pieces as they are now—(In all these Colchester Street was spelt "Coalchester ")—Mrs. Flatou was arrested in the evening and his mother on the 29th, and the three were brought up together on July 4th, remanded till the 10th, and released on bail—none of them surrendered on the 10th, and I have not seen them since—on July 12th I went to Osborne Street, Whitechapel, and saw Frankey, and received from him a packet of papers—I went through them and found this one: "Meet me at Hyde Park Corner one "or" once FRIEND "—this envelope oame outof the same packet as it is now—(On this was "278, Vauxhall Bridge Road.")—the prisoner was a police-sergeant, and daring May and June this year he was attached to the Gerrard Street Station, and was in daily at tendance while I was carrying on these inquiries—there would be an entry in the warrant register kept ao the station of the warrant granted on June 17th—repairs were going on in the inspector's office in June, but the register was still kept there—the inspector was not in the room during the repairs—the prisoner could obtain possession of the book by asking the inspector—the inspector's office was under repair—this document (N) was found on Flatou—(This contained the word "Coalchester.")

Cross-examined. The staflf consists of two detectives, four uniform inspectors, two station clerks, about 17 sergeants and 170 policemen—I was employed to watch the house from May 18th to 24th, and the prisoner was not seen to be in communication with Flatou but one of the police-constables was, and he has since been dismissed.

WILLIAM WICKHAM HIRAM . I am a clerk in the Accountant-General's Office, General Post Office—I produce, under order of this Court, two original telegrams of June 3rd, A and B—A is "All going well; letter will follow ": B is "All going well; letter follows.—C. F. CAMBER"—the next is June 10th: "Don't come; letter follows this"—D is on June I4th: "Come back at once and see me. FRIEND "—E is on June 18th: "Seven a.m., 278, warrant; answer 17, Grosvonor Road"—a message arriving from Germany writes itself down by typewriting on a blue slip, and is cut off and set on a form which is called the Central Office form, and preserved for a certain time, and is copied by the clerk at the instrument—we use it between England and the Continent—when it is taken to the clerk at the last office it is his duty to make two copies with carbon paper; the upper one is called the delivery office copy, and is sent back to the General Post Office 48 hours afterwards, and the undermost copy goes to the addressee—I produce two Central Telegraph Office copies of one telegram coming from Germany, and dated June 2nd: "Please answer my letter at once; answer paid for"—the next is June 3rd: "Why not answer, please, at once?"—June 7th, "Berlin, 7-6, Camber, Pimlico. I should like to come on Monday. FLATOU;" and on the 10th, "Is it all right 1 answer at once."

ROBERT HANDSLEY (Police Inspector, B). I am in charge of the Gerald Road Subdivision, to which the prisoner has been attached for some years—he was under me two and a half years, and I had opportunities of becoming acquainted with his writing—this (Produced)purports to be

a record of doings from day to day by him alone—it shows that on June 3rd, between 12.30 and 4 p.m. he was engaged at the Army and Navy Stores, and at the Police-station, Rochester Row—(Reading the entry)—Colchester Street is about a quarter of an hour from Churton Street—Colchester Street would be more direct to Gerald Road.

REV. THOMAS NORMAN ROWSELL . I am Vicar of Holy Trinity, Eltham—I produce the marriage register—it is in my custody—it shows the solemnisation of a marriage between Alfred Camber and Florence Stocker on July 17th, 1889.

SAMUEL T. WILCOX (104 D). I appear here on subpoena—I knew Mrs. Alfred Camber in her maiden days, when she was Florence Stacker, and that she became the prisoner's wife—she is the person named in this marriage certificate—I have known her in her married days us well, and have seen her to day—she is the same lady as the Florence Stocker whom I knew in her maiden days.

THOMAS HENRY GUERIN . I am a professional expert in handwriting, of Holborn Viaduct—I have had great experience in giving evidence in handwriting—I have before me the journal containing letter I, and have heard the contents of a number of entries in the undisputed writing of the prisoner, and have had three out of five telegrams sent to Germany, A, B, and E—I is in the undisguised writing which I find in the book I—B and E are both in a disguised hand, but I believe they are the same writing, and I believe G and H to be in the same writing as the others—I have examined the signature "Florence Stopford" in this certificate of marriage, and the telegrams C and D are in the same writing, but the word at the bottom of D is in the prisoner's writing—G and H are in a more natural writing; I do not see any intention of disguise.

JOHN PHILIP FOULKES . I am a telegraph clerk in the General Post, Office—on Friday, June 2nd I cut off the slip on which is message J—this is the Central Office form; it has the number on it and my signature—I put the telegram on the rack, and it was despatched in due course.

WALTER COOK . I am a telegraph clerk in the General Post Ofiice—I forwarded the message that is here to the S.W. district office—I wrote on it and put it in the proper place.

HENRY COWELL . I was a telegraph clerk at the S. W. district office on Tuesday, June 2nd—I received the message marked J—this delivery office form is in my writing; I handed it to Samway to deliver.

WILLIAM SAMWAY . I am a commissioner, acting as a telegraph messenger, at the S.W. district office—I was on duty on June 2nd—I know nothing of this telegram, but if it came to me that evening after 8 o'clock I should deliver it at the address on the face of it, 24, Colchester Street.

EDITH MARY OAKLEY . I am counter clerk and telegraphist at Churton Street Post-office—on June 23rd I received from a woman the original of telegram A for transmission—it is on a prepaid foreign form—a word was indistinct, and I wrote "o.s.e.t.v." in the telegram—I inquired the name of the person, and wrote "Camber, 24, Colchester Street, Pimlico"—I do not know who wrote this entry in pencil; I did not—the reply was paid for, but on counting I found an excessive word, and asked for and received the extra money, and sent it up the electric tube—I was at the

office again on Saturday, June 10th, when these original instructions were handed in by a man—there was no name or address of the sender then, and I wote on it "Campbell, 24, Colchester Street, Pimlice"—it was prepaid—the name Camber was on the back; I had not noticed that when I asked the sender to supply me with the name.

EDWARD THOMAS . I am a telegraph clerk ac the General Post Office—on June 3rd I cut off the slip on which the message marked "O" is, and put it on the back, so that it should be despatched.

MARY WATTS HUBBARD . I am a telegraph clerk—on June 3rd I forwarded the message on this form marked "O" to the Churton Street office, and wrote on it "M. W. Hubbard."

FLORENCE BISHOP . I am a counter clerk and telegraphist—on une 3rd I received from the General Post Office the message "O"—the body of it is my writing—I passed it on for the envelope to be addressed—on June 7th I received this message and transcribed it on this form, and passed on the envelope to the address.

ANNIE ELIZA NEWBSRY . I am counter clerk at the Churton Street Post-office—on June 3rd I wrote my initials on this form, put it into the tube, and sent it down to the office—the words "Deliver Colchester Street" are in my writing—I wrote them, owing to the spelling being "Coalchester Street."

ERNEST EDGAR EVERETT . I was a telegraph messenger at Churton Street Post-office—on June 3rd I took a foreign telegram to Colchester Street and delivered it to a woman down an area—I do not remember whether this other telegram was delivered to me, but it has my name in the corner—it was on June 10th; I should deliver it in the ordinary course.

ALFRED PERCY TAYLOR . I am a telegraph messenger at Churton Street Post-office—five or six weeks ago I took a telegram to 24, Colchester Street, and delivered it to a woman in the area, who gave me a reply—it was prepaid—I took it back to the office.

MARTHA CHARLOTTE WALLIS . I am counter clerk and telegraphist at Churton Street Post-office—on June 3rd I took in telegram B, and made the addition, "Porst Brighton O.S.T.P.R."—there was a name, but no name of the sender—the name of Camber appears in one—the message was despatched—on June 10th I received this (Produced)to address and send out—it was from abroad—the reply was paid for; I sent it down to be despatched—on June 14th this telegram was handed in, without any address or name, by a man—nothing appears on it to indicate my asking for the name and address—here is a memorandum by Miss McNeale—this is my signature on the back of telegram O—that speaks of a prepaid form; it is addressed to Camber, with the reply paid.

TERESA MCNEALE . I am a clerk and telegraphist at Churton Street Postoffice—On June 14th I received telegram B from the General Post Office, and wrote it down on the delivery form, and it was passed on to be delivered in the ordinary course.

Cross-examined. The object of giving the name of the sender is to pre vent any error.

CHARLES EDWARD REES . I am a telegraph clerk at the General Post-office—on June 17th I cut off the message on this form, and wrote on the

form "491, 325, P., R. I. 7.6"—I put it on the back, and it was taken away to be despatched in the ordinary course.

JOHN VOUSDEN . I am a messenger employed at the Post Office—during part of June 1 was employed at Churton-Street, and on June 7th 1 took this telegram out of the pneumatic tube and handed it to Bragginton, and wrote on it "344 Bragginton 3" which indicates that he received three telegrams at the same time—I produce form P, which would indue course be sent to the General Post Office.

FRANK CHARLES BRAGGINTON . I am a telegraphic messenger—I was employed during June at Churton Street office—I find my name on this telegraph form, which means that it was delivered to me, and in the course of my duty I delivered it.

CHARLES HOLLAND . I am a clerk to Messrs. Wontner, the solicitors for the prosecution—I served a copy of this notice in June on Mr. Button, the solicitor for the defence—(This called for the production of telegrams of June 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 10th, the delivery of which had been proved. These were not produced.

THOMAS ARCHER CLAYDON . I am a telegraph clerk at the General Post Office—on June 10th I cut off the slip on which is the message marked "K," Is it all right? answer at once"—I stuck it on the form and wrote on the form, and it was dispatched in the ordinary course.

AGNES DANGAN . I am a telegraph clerk at the General Post Office—I forwarded this message (Produced)of June 10th to Churton Street Post-office, and wrote on it, which shows the circuit in which it reached me, and, therefore, I sent it on.

WILLIAM JOHN BENN . I am a clerk in the District Post Office, Hyde Park Place—on Sunday, June 18th, this form was handed to me, I do not recollect by whom—the words, "17, Grosvenor Road," are in my writing; I got that by asking the sender the address.

MOSES FRANKEL . I keep an hotel at 28, Osborn Street, Whitechapel—Mr. Flatou arrived there, with his wife and mother, on June 19th this year, and left on July 7th—he was visited there by his brother-in-law on June 23rd, who left on July 8th—Sergeant Short came about July 12th, and Asked me about the people—I told him that they had left—I handed him a number of documents which I found under the bed occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Flatou.

Cross-examined. The prisoner never came to my hotel at all while Flatou was with me.

J. SHORT (Re-examined). In the packet of documents which Frankel handed to me there were some cheques which had passed through the bank and come back to the drawer—this is one of them—(A cheque for £17 10s., endorsed "T. Kepple")—this other document was found in thesame package.

T. H. GUERRIN (Re-examined). In my opinion, the writer of this cheque (not of the endorsement) was the writer of this document—(The document was not all legible; it said: "Dear Friend—I am gone last night; you left me everything which was going. Is a warrant out or not You let me know, and I can come back soon and make it all right with you."

ROBERT HOENEY (Police Inspector). I knew of the watching of this

house in Vauxhall Bridge Road—Sergeant Short was acting under me—Camber had nothing to do with that case—on July 10th Camber was. suspended, and on my return from Scotland Yard he said, "I have been thinking: a telegram was received at my place by my wife, and a man afterwards called for it, and it was returned to him/* and before leaving the office he said, "Dear! dear! this is cruel; I must see Mr. Dtton; I do not know how to start"—I made this entry the same afternoon I came back from Scotland Yard, at 2 o'clock—Mr. Dutton is the solicitor who appeared for the Flatous before the Magistrate—on July 16th I met the prisoner about 12.10—he said, "Good morning, Sir; have you any news?"—I said, "No"—he said, "I hope it won't be long; but the scent is worth anything; there is some scandal about"—on July 21st a warrant was granted, and I apprehended him on it—he said, "No"—he was taken before a Magistrate, and defended by Mr. Dutton—when He was charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined. This entry is an exact account of all the prisoner said—he said: "I think there is some scandal about," but in this book it appears, There are some scandals about"—I am not sure, but I put it down to give my evidence.

Re-Examined. I still think those were the words he used.

WILLIAM LUCY . I was in charge of 14, Grosvenor Road when it was inhabited by unmarried constables—the prisoner resided there during 1887 and part of 1888—I saw him constantly during his unmarried days.

CHARLES PORTER (Police Inspector, B). I was present when Adolf Flatou was searched at the station on June 28th, and saw Short take the telegrams from the lining of his Waistcoat—he showed them to me directly, and P gave instructions, and they were handed to the inspector.

Cross-examined. T knew Inspector Martin, of the M Division—he died about last September—he was highly respected, and was a superior officer to the prisoner—I have only known the prisoner since 1894—in August 1895, he was awarded 5s. for apprehending Charles Otton, and in April he was commended by the Judges at this Court in a case of murder, and in October he was awarded 6s. and commended by the Judges in a case of larceny—there is commendation yearly for proficiency in the office—the superintendent this year called upon all the detectives to give in account of all the work they had done in the past year; Inspector Hornsby can give you the result of that.

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated on oath that Flatou was introduced to him at Gerald Street Station in September, 1898, by Inspector Martin, who died last January; ihat he met Flatou again in March, and went to a public-house with him, and never saw him again till he was in the dock, and did not know that he had called on him, and did not know that he was in England, or that No. 282 was being watched by the police; that he received a letter from him, saying: "Dear Friend,—You remember being introduced to me by Mr. Martin, and you will see by the address that I am at Berlin. I am here, and am told that I am wanted by the police; will you let me know?"; that he did not answer that letter, but threw it in the fire, and some days afterwards received the telegram of June 2nd: "Please answer my letter at once; paid for"; that he answered that to F. Hirsch, which was the name.

Flatou gave him, "All going well; letter will follow" not wanting to have anything to do with him, and thinking he should hear no more; but on June 7th received another telegram; "I like to come Monday; send my letter to one place"; that other telegrams followed, to which he replied, and telegraphed to the prisoner to come over and meet him, in order that he might have the credit of arresting him, but admitted that by not entering this in the journal he committed a breach of discipline. (LORD COLERIDGE here read a list of 48 rewards to and commendations of the prisoner by Judges and by the Commissioners of Police, which the prisoner had earned for zeal since 1888.)

GUILTY Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY, on account of his character.— .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, October 26th, 1899.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-673a

673a. JOHN MOORE (37) PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for receiving 60 rings and other property, the goods of Henry Griffiths, Son, And others, knowing the same to have been stolen.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18991023-39

674. FREDERICK WILLIAM KIRKHAM, alias BLOUNT, alias ROSS (40) , to obtaining from Swift and Co., and others, a bicycle and other property by false pretences, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-675

675. HERBERT SOUTHCOMBE (24) and LEONARD ARTHUR BUTSON (19) , Forging and uttering an order for the payment of £10, with intent to defraud. SOUTHCOMBE PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSRS. BESLEY and ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted.

PERCY HOWARD SOMERS FITCH . I am a cashier of the London, City and Midlands Bank, Limited, at Queen Victoria Street Branch—on September 16th the prisoner Butson presented this cheque for £10, drawn upon the account of Betson and Sons, our customers, in favour of J. Lloyd—I detected that the signature was bad, and he was detained.

EDGAR AUGUSTUS CHILDE . I am deputy manager of the London, City and Midlands Bank, Queen Victoria Street—I was spoken to about this cheque, and asked the prisoner Butson to wai:, as there appeared to be something wrong with the signature—having ascertained that it was not signed by the customer it purported to be, I asked him into my room, and how he became possessed of the cheque—he said he was having a glass of Ale at the restaurant opposite, indicating Skinner's, opposite the Mansion House, when a gentleman came io, got friendly with him, and ultimstly Asked him to present a cheque at the bank opposite—I asked him his name, address, and so on—he said it was Leonard Arthur Butson, of 10, Darby Street, King's Cross; that he had been manager to Morgan and Co., tobacconists, of 35, Barnard's Mansions, Oxford Street, but was now out of a situation; he hoped shortly to be in another—I asked him what sort of a person requested him to sign the cheque—he said he was about 32 or 34 years of age, of very gentlemanly and strong,

muscular appearance, with a moustache—I asked him where he was to meet this person, and he went out and indicated the corner of Bow Lane but said he was not there—I took him to the office of the solicitor of the Bankers' Protection Association, where he repeated his statement—he was allowed to go.

HENRY PHILLIPS (City Police Inspector). On Saturday, September 16th, about 1 o'clock, I went to Messrs. Mullens and Bosanquet's office, the solicitors to the Banking Association—this cheque was shown to Butson—I said, in the presence of the managing clerk, "I am a police-office; where did you get this cheque from?"—he said, "I was drinking in sinner's rooms, and a tall, dark gentleman came in, and Commenced speaking about the Dreyfus affair. He wore a tall hat and a frock-coat, and he had dark hair, whiskers, and a moustache; his height was about 6 ft., and he was handsome. He asked me to have a whisky, and I Had one; he asked me to go to the bank and get the cheque cashed, and I did so because I thought he was such a nice gentleman. I afterwards went to the footway, where I was to meet the man"—I made inquiries and the prisoner was allowed to go—he gave his address as 10, Darby Street, King's Gross, where I saw him twice the next week—I asked him to look out For the gentleman with the tall hat—he said he would do so—in the meantime I had adopted other measures—I asked Himto call on me in the Old Jewry on the Tuesday, but he did not da so—in cones quence of what came to my knowledge on Friday, September 22nd, he was brought to the Detective Office, Old Jewry, by Detective Fitzgerald, Under my instructions—I went with him to Mr. Mullens' office, the cheque was shown to him, and I said, "You" Will be now charged with Forgoing and uttering that cheque, as I find the statement you gave last Saturday is a false one"—he said, "Yes; it is All lies; I: got it from a man named Soutbcombe; I slept with him last Friday, and he gave me the cheque on the Saturday morning, going down. Gray's Inn Road"—I fetched Southcombe and said "Do you know this man?"—he said, "Yes; he. gave me the cheque"—I took them both to. Water Lane Police-station, where they were charged—Southcombe said, Butson came into the warehouse on Friday, and stayed quite an. hour and he must have taken the cheque from the governor's big"—Butson said nothing in reply to the charge.

WILLIAM FITZGERALD (City Detective). On the Way to The Mansion House, on September 23rd, Butson said, "How do you think I shall get on?"—I said, "I cannot say; it depends upon what your defence is if you wish to make a statement you may do so"—he said he was a took in Southcombe's hands, and tried to attach all the blame te him—he had, "I met him by appoint menton the Saturday morning in the warehouse about 1 o'clock"—he was anxious to say something—he said he had met him once before in the week, then that he had met him by appoint meat on the saturday; that he had left his situation, and slept with Southcombe the night before—he said, "I met him the previous, night,. Friday," and "I met him an the Saturday about 1 o'clock at Betson's warehouse," and Southcombe told him that he had stolen two cheques from Mr. Betson's handbag, which was in hia office; that he had destroyed the other for £10, but that he had put the signature to the cheque.

BERNHARD BETTSON . I am a furnishing warehouseman, of 20, Bread Street—this cheque is not written by me, nor by my authority—it is Southcombe's writing—he was a junior assistant in my employment—the cheque is taken from a book issued to me—another is missing—the numbers are 34 and 38—the counterfoils are also missing—I generally keep my cheque-book in a drawer, but I had taken it home, and it was in my bag, and might have been in the bag in the middle of the day in the office—my. signature is at the back of the cheque-book.

Butson, in his defence, stated that South combe tempted him, and that he told a lie to shield him, But he had been made, a dupe of.

GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the JURY, thinking he was led into it by Southcombe,— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

SOUTHCOMBE— Ten Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-676

676. GEORGE ROBERT WOLSTENHOLME (31) and CHARLES MAUNDER (33) , Stealing £315, the money of Frederick Thompson, on the high seas.

MR. MARTINRRR Prosecuted.

FREDERICK THOMPSON . I am staying at Gower House Hotel, Euston Road—in July last I joined the British Royal Mail steamer Ormuz, taking a passage for London—I was carrying Bank of England notes value £315—I live in Melbourne, and had come to England for a holiday—the notes were sewn up in a piece of canvas, and pressed tightly in my pocket—Wolstenholme was a steward, and Maunder a pianist—the notes were safe the evening before reaching Colombo—I missed them the following morning about 5 a.m.—I had gone to the smoking-room, sleeping there—I reported the matter to the purser one or two hours afterwards, as soon as he was up, giving him a list of the stolen notes—I left the vessel at Marseilles, and came on to London four or five days before the Ormuz, and gave information to the police at Scotland Yard at once—a warrant was obtained at Bow Street—I have identified the notes (Produced)as part of my property; I have compared the numbers—the police have in hand about £100; the rest has been passed through, except about £65 or £60, which is still out.

Cross-examined by Maunder. I retired to the smoking-room about 11 p.m.—there had been a farewell concert to passengers leaving the next day—two other passengers were in the smoking-room—I did not leave the smoking-room to get bottles of beer; I had some beer in my cabin.

ISABELLA MARSDEN . I am the wife of John Marsden, of 3, Bedford. Place, Russell Square—on September 3rd the prisoners engaged a bed-sitting-room by the day, and then went, for their luggage—Maunder said his name was Wilson, and his friend's name Mason—a parcel came for Wilson from Hope Brothers on Monday evening, September 4th—they left on September 5th—they said they were going to Doncaster—they paid in gold—they left linen to be washed, with the names of Maunder and Wolstenholme on it—they were coming back for it—they came back on September 21st—they were arrested on the 22nd.

WILLIAM ARTHUR LYNE . I am assistant to Messrs. Hope Brothers at their Regent Street depot—on September 4th Maunder bought collars and under clothing to the amount of £7 16s.—he paid by this note, D/59-41802

and gave the name of Wilson—the goods were sent to C/o Wilson, 3, Bedford Place, Russell Square.

ARTHUR STEWART WILLIS . I am assistant to Messrs. Horn Brothers, hosiers, 118, New Oxford Street—on September 4th prisoners bought goods to the amount of £3 10s. 5d., for which they paid this £5 note No. 61501—I took the number, and asked them to endorse it—Wolstenholme wrote on it "G. R. Watson"—they took the goods away.

WALTER PAGE . I am assistant to Mr. Moss, jeweller, of 228, High Street, ishoreditch—on September 4th Maunder bought this diamond ring for £8 5S.—he paid these two £5 notes, D/55-51760 and D/52-12367—he signed on the back of them, "W. Mason."

GEORGE CRIBB . I am foreman to Mr. Marshall, boot manufacturer, of 10, Fenchurch Street—on September 4th Maunder bought a pair of boots for 24s.—he paid with a £5 note—I only took a £10 note and a £5 note that day, and paid it into the bank on the 6th or 7th.

EDWARD PHILLIPS . I am a clerk to the Capital and Counties Bank, Threadneedle Street—Marshall paid into our Northampton Street Branch this £5 note, D/52-12369.

WILLIAM MAUNDER . I am a salesman, of 142, Richmond Road, Dalston—Maunder is my nephew—on September 5th he came to me and said he had just come from Australia, and asked me to take care of, for him, three £10 notes and £20 in gold—on September 16th he wired me for money—I took the £10 notes to the post-office in High Street, Kingsland—I wired him, at Doncaster, £80 at his request—the £20 I subsequently handed to the police.

CHARLES WILLIAM MIMMO . I am overseer at the Kingsland High Street Branch Post-office—on September 16th I telegraphed £30 to C. Maunder, at York—one note I paid away—these are two of the notes I received, K/61.75221 and K/64-57652—I identify them by the stamp.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a clerk in the Bank-note Office of the. Bank of England—I produce two £5 notes dated June 14th, 1897, and November 17th, 1898, which came into the Bank on September 6th; one through Messrs. Hoare's Bank, and the other through the London and County Bank, also the notes referred to by Page, Mimmo, and Phillips.

ARTHUR HAILSTONE (Detective Sergeant). On September 22nd I went to 3, Bedford Place, Russell Square, with a police-sergeant—I saw the prisoners—I said to Wolstenholme, "What is your name?"—he said, "Wolstenholme"—I asked. Maunder, "What is yottr's?"—he said, "Mason"—I said, "Is that your correct name?"—he said, "No; my name is Maunder"—I said, "We are police-officers; a warrant has been granted for your arrest concerning a matter of stealing bank-notes for £315 from the person of Frederick Thompson, on board the R.M. steamet Ormuz, on the 17th of last month"—Wolstenholme replied, "I am afraid you have made a mistake"—I said, "There is no mistake; the notes have been traced to both of you"—I searched them—on Wolstenholme I found two £10 notes, Nos. K/62. 96702 and K/14-57192, a £5 note, No. K/52.12366, £4 in gold, 5s. 6d. in silver, 4 1/2 d., in bronze, and three receipts for clothing and boots—on Maunder I found the £5 note, P/45.53685, a Great

Northern Railway cloak-room ticket, 3441—in the room were two new Gladstone bags containing several suits of new clothing, under-clothing, collars marked "Wolstenholme" and "Maunder"—they were taken to the station—Badcock had the warrant—I have been on the Ormuz—she is a British ship registered at Glasgow—a gentleman from the Board of Trade is here.

WILLIAM BADCOCK (Police-Sergeant). The prosecutor reported this robbery to me, and in consequence of inquiries I laid an information, and obtained a warrant for the arrest of the prisoners—I afterwards saw them at Bow Street Police-station—I read the warrant to them—Maunder said, "The other officer has got the only note I had. I am very sorry now; the £50 you will find in my cap-band in my trunk at the cloak-room at King's Cross Station; it was only £140. I picked them up on the deck"—I afterwards found the £50—Wolstenholme said, *' I heard on board that Thompson had lost £700, then £600, afterwards £200 in notes. Maunder brought the notes to me, and gave me half. He said he had' picked them up"—Maunder at Bow Street on the 23rd handed me this diamond ring—he said, "I bought this ring with one of the notes"—Wolstenholme, who was present, said, "I only had about £140 in notes altogether; I wish I had never gone on board the Ormuz "—I got two trunks from the cloak-room at King's Cross, one bearing the name of Wolstenholme, the other Maunder—I also found the £50 note referred to by Maunder.

Cross-examined by Wolstenholme. I have a note here of what you said.

The Prisoners, in their defence, stated that Maunder found some notes on deck, and shared them with Wolstenholme.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, October 27th, 1899.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-675a

675. WILLIAM CLEMENTS (72), RICHARD SCRIMSHAW (28), GEORGE SCRIMSHAW (41), and JAMES JOSEPHS (48) , Stealing certain dog-collars, and muzzles, the property of Frederick Hale and others.

MESSRS. BODKIN and AVORT Prosecuted; and MESSRS. ABINGER and ROACH Defended the Scrimshaws. ARTHUR CLARKE (Detective C). About 10.30 p.m. on August 24th I saw Clements crossing Oxford Street about 500 yards off, leading A retriever with a collar and lead—the dog went unwillingly—I followed—he went by a circuitous route to King's Road and several back streets to 10, Brewer Street, Chelsea—he went up the steps and knocked at the door—I crossed the road—seeing me, he oame down the steps—I said, "I am a police officer, what are you doing with this dog?"—he said, "I was taking it to a man to serve his bitch"—I said, "Is the dog yours?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Who are you?"—he said, "I am Paul Keppelson, I live at Rupert Court"—he produced this card—(of Keppelson's "canine surgery ")—I said, "You are not Paul Keppelson; I know him"—he said, "I am a friend of his; I sometimes work for him

—I said, "Is the dog yours or his?"—he said, "The dog is mine"—Richard Scrimshaw came out into the area—I said, "I should like to speak to you, if you will be good enough to come to the front door"—he said, "If you want to speak to me you must come in the morning"—after parleying he came to the front door with a woman—I said, "I am a police-officer; are you the occupier of this house?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Do all the things belong to you?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I have a suspicion this man is coming to you with a stolen dog; I want, to see your premises"—he said, "You cannot see my premises; if you; want to see my premises you must come in the morning at the proper time"—I said, "I want to see them now"—he said something to the. woman—shortly afterward, I saw. George Scrimshaw, who said, "Hullo! who are you?"—I said, "I am a police-officer; who are you?"—he said, "I am the occupier of this house"—I said that his brother Richard had told me he was the occupier—he said, "No, I am the occupier of it; he lives with me and helps me"—I said, "Then, I may take it all you have in this house is yours?'"—he said, '" Yes"—I sent for assistance, and four constables arrived—I made repeated demands for him to admit me; he refused—I was going to get over the area railings when George called me back, and said, "Come here, governor; I will let you in"—I went; to the front door—he took a key from his pocket, and opened it—in the back room on the ground floor was an old man, the. father, asleep—I found three brindled puppies in bed, in the basement two Yorkshire: terriers and two black skippers, an Irish terrier, a fox-torrier, two black. Aberdeen terriers, one of which Mr. Clarke identified in my presence—in the back yard were a large number—I found 61, dogs on the premises—some, were in kennels—66 were found, including those found at Clements's-their noses were tied, to prevent them barkings so tightly that it was impossible, for the dog to open its mouth—I asked George if the dogs belonged to him—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Has your brother anything tq do with, the business?"—he said, "No; they all belong to me"—I asked, "Where did you get them from?"—he said, "I bought them in the ordinary course of dog-dealing business as a dog dealer"—I said, "Can you show, me any receipts for them?"—ha said, "Yes"—we then went to the ground floor front room, and looked through a number of documents—I found a receipt for a Dachshund—I said, "Can you show me a receipt for any one dog on your premises?"—we looked, and found eight receipts—three would answer the description gives but it is very vague—I told him I: should take him into custody and charge him with being in possession of dogs supposed to be stolen or unlawfully obtained—he said, "All right"—I told Richard the same—ha made so reply—in the first floor back room I found Josephs in bed—I said, "Have yen any dogs in this roonk?"—he said, "No"—I saw the bed-clothes move, and a constable pulled from under the clothes an English terrier, which was then very emaciated, hat is now a valuable dog—I said, "Where did you get this from?"—he said, "I don't know"—I said, "Is the dog your's?" he said, "Yes"—I said, "Is it yours or Scrimshaw's?"—he made, no reply. to that—I told him he would be charged, with George and Richard Scrimshaw, with being concerned with them in stealing a large number of dogs—I went into another room apstairs, and found a child in bed with a

small Pomeranian dog—the prisoners were taken to the Chelsea Police-station and charged—Clements said in reply to the charge, "You have no evidence in charging me with stealing any of these dogs"—on the evening of August 26th I went to 13, Camera Cottages, but could get no admittance—I got through the window—there was no one in the house—I found three black-and-tan terriers, each of considerable value, and a rent-book in the name of George Scrimshaw—searching 10, Brewer Street more carefully, I found 143 dog muzzles and about 30 collars—some of the muzzles have been identified, one by Mr. Jackson—names were on two collars—on inquiry one was dead, and the other had gone to South Africa—among the papers I found the name "W. Dovason"—I have since been to the office of the Stock-keeper newspaper, and searched the file—I found advertisements for the sale of dogs, the descriptions of which tally with three dogs mentioned in this indictment, the owners of which are here,

AUGUSTUS GIANELLA . I keep a restaurant at 213, Oxford Street—I owned a red retriever for nearly two years—I missed him at 10 p.m. on August 24th—he sat at the door in front of the shop, muzzled—I saw him at the Police-station—I value him at £10 to £15.

Cross-examined by Clements. I went to the Police-station to see if my dog was there—I paid the licence in January—I did not give him to anyone—I do not know a waiter, Adolph Hausmann—the dog had not a collar on that night—I was never indicted for keeping a disorderly houses nor harbouring ladies.

CHARLES GRAHAM . I am an estate manager, of 43, St. John's Residences, Golden Square—on May 8th, about 8.30 a.m., I missed a red Irish terrier—he was let out for his ordinary morning run, wearing a muzzle and collar—I afterwards saw the dog and muzzle in the possession of Sergeant Clarke—his value was about £5—I have several times seen Clements carrying a dog and leading another, or carrying one under each arm.

ALBERT FRANK JACKSON . I keep the White Lion public-house, St. Albans Place, Haymarket—I lost a bulldog on Friday, June 9th, between 5 and 7 p.m.—I identified the dog and muzzle in possession of Sergeant Clarke—the value of the dog was about £15.

WALTER WICKENS . I live at 63, Hartington Road, South Lambeth—I lost this black retriever on July 28th, with his collar and muzzle—I identified them in the possession of Clarke—his value is £20—I lend him to the South-Western Orphanage and other institutions for collectio N purposes—ho was let out for a run.

ADA LEWIS . I am the wife of Arthur Lewis, a valet, of 23, Clarendon Street, Pimlico—I missed an Aberdeen terrier dog, about two and a half years old, on Saturday, August 12th, in the morning—he had a collar and muzzle on—I saw them in possession of the police at Chelsea—its value was £15, and 16s. the collar and muzzle—I identified them.

ARTHUR READ . I am an estate agent, of 29, Camera Square, Chelsea—I am agent for 13, Camera Cottages, which I let to George Scrimshaw about September, 1896, on a weekly tenancy—I collected the rent—I have seen three small black-and-tan terriers there.

GEORGE SEABRIGHT (Police Inspector, B), I took the charge against the prisoners at Chelsea Police-station—they made no reply—I found two

straps and one muzzle out of the 140 with names and addresses—one is dead, the other has gone to the Continent.

JOHN DOVASTON . I am a carman, of 8, Pond Place, Fulham Road—I have known all the prisoners but Clements for about 12 years—they have been living at Brewer Street, except Josephs, who has been there nine or ten years—some years ago George asked me to take in letters, and I did not object—since then letters have come addressed "W, Dovason," the "t" being left out—I understood that the letters were in answer to an advertisement concerning dogs—sometimes I took the letters, and sometimes George would come or send for them—I have given them to Josephs—that has gone on five or six years, with an interval between of five or six weeks, up to the arrest—dogs have come, which I have sent on by the carrier, or taken round, or advised them—last year a police officer spoke to me, and I said to George," There has been a gentleman about sending money for a dog, and not receiving it"—he said, "Oh! I was going to send it on at once"—I told him I did not want to have any bother of people coming and making complaints—letters ceased coming, but they began again—he asked me after the interval if I would mind—the payment was only a matter of a drink—I do not believe I have been in 10, Brewer Street, once in 12 months—I asked about the letters, and he said it; was a matter of business.

Cross-examined by MR. ROACH. I have worked at 107, King's Road, Chelsea, three years next January—I have been to deliver letters—George has a house of his own.

WILLIAM JOHN NICHOLLS , I am manager of the advertisement departmentof the Stock-keeper a weekly newspaper, published at 77, Fleet Street,—advertisements have come by post from W. Dovason, 8, Pond Place, fulham Road, Chelsea, for insertion from week to week—all relate to dogs for sale—about £1 a week has been paid—I received an advertisement from 10, Brewer Street, some years ago, in another name I cannot remember—I produce a file containing the issue of August 11th, 14th and 25th—(These referred to dogs similar to those described by the witnestes.)

Cross-examined by MR. ROACH. I have been on the Stock-keeper staff about 12 years—I do not know the prisoners—"G. Shaw" is a name I recognise as sending an advertisement more than once—that was five or six years ago—I do not remember if there was a dispute, nor the name Scrimshaw, nor if I refused to insert his advertisement—we have some hundreds of advertisements a week.

Re-examined. I find G. Shaw, of 10, Brewer Street, Chelsea, in the issue of August 12th this year.

ARTHUR FREDERICK HALE . I am the licensee of the Pine Apple public-house, Wilfred Street, Westminster—on Tuesday, August 22nd, I lost a St. Bernard dog—he was wearing this muzzle—I have not seen the dog since—I served Clements with ale about 10 days before August 22nd—the dog was usually in the parlour—he was well known to customers—he was good-tempered, bub peculiar to handle by customers.

Cross-examined by Clements. I saw you one morning—I noticed a peculiar twitching in your mouth.

Cross-examined by MR. ROACH. The muzzle is large, and rubbed in one place—I had had the dog four years.

ELEMENTS, in his defence, said that he knew nothing of the other prisoners, and had given up dealing in dogs. RICHARD SCRIMSHAW said he was a labourer and handy-man, and had worked lately in Piccadilly as a painter's labourer; he swept out the kennels, but had no interest in the dogs.

GEORGE SCRIMSHAW produced a large bundle of documents which he said were names of dogs, and where purchased, and receipts, but none related to the indictment; he said that he advertised in another name because of his dispute with the "Stock-keeper" George and Richard Scrimshaw received good characters.

GUILTY .

CLEMENTS then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at this Court, in May, 1890, of dog stealing; and to another conviction, on November 10th, 1894, at Marylebone Police-court, of unlawful possession of dogs; two other similar convictions were proved against him.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour, GEORGE SCRIMSHAW— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. RICHARD SCRIMSHAW— Twelve Months' Hard Labour,JOSEPHS— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

Reference Number: t18991023-678

678. CHARLES MORRIS (60) and ELIZABETH TURNER (28) , Robbery with violence on Hershel Goldform, and stealing £1 1s. 6d., his money.

MR. MORTIMER Prosecuted.

HERSHEL GOLDFORM (Interpreted). I am a tailor's presser, of 112 Cable Street—on August 29th I left a friend, Latinski, about midnight, after leaving a public-bouse I sat on the kerb in Brick Lane—two women approached, and sat near me—whilst one spoke the other began to search my pockets—I protested, and a redhaired man gave me a blow from behind, and searched iny pockets—I had 298. 6d.—the police found 7s. and twopence and 6d. on the floor—I also lost a watch and chain, value 159.—the prisoner is the man, but he was without a collar—I recognised his faoe—I screamed, and a man looked from a window, and then joined in chasing the prisoner.

Cross-examined by Morris. I struggled with you—I was standing when you knocked me down—I looked at my watch at a few minutes past 12—I paid 9s. 6d. and 15s. 6d. for the watch and chain—the chain is English-made, but the watch came from Russia—I bought it in England—all was in the left trousers pocket—the watch was silver—there was no key—I am positive the prisoner is the man.

Cross-examined by Turner. I did not speak to you first—I did not ask you to have a drink—I did not call for two bitters, nor go with you to a fried-fish shop, nor say that you were a nice girl, and that I would give you 5s. to sleep with you—I never saw you before—I did nob go to a lodging-house with you—I did not give you a shilling—I speak English—I did not try to get a shilling back—you did not scream—you and another woman were holding me when Morris gave me a blow—I did not take off my coat and otler to tight you.

LOUIS LATINSKI . I am a boot finisher and closer, but have no work—I live at 28, Bernard Street—I was with Goldform in the first public-house about 10 minutes, and in the next about 15 minutes—I left him in Cable Street—it was 12.15 by the public-house clock—I saw silver in Goldform's hand.

Cross-examined by Morris. I made the same statement to the policeman—the prosecutor took his watch out, and it was 12 o'clock—I think it was the right pocket.

ABRAHAM GOLANSKI . I am a mantle manufacturer, of 41, Fashion Street—on Monday, August 30th, I reached home about 12.15 a.m., from my holidays—I had taken some clothes off when 1 heard a cry of "Help!" "Stop thief!" and "Murder!"—I ran out without my waist-coat and overcoat, and in slippers—I saw Morris getting up from the prosecutor on the ground opposite my house—the prosecutor was lying half in a court—I said, "You would not take that liberty with me; what are yqu doing?"—he ran past another court, and passed something to a lady—'there were three together—I was away 15 to 18 yards; I got within five yards, and he started again—I ran to the top of Commercial Street, and could not run further—I holloaed to one I know now is a police officer, who took hold of him—I did not lose sight of him a second.

Cross-examined. I was not half a minute getting to the door, which is on a level with the street, and I was in the breakfast parlour—the next door is the sweetstuff shop—I was running all the time, and halloaing "Stop"—I was fetched to the Police-court.

WILLIAM BROODEN (Policeman, H). On August 30th, about 12.30, I heard a whistle—I saw Golanski chasing Morris—I was in plain clothes—in consequence of what Golanski said I followed Morris from Brick Lane—I never lost sight of him—I said, "I am a police-officer; you will have to come back with me; you have robbed someone"—he said, "All I have been doing is having a fight"—I took him back to Fashion Street, where he was recognised by Golanski—I took him to Commercial Street Station, where the prosecutor said to him, "I recognise you by your features and cap; you robbed me of my watch and chain and money"—that was in answer to the prisoner's question as to whether he was the man—the prisoner said, "I had a fight; you gave me a punch in the nose "—he produced a handkerchief on which were two or three apots of blood—I looked, but could find no marks—I saw Turner, and told her that she answered the description of the woman concerned with Morris, and if she was identified she would be charged with the offence—she was identified in the presence of an interpreter—she said to the prosecutor, "You could speak English on the night you were with me"—he said through the interpreter, "If anybody thinks I can speak English you can go to my house, and they will tell you I cannot"—Turner said, "Did I not meet you in the Whitechapel Road? You treated me to brandy and some bitter, told me I was a pretty girl, and said you would give me 5s. to sleep with you; you gave me a shilling to take liberties with me up a court, and because f would not let you you wanted the shilling back, and got hold of me by the throat"—I got her description from Goldform, who told me she had a scar on her face.

Cross-examined by Morris. The Recorder adjourned this case last Session for your witnesses, and you gave me the address which led to the arrest.

Re-examined. Morris now says he does not know where the Other witnesses live.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate: Morris says: "This is all I know about it: Last night I saw the prosecutor with a woman with a red body on. She had some fried fish, which she said prosecutor had bought for her. As I passed he had her by the throat, saying, 'Give me that shilling back I gave you in the court.' She said, 'You are a dirty beast; I have got no shilling belonging to you.' I said, 'Why don't you let the woman alone?' Then he challenged me to fight, and struck me in the nose, and I fought him. There are a lot of Jews there, and I ran away." Turner says: "I am not guilty of it. I did not take any money off the man, and did not strike him. The shilling I had he gave me. I have been living at 58, Flower and Dean Street all the time, and have slept there every night"

Morris, in his defence, said he followed to see what the prosecutor would do with the woman, and, to protect her, interfered, but did not rob him, and that he ran away because he would have had to defend himself from the rough who live in the neighbourhood. Turner repeated her former statement.

Evidence for the Defence.

JOHN BRADLEY . I am a railway porter, of 19, Brick Lane—Morris was with me in the public-house in Brick Lane—I saw Turner and the Jew (the prosecutor)come in, and we followed them to another public house and two fried-fish shops, where the foreigner bought her some fish.

Cross-examined. One public-house was the Three Compasses, in Brick Lane—we came out about 12.30, closing time—I did not see another man with the prosecutor, nor another woman—I have seen the prosecutor and Turner before, because they were customers where I used to work—I did not see the prosecutor sitting on the kerb.

STEPHEN CHAMBERLAIN . I am barman at the Three Compasses, Brick Lane—I served the prisoners and the prosecutor about 11—I went to bed at 11 o'clock.

INSPECTOR NUTT. I took the charge against Morris from Detective Brogden, and sent for an interpreter—I asked Golanski what he saw, and said, "Do you know whether the man has been robbed or not?"—he said he saw Morris running from the prosecutor, and ran after him till the chase was taken up by the detective—Golanski came about 1 o'clock—he followed in with the interpreter 10 minutes afterwards.

ABRAHAM GOLANSKI (Re-examined). When I got to the station it must have been about 3 o'clock—this affair was going on about 12.40. and I had had sufficient time to get to bed when I heard the electric bell—the station is about seven minutes' walk from my house.

HERSHEL GOLDFORM (Re-examined. When Turner was sitting opposite me was the first time I ever saw her.

MORRIS— GUILTY . He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in February, 1899, in the name of George Anderson. Eighteen other convictions were proved against him.—Three Years' Penal Servitude . TURNER— NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-679

679. ARTHUR EDWARD SAUNDERS SEABRIGHT PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining credit for £23 10s. from Spratt and Co., Limited, without disclosing the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt.— Six Months Imprisonment in the Second Division. And

Reference Number: t18991023-45

680. GEORGE HENRY SMITH , to four counts of an indictment, charging him with obtaining by false pretences from Adelaide Selby and others postal orders for 28., with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] To be detained till a fine of £50 be paid.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, October 28th, 1899.

Before Mr. Justice Channell.

Reference Number: t18991023-681

681. THOMAS SKEFFINGTON (20), was indicted for the wilful murder of Florence Elizabeth Wells.

MESSRS. BODKIN and GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted, and MR. CAMPBELL

Defended at the request of the COURT.

LOUISA THOGHILL . I am a married woman, living apart from my husband—I knew the deceased—she was the wife of George Wells—she was 27 years old—about the middle of 1898 her husband was—sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment—the deceased was. then at work at a cocoa factory—I had known her five or six years—she stayed on a little while, and then she became an unfortunate—she stayed with me as a friend—she had her own home—she stayed with me, up to a week before she died, at 56, Herbert Street—before that she was staying with the prisoner for a week, at a house in Graham Road—she and I frequently called at the Royal Standard public-house in Shepherdess Walk, Hoxton, as customers—10 or 12 months ago the prisoner was employed as a barman there, and there was also a man named Frank Thompson there—it was there that the prisoner made the acquaintance of the deceased—he became intimate with her, and continued so up to the time of her death—he gave her money from. time to time—the last time I saw them together was on September 29th or 30th—we were all three in a public-house in Dalston Lane—we always had a drink—he used to treat us, and I always left them together—they were on friendly terms then—I did not see the deceased after the Saturday evening till the Monday, when she came to me about 4 or 5 p.m.—she would not come indoors to have tea with me, and I left her in the Duke of York public-house—she came to my place about 6.45 the same evening—she washed and dressed herself—I left her in my room about 7—she had had a few drinks, but I do not think that she was the worse for drink—she could dress herself properly—I never saw her again alive—I went and identified her body at the German Hospital—I am sometimes called "Lulu."

Cross-examined. I do not know how the deceased was dressed when she went out—she generally wore a brown coat and a little white sailor hat—I do not know if she had anything round her neck; sometimes she wore a fur boa, but I do not know whether she had it on on this night—I said at the Police-court that the friendship between them lasted down to the very end—the prisoner had always been a very good friend to her, as far as I know—I have always seen tliera on friendly terms—I never knew them to have a serious quarrel; they might have had a little "tiff"—when they were living together I often saw them having a quiet drink together—he stood treat to me.

MARTHA KING . I live at 69, Lambeth Road, and am a wardrobe dealer, and a widow—I have known the deceased 13 years—I remember being introduced by her to the prisoner about five or six months ago—she said, "This is my sweetheart"—on Saturday night, between 10 and 11, I was in Dalston Lane; I met the deceased alone—there was somebody across the road, and she went over to them—after seeing her I went to 46, Graham Road, and stayed there that night—the deceased and the prisoner were there that night—next day I spent with them, and in the evening we went to some public-houses—I returned with them to 46, Graham Road, and spent the night there—the prisoner and the deceased slept together—on Monday the prisoner went out, leaving the deceased and I at home—later on we went out and met him at the Tisian Arms public-house, where we had three drinks together—I paid first, the prisoner paid next, and then the deceased paid—this was between 10 and 11 a.m.—the prisoner sent the deceased to pledge a coat and waistcoat, which she did, for 7s.—she brought back the ticket and the money, which she gave to the prisoner, who gave me 2S. which I had lent him, and 1s. 6d. to the deceased for herself—then he said he was going to the docks to look for a job—he was dressed as he is now, and with a peak cap with braid round it—he did not go away then—the deceased said, "Will you have another drink before you go, and I will treat you?"—he said, "No; I will treat you," and we went to the Star public-house, and then to the Mildmay Park Tavern, where we left him between 2 and 3—he said he must be going, and the deceased said, "What time shall I see you 1"—he said, "Seven"—she said, "Make it half-past 7, that will be better"—he said they would meet at the same place, but I did not hear what it was—he left us, and the deceased and I got into a tram and went to New North Road, to Mrs. Thoghill's—she went in, I waited outside—Mrs. Thoghill came out, and the deceased left us—I went indoors with Mrs. Thoghill and had some tea—the deceased stayed in a public-house—I next saw her at 7 p.m., when she came in to Mis. Thoghill's—we were getting ready to go to the theatre—the deceased commenced to wash herself before going to meet the prisoner—we left her—she waa not able to wash herself properly—she was the worse for drink—then we left her—I saw her next at the mortuary.

Cross-examined. I never saw any signs of ill-will between the deceased and the prisoner, quite the reverse—when the prisoner went out of the house on the Monday morning he had no breakfast—he had had nothing to eat since the Saturday—he said that he had been drinking so much that he could not eat—he went straight to the public-house, where we met him a little later—before the deceased went to pawn the coat we had a drink together with the prisoner—he said he had already had two—when the deceased returned we had two more drinks—when the prisoner was leaving us I asked him to have some eels, but he said he could not eat—he said to the prisoner about meeting him, "You know where"—it may have been at the Whifcemore's Head—the last time I saw them they were laughing and dancing together—there were no signs of jealousy or ill-will.

HANNA FOWL . I am the wife of Frederick Fowl, a cutler, of 25, Ball's Pond Road—it is about a minute's walk from Dalston Lane—I remenrber selling a knife about 8.30 p.m. on October 2nd—this is it (Produced)—I

sold it to a man—he was about the height of the prisoner—he said he wanted a 1s. pocket-knife—I showed him a smaller one than this—he said, "That one is not heavy enough; I want a much heavier one"—I showed him this one—he said it would do, and he paid is. for it, and went Qut—it was a new knife.

Cross-examined. We do not make these knives—they come from Sheffield; they are made for us by the dozen—we might order three dozen—it is a common knife—I think I was first asked about this the day after the murder—I was not asked to give evidence before the Coroner—I fix the time at 8.30 because one of my daughters was going to a meeting, and I went to serve that knife just before she went—the gas was alight—my daughter was not in the shop; she was in the parlour; nobody was there—I have not got the first knife I showed the man here—a good many customers come in to buy knives—the man made no impression on me.

MARY ANN HEELEY . I live at 46, Graham Road, Dalston—I let rooms—I knew the deceased; she took a room at my house—she came on the Wednesday, and took the room till the following Wednesday, I heard of her death—she had the prisoner there; they occupied the room together—they had their meals there on the Sunday, and I took them up a steak on the Thursday and Friday.

FRANK GEORGE THOMPSON . I live at Brenchley, Kent, and was formerly a barman at the Royal Standard, in Shepherdess Walk—the prisoner was a fellow barman—he left in March; I left in June—while we were there we made the acquaintance of the deceased and of the witness called Lulu, through their being customers at the house—there was a friendship between the deceased and the prisoner—after I left I got letters from the prisoner, and wrote to him—in July last there was a flower show at Brenchley, and the prisoner came down for it—he told me he was at the Thatched House, in Essex Road—he said that the deceased kept following him, and when he was returning he said he wished I was going back instead of himself—these letters (Produced)I received from him—I received this letter (C) about a week after the flower show—(This stated that "that" (meaning tlie deceased) came in on the Monday night previous, and got upset because he (the prisoner) would not speaky but that he would give her a lecture next time he saw her)—this letter (E) I got a month or five weeks after the flower show—(This stated that he had had a lively time with "F"; that he had told her he was working near the Marble Arch, but that it was a hard job to give her the go by; that she and Lulu wanted him to go and live with her (the deceased), but that they could not get him on a bit of toast.)

Cross-examined. The prisoner and I were very good friends—drink had a very bad effect on the prisoner—he is only about 20—when sober he is a bright, cheerful fellow—I advised him, if he wanted to break the connection to go to the other end of the town—he did try at one time to conceal his whereabouts—I am positive he tried to break off the connection—the three letters found upon the prisoner were written by me to him.

ALICE SMITH . I live at 26, Tisian Passage, Dalston Lane, and am employed at some mineralwater works—I was outside the Tisian Arms

on October 2nd, between 9.30 and 9.40—I saw a man and a woman come out—the man was dressed in a light suit and a dark blue peak cap—they walked a few steps, and then I saw the man put his arm round the woman's neck—then I saw him walk away, and the woman staggered and fell—before that they seemed to be quarrelling—they were talking in a loud tone of voice—I could not distinguish what they said—the man put his right arm round her neck—as I ran to her assistance she said, "He has stabbed me"—he was about three yards away then—he walked across the road and went towards Dalston Lane—a boy blew a whistle, and a constable came up, and the woman was taken to the German Hospital—I was fetched to the Police-station at 2 a.m., where I saw the man in the same clothes.

Cross-examined. I was taken to the station by Inspector Nursey, In spector Phillips, and two constables—I did not see the prisoner when I first got into the station—he was brought up and put into the rails in the charge-room—when I saw the man put his arm round the woman's neck I thought he was caressiug her.

RICHARD MASTERS . I live at 70, Ridley Road, Dalston, and am a clerk—on October 2nd I was in Dalston Lane about 9.30 p.m.—I saw a woman lying on the ground near the Tisian Arms—at first I thought she was intoxicated, then I saw that the left side of her head was in a pool of blood—a woman said something, and in consequence I went on quickly down Dalston Lane—I saw the prisoner walking rather quickly—he vas dressed in a jacket suit of dark grey and naval cap—I looked at him without speaking; then he said, "I did it; I meant to do it; I did it with this," at the same time producing this knife (Produced)—he then said, "I am going to the station; come with me"—I went with him to the station—he walked in—he had the knife in his hand, and in the inspector's room he put it on the counter openly—I said to the inspector, in the prisoner's presence, "There is a woman been stubbed in Dalston Lane, and she is bleeding very much"—the prisoner said, "I did it; I meant to do it; I stabbed her twice in the neck; I did it with this," and he pointed to the knife—he was at once ordered into custody by the inspector—I should say he was perfectly sober, from the way he; spoke.

Cross-examined. I thought him cool, considering the deed he had just done—he looked very pale and white—I left the station then.

WILLIAM PHILLIPS (Inspector), On October 2nd I was on duty in the evening at Dalston Po ice-station—I saw the prisoner there—the last witness was with him—Masters said, "A woman has been stabbed along the Lane, and is bleeding"—the prisoner said, "I stabbed her twice; I meant to do it; I bought this knife for the purpose," at the same time pointing to this knife, which was lying open on the counter—I noticed that the knife was blood-stained, and also that the ege was turned—I saw the woman being removed on an ambulance to the hosipital—I charged the prisoner with murder, and he made no reply—I searched him, and found three pawn-tickets, 1s. 3 1/2 d. in money, and some chains—there was a pawn-ticket, of October 2nd, in the name of Wells—I also found on him two letters.

Cross-examined. I made this note immediately the words were uttered by the prisoner—the inquest was held on October 5th—the prisoner was

sober when he came to the station—I do not think he said, "Yes, I stabbed her twice in the neck; I did it on purpose"—he was as calm as possible—when I returned from the German Hospital I told the prisoner that the woman had died; that was at 11 p.m.—when he was charged with having murdered the woman he made no reply—I remember the prisoner saying at the Police-court that he could not remember anything about it, and before the Coroner he said, "I do not remember anything after leaving the Tisian until finding myself in the dock"—I have made inquiries about him—he was born in April, 1879—his father is a very respectable man, and has been in one situation for 29 years at Hoxton—the prisoner had been in business as a barman for I about three years—the manager at the Royal Standard told me the prisoner had a day's holiday, and that he came home the worse for drink, and did not rise in time to open the public-house, and he discharged him—the manager at the Thatched House discharged him for being absent-minded—he said he would stand in the bar and take no notice of customers.

WILHELM SHEFFER . I am the House Surgeon at the German Hospital at Dalston Lane—at about 10.15 on October 2nd the dead body of a I woman was brought in by the police—she had been dead between five and 15 minutes—I found a serious wound on the left side of her neck—there had been considerable bleeding; it had stopped when I saw her—the next day I made a post-mortem examination—the wound on the left side of the neck was 2 1/2 in. long and 3 in. deep—the windpipe had been severed twice—on the inside of the left arm I found some slight bruises—they could have been caused by a blow or a grasp—the cause of death was loss of blood from the wound in the neck—the wound could have been caused by this knife—there need not have been more than one use of the knife—one blow could have caused the whole wound.

Cross-examined. The knife penetrated below the ear first, and was drawn towards the throat.

BENJAMIN MATTHIAS (473 J). I was called to Dalston Lane about 9.30 p.m. on October 2nd—I took the woman I found lying there to the German Hospital—she died before we got there.

Cross-examined. Dalston Lane is a very public thoroughfare—I was not in charge of the prisoner while he was waiting pending the charge.

The Prisoner, in a written statement, said that when he first Knew the deceased he did not know that she was a married woman, but that when he did know it he thought it best they should part; that he had a lot of drink on October 2nd; that he did not remember going to the Tisian public-house, or buying the knife, but that he supposed he must have done so; that he Was exceedingly sorry for what he had done, and that he had no notion of Doing the deceased any harm, but was anxioyus the connection to come to an end.

The Prisoner received a good character. GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY,On account If his youth, his being drunk, and of the trouble lie had had previously. — DEATH .

NEW COURT.—Saturday, October 28th, and

THIRD COURT Monday, October 30th, 1899.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-682

682. GEORGE BUBEAR and EDWARD BARKER (23) , Obtaining money by false pretences, with intent to defraud MESSRS. MUIR and JAY Prosecuted; MESSRS. C. MATHEWS and FITCH appeared for Bubear, and MESSRS. HUTTON and NOLAN for Barker.

THOMAS GLENCROSS . I am clerk in the Account-Generals Department of the General Post Office, and produce a batch of "Rado" telegrams, sent from Dalston lane Post-office on October 29th—they are the original instructions for sending the telegrams; also a batch sent from the same office on November 5th, 14 of them being "Little Eva "; also a batch of 14, sent from 475, East India Dock Road Post-office on November 9th, "Wasp Filly"; and a batch sent on November 10th from the same office, "Fosco"; also a batch of 17, sent on November 15th, from the Lower Richmond Road, Putney, Post-office, "Dumia"—when a batch is handed in they are coded at the same time—the "Radoo" are coded "A.L.S," which means "1.57 p.m.," which is put on when sent out to the person to whom they are addressed—if a telegram is asked for back again by the person sending it, for alteration or correction, the duty of the official is to re-code it, and strike out the old one—all the bundles are, in my opinion, in the same writing—the 10th telegram, which is the first that contains the word "Radoo," has apparently been written with a different pencil or on a different surface—it is bolder and blacker than the others, and that follows with the remaining telegrams as to the word "Radoo."

BERTHA KING . I am a daughter of the sub-postmaster at the Post-office, 244, Dalston Lane, and assist in the postal business there—it is also a shop, and there is a telephone office near—I know Barker—I took in these "Radoo" telegrams from him about 1.50—I had not seen him before—he said, "Send them at once"—I began to Send them—he was writing—he asked me how many I had left—I told him four or five, and he said, "Give them me back"—I handed them to him, but did not see what he did to them—he handed them back—I saw someone speak to him in a whisper—he said, "Send them with the others"—it was my duty to recode them, but I did not, as I did not know the rule—the 9th telegram is addressed to "Norman," and signed "Goodyear"—it was sent off at 2.16—the 10th, addressed to "Doyle," was sent off at 2.19 the 11th, bearing the name of "Butear," was sent off at 2.11; and the 14th, bearing the same name, at 2.25, addressed to "Chippy"—the "Little Eva" telegrams of November 5th were handed to me, and I should have not only to code them but to transmit them—the first was sent out at. 1.17, and the 7th at 1.26—one is addressed to Barker, a bogus telegram, I and one to Chandler—this one contains the name of "Little Eva"—the 13th, the only one purporting to be signed by Bubear, was sent off at 133, addressed to Tylie, and is £2 to win.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I do not recollect what the man was like who came to speak to Barker—Barker handed the telegrams back to me; I cannot say what he wrote on them—he was writing at the shop desk

—I was not correct in saying at the Police-court, "I had all the telegrams when the man came in and whispered"—I was cross-examined.

GEORGE TYLIR . I am a commission agent, of 121, Queen Street, Hammersmith—I have known Bubear for many years, and he has backed horses with me for the last four years—the bets were made by note, telegram, or personally—the bulk by note delivered to me at Broadway, Hammersmith, about two miles from his house, the White Hart—the stakes varied from 10s. to £2—on October 29th I received a telegram backing Radoo—I have destroyed my copy—"Radoo" is written in spaces left for two words—it was handed to me very near the time of the race, and had taken a long time to come—on November 5th I received this telegram, "Little Eva"—this was also put in late, and took a long time to come—Monday was usually settling day—I then saw Bubear in Broadway, Hammer-smith—when I settled with him I said, "I cannot receive any more telegrams like that," as I thought it too near the time, and they took too long to come—he said, "There is nothing wrong in them"—I said, "I don't say there is, but I cannot accept any more like that"—he said, "I will alter my name, and put 'White Hart,' so you will know they come from me"—he said they had been sent him by a friend that he had met at the whippet race; "I was introduced to him by a friend, and he gave me some very good information"—I did not ask who he was—he said he sent him wires, but they were too late for him to get on, and his friend asked him whom he did business with, as he would send the messages direct to the man he did business with, and they were sent direct to me—he said he had limited him to a couple of sovereigns each way; £4 on the telegram—I said I would not accept any more telegrams unless they were put in 20 minutes or a quarter of an hour before the race started—I then paid him the balance, £12; but for the "Radoo" telegram he would have owed me money—I afterwards consulted my solicitor, and received. some information—I spoke to Bubear, and he said, "I would rather give you the money back if you think there is anything wrong"—I told him I believed some proceedings were being taken, and I could not do anything—I did not accept it—I cannot give an approximate date for that conversation.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I have known Bubear many years—he is licensee of the White Hart, at Barnes—I believe he is also a professional sculler, and was Champion of England, or the World, for some time, and he was in training for the race of November 14th last with Haynes—I generally settle with him personally when an account Is made out—I have known him for 15 or 16 years, and have always been on the best of terms with him, and have regarded him as a straight chap—there was a whippet race in his grounds, and it was there that he said he met the man who had given him information, but that it had come too late on more than one occasion, and that led Bubear to give him authority to send me telegrams in Bubear's name—it was some time after that I consulted my solicitor—I kept on business with him up to the present, and have never accused him—I think it was in December, 1898, I spoke of consulting my solicitor, and he said he would rather return the money if I thought anything was wrong, as he was entirely innocent in the matter—I said so before the Magistrate—I am not clear as to the

date of the conversation within a week or so—he said he was not the person who sent the wires—it was the introducer who gave the tips, and the third man sent the wires, and from that date the man giving the information was to wire to the bookmaker in Bubear's name.

Re-examined. I thought it only right to sign the charge-sheet—I am a betting man—I did not read what I signed, and I did not know what I was signing—I only remember signing what I thought was my evidence—the solicitor I consulted was Mr. Hanson—he sent to me—I had never employed a solicitor before—I knew afterwards that he was being consulted by other people about some frauds—he showed me two wires which had been sent to me, which he got from the post-office—he said they were not straight wires—I did not look at the time they were put in—I told Mr. Hanson I thought the wires were crooked, by which I meant fraudulent.

WALTER WHITFIELD . In 1898 I was in the employ of John Bull—his telegraphic address is "Chippy, London"—I had to do with the telegraphic part of the business at times—J heard Bubear was a customer of "Chippy's"—these two telegrams appear to have been dealt with by Hart, who had to deal with the telegrams in the ordinary way of Mr. Bull's business—these look like his initials, "J. H."—the fbooks and papers at the place were all destroyed in the raid that took place there, with the exception of that one—I was two or three hours looking about, and found that old ledger—that is the only book I could find—I have searched up to January, 1899—that is not kept by me.

JANE ALICE SNODEN . On November 9th, 1898, I was assistant to the subpostmaster, 475, East India Dock Road—I took in this batch of 14 telegrams, relating to Wasp Filly—Barker handed them to me about 1.25—I coded them at 1.25—he said, "Time them all at the same time, and send them in the order in which I have given them to you"—he waited at the counter while I was sending them off—before I had finished sending them he asked how many I had sent—I had sent 10—the 9th is addressed to "Needable, Saint Frida, £4 to win"—there is a space before the word "Frida"—the next is "Playground, Dilectory, £4 to win" the 11th I handed back to him with the remainder—he handed them back to me afterwards—" Wasp Filly, Phoebus Apollo, £3 to win," was sent at 1.54 the 13th is from Bubear to Ellis, "Wasp Filly, Phoebus Apollo, £2 to win. Bubear"—the 14th is from Bubear to Ellis, "Wasp Filly, Phoebus Apollo, £2 to win"—" Waap Filly" occupies the space which appears in the preceding telegram—when he handed the four back to me he said, "Send them with the others"—I sent off the "Fosco" batch of 15 handed to me by Barker—the 8th and 9th telegrams are addressed to Barker, 494, Grosvenor Buildings, Poplar, 12.45 and 12.49—the 10th is the first betting telegram which contains the name "Fosco," and was sent off at 12.50—all the remainder contain "Fosco," and the 13th is from Bubear to "Chippy," "Fosco, £5 to win"—I am able to identify this by the hour, and so on.

Cross-examined by MR. FITCH. Barker asked me to send them off with the others—I do not know that he used the word "them"—T did not think there was anything unusual in having them all coded together—did not say anything about coding the ones he handed back—he was writing

while I was sending off the first lot—I did not notice anybody else in the Shop Barker stood at the counter.

Re-examined. I cannot say where the nearest telephone office is—I am the only operator in our office.

ANNIE Moss. I am the wife of the sub-postmaster at Lower Richmond Road Post-office, Putney—on November 15th, about 2 45, Bubear and another man came into the office—I cannot recognise him as Barker—one of the men was writing, but I do not know on what—he was at the slab in the shop—one of them took telegraph-forms from the post-office counter—they both went out—the other man returned eight or nine minutes after, and handed me this batch of 17 telegrams—he said, "I want all these messages sent, and I will stay here until they are all despatched; keep them in this order"—he was particular about that—I coded them at 12.45, and proceeded to send them off—at the same time another gentleman put a message on the counter, and the man said, "You might let that go first"; so I coded them all at the same time, and sent the gentleman's first—I did not start sending them till 3.13—by the time I got to the ninth, and when I was sending the one to "Chippy," he asked for that back again—I said I had commenced sending it, and did not hand it back—he asked for the others—the words on it are "£5 either way"—the one Bubear to White was sent at 4.33, "Duamia, £11 to win"—all the remaining telegrams begin "Duamia"; No. 16 is "Duamia, to Ellis, £3 to win"; and No. 17 is "Duamia, to Ellis, £3 to win"—the nearest telephone office to our place is five or six minutes' walk, so that after they got news of the race they would have to walk that distance.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. Bubear often comes to our office, and I know him by name and by sight—I am certain of this date, November 15th, and that he came with some other person—they were not very long there.

AMY LAURA THOMAS . I was assistant to Mrs. Moss at the Lower Richmond Post-office—I know Bubear; he came there on November 15th at about 2.45 with another man; I cannot say that he was Barker—they went out together—the other man came back, and handed in the telegrams.

JAMES OSWALD PLANK . I am a clerk in the Stationers' Office, General Post Office—I have here the original telegram (Produced)to Mr. Glencross—the Radoo telegram first came into my possession about November, 1898, and it occurred to me that the word "Radoo" had been written at a different time to the rest—that applies to the whole 15 telegrams—in the next, "Little Eva" seems to have teen written at a different time to the rest and there is a space left—on the rross filly no space is left; in the next a space is left at the beginning; in the next there is no space at all—I cannot say whether it was written at the same time or not; it appears to be written more hurriedly—the next is the batch coptaining the tele-grams to Barker; there is no space there—all the rest are Fosco—in the remaining batch, the Datchound batch sent to Barker, there is no space, but there is in those to "Chippy"—the next is the Morman, and the next the Duamia—the original name has been rubbed out with indiarubber, and the remains of which are on it—I cannot read it, but my opinion is that "Mack" was there originally, and Duamia afterwards—on November

19th Bubear called on me with a telegram in his hand; there was some-thing wrong about it, and he wanted me to see about it—I took down in writing the substance of the statement he made—this is the original (Pro duced)—I continued my inquiries, and on November 27th hud another interview with Bubear at the General Post Office—these are the notes I made (Produced)—I had a further interview on December 9th at the White Hart—these are my notes of what Bubear said (Produced).

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. My inquiries began about November 16th last—Bubear came of his own accord to the Post Office for the pur-pose of seeing me on November 19th—he told me who he was, and said he called about the racing telegrams; that he had heard there was some thing wrong, and he came to the Post Office for the purpose of finding out about it—I showed him the Duamia telegrams of November 15th, and it was then that I made the note—I took a specimen of Bubear's writing, and compared it with the telegrams, and came to the conclusion that they were not written by him—they all appeared to be written by the same hand—he said he had done his best to bring the absent man to the Post Office in order that I should see him—his next visit to the Post Office was on November 23rd; he told me he was coming with the man, but he came alone, and said that the man had not kept an appointment which he had made with him at the Mansion House Station, after waiting half an hour—he said he was introduced to him by a man named Morman, who had assisted him in some whippet races in his grounds at Barnes, and he hoped, with Morman, that he would still be able to trace the absent man—my inquiries went on till December 9th, upon which date I paid a visit to Bubear at the White Hart—he willingly answered every question at once—he was excited, of course—he produced a letter to me from Morman of Notrember 25th, 1898—I had a conversation with George Archer, whose name appears on certain telegrams, about the middle of December, and I think I saw Portway—Archer said he had been a publican—I don't recollect seeing Morman—I think I saw Allen—I think he is a bookmaker—I saw West.

Re-examined.'I gave instructions for persons to be interviewed to whom telegrams were addressed which did not contain the names of winning horses—I did not see them myself.

FREDERICK ELLIS BINGHAM . I am a bookmaker, of 7, Bolton Gardens Chiswick—in November, 1898, I lived at 45—I have known Bubear about two Years—I first betted with him at the end of October or the early part of November last—I met him in the High Road, Chiswick, and he offered me a handkerchief, his colour, for a guinea, and that I might as well have one of Haynes's as well—I took both—he had a ready-money bet with me, which he lost and paid me—he asked me if he could send a wire to me, as he knew no one he could bet with, and it was a nuisance to send his monfy to Hammersmith—I asked him how much, and he said, "A pound or two"—I said, "All right, I will accept them—I received these two telegrams from him (Produced)—they are both losers—they were handed in a considerable time before the races—they are Clarabel colt and Coote, £2 on each telegram—this next one is "Wasp filly, Phoebus Apollo, 2 to 1," handed in at 1.25, five minutes before the race before I paid on Wasp filly I received this Duamia.

telegram, No. 17—it was late—I wrote to Bubear, and registered the letter, saying I must decline to accept any more telegrams from him—I went to the Post Office the following morning and saw someone, and Mr. Plank afterwards called on me—I saw Bubear at my house on November 17th—he paid, "I called yesterday, and could not see you. What do you mean by writing me a letter that you would receive no more telegrams from me?"—I said, "I am not satisfied that they are legitimate ones; there is something wrong with it, taking that time; I am not satisfied, and until I am I shall not pay"—he said, "It is all right; I did not go out that day; I sent a friend of mine with the telegram to the Post Office; it is rather hard for me; there are three of us in it; I have paid the others out, and lam losing that myself"—it was 10 to 1 (£30), and £7 10s. for a place—he did not say who his friend was—he said, "On the other account, anyway, there is £2 due to me, isn't there?"—I said, "Yes, I think there is," and T paid him and £1 1s. or £1 for Haynes's handkerchief—he did not flay from whom he got the Wasp filly information—I sent these elegrams on to Mr. Hanson, solicitor, whom T consulted—Bubear never again applied to me for the £37 10s.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I believe my interview with Bubear was on November 17 th—between the 15th and 17th I had been to the Post Office, and I consulted my solicitor, Mr. Hanson, the solicitor for the prosecution—I knew that Bubear had been in training for his race with Haynes—I was at the Old Pack Horse public-house, Turnham Green, in the early part of November, I think when Bubear was in training—he was walking round., selling the colours, and he asked me if I would take one, and I said, "Certainly"—he said, "Take another one; if Haynes wins, you get it for nothing, and if he loses you pay a guinea for it"—I have known him about two years—there was a ready-money bet, and he gave me the money at the time—he asked me if at any time he wanted to make a little bet, he could send me a wire—I agreed, and it was followed by some losing bets—I think I received the first wire from him on November 7th—Haynes's race took place on November 14th—on November 17th he applied to me for the Duamia money—I did not make any note of my conversation with him on the 17thI told him I had been to the Post Office to make inquiries—I was having a drink, and asked him to have one—I gave my evidence before the Magistrate on July 10th last—I laid the information in March—I made a statement, which was taken down by Mr. Hanson, immediately after he applied to me for the money, about November 16th—I pledge myself to my memory as to the accuracy of the conversation when he said, "I did not go out that day; I sent the telegram by a friend"—I placed the matter in the hands of the police—I paid him£l or £1 1s. for haynes's colour, and £2 balance of a bet—he said, "Three were in the bet; I have paid the other two, and it is rather hard on me to lose"—November Icth was a Tuesday; the interview was on Thursday; the settlingday in ordinary circumstances would be the following Monday—I should send him a cheque for that—I told him to give me time to find out whether it was a legitimate telegram before I sent him a cheque—the cheque was drawn to Bubear's order—nothing was said about the share of winnings going to the other two.

Reexamined. After my conversation with Bubear I saw my solicitor

again, and reported to him the purport of it—he took a note of it there and then.

WILLIAM WHITE . 1 am a bookmaker, of 46, Portland Square, Chelsea, and have known Bubear about 20 jears—I was betting with him by note before the middle of November last to the extent of 10s. or £l, sometimes £2—I saw him on November 15th, when he left £20 with me as a deposit, as he said he might want to back something by wire—the same day I got a telegram from him backing Duaraia for £20 to win—this is the copy (Poduced)—it was 49 minutecoming—I saw Bubear the next day, or the day after, on the Victoria Embankment—I said, "What have you got to come?"—he said, "£220"—I said, "I don't think so"—he said there were two or three others in it—I told him I had been up to the General Post Office, and found out it was not straight—I said, "I don't care if all Putney is in it; you won't get it"—he went away—nothing was said as to who actually sent the wire—he came down the next day or day after—we had a drink, and he asked for his £'20 back, which I gave him, except he might have left £1 or £2 on a horse—we had a large bottle of champagne, for which he paid—he never asked me again for the £220.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. During the 20 years I have known him I have found him one of the straightest men I ever knew—1 have done business with him since.

Re-examined. I signed the charge-sheet charging him with fraud on the Duamia bet—I went to the General Post Office, and saw the fraudulent telegram that had been altered—I went on betting with him for ready money—no more wires for me.

ARTHUR EAST . I am a bettingman of Melrose Villas, St. Margaret's—I have known Bubear for, I think, 20 years—he had not backed horses with me before November last—early in November, when his race with Haynes was coming off, he asked me if he could wire to me about a horse now and then; I said, "Yes"—I asked him to hand them in in plenty of time—about November 9th I got a wire from him: "Wasp filly, Phcebas Apollo, £2 to win. Bubear" (Produced)—it purports to be handed in at Poplar B Office (East India Dock Road Office), 1 25 p.m., and did not reach the Richmond Office till 2.5; it was for the 1.30 race—on November 15th, I think, I got the Duamia wire: "Duamia, £3 each way. Bubear"—I noticed it took a long time to come; it was handed in at 2.55 (the 3 o'clock race); it reached Richmond Post-office at 3.41—I also got this, "Sherborne, £3 each way"—there was a space left; t the beginning of the telegram, and Sherborne was the winner—there was £6 on Wasp filly, 3 to 1; Duamia, £37 10-.; And Sherborne. £15; £58 10. if they were genuine bets—a day or two after ihe Sherborne wire Bubear and a Richmond chap I know called on me—Bubear asked me about ray luck—I said it was not very good—he seemed to be pretty lucky—I told him he would not get any money from me fur being lucky—I had seen a gentleman from the Post Office; he said he could not understand it, and he told me he did not send the wires—I said I authorised no one else to send wires in his name—he told me he had told somebody he could send wires in his name—I did not ask him who he was—I told him, if I were in his place, I should not send any more

telegrams like that, and that I thought he was playing a very silly game—he said he was very sorry if anything had been done wrong, and he would put a stop to it, and he went avay—I never had any further application for any part of the £58 10s.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. He told me he did not send the wires—I had another wire from him, and sent him one back, saying it was no bet.

THOMAS GLENCROSS (Re-examined). I produce a batch of telegrams handed in at the Putney Post-office, Lower Richmond Road, on November 17th—there are eight bogus telegrams; five are apparently tips—there are two backing Sapphire, and two Sherborne—in each case there is a blank space which has not been filled in, and they purport to come from Bubear.

CHARLES GEORGE GREEN . I am a sporting reporter, of the Sportman, and live at Ranelagh Villas, Hove, near Brighton, and have filled that post for 15 years—it is part of my duty to attend race meetings and report the results of horse races—I attended the Hurst Park meeting on Saturday, October 29th, 1898—I compare my notes with the report in the paper, and if correct I destroy them—Radoo was entered to run at 2 p.m. on October 29th in a handicap—the starting price as to Radoo for that race was 100 to 8—Little Eva was entered for the 1.15 p.m. Plantation Mid-Weight Handicap at Gatwick—according to our paper of November 7th, that race started at 1.18—the odds as to Little Eva were 6 to 4 against—Wasp filly was entered for the 1.30 County Stand Plate, at Liverpool, on November 9th—that race started at 1.44—the odds with regard to Wasp filly were 3 to 1 against—the race, very frequently, does not start for some minutes after the advertised time—it is much more difficult to get the horses off for a short race—Fosco was entered for the 12.45 Steward's Cup Plate, at Liverpool, on November 10th—the odds against Fosco were 7 to 1—at Leicester Races, on November 15th, Duamia was entered for the 3 p.m. November Handicap—as far as I know, Mack had not arrived at Leicester the night before the race; it was not in the list of arrivals—Mack was in training at Lambourne—Mack was entered for the race, but not marked with the little "a," showing it had arrived—the race started at six minutes past 3—Mack did not start; he never arrived at all—the Market Heaton Stakes trace, at Derby, on November 17th, was timed to start at 2.10; it did not start till 2.13—Sherborne was entered for that race—the odds against Duamia were 10 to 1—it depends on possession of the wires whether you get the result of a race up quicker by wire or telephone; the latter will often beat the former.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS It is possible for the result to be known in London in three minutes—in the issue of November 15th Mack was entered for the race—there is no indication of his having arrived that day—horses are sent to compete on the day of the race in the summer.

CHARLES MAXSFIELD . I keep the Yacht Tavern, Erith—I do not know anything of these telegrams addressed to me—I tore them up.

THOMAS SIDNEY CLAMP . I keep the Anglesea Arms, Woolwich—I do

not know anything of these telegrams—I kept them for some time, and then destroyed them.

THOMAS JOHN SULLIVAN . I am a tobacconist, of 15, Cross Street, Woolwich—I do not know anything of these telegrams addressed to me.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I have known Barker all my life—I had never received information from him as to horseracing—I did not see him after and speak to him.

WILLIAM HENKY CHAPLIN . I keep the White Hart, Leman Street—I do not know the meaning of these telegrams addressed to me—I received several others.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I do nor, remember the name of Morman—I had received racing information before—I did not know where it came from, nor did I use it.

FREDERICK GEORGE FRANCIS . I am a grocer, of 56, Albert Road, North Woolwich—I do not know anything of this Wasp tilly telegram addressed to me on November 9th last.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I had never received information from Barker before, that 1 know of, or from Morman—I gave no instructions for telegrams to be sent to me.

WILLIAM BULL . I keep the Duke of Cambridge, Plumstead—I do not know who these telegrams addressed to me came from.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I had not received tips before from Barker—I knew him as a resident some years ago—he had never given me racing information.

GEORGE WREN (Policeman K). I arrested Barker on June 14th last, in the Blackwall Tunnel, on a warrant which had been out since March 18th—I knew him, and I said, "Ted, you know I am a police-officer; I am going to take you into custody for being concerned, with others, in conspiring to obtain money from bookmakers by false telegrams"—he replied, "For God's sake, give me a chance; you know I have a wife and family. You need not do it; I have money in my pocket"—I replied, "I can't give you any chance"—he said, "Then I must take one," and he commenced to struggle violently to get away, but I had another officer at hand, and we got him to the station—on the way there he said, "I know we have done wrong, and must suffer for it; but don't forget there 1 are others in the job as well as me; but I suppose you know all about them. This is a betting transaction"—he was afterwards taken from Poplar Station to Chiswick by another officer.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I took a note at the time of what he said.

HENRY FOWLER (Police Sergeant, T). I received a warrant for the arrest of the defendants on March 18th last—not finding Barker, I refrained from arresting Bubear—I saw Barker on June 14th, and read the warrant to him—he said, "All right; I heard a warrant was out for me some time ago: my commission on the business was 20 per cent."—he was charged, and made no further reply—Bubear surrendered at his solicitor's office at 10.30 a.m. on June 15th—I told him I was a police-officer, and read the warrant to him—he said, "It is wrong, sir"—he was charged at the Police-court, and made no further reply—on June 26th the prisoners were further charged with attempting to obtain money from

Mr. Bingham—they made no reply—on July 13th they were charged with attempting; to obtain money from Mr. White and Mrs. East—neither of them made any reply.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The matter was put into my hands about November last—Bubear keeps the White Hart at Barnes.

GUILTY ,Bubear received a good character.— Judgment Respited. BARKER— Six Months' Hard Labour

THIRD COURT.—Saturday, October 28th, 1899.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-683

683. JOHN TYRWHITT (23) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining by false pretences from Alfred Perry £3, and to attempting to obtain from Frederick Sylvester Raffaelli £6s. by false pretences. (See Sessions Paper, Vol. 11, 1897-1898, p. 485).— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-684

684. CHARLES MARNEY (20) , Robbery, with two other persons unknown, on James David Kendall and stealing 8s. 6d., his money.

MR. MORTIMER Prosecuted.

JAMES DAVID KENDALL . I am a joiner, of Trafalgar Hotel, Leman Street, Whitechapel—about 12.30 on October 19th the prisoner and two more in Leman Street threw me down, and held my neck on the flags, and I got a bruise on my leg from the fall—one took my money—I followed, and never lost sight of the prisoner.

ABRAHAM LINDER . I live at 63, Grover Street—on October 19th I was in Leman Street, about 12.30, having left a friend about 12.15—I saw three fellows, one a ginger fellow, knocking the prosecutor about—the prisoner put his hand in the prosecutor's pocket—I ran after him, and never lost sight of him till a constable caught him.

HENRY BRADLEY (Thames Policeman). On October 19th, about 12.30, I was in Commercial Road East, waiting for a tramcar—I heard a whistle blow; I ran, and saw the prisoner running towards me, and a constable of the H Division behind him—I stopped him—at the station he said, "If it had not been for you they never would have caught me, for they can't run for nuts."

FREDERICK GULLTER (462 H). I was at the corner of Great Alia Street on October 19th, about 12.30—I saw the prisoner walking sharply down Leman Street, followed by the prosecutor, who said, "Stop-that man; he has robbed me"—the prisoner ran into Little Alie Street—I followed him and blew my whistle—he was stopped by Bradley—On being searched there was found on him 3s. 6 1/2 d. and twopence half-penny bronze—at the station he said, "I was running after the other man."

The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he was running after another man Who the policeman let pass him.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-685

685. PERCY TAYLOR (20) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Charles Upson, and stealing a watch, his property.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended.

LOUISA UPSON . I am the wife of Charles Upson, of 55, Winston Road, Stoke Newington—on October 13th I left the house about 2.30 p.m. by the front door, which was on the latch—the other doors and windows were safe—I returned about 4 p.m. and found a coustable in charge—he went in with me—I missed a watch from the front bedroom which had been in a drawer unlocked—I went to the station and charged the prisoner.

GEORGE THOMAS HUBBARD . I reside at 64, Winston Road, nearly opposite. 55—between 2.30 and 3 p.m. on October 13th I was looking out of a front window—I saw two men cross over to 55, eight or nine feet from me—they knocked, and I heard a ratatat, waited an interval then knocked once loudly and waited again, then knocked two separate knocks—then the taller man turned round and peeped through the glass of the door—the other, the prisoner, threw something into the forecourt—I had seen Mrs. Upson leave the houpe a few minutes before—I saw the prisoner turn about tnree or four times, when I could see his countenance—he had a light coat and this light felt hat on—I put my coat on, went into the street, and spoke to a milkman and one or two others—I knocked at 53, and went through to the back garden—a constable, Adamson, came, and with a publican went over to 55—about two hours later I identified the prisoner at the station by his face.

REBECCA WELLER . I reside at 39, Aden Grove, Stoke Newington, the garden of which backs the garden of 63, Winston Road—I was in my kitchen on the 13th inst. between 2.30 and 3 p.m.—I was alarmed by two men coming from the garden through the scullery—there is a wooden fence between the gardens—one of them said he was looking for a man who had nearly killed a woman—they hurried to get out—when they got along the passage I said, "What do you mean by coming into my house like that?"—the prisoner turned and said, "It is all right: I am a detective"—the door has glass panels—the light was good—I noticed he had brown spats on, a light hat, and very much the same colour coat he is wearing—these remuants of a hat are the same colour as the hat he was wearing—these are like the spats—I saw him before the Magistrate, and recognised him—I noticed his face when he came through the kitchen—my lodger, Mr. Holloway, was at home.

WILLIAM CHARLES HOLLOWAYW . I was in the house, 39, Aden Grove, between 2.30 and 3 p.m. on October 13th—my attention was attracted by a noise downstairs like a scuffle—the landlady called out, "There's two men run through the passage"—I looked out at the window and saw them going out at the gate—I rushed downstairs and followed them—they were.30 yards off, and turned up Spring dale Road—I went the other way through Green Lanes, as they would come out that way; it is a triangle—I saw the same two men coming out at the top of the road—I got on the top of a tram, and kept them in sight till I saw a policeman on point duty, when I got off the tram and told him—he joined in following—we were 70 or 80 yards off them—they turned, and saw us close behind, and started running when we were about 20 yards off—the policeman blew his whistle—they were surrounded to a certain extent—the prisoner was brought

back—both had dark clothes—one had a brown hat and brown spats, like these—I went with the officer to the station.

Cross-examined. I saw their faces when they turned on the second occasion.

ALFRED DADSWELL (279 N). I was on duty at Highbury Park when Holloway made a communication to me, and pointed out the prisoner and another man near Clissold Farm, about 30 yards off, walking in the opposite direction—Taylor turned round, and when he saw I was following he started running—I overtook him at the pond—I told him he would have to come back with me to the station—he said, "I never threw it"—I took him, in company with Holloway, to the Police-station—he was charged with housebreaking—he was dressed in a double-breasted dark jacket and trousers—he wore a brown felt bowler, like this, this tie, and buff Spats—when brought before the Magistrate he was not wearing the spats, hat, nor tie.

Cross-examined. He did not say he was running because someone had thrown and broken a window.

JAMES ADAMSTONE (96 N). About 2.45 p.m. on October 13th, in consequence of a communication, I went to 33, and passed through to 55, Winston Road, through the back—I picked up this new chisel by the door—I found the front door bolted inside—I examined it outside, and found two marks corresponding with this chisel—going back, on further examination, I found the footmarks of two men in the direction of 63, Winston Road—I traced chem to 39, Aden Grove—I remained till Mrs. Upson returned—a search was made; a watch was missing—at the station I observed tie prisoner sitting and leaning over, and rubbing his pocket—I said, "What is the matter?"—he replied, "I feel a pain"—I said, "What have you in your pocket?" and put my hand in hin hip pocket,. and found this revolver, loaded in The six chambers, and two cartridges in his vest pocket—they fit the revolver.

MARY RALPH . I am matron at the Stoke Newington Police-station—I cleaned out the prisoner's cell after he was taken out—I found these two spats and this necktie under the seat.

ALFRED WARD (Police Sergeant, N). I was at the station when the prisoner was charged—he gave as his address, 22, Hartwell Street, Dalston, where I found he was living in a furnished room—on searching the ground floor front room I found this second revolver—a box of ball cartridges, which fit the revolver, was found on him, and a small blank cartridge—Taylor handed me this hat in its present condition (cut up).

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that through giving a light, and smoking, he got into conversation With a stranger, who threw an apple at a cat, and they both ran away. He denied the housebreaking, but admitted 'writing a letter from Holloway Prison, asking Mr. Hubbards forgiveness.

GUILTY †.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour

OLD COURT—Monday, October 30th, 1899.

Before Mr. Justice Channell.

Reference Number: t18991023-686

686. ADA MORRISON (29) , Wilfully neglecting Dorothy Carmen Morrison in a manner likely to cause her unnecessary suffering.

MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted.

EDITH KNOWLES . My husband is a milk carrier, and we live at 46 Buckingham Road, Kingsland—the prisoner in April last took a lodgig at my house; she was by herself—she said her husband was a corrmercial traveller, and would be home in a week or two; he never appeared—she said she had 25s. a week from him—on July 17th she was confined of a girl—she had a nurse who attended her for a fortnight—after the nurse left the prisoner seemed fond of the child at times; I helped her to look after it a good deal—she was not a sober woman; she drank before the child was born, but afterwards she was worse; she was drunk two or three nights a week—when she was drunk the child was left alone upstairs in her room—during the latter part of its life it was left alone four or five hours—I did what I could for it; I have fed it and washed it, sometimes unknown to the prisoner—sometimes I gave it my own food, and sometimes I took the food out of the prisoner's room—I only gave it milk and water—on August 28th the prisoner had an attack of delirium tremens, and was taken to the infirmary—I took the child to the relieving officer, and he sent it to the infirmary, where it remained till September 14th, when the mother and the child came home—up to that time the child had had very bad eyes, but it did not seem to ail much—I always fed it with a spoon, not from the bottle—when the prisoner came back from the infirmary she had had some drink, but she was not drunk—I diid not go into their room for a day or two after their return, but pn Saturday, the 16'th, the prisoner took the child out, and sent it home about 10 p.m.—she returned herself about 1 a.m.—I was in bed then, and did not see her—until she came in the baby was quiet, but after she came in it cried—next day Dr, Ledel was called in in the evening; my eldest boy fetched him at the prisoner'srequest—I did not see the doctor—after he had left the prisoner told me that he said the baby was to be fed on condensed milk, she did not say how often—on the Monday she went out about 11 a.m., And did not come in till about 3 p.m.—she had asked me to feed the baby, which was upstairs, and I fed it about 12 a.m.—when she came back at 3 p.m. she asked after the child—she had a gentleman with her she said about business—I said, "What about the baby?"—she said, "Oh, you feed it," and she went out—after »he had gone I washed and fed it and put it to bed—the prisoner came in, and then went out again about 4—I put the baby to bed after 4—the prisoner returned in the evening, but only remained a few minutes—I do not think she stayed long enough to feed the baby—she had somebody in a trap at the door; she relumed at 5 a.m.—I fed the baby again about 11 p.m., before I went to bed—I got the food out of her room; it was condensed milk—during the day I cannot say she was sober—I remember an officer from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children coming on the 23rd, the Saturday—he called me up while he was talking to the prisoner, who undressed the child—I noticed it was very thin, and it was sore—I have had eight chiidren; I think the soreness was due to being left wet—the prisoner went out about 10 p.m., and returned about 3.30 a.m. on Sunday morning—nobody was looking after the child after I went to bed at 11.30—on Monday, the 25th, tho prisoner sold some of her furniture to pay the rent—she was in and out all the morning; she left the baby from about 8 p.m. to 1 a.m.—I

went up twice to feed it—the door was locked, but the key was there—I went in because the baby cried; I gave it some milk—on the 26th the prisoner took the baby out early in the morning, and kept it out till about 7 am.—she came in then, and went out about 8, and came home about 10—I asked her about the baby, and she said that Mrs. Cook, the nurse who had attended her, was coming to mind it—she brought it down to me about 11, and asked me to feed it; it was ravenous—on the 27th the prisoner went out about 12.30 p.m.—she had had a good deal of drink; she stayed out till 7.30—I did not see the baby till about 5 30 p.m,—it did not cry, and I forgot it—there was no one to look after it—I tried to feed it then, but it seemed very faint, and I called in a neighbour, and we fed it—it swallowed a little milk—I was present when it died about 10.30—I went to the doctor, but he did not care to come to the prisoner—no doctor came before the baby died—the prisoner was at home when it died, but she was very drunk; sbe was not able to do anything for it—I told her I thought it was dying when she came in—she said it was some more of my lies—she was abusive; I do not remember what she said—she said the baby would not die—it had always heen weak and thin—after the prisoner oame out of the infirmary the child got worse every time I saw it; I thought it looked very thin when I washed it on the Monday before it died.

EDWIN GEORGE EVANS . I am an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—I first saw the prisoner on September 23rd at 11.30 a.m., when I called at her lodgings—I saw her and her baby—she was much the worse for drink—the baby was very thin and emaciated—I asked her how she fed it, if she gave it the breast—she said, "No"—I said, "Do you give it the bottle?"—she said, "No; I feed it with a spoon"—I said, "Well, the baby seems to me very hungry; let me see you feed it"—the landlady prepared some warm water and milk, and the mother then fed it—she gave it three or four spoonfuls—it took the food most ravenously; she could not feed it fast enough—she was in that condition that she could not steady her hand to put the milk into its month—the child had no difficulty in taking the food; it swallowed it fast enough—then I said to the mother, "let me see the child's body"—she undid its clothes—I found its body was clean, but there were sores on its buttocks—I told her that, in my opinion, the baby was in a very serious state, and that she must let a doctor see it at once, find she promised me she would—I did not see anymore of the prisoner till after the baby was dead.

JOHN WILLIAM OLITEH . I am the Assistant Medical Officer to the Hackney Infirmary—I remember this child being admitted to the infirmary on August 30th—it had a slight ophthalmia; it is chiefly due to neglect—apart from that, the child was not ill—you could not call it well Nourished—it was only six weeks old; it was a small child—it remained with us till September 14th; it improved while with us-the prisoner was in the infirmary at the same time; she came in the day before; she had got delirium tremens—they were both discharged on September 14th; the prisoner was all right again—I overtook her in the street when she left, and I said I hoped that she would take care of the baby—she smiled, and gave me to understand that she would.

MORDON PERCY LEDEL . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 191, Balls Pond Road—I first saw this baby on the evening of September 17th, when I was called to the prisoner's lodgings—it seemed weakly and ailing, but I could not find anything definite the matter with it—I asked the prisoner what she fed it on—she said, "Sterilised milk and barley water"—thai would be perfectly proper food, hut she said the child could not take it—I told her to use condensed milk, and feed it from the bottle—I next saw the child on the 23rd; the prisoner brought it up to my house for me to see between 2 and 3 p.m.; she was not sober—the child seemed delicate and thinner than when I saw it on the Sunday previous—I asked the prisoner if she had fed it as I had told her; she said No, because it was tonguetied, and could not suck from the bottle—I examined it, and found it was not tonguetied—I told the prisoner so, and that there was no reason why it should not be able to take its food—I told her she should feed it every two or three hours—I did not see it again alive—I saw its dead body at 10.30 on the 27th—I made a postmortem examination—I found it emaciated; the total weight was 4 lb. 2 oz.; the normal weight of a child of that age would be about 8 lb.—there were sores on the buttocks and sides—I attributed that to the napkin not being changed often enough, and being left on wet—there was no fat on the body—there was about two teaspoonfuls of milk and water in the tomach; I cannot say how lonsg that had been there, but the digestion had not commenced—it is quite possible that if Mrs. Knowles gave it some food about 5.30, the child, being in a weekly condition, had not digested it—in the lower part of the intestines there were some small lumps, and in the lower part there was some slime, which indicated that the child had not had sufficient food—I cannot say how long it was since it had had food—I could not discover any actual traces of disease—there was nothing to account for there being no fat, or for its small weight—the child being left alone, and nobody to look after it, would be likely to cause injury to its health.

ANN COOK . I am the nurse who attended the prisoner in her confinement; the child was very small and poor—I had a good deal of trouble with it—the mother wished to suckle it, but could not—a doctor attended her.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I think the baby looked thin when it came out of the infirmary.

By The COURT. I saw the child about twice in a fortnight after I left the prisoner.

The prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I do not remember the dates, but—I have not neglected the child; there was always plenty of foods"

The Prisoner, in her defence, said that she was not under the influence of drink; that the baby had always plenty of food, and that she changed it at she Was directed.

GUILTY .— Three Months as a Second class prisoner.

Reference Number: t18991023-687

687. FREDERICK CHARLES HANSON (33) , Sending a letter to Matthias King, demanding money. with menaces.

MR. O'CONNOR Prosecuted.

During the progress of the case MR. JUSTICE CHANNBLL pointed out that the letter contained no threat in this indictment, but that if the learned Counsel wished, he could try the prisoner on the second indictment. MB. O'CONNOR adopted this suggestion, and the JURY on this indictment re turned a verdict of NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-688

688. FREDERICK CHARLES HANSON was again indicted for feloniously, sending a post-card demanding money, with menaces, from Matthias King.

MR. O'CONNOR Prosecuted.

MATTHIAS KING . I had rooms at 1, Lincoln's Inn—I was engaged in Compiling a Guide to the Channel Islands—I met the prisoner early last May outside Temple House, in Tally Street; I recognised him, and asked him how he was getting on—he told me he had had a violent row with his father, who had turned him adrift, and that for three nights he had been walking the Embankment—I told him to come to my office in Temple House next morning, and I would see what I could do for him—became, and I told him I had a room in New Square, Lincoln's Inn; that I had only a single bed, but if he liked to come, and make up a bed of chairs and rugs, he was quite welcome—he came, and was there up till September 23rd—between June and September I was away constantly—the first time I returned was on June 28th, when I discovered a suit of clothes was missing—I asked the prisoner where it was, and he aaid he had pledged it—I cautioned him, and gave him the money for the suity as I. wanted to take it away—I left again on July 23rd, and returned on August 3rd; I went away on August 15th, and returned on August 31st when I discovered that several things were missing—I went away again, and returned on September 23rd; other things were then missing—the prisoner left on the following Monday, the 24th—he had had a key all this time, and I had one—I asked him about the things missing—he said the clothes and portmanteau which I had asked him about he had borrowed to go to a cricket match, and that he had left them at Temple House, and that the other things he had stored with a friend, with whom he was going to live—I believed his story—I afterwards discovered that he had stolen some of them—I received a letter from the prisoner on October 9th, and also this postcard—(Read; This stated that unless the writer received a letter at once he should be obliged to act in a manner quite violent to his nature, viz, take most dratitic action)—I did not owe him any money—I paid him money, but not as an engagement—he forwarded some of my letters—I regarded that as a matter of courtesy—there was nothing between us to justify him in asking for money.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You were trying to obtain money from me to which you were not entitled—I did not owe you anything—I did not arrange with you that you should look after the advertisements for the Guide to Jersey, and to pay you 8s. or 10s. a week—I di business for the Guide then; it had already been published, and I had as man who acted for me for two years before I saw you—it is not true

that I did not go to Temple House because I was afraid of writs which had been issued; none had been issued—I believe you wrote four or five letters—the South-Western Railway gave me passes for Jersey—I think they were given to you.

Re-examined. I believe the Guide was ready in May or June; it had been published when the prisoner came to me—he did not sell any of the Guides for me—he had no authority to do any business with them; I never employed him.

The Prisoner, in his defence, said that he did not intend any threat; that the prosecutor owed him money for services rendered and there was no king threatening in the letters.

GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY.— Six Months' Hard Labour

Reference Number: t18991023-689

689. FRANK LINDSAY (27) and CHARLES CHRISTOPHER BRAMPTON (64) , Committing an act of gross indecency with each other.

MR. CAMPBELL Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN appeared For Lindsay, and

MR. HUTTON for Brampton.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, October 30th, 1899.

Before Mr. Justice Phillimore.

(For Cases tried this day, see Essex and Surrey Cases.)

FOURTH COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, October 30th and 31st.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-690

690. LEON BAMBERGER (46), HERBERT FRANK HAYES (27), and ROBERT WAUGH (37) , Conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Stephen Blundell a quantity of type ribbon, value £7 14S and LEON BAMBERGER (46), WILLIAM ANDERSON , OTTO VOGELSANG (38), and JOHN BRIGGS, Obtaining 60 gross of lead pencils from John Henry William by false pretences, and HENRY HAYES (27) and WILLIAM HAYES (30), Obtaining by false pretences from Charles David Jones large quantities of cigars; WILLIAM HAYES PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining 2,000 cigars from Arthur Horncastle , he having been convicted at this Court on October 25th, 1897.

MESSRS. J. P.and P. GRAIN Prosecuted.

STEPHEN BLUNDHLL . From August to June, last year, I was in the employment of Prym and Co.—about October or November I inserted an advertisement for a traveller—it was answered by a man named Bamberger—he was engaged at a salary of £2 10s. a week, and a commission of 5 per cent, on his sales—of course, that would be when the goods were paid for—Prym and Co. are hook and eye manufacturers of Germany, and also deal in typewriting ribbons—he commenced to travel for us on November Ist or thereabouts—on November I7th I

received this letter, asking for samples, and, to the best of my belief, that letter was brought by Bamberger, and given to me—it is from F. Wallace and Co., Featherstono Buildings—I cannot say definitely whether he said anything aboat the firm when he handed me the letter—I delivered a portion of the goods on receipt of this letter, to the value of about £2 or £3—the goods were sold on monthly credit, less 2 1/2 per cent.—about the beginning of December, before the credit had expired, I received another letter from Wallace and Co., asking for samples and prices of our needles and pins—that letter was also handed to me by Bamberger, to the best of my belief—I wrote letter (Produced), giving list of prices—throughout December Bamberger brought in one or two orders from Wallace and Co.; we supplied the goods, but I cannot definitely state the amounts—the value of the goods supplied to Wallace and Co. while Bamberger was travelling for us was just over £200—we never received a penny in payment for them—we received a reference from Coombes and Co, of 11, Borroughs road, Kensal rise, as to Wallace and Co.—this is the lettler (Produced), dated November 19th, 189S—I stated at the Guildhall that this letter was brought to me by Bamberger, but, afrer thinking the matter over very carefully, I do not remember exactly whether that was so, or whether it came by post—I asked Bam-berger to bring Wallace and Co. to see me, after the account had been overdue some time—I had already put the matter in the solicitors' hands, Messrs. Osborn and Osborn, and Mr. Osborn was present at the interview ith them—this was some time in January—Hayes and Waugh came—Hayes said, "I am Wallace, and this (Waugh)is my partner"—Hayes was the spokesman—they did not pay the money, but offered us a bill for £60—the solicitor said it was worthless—I received orders from other firms through Bamberger, but never executed them; Macdonald Bruce, of 20, Cheapside, was one—I also received an order from William Hayes, of Hopsell Road, N.

Cross-examined by Bamberger. I did say you brought in the orders from Wallace—it is quite right you only brought in £3 10s. worth, and that Soanes, the other traveller, brought in the remainder—(The Prisoner prodviced his call-book.)

By the COURT. Soanes had bfen with me about 18 months before Bam* berger came—he had nothing to do with the introduction of Wallace and Co.—Bamberger said he called on other people, and left samples—the call-book is the film's property—Bamberger got no orders from any other firm except Wallace and Co.

Cross-examined by Waugh Mr. Osborn was present at the first interview I had with you and Hayes—I do not remember that only Bamberger, Hayes, and yourself were present—I remember an interview at which Bamberger stated he had known you two years; you did contradict it forthwith—I remember an interview, between March 10th and 16th, with you and F. Hayee, at which Mr. Thompson and Mr. Osborn were present—you offered an acceptance for £65 from another firm and an amount in cash—Mr. Osbom gave you a certain time to make a better cash offer—it may be true that we supplied you with £100 worth of goods before we asked you for a reference—you give me your proper name at that interview—Hayes said he was Wallace—you did call on May 5th, and offered to pay half the

account by £5 monthly instalments, and tried to borrow money from me at the same time—it is not correct that I had an understanding with you not to press you for the money until June 30th.

CHARLES DAVID JONAS . I am a cigar merchant—Hayes was in my service as traveller in October, 1898—he brought me an order from Coombes and Co. for cigars to the value of;£27 8s.—this is the invoice (Produced)—he gave this acceptance for the amount due on November 9th—the goods were delivered, and the acceptance was dishonoured—I in. structed Mr. Isaacs, my solicitor, to recover the amount—I have never received payment for the goods.

Crossexamined by Hayes. The cigars were sold to William Coombes and Co.—the acceptance is signed by Robert Coombes and Co.

HYMAN ISAACS . I am a solicitor, of 63, Coleman Street—I received instructions from the last witness to proceed against Coombes and CaWaugh called on me and said he was Coombes and Co.—he admitted having had the cigars, and signed a bill in my presence in the name of Robert Coombes—when the first instalment became due, I sued on the bill for the full amount—this is the judgment (Produced)—I issued execution at 96, Ashburnham Road, Kensal Rise, but have not recovered a halfpenny.

HERBERT HEPWORTH THOMPSON . I am the Secretary of the Improved Electric Blue Lamp Co., Limited, of 108, Queen Victoria Street, E.C.—in November last, I advertised for a traveller, and received this letter from Bamberger, offering his services—I have seen Bamberger write, and it is in his writing—I replied to it, and he called upon me, and said he bad been a traveller for some time, and had done a large turnover, over £15,000 a year—he gave me as references, Higgett, of New Cross, Hollingsworth, an auctioneer in Holborn, and the Brush Electric Lighting Company—I got fairly satisfactory replies from Higgect and Hollingsworth, but none from the Brush Company—I engaged him temporarily—the first order I got was from Wallace and Co. in November, 1898—Bambenrer brought it—the value was about £12—he said he had known them for some time, and had done business with them, and than they paid up their accounts—the order was executed—we received orders from Wallace, amounting in all to £66 16s. 8d., which we executed on Bamberger's representations—we have frequently applied for the payment, but without success—I saw both Hayes and Waugh at Featherstone Buildings—Wangh always represented himself to me as Wallace—he said was he in a position to do big business in London and Cardiff, and gave me Coombes and Co, and Bargett, of Princes Street, City, as references—I did not knof Coombes and Co was Waugh—I wrote to Coombes, and got a satisfactory Reply—I had no reply from Bagett—I would not have executed the order had I known that Wallace's name was Waugh, and that he was also Coombes and Co.—this is the reference from Coombes and Co. (Produced.)

Crossexamined by Bamberger, Icalled on Mr. Broadhurst, of the Brush Company, but only after I had engaged you, and heard about Wallace and Co.

By the COURT. Bamberger never introduced any other customers who bought goods

Cross-examined by Waugh. I first met you at 4, Featherstone Building

—I believe you did state in Bamberger's presence that the goods were sold to you on three months' credit—I met you some time after that at Prym's office, when Mr. Blundell and Mr. Osbom were present—you told me your name was Waugh—Hayes said that he was Wallace—you offered Mr. Blundell an acceptance for £65, not me—I believe there was some conversation with Mr. Blundell about giving you time to pay, but that did not apply to me—I went to Prym's office to see Mr. Blundell, not to see Hayes and you—I did not supply nearly the whole of the goods to you. before I asked for references.

By the COURT. I saw Hayes on each occasion that I went to Feather—stone Buildings—I dealt with Waugh as Wallace in the first instance—Hayes acted all through as a subordinate, so much so that once, when Waugh was not there, Hayes said Wallace was away ill—I was first informed that Wallace was Waugh, and that Hayes was Wallace, when we were taking proceedings against them.

WALTER LLOYD . I am one of the firm of Swanser and Lloyd, metal art brokers, of Great Queen Street—I advertised for a traveller in December, 1898—I received this letter from Bamberger of December 2nd—(Offering his services)—also this letter, giving references, of December 8th—I engaged him—he gave me as references Higgett and Co. and Hollingsworth—I wrote to them, and received replies—the first order I got was from Wallace and Co.—I received this letter, ordering samples—I did not send them, as T had made inquiries about Wallace and Co., and was not satisfied with them—Bamberger was only with me a fortnight—I told him I was not satisfied with the only order he had brought, and refused to pay him for the second week—he told me that Wallace had large warehouses in Fetter Lane.

Cross-examined by Bamberger, You did not leave of your own accord, I discharged you.

SARAH VAUGHAN . I am a widow, and housekeeper at 4, Featherstone Buildings—about November last year Hayes and Waugh took two furnished rooms on the first floor as offices in the name of Wallace and Co.—they said they were cigar importers—there were no clerks—I did not see any account books—Hayes and Waugh were there every day—they did not stay long—I have seen Bamberger there twice in a day; perhaps four times in a week—parcels arrived from time to time addressed to Wallace and Co—they used to be there to take them in—I have only taken in one lot for them—the goods were taken out again, perhaps, the same day or the day after—I have seen them take them out—they owed me 12s. for coal and cleaning when they left.

Cross-examined by Bamberger, You called more than five or fix times—I have seen you between 1 and 2, and also in the evening.

Cross-examined by Waugh. When you gave up coming to the office Mr. Slater put a padlock on the door, so that he might know if you did come—there were some sacks of cattle food there then—they had to be put in the basement in the hot weather—you certainly asked me to hand them over to the parties if they came for them—that was before the padlock was put on the door—I do not think the cattle food was paid for. By Bamberger. I did not say at Guildhall that you called every day. WILLIAM HENRY SLATER. I am the owner of 4, Featherstone Buildings

—Waugh called upon rne about November 16th, and took an office on the first floor from November 17th at 16s. per week, payable four weeks in advance, and at the expiration of the first week another week had to be paid; so that it was always kept four weeks in advance—he gave me the name of F. Wallace—I cannot say that I saw any of the prisoners there except Waugh; I only know him as Wallace—he left owing me rent—they remained there till March 23rd, owing about six weeks' rent—I then put a padlock on the door—I got a cheque from one of them I cannot cell which, but it was returned dishonoured—it was handed to the detective in the case.

Crossexamined by Waugh. I have not a little tailor's shop at 63, High Holborn—I let that shop on the understanding that I have the use of it at all times to see my tenants there—you paid the rent most irregularly—I cannot say whether it was Hayes who gave the cheque; it was somebody representing you, and it was a payment on your behalf for rent.

By the COURT. I think it was Hayes that I saw there when Wallace was out—he seemed to be a responsible person, and I looked upon him as a partner—I never saw Bamberger there—(Bamberger here stated that he wished to Plead Guilty, and a verdict of GUILTY was taken against him.)

JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS . I am managing director of Henry Morell, Limited, stationers, of Bush Lane, City—I advertised for a traveller in November, 1898—Bamberger replied, and subsequently called at our works at Stratford, and gave some references; I engaged him—he brought me an order from Wallace and Co. for goods to the value of £8 18s. 7d., which I executed—that was about February 23rd, 1899—I have never seen Hayes and Waugh—I have applied for payment several times, without success.

Crossexamined by Waugh. We made several applications for payment, and sent statements in the ordinary way—I do not know whether that was after the door had been padlocked by the landlord or not.

WILLIAM HENRY LAWRENCE (City Policeman). I had a three years' lease of a house at 57. Stanhope Gardens, Harringay, and lived there till the end of December, 1898—I then advertised the house to let, and Waugh called—he wrote his name down on this piece of paper: "Gore, traveller for Wallace and Co., 4, Featherstone Buildings, Holborn"—he subsequently arranged to take the house, and gave Wallace and Co. as a reference, and Nugent Sinclair and L. Bamberger—he wrotedown his own address: "R. I. Gore, care of Mr. Coombes, 11, Burroughes Road, Kensal Rise"—I called on Wallace and Co., and saw Hayes—he said that he was Wallace—I asked him whether Gore, the man who is now known as Waugh, was employed by him as a traveller—he said yes, at a salary of about.£400 a year, that he had been with him about twelve months, and that he should not like to lose him—I met Waugh coming up the stairs as I was going out, and told him I had got satisfactory references—I addressed him as Gore—the rent was £32 per annum—he took possession of the house.

Cross-examined by Waugh. I applied to Hayes four days before you took possession of the house—I believe it is correct that summonses came in for arrears of taxes before you had been there a fortnight—I had no agreement with you—the landlord was supposed to have signed it with you.

THOMAS WILSON . I am the owner of the house which was let to the last witness—he informed me he had let it, and gave me references—one was Coombes and Co., of Kensal Rise, another Nugent Sinclair, and the third Wallace and Co.—I wrote to them, but only received a reply from Wallace—this is the letter, saying that they considered him quite responsible, but it did not suit me—Gore was in possession of the house for about six months, but without my authority—he never paid me a farthing—I put in a distress, but there were no goods—he remained some four or five weeks after that—he give me a promissory bill eventually, which was not met—my agent finally got rid of him.

Cross-examined by Waugh. When you took possession I did not treat you as a trespasser; I merely left it in the hands of my agent—you were not my tenant—Mr. Lincoln advised me to let you go out free if you gave up possession, which you did after some time.

By the COURT. I never saw Hayes there.

AGATHA VINCENT DOE . I am married—my name was formerly Crisp—in February, 1899, I was managing the Blue Post public-house, Southampton Buildings, close to Featherstone Buildings. I have seen all three prisoners—I knew Waugh as Robert Gore—he was a customer there—I knew Hayes as Frank Haynes—Haynes and Gore used frequently to come together—I have seen Bamberger with them sometimes in the evening—on Saturday, February 4th, 1899, Robert Gore and Frank Haynes came—Haynes was crying in the saloon bar—he was quite Fober—Gore told me that Wallace and Co. were in difficulties—I believed them to be agents, trading under the name of Wallace and Co.—Gore said that Frank Haynes's brothor had, run away with all their ready cash, and they had some stock at the docks which they could not obtain unless they paid for it—I was sorry for them, and lent them £15—they gave me an 10 U—I asked them several times for the money, without success—shortly afterwards I left the Blue Post—I put the matter in my solicitors' hands, but they have been unable to find the prisoners—I have never had a'farthing of the money.

Cross-examined by Waugh. You told me it was money that had been stolen from you, not goods—you asked me to take charge of some goods as security, and I told you that I was not a warehouseman—I applied to you several times for the money—you knew where to find me when I left the Blue Post.

Cross-examined by Hayes. You did not ask me for the loan of the money, out it was arranged between you and Waugh—I gave you the money into your own hands—you said you were very grateful—you also said that your mother was dying.

CHARLES BRYAN (City Detective). I arrested Hayes, and assisted in the arrest of the other two prisoners—they had left Featherstone Buildings when I went there—I have seen William Coombes, Waugh's nephew—Waugh used to use his nephew's name, and was known in the neighbourhood as Coombes.

Cross-examined by Waugh. I did state to Mrs. Waugh that Coombes had sent references to your dictation—your nephew told me that—I should say that you had no share of the £30 bill that you got from Mr. Matthews.

—I do not think you participated in that fraud at all—you bore a very good character indeed before this case.

Cross-examined by Hayes, I cannot say the same with regard to your character—it was good up to 18 months ago.

Evidence or Waugh,

ELLEN MATTHEWS . My husband is a builder—I reside at 62, Clive Street, Grangetown, Cardiff—Waugh and William Hayes came to Cardiff to see me on October 12th last year—they asked my husband to lend them £50—he gave them a bill for £60, as he had not the money—Hayes asked that the bill might be made out to him, as Waugh was an undischarged bankrupt—Hayes did say the money was for the purpose of helping you out of difficulties—you asked me to lend you £5, to get back to London—I told you I had no money in the house—Hayes asked my husband to exchange cheques with him; he gave my husband a cheque for £6, and my husband gave him one in return—that cheque was dishonoured.

By the COURT. We had to pay the bill—we have been unable to find Hayes since—it has nearly ruined us.

Waugh in his defence, stated that he Was in financial difficulties when he was introduad to William Hayes; that Hayes suggested that the (Waugh) fould get some good acceptances, Hayes could get them discounted; that Waugh applied to his cousin, Mr. Matthews, for help, and if Hayes had handed over the £50 Mr. Matthews advanced, he (Waugh) could Aaw you out of all his difficulties. He denied that he had conspired with any of the prisoners,

Hayes' Defence: I had no intention of defrauding anybody. I did not know that Waugh was an undischarged bankrupt until some time after we started business together.

HAYES and WAUGH— GUILTY . (See below.)

Reference Number: t18991023-691

691. LEON BAMBERGER, WILLIAM ANDERSON, JOHN BRIGGS and OTTO VOGELSANG then PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining goods by false pretences under the name of Macdonald, Bruce and Co.

ANDERSON and BRIGGS— Eight Days' Imprisonment, and BAMBERGER— Twelve Months' Imprisonment ; WILLIAM HAYES— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour ; H. S. HAYES— Nine Months' Hard Labour ; WAVGH Twelve Months' Hard. Labour ; VOGELSANG— Four Months' Imprisonment.

Reference Number: t18991023-692

692. PERCIVAL WALLIS, Committing acts of gross indecency with Henry Perry, James Edward Cox, and William Henry Fowler.

MR. LEYCHSTER Prosecuted, and MR. C. F. GILL, Q.C., Defended. NOT GUILTY as to Fowler. GUILTY as to Ferry—Eighteen Month's Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, October 31st, 1899.

Before Mr. Justice Phillimore.

Reference Number: t18991023-693

693. ARTHUR WOOD (25) PLEADED GUILTY to assaulting Lens Wood and causing her actual bodily harm.— Six Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-694

694. The said ARTHUR WOOD was again indicted and charged upon the Coroner's Inquisition with the manslaughter of Lena Wood.

MR. GANZ For the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-695

695. JOHN GRANDE (23), CHARLES BARRETT (19), and ALFRED JONES, otherwise BLISS (23) , were indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the manslaughter of Henry Benbow.

MESSRS. MATHSWS and MUIR Prosecuted.

THOMAS HOLLIS (G 21)produced and proved a plan drawn to scale of the locality.

WILLIAM BUTTON . I am a carman, of 2, Green Street, Old Kent Road—on Wednesday, August 30th, about 4.30 p.m., I was driving a horse and van along the Caledonian Road towards Albion Street—as I neared the Queen's public-house I noticed four men in oonverpation, and an old gentleman walking down the Caledonian Road towards Albion Street—after he had passed in front of the van the four men followed, keeping time with my van—the one I now know as Barrett crossed the back of my van to the other side, and re-crossed in front to the side of the Queen's public-house, and in front of the old gentleman—Grande, with his left arm, made a sign to Barrett, who made a snatch at the old gentleman's chain—he staggered, and the other three went on—one said, "Mind where you are going to," as if it was an accident, and the old gentleman fell, with his legs toward the houses and his head in the gutter—jones stopped as if attempting to pick him up, the others ran by the Albion public-house up the Caledonian Road—I pulled up my horse to clear the old gentleman's head, and called out, "Oh! you brutes!"—Jones, when he saw blood, ran away—I saw blood when I picked the old gentleman out of the gutter—as I was jumping off my shaft Jones was on the move—he walked away—I saw a wound on the back of the old gentleman's head—I placed his head upon my knee, called for assistance, and tied my handkerchief round the wound—two parts of a chain were hanging from his waistcoat—a lady came by and went for assistance—I saw some other jewellery—I had a good opportunity of seeing the three men—I did not know them; I am a stranger in the neighbourhood—I followed them with my van from 50 to 60 yards—it all happened in a very few minutes—Grande is the first man from me, Barrett thft second, and Jones the third—on September 7th, the morning of the inquest, I identified Grande at King's Cross Police-court from a lot of others, nnd I have no doubt about him—I next picked Barrett out, and on October 6th I picked out Jones.

Cross-examined by Grande, I did not pick you out from behind; you stood first in the row.

GEORGE FREDERICK BARNES . Hive in Caledonia Street, Islington—on August 30th, at 4.50, I was walking from Pentonville Road along the Caledonian Load, towards Albion Street—I came through Caledonia Street into the Caledonian Road—I saw four men struggling with the old gentleman, who fell across the pavement, with his head in the gutter—three of the men ran towards me and round the Albion public-house into Caledonia Crescent; the fourth stopped as if in the act of picking

the old gentleman up, and then followed the others—I see three in the (lock—Jones stayed behind—on September 6th I picked out Grande at the Police-court, and on the 9th Barrett—I have known them by sight two or three years in the neighbourhood—on October 6th I picked out Jones—I am employed by the Midland Railway.

Cross-examined by Grande. I said at the Police-court that I knew you by name—I did not give your name at the Police-station, because I did not know the case was coming to what it did—I did not know the old gentleman was going to die—robberies are not uncommon in that neighbourhood—I only knew you by sight.

Cross-examined by Barrett. I only knew you by sight round King's Cross—I have seen you many times in Grande's company—I had some doubt at first, but I was sure afterwards.

ELLEN HAGAN . I am 13 years old—I live at 4, Crescent Avenue, King's Cross—I was coming from school on August 30th about 4.30 p.m.—I saw three men running from the Queen's Arms—Barrett and Jones are two of them—I saw Barrett go up and strike the old gentleman, who fell on the kerb, and cue his head open—a watch and chain were snached from him—Barrett ran one way, and the other three ran round through Crescent Place to King's Cross—they went down the steps into Crescent Avenue—I had seen Barrett I efore—I picked him out at the Police-station from five men in a line—I touched him on the shoulder—in the beginning of October I identified Jones—the fourth man had a mark under his eye.

Cross-examined by Jones. You had your head down, and I could not see your face, and did not touch your shoulder, but at the Police-court I saw you in the dock.

CHARLES JARED . I shall be 14 years old in January—I live at 14, York Road—on August 30th I was going to a leather shop close to the Albion public-house—turning round Albion Street, I saw three Men running away, and the old gentleman with his head in the gutter—the men ran towards me—they passed me very close—I have known Barrett about three years, and Jones about two years—they went down Albion Street, crossing the Calerdonian Road, through Caledonia Crescent, down Crescent Avenue, and up Alpha Place—I knew the one who got away—I picked out Barrett and Jones from others at the Police-station.

Cross-examined by Barrett. I have been you at Snow Bros., and in soldier's clothes near the Queen's Arms a year ago—I think you were in the Militia.

JAMES HARVEY . I am a house agent—I knew Mr. Benbow—on August 30th I was sent to him in Albion Street—I found him sitting against the railings, bleeding from the back of his head—I got him in a cab, and went with him to the hospital—I waited whilst his head was dressed, and afterwards took him home in a cab—I noticed that part of his watchchain had been snatched away—the bar and the link attached, remained, and some of the links at the watch-end—this is the bar; I can swear to it—he wore a two pound piece on the chain—that was gone—he was 64 years of age.

THOMAS PERCY LEGG . I was House Surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital on August 30th—about 5 p.m. Henry Benbow was brought in, suffering from a large cut at the back of his liead, two inches long—he

was bleeding freely from it—the edges were bruised, and there was dirt in it—he was conscious, but dazed—I dressed his wound, and told him to wait—I afterwards found he had gone.

Cross-examined by Grande. His head had been cut open by the force of the fall.

THOMAS WALTER COFFIN, F.R.C.S . I practise at Milton Crescent, Haverstock Hill—I have attended Henry Benbow and family some years—he was fairly healthy, and about 63 or G4 years of age—he seemed all right when I met him casually on August 30th—on that evening I was called to his house—I saw him in bed—he was suffering from a compound comminuted fracture of the skull and a large incised wound—the next day I dressed it—he had partly recovered from the concussion, but waa suffering from great brain irritation—on the 31st he continued much in the same condition—about 50 to 55 hours afterwards other symptoms set in—convulsions followed—after consultation the operation of trepanning was performed, as the symptoms pointed to cerebral affection—a portion of the skull was removed and part of the blood, and there was temporary relief, but it was not maintained—at 1.40 on September 4th he died—I held a postmortem examination—the cause of death was a compound comminuted fracture and extensive internal fractures at the base of the skull, which would set up pressure.

WALTER SELBY (Detective, G). About 6.30 p.m. on September 6th I saw Qrande at the Horse Fair, Bamet, standing outside a booth—I told him I should arrest him on suspicion of being concerned with three other men not in custody with assaulting and robbing a gentleman in Albion Street on Wednesday, August 50th—he said, "A11 right; do not hold me"—I conveyed him to King's Cross in a train—on the way he said, "How many have you got?"—I said, "Only you as yet"—he said, "It is just my luck; I am first again"—later on he said, "I have not been near the Cross for a long time," and "What do you say the charge is?"—I repeated it to him, and added, "Since then the man has died "—he said, "What will the charge be, manslaughter?"—I said, "I do not know yet?"—he was detained at the station—I arrested Barrett at the Old King's Head, in the Euston Road—I called him ouside and said, "I shall arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with Grande and two men wanted for assaulting a gentleman last Wednesday, August 30th, in Albion Street"—he said, "I know nothing about it"—I conveyed hinj to King's Cross Station, where he also was detained for identification—I have seen Jonea and Grande together several timet*, and know both of them.

Crossexamined by Grande. You did not say, "It is always my luck directly I start to go to work"—I had seen you before I arrested you, but I did not know so much then.

GEORGE GODLEY (Letective, G), On October 6th I arrested Jones in, Robert Street, Hampstead Road—on the way to the station in a cab I told him he would be probably charged with robbing Mr. Benbow, and further, with being concerned, with three others, in the manslaughter of the same gentleman—he said,." I know nothing about it"—he was taken to the station, detained, and afterwards identiried and charged—he made no reply to the charge.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate: Grande says: "I am

innocent." Barrett says; "On August 30th, at 10 o'clock, I left home and went to Waterloo Station; there I stopped till between 5 and half, past 5 o'clock. 1 went to see if I could fee any one of my comrades. From there I went straight home." Jones says: "I have Leen knocking about here this 20 years, and that is how these people know me, and come and pick me out. I know the Jared family right through, and thej are all brothel-keepers. I call no witnesses here."

The prisoners repeated their statements in their defences.

GUILTY .—Four former convictions were proved against GIRANDE, and vine against JAMES— Ten Years 'Penal Servitude each. BARRETT— Five Years' Penal Servitude ,

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, October 31st, 1899.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-696

696. SAMUEL MARKS, otherwise DAVIS (30) , PLEADED GUILTY to inciting James Golding to make a die intended to impress the figure of a 5-rouble piece of the Empire of Russia. He received a good character.—Ten Months' Imprisonment. And

Reference Number: t18991023-62

697. EDWIN FOSKETT (48) , to forging and uttering an endorsement on an order for the payment of £2, with intent to defraud, having been convicted at this Court on June 23rd, 1890.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Six Months' Hard Labour

Reference Number: t18991023-698

698. ALFRED CARTER (), Robbery with violence on John Shergals, and stealing from him 10s.

MR. ENGLAND Prosecuted, and MR. BURNIE Defended.

JOHN SHERGALS (Interpreted). I pull down houses—I was in High Street, Shoreditch, at 1 a.m on September 19th—I had left a friend at the station, and on my way home I saw three men standing at the comer—they knocked me down and took 10s. in silver from me, and ran away—I chafed them, and caught the prisoner—I cried "Police!"—a policeman came up, and caught hold of him—they had kicked me all over my body, and on my forehead, which bled.

Cross-examined. I caught the prisoner within a few yards in the same street—I had had a couple of glasses, but was not drunk—I was lying of the ground, and the three men were standing over me—the other two lan away when the policeman came.

EDWARD BARTLEY (241 H). I saw the prisoner and the prosecutor running—I heard the prosecutor shout, and saw him taking hold of the prisoner—they both fell—I ran up—the priosecutor said, "They have got my money"—I got hold of the prisoner—the prosecutor said he was passing along Shoreditch when the prisoner and two other men came up, and the prisoner took hold of his hand as if he were going to say, "Good morning," at the same time striking him on the side of his face, and knocking him to the ground, and kicking him—that his pockets were rifled and 10s. taken; he gave chase, and caught the prisoner—the prisoner then said, "I was going home, and this man came up and punched me on the mouth, and I struck him back"—at the station he said, "I stopped to look to a row, and got punched on the mojth"—

neither the prosecutor nor the prisoner had caps or hats on when I saw them—the prosecutor was bleeding from one eye, and said he was kicked about his legs—there was dirt about his clothing—his waistcoat was torn in halves, and a lot of mud about his legs.

By the COURT. I am sure the prisoner was running away when I saw thorn, and the prosecutor after them—the prosecutor had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Cross-examined. They were both running away—I did not see anybody else there—they both fell—the prisoner's mouth was cut—I did not see the other two men—the prisoner did not make any reply when the prosecutor said that he had robbed him—I took a note of what he said at the station—I had it before me when I gave my evidence at the Police-court—the prisoner had no money on him.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "He never said a word about kicking last night. He said nothing about his money till the policeman came up. 1 did not have a farthing about me."

The Prisoner in his defence, said upon oath he was a French-polishers living in Webland Street, Shoreditch; that he had had a little to drinks and that the prosecutor struck him and cut his lip, the mark of which he had; that he hit the prosecutor back; and that caused a fight and the fell together; that he got up and went away, and the prosecutor got hold of him; that a constable came up and got hold of him, and the prosecutor told the constable ihat he liad robbed him of 10s.; thathis Up was attended to at Edlotoay, and the doctor sent him to the liospital to, have it burnt.

ENWARD BARTLEY (Re-examined). The prisoner had been drinking, but knew what he was doing—ho and the prosecutor were in about the same condition—they walked straight—an interpreter was sent for at the station—the prosecutor was so excited that we could not properly understand him—he apparently told an intelligible story.

GUILTY .—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Worship Street. Oher convictions were proved against him.— Eighteen Months, Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-699

699. WILLIAM BURCH ELLIS, WILLIAM TAYLOR , and ALFRED ELLIS, Conspiring with Edgar Ellis and others to obtain goods from William ChaterLee, to defraud.

MESSRS. AVORY, BIRON and LEYCESTBR Prosecuted; MESSRS. HUTTON and

NOLAN appeared for W. B. Ellis,MESSRS. WABBURTON and GANZ for Taylor, and MR. GILL, Q.C, MR. A. GILL, and MR. KERSHAW for Alfred Ellis.

THE COURT ruled That there was no evidence of conspiracy and directed a verdict of

NOT GUILTY.

There were other indictments against the prisoners for stealing and receiving, upon which no evidence was offered, and a verdict of NOT GUILT was taken.

NEW COURT, Wednesday, November 1st, 1899

Before Mr. Justice Phillimore.

Reference Number: t18991023-700

700. BESSIE CLARA HUHST (25) and HENRY HURST

were charged, on the Coroner's Inquisition, with the manslaughter of Brenda Weston.

MR. CHARLES MATHEWS ,For the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-701

701. The said BESSIE CLARA HURST was again charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with unlawfully neglecting Brenda Weston, a girl under 16, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering, and other counts.

During the progress of the case the prisoner PLEADED GUILTY to neglect by not calling in medical did, and a verdict of Guilty was taken. The prisoner received a good character.— Nine Months' Imprisonment, Second Class.

KENT CASES.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t18991023-702

702. FREDERICK LEACH (34) PLEADED GUILTY to carnally knowing Elizabeth Blythe, a girl above 13 and under 16 years of age.— Three Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-703

703. HENRY BOSUSTON (49) , Stealing a post-letter And a postal order, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.

MR. A. GILL Prosecuted,

WILLIAM JOHN LOWTON . I am a sailmaker, of Whitstable, and am the father of Arthur Lowton, a paper merchant, of Canterbury Road—I drew this cheque for £30 to him on September 7th, and posted it at White-chapel in a letter addressed to him.

THOMAS CAMPION . I am inspector of Peckham sorting office—a letter posted at Whitstable on the evening of September 2nd should arrive at my office early next morning—the postman would receive it—the first delivery is 8 to 8.30.

GILES ALDRIDGE . I am an extra postman at Peckham sorting office—on the morning of September 8th I went to 15, Kennard Street, to receive letters—I had one letter, and on the way I saw the prisoner—I said, "Good morning; I have two this morning; you can take them if you like," and he took them—I had seen him before, and I thought he was Listen.

ARTHUR WILLIAM LOWTON . I am a paper merchant, of 15, Kennard Street—the prisoner was in my employ; I dismissed him in September, when I dismissed all my men—I did not receive a letter from my father on the following day—the prisoner had no authority to open my letters—Finch afterwards gave me the cheque and I cashed it.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Mr. Woolf said that he had taken the business over, and wotdd pay me.

By the COURT. I owed him £2 wages, but he owed me £Z 10s. for money lent.

Re-examined. This is his receipt for £3 10s. I lent him in April, and £1 13s. as well—that has never been paid—(The receipt was for £6 7s., dated April llth, 1899, bearing interest at 7s. per month, to be repaid or further capital introduced)—he did not introduce farther capital.

ALBERT FINCH . I live at 193, Gray's Inn Road, Bermondsey—I was manager to Arthur Lowton; I left his service on the 7th—I saw the prisoner that night, and he arranged to meet me next morning, tosee what men were going to work—I met him between 7.30 and b next morning—we walked down Old Kent Road, and he said, "I hare no money"—I said, "I will go and pawn my watch"—I did so, and met him again—he said, "Come and have a drink"—we went to a public-house, and he palled out an envelope and a cheque, and said, "We had no money last night, we can get some now"—a week's wages was owing to me; I asked for it, and was told that I should be paid, but not that night, because the business was sold—I was paid on Saturdays—I came to an arrange* ment with Mr. Lowton, as I owed him noore money than my week's wages.

By the COURT. The prisoner said, "You are a better scholar than I am; you sign Mr. Lowton's name on the back, and take it to Glynn's Bank, cash it, and go to your lodgings; take jour hat off and put your cap on, and when you have got the money throw your cap away, and they won't know you, and throw the letter away"—he told me afterwards that he received the letter from the postman—I gave the cheque to Mr. Lowton.

Cross-examined. I told you on Friday morning to go and see if the place was open, not to meet the postman.

ALFRED BAHSON (Detective-Sergeant R), On September Ist, at 7 p.m., I saw the prisoner in George Road, Bermondsey, and said, "I charge you with stealing a letter—he said, "I know nothing about The letter or cheque, I heird a cheque had bsen stolen; I know nothing of he I met Fiocb, but I hope he will not charge me."

The Prisoner's Statement before the magistrate: "I can only say I knew nothing about the cheque."

Prisoner's Defence: I took'the letter from the postman, and handed it to Pinch; he promised to meet me later on.

GUILTY .He then Pleaded Guilty to a convienction at Aylesbury on October 14th, 1895; and two other convictions were proved against him,— Twelve Month Hard Labour.

ESSEX CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Channell,

Reference Number: t18991023-704

704. EDEDGAR SMETH (30) was indicted for and charged, on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the wilful murder of Martha Appleyard.

MESSRS. AVORY and BIRON Prosecuted, and MR. MACKENZIE defended.

JEMIMA ELLIS BARAGWANA. H . I am married, and live at 16, Gladstone Road—I do not live with my husband now—the deceased was my sister—just before her death in September she was living at 15, Preston Road, with a man named Thomas Clay—she passed under the name of Mrs. Clay—I last saw her at that address on Sunday, September 3rd.

Cross-examined. I do not know when my sister went to live in Preston Road—the prisoner did not live with hor there, to my knowledge.

ELLEN APPLEYARD . I live at Leytonstone, and am a sister of the deceased—I lived with h r in Leytonstone Road in 1897; she and the prisoner lived there together as man an I wife; I cannot say exactly for how long—we went to different addresses, and ultimately went to 15 Preston Koad, just before Christmas, 1898—the prisoner did not live there; how used to come occasionally—he separated from my sister about a couple of months before we went to Preston Road—I did not hear anything take place between them before they separated—while we were at Preston Road Mr. Clay came to live there—whilst he lived there the prisoner used to come; I cannot say how often, because I was away—he used to stay in the house, but not for the night—Clay was not there when he came; he went away with the barge—I cannot remember when I last saw the prisoner and my sister together; I should say about six weeks before September 7th, when she died—I was not living with my sister then; I left just before last Easter—I last saw my sister on the night before September 7th; that would be the 6th; she was in the Stratford Broadway—while the prisoner was living, with her they always got on well together.

Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner come to my sister last October at Preston Road—I did not see the prisoner at Preston Road between January and July—I did not see him there in August or September—when I saw him there last I did not notice anything strange about him—I know the prisoner's sister, Mrs. Sisley—I have not told her that I have noticed the prisoner strange at times—I have told her that I did not think him right in his head—I told her that once he asked me to go to the door At Preston Road to see whether the police were coming—that was before last Easter.

Re-examined. A week before this happened I saw the prisoner in West Ham Lane—I spoke to him, he seemed very strange in his manner, and laughed at whatever I said—he asked me to tell my sister to meet Him; that was the only sensible thing he said then—I told her the prisoner said she was to meet him outside the Borough Theatre in Stratford at 10.30 that night—I do not know whether she did meet him—I saw him again after that before her death—I never saw the prisoner after that.

EDITH JARVJS . I have lived at 15, Preston Road, Stratford, for the last three years—I remember the deceased coming to live there about October, 1898, with her sister, the last witness—a man named Thomas Clay came to live with the deceased shortly afterwards—I know the prisoner by sight; I have seen him at our house—he came to see the deceased—I have met him out—I went to the theatre with the deceased to meet the prisoner—Clay was not at home at that time—I think the prisoner has been to see the deceased on two or three occasions; Clay was never at home on those occasions.

Cross-examined. I do not know that the prisoner went away from Stratford altogether in January—I did not see him about the house in July or August—when I went to the theatre with the deceased to meet the prisoner he was engaged at the theatre.

FLORENCE ELLIS BARAGWANATH . I live at Stratford—the deceased was my aunt—I know rhe prisoner—I havoseen hitn with mv auntsevenil times—I saw him with her in August several times I have met them walking in the street—I have been with her to 53, Vernon Road, where the prisoner

lived—she went to see him—I have taken letters there two or three times, and put them underneath the door—they were from my aunt, addressed to the prisoner—the last time I did so was about a week before her death—I remember going there once with my aunt, and seeing the prisoner—I heard her say, "Will you come out? I have got something to say to you"—he said, "I cannot come out; I have got to have my supper"—his sister came up, and my aunt said, "He is mine, not yours; I shall do just as I like"—the prisoner's sister said, "Will your we will see about that"—he was living with his sister, who was objecting to my aunt going thers—I did not hear the prisoner say anything to the deceased—once I heard him say to my aunt, "When are you coming to live with as again?"—that was about a fortnight before she died.

Cross-examined. I did not hear her say anything before the prisoner asked that question—the first time I was spoken to about giving evidence was about a week ago—I did not know what the letters which I took to the prisoner contained; they were sealed up—I first knew the prisoner last summer.

EDWARD ELLIS BARAGWANATH . I live at 5, Angel Place, and am 15 years old—the deceased was my aunt—in September she was living at 10, Preston Road—I went there on September 7th, about 7 p.m—when I got outside the house I saw the prisoner—I had never seen him before—a little girl spoke to me, and then the prisoner came across to me—I said, "Are you waiting for anybody'. Sir?"—before I spoke to him he. was walking up and down outside my aunt's house—then I went in and saw my aunt—I stayed about 10 minutes, and came out with her—the prisoner was standing against the lamppost—I walked down Preston. Road with my aunt, and the prisoner came too—we went along until we came to the Town Hall—I told my aunt to ask the prisoner if he wanted anybody—my aunt'said she was going to accept his society, and that she was going to see about it—she went towards the Police-station in West Ham Lane—opposite the Town Hall—outside the station she said to the prisoner, pointing to the station, "You go in there"—he did not say anything—he was moving his hand in his picket, but he was not doing so before she said that—I saw him put his hand into his pocket—I could not see what he was doing—he then flew at my aunt—I did not see anything in his hand—T went into the Police-station and told a confutable a man was insulting my aunt—I saw his left arm over her left shoulder; then I saw her run into the road away from the prisoner—that was after he made a spring at her—he ran after her—it was then that I saw his arm round her neck—then a constable came out of the station—I saw him take a razor from the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I did not see the prisoner put his arm round my aunt's neck, but I saw it round—I was in the street when I saw it., after I had called the police I was looking into the road—after I went to my aunt's house at 7 p.m. my aunt went out, and then came back again—I was in ihe yard when she came back—I think she stood at the gate—I did not see her talking to the prisoner—when I went out with my aunt we went towarrls thf prisoner—then we were walking down the High Strict I was on her left side, and the prisoner on her right—I do

not know if the prisoner heard when I spoke to her—I said it loud enough.

THOMAS BROOKING . I live at 13, Preston Road, Stratford—on Thursday, September 7th, I was sitting at my gate about 7 p.m.—the prisoner passed my gate, and stood outside No. 15, next door—I saw the deceased come out and speak to him—I could not hear what was said—the prisoner put his hand towards the deceased, and she made some remark—she looked as if she wanted to push him away—she seemed a little bit upset—then the prisoner went to the bottom of the street and waited there—the deceased went down to him, and talked to him for a few minutes, and then went back into her house—then she and the last witness came out and went down towards the prisoner, and I saw no more of them—I did not see the boy and the deceased meet the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I had been sitting at my gate about half an hour—I was there some time after the prisoner went away—I did not see any quarrelling—I do not know if there were any other people in the street—I noticed the prisoner because he looked very hard at the house—there was nothing in his appearance which struck me—I was about 6 ft. off while they were talking—my missus and the woman upstairs were in the street—I did not tell the Magistrate that there were half-a-dozen women speaking to the deceased—my missus was speaking to her just before the prisoner came up—I did not know what the prisoner was looking for when he came up; he was a stranger, and I did not take much notice of him—just before he came along, ihe deceased, my wife, and two or three other people were talking together, but when he came along the deceased had gone in—she wae not there when the deceased came—there is a garden of about a coaple of feet between the houses and the street.

JOSEPH WILLIAM TOMLIN . I live at 195, Bow Road—I was in Weit Ham Lane on September 7th, near the Police-station—I saw a man and a woman romping, as I thought—the woman was screaming—the man pot his arm round her neck, she screamed, and when she broke away I saw her face covered with blood—a constable came out of the station, and went up to the prisoner, who was sitting in the gutter, and never offered to move—the constable took him into the station.

Cross-examined. There were not many people about at this time—I did not see anyone opposite the station—it is not at a corner, ic is in the middle of the lane.

JAMES MBNZISS (36 KR), On this day I was on duty at West Ham Police-station just before 8 p.m., when I heard a female scream—I saw the boy—he was calling, "Police!"—I rushed into the street, and saw the prisoner struggling with the deceased—he had his left arm over her left Khoulder—I saw he had something in his hand with which he was hacking at her throat—I went up to him, and seized hold of him—he had let the deceased go before I got up to him—I seized him by the right hand, and took from it this open razor (Produced)—there was blood upon it—I took him into the station, and remained in charge of him until the inspector formally charged him—he did not say anything.

Cross-examined. I was in charge of him from 7.55 till 9.15—dung that time he said nothing at all—I do not know anything about him—I have not made any inquiries, I take it that the inspector has—I do not know that he had been wandering about for 10 days without a home.

JOHN PATKRSON (84 K). The last witness came out of the station on the evening in question, and shortly afterwards I saw the deceased outside—I went to her; she fell into my arms—she was taken to the charge-room, and afterwards removed to the hospital—the prisoner was brought in—I noticed this bottle in his pocket, containing whisky (Produced).

Cross-examined. I asked htm what it was—he made no reply; or when Menzies said to me, "This is the man who caused the injury"—I have not made any inquiries about the prisoner; Inspector Taylor has done that.

GBORGE TAYLOR (Police Inspector). I heard this screaming in the street on this night—the deceased was brought to the station, and afterwards taken to the hospital on the ambulance—I remained at the hospital until she died at 9.15 that night—I returned to the station a little after 10, and said to the prisoner "Edgar Smith, the woman, Martha Apple-yard, is now dead; the died in West Ham Hospital at 9.15; anything you say will be taken down in writing, and may he used in evidence against you; you will be charged with the murder of her on September 7th"—he made no reply—I found on him part of a razorcase and about 5s. 8d. in money.

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisoner—he has been employed at the Borough Theatre—he left there quite suddenly, without giving any notice, on December 15th—he went away In January to Harwich—his sister told me that he returned about 10 weeks before this occurrence—he was staying with her after his return till the Sunday previous to this murder—there are two sisters; one at No. 49 and one at 53—he lodged with them both—from the time he came back he lodged with Mrs. Sisley—I do not know that from August 26th to September 2nd he had no home at all, or that he had been wandering about, or that his brother-in-law, Mr. Kemp, asked him to go and live with him—I could not hear anything of the prisoner from the Monday till the night of the murder—I do not know that he had been seriously ill for some time, or that he had been suffering from stange delusions.

WILLIAM STEWART STALKER . I am House Surgeon at West Ham Hospital—I was there on September 7th, when the deceased was brought in—she had an incised wound on her neck, and another on tlie back of her neck; she was in a very faint condition—I called in Dr. Grogonaugh—we did everything that could be done for her, but she died that night—I made a postmortem examination—the wound on the left bide of her neck was 4 in. in extent, and the one on the back of the neck 5 in.—they could have been caused by a razor—the cause of death was loss of blood, resulting from those wounds—on her ring and middle fingers, and on the upper part of the ball of the right thumb, there were small incised wounds—I should think they were caused in a struggle, perhaps catching hold of the razor.

Cross-examined. The wound on the left side of the neck ran from the jaw downwards and backwards; the other one started at the ear, and then Went down—persons often suffer from nervous debility; that maybe remedied or beqome very serious, but 1 think that is a question for an expert, not for me—melancholia can be produced by a strain on the

nervous system—I have not made any special study of insanity, and am unprepared to answer questions on it,

WALTER A. GROGONAUGH . I am Divisional Surgeon of Police at West Ham, and Senior Surgeon at the West Ham Hospital—I saw the prisoner on this night—he was perfectly sober, sane and quiet—I examined his clothing, and found blood-stains upon his cuffs.

Cross-examined. I spoke to him, and he answered me—this was about 10.15—J asked him what he had been doing previously—he said he had been working at the Borough Theatre—I said, "Where did you stay last night?"—he said, "Two nights ago I left my sister's house;" but he did not say what he had been doing since—if persons suffering from delusion are not looked after, it may develop into something very serious, and if it goes on for some time it may develop into melancholia, and persons luffering from melancholia may do some very sudden and rash act—they might commit suicide or murder—often when suffering from such a malady they may recover suddenly—a person who has committed a murder may be found afterwards to be quite same—if a person imagines that he has got a disease that does not exist, that is also a delusion—absence of food would not make a man stronger, and so would affect the malady, but it would depend on how Long he had been without food—wandering about at nights would also tend to affect the malady—another symptom of the malady is when a person gets a book, and holds it in his hand for an hour without reading—it would be a sign, also, if he did not answer when spoken to, and then, being tapped on the shoulder, would jump up with a start—that would not show that he had been wandering; it would be sudden surprise—he might be feeble minded, but not insane—people suffering for years from melancholia may sometimes recover.

Re-examined. I conversed with him at the station to ascertain whether there was anything wrong with him; I did not find the slightest trace of any mental aberration—from my experience, I do not think that a man suffering from melancholia would recover—as to the delusions about the disease, I often find that people think they are much worse than they are—sleeping in the open air would tend to his recovery—I did not see any traces of his having been deprived of food.

GEORGE SAUNDERS . I am a stage carpenter at the Borough Theatre—the prisoner was employed there as assistant stage-carpenter from October, 1896, to December 13th, 1898—he was under me all that time—he left without giving any notice whatever.

Cross-examined. The only thing strange I noticed about him was the way he left—I did not say that I would go round to his sisters because he was so strange; I told his brother-in-law that I would go round to see why he had left—when people leave the theatre the hall-keeper checks them out and in—on this evening when Smith left there was ro check against him—he was supposed to have gone to dinner, and he never came back.

Evidence for the Defence.

JANE HUMPHREYS . I live with my husband in Chapel Square, Stratfold—the prisoner lodged with me last September, and, off and on, down to November—sometimes he was right, and sometimes he was very strange—sometimes he would sit for a long time with a book before him without

turning a page—he used to go out in the mornings, sometimes about eight, and sometimes before, and not come in to breakfast, and not come home till night—I do not know where he went on those occasions—I hare often spoken to him without is answering, and when I tapped him on the shoulder he said he had not heard me—he used to complain about his head, and say that if the pain did not get better he thought he should go silly—sometime-the asked me for a book, and said he could not sleep of a night—sometimes he would pick my little girl up, and he lively enough, and then he would put her down, and sit in a chair and hold his head—he did not say anything to me about the police being after him—when he was away all day I was afraid, because I did not know if anything had happened to him. because he was so strange.

Cross-examined. While ho was with me he was at the Borough Theatre all day long and during the performances, and he came home late at night—he did not always come straight home—public houses close at 11—all the time he was with me he was a teetotaler—his usual habit was to have breakfast and then go to his work, but sometimes he would go out before I knew he was up—he was very quiet, not fond of talking a lot—I have never had to take a book in order to get to sleep—sometimes he seemed as if he did not want to see anybody, and he said that if anybody called I was to say that he was not at home—sometimes he would go a round—I about way home, but he did not say who it was he was trying to avoid—the deceased has not called at my house; she would come to the middle of the pavement and walk up and down—the prisoner did not always go on to her; he would sometimes go to the door, and then, seeing her, would come in and shut the door—sometimes boys would bring notes for him; sometimes he would read them and then go out, and others he would put on the fire—I did not know the deceased, to speak to; I did not know that she had been living with the prisoner—he always seemed annoyed at her coming to the house; he seemed as if he was trying to get away from her.

Re-examined. I think she came to the house or the street three times during the two months—I think the prisoner was supposed to be at the theatre by 10 o'clock—when he went out before breakfast he would say that he did not fancy his breakfast, or he did not feel very well, and that he went for a walk in the park—he did not say what he was suffering from.

HBNRY ANTHONY . I live at Forest Gate, and am supermaster ct the Borough Theatre, West Ham—the prisoner was engaged there as assistant stage carpenter—he left suddenly about the middle of December—I met him two or three days after he loft in Leyton Road—I asked him if he was doing any work—he said, "No; I am not going to do any more, beause the police are after me"—I asked him why, and he said because of a disease he had, and that he expected a closed carriage would come up, and that the police would take him to the hospital and smother him—I asked him what proof he had, and he said that two days previously he went to Victoria Park, and on the way back two men jumped out of a field, and asked him what he was doing out of Stratford—I asked him what answer he made, and he said he ran back to Stratford, and did not make any answer—I asked him what further proof he had, and he said that he took a ticket to Ipswich to see his people, and when he went up on

to the platform a detective stopped him, and Said it was more than he dared do to let him ride with other passengers—I asked him if he had got the money for his ticket back, and he said, "No," he had thrown the ticket away—I advised him to go to the hospital, and he said that he should be in the hospital quite soon enough, and never come out of it alive—I met him again about two days before the murder in Rom ford Road about 11.15 p.m.—I asked him why he was out at that timeof night, as he was going away from his home—he said he could not get any sleep, and it was no use his staying indoors—it was raining hurd—that was on the Friday before the murder.

Cross-examined. I met him again between September and December 1898; I do not remember the date; it was in Romford Road, in the daytime—I did not speak to him; I was on my bicycle, he was walking—I shouted out to him, and asked where he was working, and he indicated the fiorough Theatre—I have been at the theatre ever since it was opened on August 31st, 1893—I have known the prisoner ever since he has been there—as far as I know, he has always been a good workman—I heard that when he left in December, 1893, he had some bodily disorder—afterthese conversations I did not ask him where he was living; I did not know—when I met him in the week before the murder he was a few yards from hin home—he was living then with his brother in Vernon Road—I was on my way home.

Re-examined. I do not know if he had been living there a week previously.WILLIAM SISLKT. I live at 49, Vernon Road, Stratford, and am the prisoner's brother-in-law—he went to Harwich at the end of January: he returned about the end of June or beginning of July—before he went he was staying in my house—my brother-in-law, Mr. Kemp, lives at No. 49. Vernon Road—while he was living at No. 49 his conduct was very strange at times—he would stay indoors on account of his being afraid the police would take him; that was after he left the theatre—he said that he was suffering from a certain disease, and that the police knew it, and as soon as he went out of the house they would take him and do away with him—he said that very ofen—he saw Dr. Troop about it; he was not suffering from any disorder then, to mv knowledge—we could not get him to go out, and even before he went from No. 49 to 53 he would go and look out at the front window to see if there were any policemen—Dr. Troop examined him thoroughly; I was present—Dr. Troop advised a change of air; he said he was suffering from sudden mental depression—Dr. Troop was called in early in January—the prisoner was taken down to Harwich, where his parents live—we had great difficulty in getting him to go; we could not get him out of the house for over an hour and a-half; he said that a policeman would have him as soon as he got outside the door—we got him to go at last, and told him we were going to see Dr. Troop—he begged me not to go to the doctor, as ho would acquaint the police, who would come and take him, and do away with him, and we should see no more of him—he was five months at Harwich, and when he came back h stayed with me—he had not got over his delusions—he would go into the parlour and lock the door, and put a chair against it, so that no one could get in—he did that several times—one night I heard a noise, and I

got up and went into his room; it was about 1 am.—he had thrown his arms out, and the looking-glass and lamp were knocked off the dressingtable on to the floor—he was asleep—I remember bis breaking a window and the blind one night—he said he could not breathe, and had a choking sensation—I tried to get him work; I nearly got him a job at Ponders End—I took him with me as far as I was going on my way to work, it was about 5 a.m., to see a man who would take him to his work, and I asked the prisoner to wait for the man, and he promised me he would, but as soon as I turned my back he went away, and we saw no more of him until 5 p.m. the same evening, when he told me that he had waited there, but the man did not go to work that morning—his conduct was strange all the time he was with me, and it got worse up to a month before the crime—the last time I saw him was the Sunday before the crime—he lef n my house on the Friday week or fortnight before the crime—I do not know when he left—I had not said that if he got work something would happen—I do not know where he was staying from the time he left me till he went to his brother-in-law's—when I saw him on the Sunday previous his conduct was very strange indeed—he was at 53 then—Saunders made a statement to me about the prisoner in October or November—I think it was after he had left the theatre—Saunders told me how strange the prisoner was—the prisoner's mother borrowed this razor at Harwich for him to shave himself with—he had not got one of his own—he used to be shaved by a barber—when he came back from Harwich her brought the razor with him—he used to carry it about with him to keep it out of the way of the children.

Cross-examined. There were no razors in the house—I never shave myself; I always go to a barber—the prisoner took to shaving himself because he would not go out of the house to get shaved; he only went out of the house five times while he was at Harwich—before he left to go to Harwich he used to go out to get shaved—before he went away I knew of his connection with the deceased, and that the had been living with him at one time—I did not know that she had gone back to live with Clay—all correspondence which came from her to the prisoner we destroyed, and he never saw them—while he was at Harwich she wrote to him there—letters came for him from her as far back as 18 months ago—sometimes he was pleased to get her letters, and sometimes the other way—we destroyed the letters because we did not wish her to have communication with him—sometimes he was annoyed at her coming to see him—she wrote letters to him at ray place after he returned from Harwich, and she used to come and see him—I do not know if he was annoyed—I never saw them. together—we destroyed her letters, so he never saw them—the glass that the prisoner knocked off the table in the night was close to the bed; he did not remember anything about it when he woke.

Re-examined. After he had stayed with me in the early part of September or October, he went to live at Mrs. Humphreys'—when he left Harwich his father gave him £2—he did not earn any money while he was with us—as far as I know, he did not receive any money after he left the theatre.

JOSEPH KEMP I live at 53, Vernon Road, Stratford, and am a

brother-in-law of the prisoner—he stayed with me from about November to January, after he left Mrs. Humphreys': I cannot exactly state the time, but he stayed with me about nine weeks, and during that time we had Dr. Nicholls attending him, who advised me to get him down home, as that would be much better for his health, and I did so—Dr. Nicholls is Dr. Troop's partner—about a fortnight after he came to live with us he came home, and was very ill, and walked about the room in a very despondent manner—we did not know what was the matter with him; I spoke to him about his despondency—he did not give me any satisfactory answer at anytime; he said he did not feel well—on several occasions he said, "The police are after me"—I do not remember hissaying anything about the police before he left the theatre in December—he did not say what they were after him for; he said they would put him away, and would smother him after a time—he made those statements on various occasions; when we wanted to get him out for a walk he would say so—I do not remember his going into a room and locking the door while he was with me—he came and woke me up one night about 1 o'clock, and told me the police were after him, and would get him and smother him; he seemed like a man in trouble—I do not know that I noticed him trembling—sometimes he would say that the police would come for him in a few hours—one night he went out about 1.30 a.m. for a walk for about a quarter of an hour—I do not know where he went—when I said I would send for a doctor he said. "You had better not; I do not want a doctor"—he did not want to see him—I fetched Dr. Troop—I went to Harwich with the prisoner myself—we had great difficulty in getting him away from the house; it took a considerable time to get him out; we had to get him out by main force—he did not run from room to room; he refused to go—I left him at Harwich, and he remained there for some time—I do not know when he came back when he did he stayed with my brother-in-law—I did not see much of him after his return—I saw him at my brother-in-law's in the back yard—I did not notice any difference in him to what there was when he was with as—he was looking very disconsolate and very quiet—he still kept on about the police being after him—I saw him in the street after August 26th—I cannot say the date—I told him he could come and lodge with me—I believe that was on a Wednesday—he did not come then, but about a week afterwards—I remember my mother-in-law, Mrs. Smith, coming up from Harwich; in September, I think it was; I believe it was on the Saturday preceding September 7th—I met the prisoner in the street before Mrs. Smith came up, and told him that she was coming up—I believe I told him on a Wednesday—he stayed with me from the Saturday till the Monday morning preceding the murder—I do not know where he lived from August 26th till he came to me—he seemed then to be like a man in great trouble.

Cross-examined. I did not know anything of the prisoner's relations with the deceased—I found her in my front room with him the day after he came home from Harwich—I had not known her up to then—I did not hear any of their conversation—she stayed about 20 minutes after I arrived—they seemed to be on good terms, as far as I could tell—when I met the prisoner in Stratford Broadway and asked him to stay with

me from the Saturday to the Monday, he was standing against a lamppost, looking very melancholy—he said he had been looking for work, and that he could not get it—I do not think he would have gone back to work if he could have got it; he seemed to bo afraid that if he went back to work someone would take him.

REV. SAMUEL OLIVER . I am in charge of the congregation at Homcastle, in Lincolnshire—last summer I was at Harwich, and amongst the people attending my congregation were the prisoner's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith—I knew them very well—whilst I was there I saw the prisonar, who had come home from London—I only saw him once; I think it was about May or June—I thought I detected a strangeness in his appearance—so far as I could judge, I did not think he was capable of following intelligently a conversation—I spoke to him; he did not answer me—his father and mother were in the room—I formed the opinion that he was not right in his mind—for the last two years, especially, I have noticed a very marked strangeness in his father's appearance—he had an illness about two years ago, and since that time he has been exceedingly strange—he has charge of a pumping-station—I told his wife what I had noticed, and I sympathised with her—I read an account of this tragedy in the papers, when I communicated with the prisoner's solicitors.

Cross-examined. I was in the prisoner's company for about half an hour; that was at the Smiths' house—the father is about 60, he may be more, he may be 70—I do not know what the illness was that he had; he was laid aside from work for a long time—it was not from an accident; it seemed to be an entire mental collapee—during the half-hour when I saw the prisoner my conversation was with Mrs. Smith—I only said, "Good afternoon" to the prisoner—that was when I first went into the room—I said, "Good afternoon" to each of them separately—I had heard something about the prisoner from his mother—I had not heard that he had left his work, or that he was under the impression that he had got some disease.

Re-examined. The opinion I formed was from the appearance the man presented while I was present—he seemed more than depressed, although it is difficult to describe.

DR. GEORGE ALKXANDER TROOP . I have been subpoensed by the prosecution—Mr. Sisley, the prisoner's brother-in-law, is one of my patients, and he asked me in December last to see the prisoner—I examined him; it was suggested that he was suffering from a venereal disease—I saw no symptoms of any—he looked nervous and depressed—on January 15th I advised a change of air for him—when I saw him in January he seemed to be in the same state, very depressed and worried—he made no statement to me about his delusions; I had been told about them—I made a suggestion as to the advisability of having him removed to an institution—I asked him questions, but could get no conversation with him, and, as a last resource, I asked him if he had the delusions that the police were following him, and he said he had—he appeared then to be suffering from nervous debility—on September 11th last I made a report to the police of the state he was in when I saw him in January—the prisoner's answers to my questions were simply "Yes" and "No."

Cross-examined. I did not treat the prisoner for any special thing—I asked him why he thought the police were following him, and he gave no answer—I did not see him again after his return from Harwich.

GEORGE RICHARD VAUGHAN . I am doorkeeper at the Borough Theatre—the prisoner was employed there, but left suddenly on December 13th, 1898—I do not know how he got out; he may have got out by the dock door, where the scenery comes in—every person employed at the theatre is checked as they go in and out—I saw the prisoner on the Friday week before the crime outside the theatre—I said, "Hallo a, Teddy, old boy, how are you?" and held out my hand, but he did not take any notice—I always respected the man, and I do now.

Cross-examined. He was always quiet and reserved—he would not use the dock door as an exit, only for business.

CHARLES JEFFREYS . I live at 87, Marlborough Road, Canning Town, and am the electrical engineer to the Borough Theatre—I remember the prisoner coming to the theatre on August 25th—I was on the pavement outside when the prisoner came up; I asked him how he was, and how long he had been back—he said he was pretty well, and had been back about six weeks—he said he was working at Ponders End—I said, "Ain't You coming round to see the rest of the boys?" he said, "No, not now; I do not wish to excite myself, as they told me not to"—he seemed strange; he did not look as he used to; he did not look right.

Cross-examined. I saw the deceased while the prisoner was supposed to be in Harwich—I knew they were intimate—I did not know that they had lived together—I did not hear from the prisoner before he left the theatre that he was suffering in any way.

WILLIAM MOORE . I live at 45, Rugby Street, Stratford, and am fireman at this theatre—I remember the prisoner coming there about August 24th—I saw him, and asked him how he was—he told me he was at work at Ponders End; he seemed peculiar—I asked him if he had been away, and he said he had—I did not know whether he meant to Harwich or to the lunatic asylum.

Cross-examined. He did not tell me that he felt ill before he went away in December.

Evidence in reply.

JAMES SCOTT . I am Medical Officer at Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway—the prisoner was received there on September 8th, the day after the murder—knowing the charge against him, I kept him under observertion; with that view, he has been kept in the hospital infirmary—I have had interviews with him—I have found no traces of delusions—he has eaten well, and, as a rule, slept well; he was always rational and coherent—I do not find anything in him to suggest that he did not know the difference between right and wrong—I do not find anything to suggest that he did not know what he was about—he has conducted himself in a rational manner—I have talked with him about the crime; I led up to the subject with the object of testing his mind.

Cross-examined. When T described his movements up to the time of the act, he said he had no recollection—he came under my observation within 24 hours after the crime—I always examine prisoners in murder cases—cases are reciveed in the books that where a man has delusions,

as to being arrested and followed, when he 18 arrested those delusions cease; it is possible to have been so in this case—the prisoner has always answered my questions fairly readily—when he put his hand to his forehead I thougat it was a mere nervous trick, I did not attach much importance to it—the blood did not run to his forehead—I have heard the evidence in this case—nervous debility might be an early symptom of melancholia—I do not think that the suffering, by continuing; tor some time without check, would develop into melancholia; it is possible, but not usual—persons suffering from nervous debility or nervousness ought to have treatment—a person sud'eting from them might commit a rash act.

Re-examined. Melancholia is not like nervous debility—it does not follow that a person who gets melancholia has nervous debility; there are people suffering from melancholia who understand the difference between right and wrong, and who know what they are doing—it is possible that persons who have delusions that the police are after them, are actuated by wicked motives and revenge.

DR. HENRY MAUDSLET, M.D., F.R.C.P . I have made diseases of the mind a special study—at the request of the Treasury I examined the prisoner on September 14th, and again on October 18th—I conversed with him on both occasions, and especially on the first; on both oeeasions he was rational and coherent; I found no evidence of insane delusions—I also talked with him about the crime itself, with a view of forming an opinion as to the state of his mind at the time.

Cross-examined. The fact that the prisoner had no home from August 26th to October 6th would not improve the man at all; it would tend to make him worse.

Re-examined. I did not see any reason to believe that the prisoner was suffering from any delusions on September 7th—he said he had no-actual recollection.

By MR. MAOKBITZIE. I did not ask the prisoner whether he heard the conversation between the deceased and her nephew in the street.

GUILTY .— DEATH .

Before Mr. Justice Phillmore.

Reference Number: t18991023-705

705. WILLIAM FRY (21), RICHARD FRY (20), and ALBERT BOWERS (32), were indicted for , and charged, on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the manslaughter of Benjamin Robert Billson.

MESSRS. BIRON and LEYCESTER Prosecuted, and MESSRS. GEOGHEAN and

ROACH Defended Bowers.

JAMES TRACEY SIMPSON . I was House Surgeon of the Branch Hospital at the Albert Docks on September 3rd when Benjamin Billson, a man about 50 years of age, was brought in' a little after 11 p.m., in a semiconscious condition, and suffering from a scalp wound at the back of his head, and blood was escaping from his left ear—after dressing his head I had him put to bed—I saw him again at 1 a.m., when he was suffering from convulsions—during the night he became comatose, and remained so—about noon I advised the operation of trepanning the head—he died about 2.30 p.m. on the 5th—I made a postmortem examination, and found a fracttire at the base of the skull on the left side, a contusion on the right side, and considerable effusion of blood, caused by compression

of the brain, from the result of which he died—the conclusion I came to was that a blow at the angle of the jaw caused the fracture, by driving the condyle of the jaw into the base of the skull—there was a scalp wound on the back of the head, which might have been caused by his falling on the ground, or by a blow—it is not uncommon for injury to the brain to be caused by such a blow or a fall on the point of the chin.

GEORGE WAYLETT (176 K) produced and proved a plan of the locality drawn to scale.

MARTHIA MCCUMSHAY . I live at 60, Clever Road, with my father—it is five doors from the alley—on Sunday, September 3rd, I was standing at the front door with Ada Beard, talking—I saw Richard Fry come from an alley down Martin Road towards Clever Road—he ran along Frederick Road, and came back and stood at the corner of Clever Road and Frederick Road—the lamps were alight except the one against the alley—he stood there singing—he looked intoxicated—Mr. Billson and party came along, laughing, and talking—Richard Fry said, "Who the b—hell are you laughing at?"—when they got to the corner Mrs. Billsoa said, "We are not laughing at you; you young rascal, you want your ass smacked"—Fry said, I will smack his ass "to Bowers and William Fry, who came from the alley—William Fry said, "Go for him on the right," and rushed at old Billson, who was on the right, and hit him with his fist on his left jaw—the old man fell, with the back of his head towards my feet—I had left the house, and come over—Bowers took a stick from Billston, and broke it before William Fry struck him—Richard made for another man—the prisoners then went through the alley to Martin Road—Mrs. Billson cried, "Murder!"—she put her hand on Billson's head—it was covered with blood—a crowd gathered—I knew the prisoners by sight—Miss Billson ran away—Richard had a white shirt and light trousers, no jacket or coat, and nothing on his head—Bowers was dressed in the suit he has on now—William had a light pair of trousers, and dark brown coat and waistcoat.

ADA BEARD . I live at 56, Clever Road—I am 15 years old—on Sunday, September 3rd, I was with the last witness about 10.30 p.m., outside her door—I know Richard Fry by sight—I saw him coming from the avenue leading to Frederick Road, called the Alley—there was a lamp alight in the alley—he stood against the fence at the corner of Frederick Road—the Billson party came along, laughing among themselves—Richard said, "Who the b—hell are you laughing at?"—the Billsons went to the corner, when Mrs. Billson said, "Do you want your ass smacked?"—Richard fry said, "I will smack his ass," pointing to Mr. French, who was on the right—someone said, "We are not laughing at you "—some men came out of the alley—one said, "Go for that one on the right"—Richard Fry hit Mr. French—I was frightened, and went away—when I was turning away Mrs. Billson called out, "They have killed him"—the men walked a few yards past the fish shop, and then ran—Bowers and Richard Fry are two of the men—I picked them out—I saw Bowers break a stick across his knee—I saw Mr. Billison with the stick.

GEORGE ANCHOR . I live at 18, Martin Road—I am 15 years old—I know the prisoner by sight—on Sunday evening. September.3rd, a little

after 10 p.m., I was in Clever Road—Richard Fry was calling for his wife, Bella—shortly afterwards I saw three men and three women (the Billson party) come round the corner, laughing among themselves—Richard asked them what they were laughing at—they said, "Not at you"—then William and Bowers joined them—they came from Bowerss ran in the alley—William said, "Pick him out in the road"—Bowers lives in the alley—I had seen him going out with shrimps—Richard went for French—French took a stick from Mr. Billson, and said, "Go away"—Bowers went to hit French, but could not hit him, he was so drunk; at last he took the stick from French and broke it—French was defending himself with the stick—I heard someone scream—I saw the old man fall down—I noticed that he was cut under his left ear—the prisoners ran away.

WILLIAM EDWARD TEBB . I live at 58, Frederick Road—on Sunday evening, September 3rd, I saw the Billson party walking along the Frederick Road—Richard Fry was against the fence, using obscene language—he looked as if he had had enough—the Billson party were laughing and joking together—after some bad language, some more men came through the alley—one was a larger man than the others—one holloaed out, "Take that man on the right"—Richard rushed at the man on the right—Richard made a strike, and they all rushed at the Billson party—French took a stick from the old man to defend himself—he had one man on him and another behind him—the stick was taken away from him by the stout man—I saw old Billson fall, and ran to his assistance—I helped to take him to Dr. Boyd—French said, "What have I done?"—the stick was broken.

EDWARD FRENCH . I am a foreman stevedore, of 12, St. John's Road. Canning Town—I was with the Billsons on Sunday evening, September. 3rd—I married into the family—we were laughing together—I understood Richard Fry to nay, "Who the f—hell are you laughing at?"—I said, "We are not laughing at you, my son," and continued to walk on round the corner—I said to my wife, "Come on, May"—she said, "All right, mate, I'm coming"—the next I heard was, "Your bleeding May won't go much further," and "Hit him up the b—g gut"—I buttoned my coat—Richard Fry rushed at me—I stepped on one bide, and he passed me—I turned to see whether he had gone, when two of them touched me on the shoulder—I got near my father-in-law, the deceased, and said, "They are a rough lot; lend me the stick; I will do something"—he was 52 or 53 years of age—as soon as I got the stick it was taken away—it was not thicker than ray finger—this is a portion of the stick—I held the stick as long as I could—I got a little tap, and rushed over to a doorway, and asked a woman if she cou'd not do something for me—she slammed the door in my face—I heard my mother-in-law scream "Murder! they have killed him!"—I came back—he was lying on the ground, bleeding—I afterwards identified William Fry.

THOMAS HENRY STANDEN . I was with this party, and heard someone complain of people laughing at him—when we passed, the man who was leaning against the fence followed to the corner, two or three more came from the opening, and said something to him—French said, "We have not come out to tight; leave us alone; we want logo home"—French walked across the toad—Billion's home was in Forty Acts Lane, about 10

minutes' walk—the man who had been leaning against the fence made a blow at French, then hit Billson in the mouth; then another with a brown coat hit me on the right jaw, and I hit him in the face—three men were straggling with French—Billson was in front of me, when the man in the brown coat and cap who hit me knocked him down—I went towards Frederick Road after the man, but on hearing the cry of "Murder!" I turned back to see what was the matter, and so lost sight of him—the man who hit Billson in the mouth with his fist and had been leaning on the fence, was dressed in a light shirt, a light pair of trousers, and no cap, coat, or vest.

EMILY BILLSON . I was the wife of Benjamin Billson, who met his death on September 3rd—I live at 18, Forty Acre Lane—I remember Richand Fry coming towards French after some words, and other men coming—they begin to attack French; then I saw them rush to my husband—it was too dark to see the faces of the men—my husband fell in the road, and I screamed "Murder!"—they all ran away.

ALFRED FRY . I live at 22, Martin Road, and am the brother of Richard and William Fry—I am 10 years old—I know Bowers—he was out selling shrimps in the morning of September 3rd—I was in Bowers’s van in the alley at the end of Frederick Road, in the evening, with William Fry, Bowers, David Hunt, and Barton, singing—when I came from the van Richard Fry was leaning against the fence—I saw three men and three women coming along laughing—he said, "What are you laughing: at?" and they went round the corner—William Fry said, "Pick him out in the road"—Richard Fry went to hit him, and missed him—he said, "Give me that stick," and Bowers got away the stick, and hit Billson on the jaw—Bowers had light trousers, and no coat, waistcoat, or hat—Billson fell on his back—William had a Brown suit on; not the same he has on now—it was a backhanded blow—all walked away—I hare not seen Barton since.

Cross-xamined by Richard Fry. Mother cannot prove that you have no other clothes than a black jacket.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I did not know Billson—George Cox told me who he was—David Hunt came after me—I know Bowas as "Albert" and "Icy."

DAVID HUNT (Cross-examined by MR. GBOGHEGAN). I am 17 yean of age—I am a general dealer—I have been employed by Bowers—I was in his service on September 3rd—I left it eight or nine days ago—I gave evidence before the Magistrate—the police asked me—on Sunday evening, September 3rd, I was in Bowers's van in Clever Road, with Bowers, Barton, William Fry, and Albert Fry—Bowers and I left the van about 9.30—I went to Bowers's house, when I heard a row in the street—Bowers and I came out about 10.15—we went into Clever Road—I saw Richard Fry strike French or Standen—French had a stick in his hand—William Fry and Barton were there—French went to strike one of the Frys, and Bowers took the stick away and broke it up—I saw Alfred Barton strike Mr. Billson with a stick at the back of his ear—I have known Barton six or seven months—he has disappeared since Billson's death—I saw Billson fal—Bowers was standing on the kerb, the other side of the road, 9 or 10 yards away—Barton spoke to me in the alley.

By MR. BIRON. Bowers threw the stick away—William went to strike, but he never hit anyone—I was with Bowers and the others while the "singsong" was going on—they did not stop the "singsong" because of the noise in the street—I gave evidence on September 22nd, the second I hearing before the Magistrate, and before the Coroner—I knew Barton was in the row and had got away.

By the COURT. I did not know the witnesses—I saw a tidy few people standing at the corner—I do not know whether this stick would knock a man down; I saw Barton hit him first with his fist, and with the stick afterwards—he was falling when he hit him with the stick—I suppose Barton picked up the stick—it was the piece of the stick—I told the Coroner that—(The witness's depositiom before the Coroner and the Magistrate being referred to, the word "fist" tvas not mentioned)—I misunderstood his meaning.

KATE LYONS . I live at 56, Martin Road—on Sunday, September 3rd, I saw Barton about 60 yards from Clever Road—he stayed in my company a little time—a policeman came along—he hid—he was dressed in a dark suit; navy blue.

GBOEGE MONTAGUE MARTIN . I am assistant to Mr. Hilleary, the Coroner ror West Ham—on September 11th he Held an inquest inquiring into the death of Benjamin Robert Billson—William Fry, after being cautioned, gave evidence—I took down his statement, and rend it over to him—he signed this deposition in my presence—the other prisoners declined—(Read: "William Fry, 17, Martin Road, Custom House I am a labourer. On Sunday, September 3rd, I was selling shrimps and apples round Martin Road, Clever Road, and Hooper Road, with a pony and cart. I went home about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I had my dinner. I took the horse out of harness, took it on the fields, and came home again at 3.30. I stayed indoors the rest of the day. There is only me and my wife lives at the above address. I did not go out in the street. I had beer on the windowsill. I saw Richard Fry in the evening wich Mr. Shaw, coming down the street. He asked for two or three shrimps, and I gave them to him. I saw Bowers about six o'clock at night. Richard Fry was not drunk when I saw him. I saw three men and three women go down the street. I was sitting on the downstairs windowsill. I did not hear anyone speak to them. I did not see anyone attack them. I saw a crowd. I went out to see what it was about. My sister-in-law said, 'There goes Richard; go and fetch him back again. I went and got hold of him, and pulled him back. He was running along hollooing out for his missus. He was not touching the party. Some boys said, Your brother is in a bit of a row.' He had been drinking. I left him in Frederick Road. I came home. I then sat on the windowsill again, and then my brother went after him. I went out again to fetch him back. He said,' My wife's gone down here, and I want her.' He was in Frederick Road against the chapel, by himself. There was no one else there. I saw three men and three women coming along. I don't know if he spoke to them, or they spoke to him. I saw a scuffle. I don't know who it was. I got hold of my brother and pulled him out. Icy was there; I did not see Eagle or Nelson there. Icy did not help me take my brother away; I took him myself. I did not see the old

man or my brother fall; I only saw my brother scuffling against the fence shouting,' I want my wife!' I heard of the old man being knocked down, and followed a chap up the street as far as the doctor's. One of them says, "Get an ambulance"; so I went to get a barrow from the furniture-shop. We could not get a barrow. I had a coat on; it was a dark one, with a black satin stripe. I had tweed trousers on, the sameas I am now wearing. I did not know Billson. I knew French about two years, as working in the docks. I was not in a van with Icy on Sunday evening. I did not say to Richard Fry, 'Why don't you pick him out in the road!" I did not see Richard Fry go for French. I did not see, and do not know, if Richard Fry had anything in his hand. I heard someone calling, 'Murder!'—I was sitting on the windowsill, drinking cola—I did not go to render assistance for a quarter of an hour; they were then taking the man to the doctor's. I saw my nephew, Alfred Fry; he was talking to us. [By the JURY] I took my brother, Richard, home before I saw the man in the road, about a quarter of an hour. [To the CORONER] My wife saw me at Holloway to-day, and said that Kate Lyon had told her that a man ran down Martin Road, and said, 'Let me hide behind your post, I have hit a man, and I believe I have killed him.' The man's name is Arthur Barton. I don't know where he lives. He is a young man. Richard Fry was drunk at night,")

WILLIAM WALLER (218 K). In consequence of information I received on September 3rd, I went on the 4th to 18, Martin Road, where Richard Fry lived—I searched the house; he was not in—afterwards, in the street, he came and asked me whether I wanted him—I said, "Yes," and that I was going to take him into custody on suspicion of assaulting a man in Clever Road on Sunday night—he said, "I know nothing about him; I did not strike him"—I took him to the station—he was identified by the three witnesses, French, Tebb, and Martha McCumshay—I had received a description of him—after the charge was read over he said, "I saw a man had got hold of the old man's arm; he cuddled him, and took his stick; I saw him passing by, he laughed, and I asked him who he was laughing at, he said, 'I am not laughing at you, my son'"—Bowers, whom I know as "Icy," was brought to the station the next day, September 5th—he was let go, and rearrested on further evidence being forthcoming.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Alfred Fry, I think, was the only witness who picked him out.

FRANCIS CRONK (573 n). On September 5th I saw William Fry in Martin Road—I told him he would have to accompany me to the station—he said, "All right"—I took him to the station, and told him he would be detained—he said, "All right, Sir"—he was placed amongst others, and identified by French—he afterwards said, "I know nothing about it; I was passing through the opening, and saw Richard; he was a bit boozed; I pulled him away cut of it"—the charge was read over—he made no reply.

Cross-examined by William Fry. You did not say, "I pulled him away from the fence."

ARTHUR FENNER (243 K). On September 5th, about 11.50 p.m., I went to 32, Martin Road—I saw Bowers in bed—I told him I was going

to arrest him for an assault in Clever Road on Sunday night—I asked him if his name was "Icy"—he said "Yes"—when I told him the charge he fainted away—when he came to, he dressed, and went to the station—on the way he said, "It is all through them Frys; I will go to—he only asked whether the poor man was dead.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. The inspector cautioned him—after that he said nothing—the station is about a quarter of a mile from where he lives—we reached it in about 20 minutes—he was two or three minutes in the faint—there was no light in his room—a constable and the winess Tebb were with me—I sew one child—the others stood against the door, striking matches—I have heard that two detectives had been to his house; that he went to the station to know what they wanted him for and that he was kept there all night; that Mrs. Billson failed to identify him, and that he was at the Police court—I did not know it at the time; I heard it at the station—Tebb lives in the neighbourhood, and knows Bowers—his wife only said, "What's the matter?"—he is a costermonger, and of good characher, so far as I know.

JOHN BEAR (Police Inspector). I was in charge of the station when French made the complaint—I have made inquiries, but have been unable to find Barton.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Five others have been arrested—two others, Eagles and Nelson, have been charged before the Magis-trate—that was in consequence of the description given.

Bowers, in his defence on oath, said that he saw French assault William Fry with a stick, which he took from him broke up, and threw away, as French was a bigger man. William Fry, in his defence, said on oath that only one witness said he struck the deceased; and that he was wearing a black, and not a brown, coat as stated. Richard Fry, in his defence, said on oath that he was too drunk to know what was the matter.

BOWERS— NOT GUILTY . WILLIAM FRY— GUILTY Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. RICHARD FRY— GUILTY Twenty one Months' Hard Labour.

SURREY CASES

Before Mr. Justice Channell.

Reference Number: t18991023-706

706. FREDERICK PRATT (27) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously assaulting Edward Frederick Pratt, with intent to murder him.— Four Months' Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-707

707. GEORGE JOHN IVES (32) , Shooting at Emily Sarah Ives, with intent to murder her.

MR. GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted.

EMILY SARAH IVES . I am the wife of the prisoner, and live at 14, walton Terrace, Lambeth—on September 29th, about 9.30 p.m., I and my husband were in bed—I had just dozed off, when I heard a pistol go—I did not know what it was till I got out of bed, when it went off again—I heard it three times altogether, because the prisoner tried to

shoot himself; I saw him put the revolver to his own mouth and shoot himself—the second shot hit me in the back of my head—the fire was alight, so I could see him put the revolver to his head—I was struck with either the poker or the fireirons, I cannot remember which—I got to the door as well as I could, and called for help, and Mr. Snelling came down—my husband has not been right in his head lately; not for the last nine weeks—he has been rather strange in his looks; he said that men were after him at night, and that I had tried to poison him; he has had no sleep for nine weeks—he went to Dr. Heathley about six or seven weeks ago; he has been to him several times.

WILLIAM SWELLING . I am landlord to the prisoner and his wife—on this night I heard four sharp reports go off—I recognised the voices, and I went downstairs—I saw the prisoner's wife standing in the passage, bleeding from her head, and the prisoner standing with a pair of tongs in his hand—I asked him what he had been doing—he said he did not know, and he shut the door—he said he felt as if the roof of his mouth was out—this is the revolver (Produced).

JAMES MILLER , M.R.C.S. I was called to this house on September 29th—I saw the prisoner's wife; I examined her, and found her bleeding from the head—she was suffering from scalp wounds—I found two shots imbedded in the scalp—I saw some tongs; they could produce the wounds I saw—the scalp wounds were the most dangerous—I afterwards examined the prisoner; he had two wounds in the roof of his mouth.

PERCY SARGENT . T also examined the woman at the hospital.

ROBERT JOHN HEATHLEY , L.R.C.P., and L.R.C.S. I have seen the prisoner from time to time for about three weeks before this occurrence—he called on me on September 13th, and said that he was very bad from venereal disease—I examined him, and found him completely free from any traces of it—he gave me details of how he came by it, and complained that he could not sleep at nights for two or three weeks previously—I came to the conclusion that he was insane—I afterwards had an interview with his mother, his sister, and his wife, and recommended his removal to an asylum—I saw him again on the 24th—he was much worse then, and complained that the men where he was working had given him pills for certain improper purposes—I do not think he was able to appreciate the nature of his acts—I should have had no hesitation in certifying him as insane.

JAMES SCOTT . I am the Medical Officer at Holloway; I have had the prisoner under my observation—when I first saw him I did not consider him to be of sound mind; I think he is sane enough now to appreciate the proceedings, but at that time he was not of sound mind; he was suffering from delusions.

The Prisoner in his defence, said that he had no recollection; that he did not realise what he was doing at the time, and that he was very sorry.

GUILTY of the act, but being insane at the time. He then Pleaded Guilty to attempting to commit sucide,— To be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant

Reference Number: t18991023-708

708. WILLIAM DAVIS PIPER , Feloniously marrying Charlotte Alice Barchard, his wife being alive.

MR. ROACH,for the Prosecution offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t18991023-709

709. HARRY SMITH (21) , Robbery with violence on James Hicks, and stealing a watch and chain, his property.

MR. ROUTE Prosecuted.

JAMES HICKS . I am a veterinary surgeon, of 25 and 27, Shand Screet, Tooley Street—on September 27th, about midday, I was standing at the end of Sbaud Street, when the prisoner ran out and punched me on my chest, and sent all the breath out of me—he struck me again, and took my watch and chain, worth 50 guineas—I recovered myself and tried to follow, but one of his companions put his leg in front of me and threw me on my face—I never lost sight of the prisoner; he is the man—the two ran together—I did not see the prisoner stopped, but he ran past my business place, and my men ran after him, and one of them handed him over to the police, not more than five minutes afterwards—I have not got my watch and chain back—I have not the least doubt he is the man.

WILLIAM JARVIS . I am a labourer, of 28, Shand Street—on September 27th I saw two men run down the street; the prisoner was one—I have not seen the other again—I heard them shouting, "Stop thief!" and I gave chase—I saw no one running in front of them—I and another man caught the prisoner—he said nothing; he got away from me, and I caught him again in Tooley Streeo, and handed him to a constable.

JOSIAH SWERTING . I am storekeeper at Stanton's Wharf, Tooley Street—on September 27th I saw the prisoner and another man run by our place—I gave chase with Jarvis, and the prisoner went on a wharf—a lad said in his presence that he had taken a watch and chain—he said, "I have not got. it," opened his coat, and said, "Search me," and while I was looking he was gone.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner, You did not say that you were not the man, but were running after the thief.

JOHN WALKER . I am horsekeeper to A. J. Fox. of Guinness Buildings—On September 27th, about 11.45, I was near the Atlas alone, and saw the prisoner looking through a gate in a suspicious manner, and after that I heard a cry or "Stop thief!" and saw the prisoner and another man running away—the prisoner ran first, and the other man tripped Mr. Hicks up, and gave him one blow—I saw the prisoner caught; he is the man who was running away—I did not see anyone kick Mr. Hicks while he was on the ground.

GKERGE WILPORD (315 M). The prisoner was given into my custody—Mr. Hicks charged him with stealing a watch and assaulting him—he made no reply.

J. HICKS (Re-examined). I have not been well since this illtreatment—I have been to a medical man—I have such pain in my lungs where the prisoner struck me that I can hardly breathe, and I never had a day's illness before.

Prisoner's "Defence: I was looking after work, and Mr. Hicks came with. two men and caught me.

GUILTY .—He then Pleaded Guilty to a conviction at Clerkenwell on December 7th, 1896.— Six Years' Penal Servitude.

Reference Number: t18991023-710

710. GEORGE WILLIAM BREWER (46) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Emma Goodall, his wife being alive.— He received a good character.— One Month's Hard Labour. And

Reference Number: t18991023-76

(711) GEORGE SMITH * (21) , to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image] Three Month's Hard Labour.

Reference Number: t18991023-712

712. SAMUEL RICHARDSON (27) , Carnally knowing May Rose Hellewell, a girl above 13 and under 16 years of age.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY .— Three Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t18991023-713

713. JOHN DUGGAN (31), WILLAM MARSDEN (28), and TIMOTHY REGAN (27) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of John Needs, and stealing eight mantles, the property of Frank Harrisson Barker and others; to which MARSDEN PLEADED GUILTY.

MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted.

TMOMAS DIVAIL (Detective, M). On September 25th I went to the Kind's Head, Long Lane, and saw two of the prisoners and another man sitting on a seat—on my entering they turned their heads, and Regan tried to hide his face—I charged them with the unlawful possession of stolen property—Marsden pointed to Duggan and said, "He knows nothing of it; I done it myself"—I told him that they would be charged with burglary—they made no reply—I went to 215, High Street, Borough, and found that an entry had been effected by scaling the churchyard wall—a portion of the skylight was broken in, and they had dropped into the shop—I served this notice on the prisoners. (A notice that evidence would be given of Duggan's previous conviction.)—I was present at the London Sessions when Duggan was sentenced to ten months' hard labour, and five other convictions were proved against him, for one of which he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude.

Cross-examined by Duggan. We watched you several times; you were all together half an hour previous to your arrest.

Cross-examined by Began, Four detectives were with me—I had received information—I saw you in Long Lane, close to the King's Head—I knew you by sight before for some years; you had been away some time, and then you came back, and I have seen you about for about a month—I received this letter from you. (A request to call a witness), and, gave notice to the man at the time, and he was here yesterday.

BENJAMIN LEEK (Policeman, M). On September 25th I was with Divail—I arrested Regan; he was sitting on a form with the other prisoners—I knew him before—I said, "Come on, Kegan; you will have to go also"—he said, "I know nothing about the case; the other two might, but I don't"—he said first, "I don't know anything about the capes; I know nothing about the job," and then he said "This is hard;

they may know something about it, but I do not"—I saw him go into the public-house with the other two men.

Cross-examined by Began. I saw you by 8t. George's Church; you went in with them.

FREDERICK PUSEY (Detective M), I took Duggan—on the way to the station he said, "What is this for, governor?"—I said, "You know. Jack "—he said, "I know nothing about it; I only went to have a drink; those men know all about it."

JOHN NEEDS . I am assistant to Frank Harrisson, baker, of 215, High Street, borough, and live on the premises—on September 28rd I looked up the premises, and left them, and at 8 o'clock on the Monday morning I found that a burglary had been committed, and property stolen—I missed these mantles (Produced).

Evidence for Duggan,

JOHN FELL , I am a stoker—on Saturday evening, September 23rd, my mother was moving, and she asked me if I would lend a van—I could not get one, and Ching and I hired a barrow, and took it, and went back, and had it again, and took it to my sister's house, and Duggan was at my house till 2 minutes to 12—I do not know where he was the rest of the night; I saw him last at five minutes to 12.

Cross-examined. I knew him a fortnight before that; I had known his sister for years—I do not know what he does for a living—I met him on Sunday in a coffeeshop.

Duggan's Defence: I'went into the'Song's Head, and in came Manrden and another man, and in about 20 minutes this carman came in. He said to Marsden, "I won't be more than five minutes." He could not have gone 50 yards when the officer said, "I shall take you in custody."

Regan's Defence: I met this man, and asked him to have a drink, and another man came in. In about five minutes a man came in with a bag, and said, "Will you have a drink? I won't be a minute," and went out. The police came in and took me.

GUILTY . They then Pleaded Guilty to previous convictions; Duggan on June 11th, 1895; Marsden on September 11th 1894; and Regan on October 16th, 1888. Other convictions were proved against each prisoner,—DUGGAN— Three Years and a-half Penal Servitude. MARSDEN— Five Years' Penal Servitude, REGAN— Four Years' Penal Servitude.

Before Mr. Justice Phillimore.

Reference Number: t18991023-714

714. BERTRAM HINES (23) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the manslaughter of Jane Graham.

MESSRS. KERSHAW and KENT Prosecuted, and MR. C. A. H. BLACK

Defended.

GEORGE EMDEAN (43 L) proved a plan of the locality.

WILLIAM MASON (352 Y). On Sunday evening, September 3rd, I was off duty and in plain clothes, and on a tram with my wife coming from Westminster to Kennington Gate, where we got out—the tram went on towards Clapham—another tram was in front, going towards London, on the other line—I first saw the deceased, Jane Graham, 4 to 6 yards off crossing in front of the horses to my right—I saw two traps coming towards us in the Clapham Road, 20 to 30 yards off, and going towards

the Elephant at about 12 or 14 miles an hour; terribly fast—the prisoner's trap crossed the road on to his proper side from the timekeeper's box side—the offside wheel caught Mrs. Graham on the left side, spun her to the ground, twisted her round, and she fell—she was on the tram lines—I went to her assistance—she did not speak—I took her to Dr. Duke's surgery—the prisoner came in—I remained till Mrs. Graham died, about three hours afterwards.

Cross-examined. The tram going to Clapham stopped opposite the timekeeper's box—I did not see the old lady stagger before she was knocked down—the box of the wheel struck her.

Re-examined. People were coming out of church—it was about 9 p.m.—hundreds of people were about—Mrs. Graham was about 69 years old.

ELIZABETH MASON . I was with my husband, the last witness, travelling to Kennington Gate—I got off the near side, and went to the payement, where the lamp is—I saw Mrs. Graham crossing the road on a level with the tram—she was knocked down between the tram line and the pavement on. the other side—I saw the two traps coming from Clapham, going very fast, about abreast of each other—the right wheel of the prisoner's trap seemed to catch the old lady on the left side, wheel her round, and she fell—my husband and I went and picked her up, and conveyed her to Dr. Duke's—I was with her till she died, about 12 o'clock.

Cross-examined. I was behind my husband—I did not see her stagger—the box of the wheel struck her in the side—I noticed four men in the cart.

EDGAR SNELLING (267 L), I was off duty, walking towards Clapham—I saw two traps going towards London at nearly 14 miles an hour—they appeared to be abreast—one appeared to be going towards Brixton on the off side: the other side of the road from me—I was near the firealarm—Hines's trap was on the left side, going to London—I saw the old lady in the road, about 15 yards off—the off wheel caught her, and she fell—I rushed into the road and seized the bridle, and pulled them up sharp about 10 or 15 yards from where I was standing—Hinea assisted me to pull up—he jumped out and went to the constable who was assisting the old lady—four people were in the trap—it was a twowheel trap and a cob.

Cross-examined. The pony was not 13 or 14 hands—it was full-grown—the prisoner was not using a whip—I was very nearly dragged along—the traps appeared to be racing—they were urging the horses—both traps came along the centre of the road at first—the traps would clatter in crossing—the prisoner appeared anxious and depressed—he was sober.

Re-examined. The old lady appeared dazed in trying to get out of the way.

CHARLES GILBERT . I am a timekeeper employed by the London County Council, at the box at Kennington Gate—on Sunday evening, September 3rd, I was on duty at this box—two trams stopped there, one going to, and one coming from. Tooting—I saw the old lady, coming from the direction of Camberwell, pass the box—I watched her crossing the road—I saw two traps, and heard shouting—the traps were going 12 to

14 miles an hour—Hines'strap was leading on the near side—one trap crossed the lines—I saw the old lady lying in the road—the prisoner came in after we had taken the old lady to Dr. Duke's surgery—he spoke to a constable.

PERCY GALAND . I am a clerk, of 7, Lorrimore Square, Kennington—. on September 3rd, about 9 p.m., I saw the old lady knocked down—I went to the surgery—Hines came in afterwards—I saw these carts before the accident—they appeared to be going very fast.

JOHN GREGORY JONES . 1 am an upholsterer, of 3, Langham Road, Brixton—I was standing near Kennington Gate—I saw two traps coming from Clapham, nearly abreast, at the rate of 12 or 14 miles an hour.

Cross-examined. The tram was between me and the accident.

THOMAS JOHN JORDAN . I am a sorter at the General Post Office—on Sunday, September 3rd, about 9 p.m., I was near Kennington Gate—I noticed two traps driving towards London on account of the fast pace they were going, and being abreast—I was on a tramcar, I alighted, and saw that a person had been knocked down.

Gross-examined, I was going to Harleyford Road.

ROBERT CURTIS (322 L), I was on point duty at Kennington Gate, between the big lump and the timekeeper's box—my attention was called to some shouting—I saw a person give a twist and fall down—I went to her assistance—I assisted her to Dr. Duke's surgery—Hines followed me in—before that he said he was driving the trap, and the old lady fell down—he was sober—I remained till 12 o'clock, when the old lady died—the prisoner's words were, "I am the man that was driving the trap that knocked the old lady down,"

Cross-examined. He said that outside the surgery—he appeared upset and willing to do what he could.

HENRY EVENDEN (9 LR). I was on duty, and received information, that a woman had, been knocked down, and in consequence went to Dr. Duke's surgery—I asked Hines if he was the driver of the horse and trap outside—he said, "Yes; I am the driver"—I said, "I shall take you to the station, where you very likely will be charged with furious driving "—he replied, "All right; I will go quietly"—I took him to the station—Inspector Brooks took the charge of causing the death three or four hours after the accident—he made no answer to the charge.

Cross-examined. I saw him after he had spoken to Curtis—he was very distressed, he did not seem able to reply—he was sober.

JOSEPH BROOKS (Inspector L). On Sunday evening, September 3rd, the prisoner was brought to the station, and charged with furious driving—I visited the surgery, returned, and preferred a charge of manslaughter—he made no reply to either charge.

Cross-examined. He gave evidence before the Coroner.

ALBERT GOURELE GRAHAM . I am an insurance agent, of 13, Evelyn Road—at the time of the accident I was living in the Hointon Road, High Street, Peckham—Mrs. Graham, who died on September 3rd, was my mother—she gave her age as 67, but we found she was 78—she had been visiting our house, and I saw her in the tram—she would change at CamberwellGreen, and walk from Kennington Church—I was apprised of her death the next morning by a cousin—her hearing was very good.

her sight fairly good, and her legs very steady—she was active, and accumstomed to go about—she visited on alternate Sundays our house, and a house at Holloway, going by the North London Railway by herself.

Cross-examined. She only wore glasses when reading—she was not shortsighted; she would look at the church tower clock, and tell the time.

MAURICE DUKE . I am a registered medical practitioner, living at 272, Kennington Park Road—at 9 p.m. on Sunday, September 3rd, Mrs. Graham was brought in'o my surgery—she was in a state of collapse and shock—she was not unconscious—I examined her—she told me where she had spent the evening—she died in about 2 1/2 hours, about midnight—I made a postmortem examination—the cause of death was shock to the nervous system, and haemorrhage in the abdomen—her injuries were consistent with her having been struck by a cart—her injuries were on the right side—I think the box of the wheel must have caused the injury.

By the JURY. T found no injuries on the left side—there was a slight bruise over the haemorrhage—as that was external, I suppose she was struck there—I think the witnesses are mistaken in saying the left side—the tram lines are level with the road, and in good condition.

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that his pony was running away having been startled by the other trap, and he was doing his best to hold her in.

Evidence for the Defence.

FREDERICK DOWNING . I am a master chimneysweep, of 78, Lilly Grove, New Cross—I own the pony and trap which caused this accident—the pony is spirited; for three months I could neither drive nor move her—she is a mare, and between 10 and 12 years old—I gave £8 for her—every time I tried to drive her sha would rear and back—seeing her mouth bleeding, I gave her a leather bit—she is very nervous, and has a shocking temper—no man could pull her up within 50 yards; I never could when she took it into her head to go off—she takes flight at anything rattling behind her; she has bolted twice, and has laid me up for three months—I have known Hines as a careful driver.

Cross-examined. I have driven her the last two years, not regularly; I have three or four—the prisoner has driven her about twice before—he did report to me that she was awkward—he had seen me drive her—he could judge of her habit of bolting from the toss of her head—I let it, but only to persons used to driving; I warned people not used to driving.

JOHN ELVIN . I am a warehouseman, of 55, Healy Street, Bermondsey—I was one of the party in this trap—a trap came behind us and crossed the road near the Electric Railway Station, near Harleyford Road, crossing the metals; it continued on the metals some distance—Hines' horse was startled by the rattle of the trap on the stones, and went faster, and he was not able to hold her in, the other trap going almost alongside of us—Hines was not racing—the old lady ran against the stock of the wheel—I did not see her, I was looking ahead—it was momentary—I saw her at the back of the trap—she appeared to come upon us suddenly—Hines was holding the reins very fast—he was getting control of the pony.

Cross-examined. We had been to Ashtead Woods—we stopped in coming back three times—the last place was about two miles from the accident—I first saw the second trap about five minutes before the accident

—we were travelling pretty fast; not at an over speed—I noticed the other trap the distance of abou two traps off, trying to overtake us.

WILLIAM POW . I am a leather dresser, of 56, Spa Road, Bermondaey—I was one of the party in the trap—we were going a fair middle pace—I noticed another trap following; slightly behind, trying to pass, it left the wood paying and crossed to the other side of the tram—crosaing the stone pitching, it seemed to startle our horse, which went qnioker; it seemed to spring—I was sitting on the back seat—Hines was driving—he tred to pull up—we stopped, and I saw the woman in the road—two were sitting in front, and two behind—Hines was not racing.

Cross-examined. We stopped three times on the road; the last time ten minutes to a quarter of an hour before the accident—I first noticed the other trap when it was 50 to 70 yards behind, being nearsighted—we were trotting—we were not going quick—the pony seemed to spring, then it was pulled up.

GBORGK ARMSTBONG . I am a skinner, of 18, East Street, Bermondsey—I was sitting behind with the last witness—near the Electric Railway Station we were trotting at a medium pace—I noticed another trap following—when it caught up, our horse seemed to start and quicken its pace a little—Hines tried to pull it up—I saw the old lady lying in the road we were pulling up—we had stopped when the policeman caught the bridle—we were not racing.

Cross-examined. I heard shouting as the accident happened—we did not stop dead we pulled up in about 10 yards—the policeman got hold. as the horse was coming to a standstill—he was not nearly dragged along—we were going about nine miles an hour.

HRNRY DUNLEY . I am a stevedore, living at Bermondsey—I was walking along opposite the timekeeper's box at Kennington—I saw two traps, and two trams belweon them—I saw the old lady crossing—she Seemed half dazed—Hines's horse passed her, but she fell on to the. box of the wheel, and it knocked her down—Hines is a stranger to me—he was pulling up by checking the horse's head.

Cross-examined. I was walking towards the Elephant; the same way as the traps were going.

Re-examined. I was on the pavement, facing the deceased.

SAMUEL THOMAS BROWN . I am a labourer, of 10, Farncombe Street, Bermondsey—at the time of this accident I was walking from Clapham with Dunley—we were going to take a tram when we noticed the two traps—I have travelled faster on a tram than Hines was driving—he was going about seven miles an hour—I was opposite Kennington Gate when I saw the hind trap pass Hines's trap—I saw the old lady come between the trams and the traps, and stumble into the box of the wheel of Hines's trap—I did not then know Hines.

Cross-examined. I was 10 or 12 yards from the old lady, waiting for a tram with Dunley—I never saw the old lady till the horse had passed—I saw her from behind the trap.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, October 31st, 1899, and following days.

Before Mr. Justice Channell

Reference Number: t18991023-715

715. EDWARD BEALL (47), CHARLES SINGLETON (62), THOMAS HARRISSON LAMBERT and WILLIAM CARRUTHERS WAIN (41) , Unlawfully conspiring to defraud the public in connection with the promotion of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited.

The SOLICITORGENERAL, MR. SUTTON, MR. H. AVORY and MR. BODKIN conducted the Proaecution; MR. ISAACS, Q.C, MR. MUIR and MR. CRAIG appeared for Beall, MR. GRAIN and MR. PETER GRAIN for Singleton MR. MARSHALL HALL. Q.C, and MR. TURRELL For Lambert, and MR. A. E. GILL or Wain.

GEORGK INGLIS BOYLE . I am a mesenger at the Record Office, London Bankruptcy Court, and produce the file in the bankruptcy of Edward Beall in 1892—the date of the creditors' petition is July 18th, 1892, and the receiving order August 8th, 1892, and the adjudication September I 3rd, 1892—the statement of assets and liabilities shows assets £2,071 16s. 11d., and liabilities £5,534 7s. 9d.—Beall has not been discharged I charged from that bankruptcy—his address at that time is given as "Edward Beall, Tower Chambers, London Wall"—I also produce a second file in the bankruptcy of the same Edward Beall, whose address is "15, Copthall Avenue"—I find that the debtor's own petition was fied on March 23rd, 1899—there was an adjudication and receiving order made the same day—then there is a statement of affairs showing assets, estimated at £2,300, and liabilities £6,254 19s.,—that bankruptcy is still proceeding—I produce a third file in the bankruptcy of a person named Charles Singleton, which shows that a petition at the instance of the Adelphi Bank, Limited, was filed on June 24th, 1884—the receiving order was made July 10th, 1884, and the adjudication September 5th, 1884—the summary shows estimated assets £2,405 12s. 7d., and liabilities £627 4s. 5d., showing, therefore, a surplus of £1,778 8s. 2d.—no public examination was held—I find on the file a warrant for his arrest on nonappearance at such public examination, dated in 1884—that warrant is still extant; he has never appeared—I have no other file there.

HERBERT GEORGE CROSS . I am clerk to Pritchard, Inglefield and Co., solicitors at Painters' Hall—they acted as the London agents for the solicitors to the Adelphi Bank—I remember the bankruptcy proceedings which have just been mentioned by Mr. Boyle, against Charles Singleton—I know him as Singleton only.

Crossexamined by MR. GRAIN. This bankruptcy was in 1884—my firm had the conduct of the proceedings, and it was at my instigation that a warrant for his arrest for nonattendance on his public examination was taken out, no doubt—I had not seen Mr. Singleton since 1884 until I saw him at the Mansion House, when I was asked to identiiy him—I have not tried to find him at the address given in the warrant; we are only London agents, and we have to obey instructions—I did not, after 'obtaining the warrant, attempt to find him at the address which was given by him at that time, and which was in the warrant—I do not think he was living for 10 years at the same address, from 1884 to 1894, or there abouts—we ceased to make inquiries after a few years; from 1884 up to 1890 we could not trace him.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE (Reexamined). I have now found the filed document; it recites that Messrs. Pritchard, Inglefield, and Co. appeared

for the petitioning creditor, and that Beall and Co. appeared for the debtor—the date is July 10th, 1884.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. There is no address in this warrant, except 27 and 28, St. Swithin's Lane—that would indicate the place of business where the bankrupt was carrying on his business when he became baukrupt, I believe; it does not deal with his private address—I do not know the procedure.

WALTER JAMES MORRIS . I am a clerk in the Copyright Registry at Stationers' Hall—I produce a form of application for registration of what is described on the form as "a book"—this is an application by A. F. Baker: "To the registering officer appointed by the Stationers' Company. I; A. F. Baker, of 5, Copthall Avenue, B.C., do hereby certify that I am the proprietor of the copyright of a book entitled 'London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited' and I hereby require you to make entry in the register book of the Stationers' Company of my proprietorship of such copyright, according to the particulars underwritten"—then the "title of book" is given as "London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited "; the name of publisher and place of publication, "A. F. Baker, 5, Copthall Avenue, London, E.C."; the "name and place of abode of the proprietor of the copyright," same name and address; "date of first publication," March 24th, 1892. Signed, "A. F. Baker"; witness, "Alice S. Rich"—then there follows the actual document registered in the form of a prospectus.

Cross-examined by MR. HALL. L'ambert's name does not appear anywhere on that prospectus, so far as I know.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. The same observation applies to the defendant Wain.

ROBERT MACGREGOR . I am Chief Clerk of the Bxchequer at Bdinburgh—I act for the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file, as it is called, of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited—the company was registered on August 18th, 1892—the memorandum of association was registered on that day; it shows that, amongst other objects of the company, was this: "To confirm and carry into effect, with such modifications as may be agreed upon, an agreement between A. F. Baker and a trustee on behalf of the corporation"; and under Clause 5 of the memorandum, the capital of the corporation, £102,000, is divided into 10,000 shares of £10 each, and 2,000 founders' shares of £l each, with power, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, to increase or reduce such capital—the shares are divided into the following classes: 10,000 ordinary shares, 2,000 founders' shares—the,. rights of the shares are stated to be that "the ordinary shares are entitled to a preferential dividend at the rate of £7 per cent per annum, and to share in the remaining profits of the corporation as hereinafter mentioned; the founders' shares are entitled to one moiety of the remaining profits of the corporation after the payment of the 7 percent—interest (non-cumulative) on the ordinary shares, the remaining one moiety of such profits being distributed amongst the holders of ordmary shares, such remaining profits or any part of such profits being subject to the formation of a reserve fund, as the directors or managers may think fit; (6) dividends may be paid in cash or by the distribution of specific

assets, shares, stock, or otherwise;" then follows the list of seven sigma. tories—each of the seven signatories subscribes for one founders' share—the witness to all the above signatures is "Oliver R. Mason. Waroford Court, London, E.C., manager to a public company"; then follows: "This memorandum is registered without articles of association.—A. F. Baker, agent for the said bank"—the second document on the file is the duty stamp form; the third is an agreement dated August 19th, 1892, between the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, of one part, and A. F. Baker of the other part; that recites certain matters, and then makes over 2,000 £1 fullypaid founders' shares to A. F. Baker—it is signed, "For and on behalf of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, Leonard Barker and William Osborne, directors," and also by A. F. Baker—the next document is a return of capital up to September, 1892—it shows that the seven signatories are still existing shareholders, Braoley, Clark, Cook, Drew, Osborne, Williams, Barker; and in addition to their seven shares there are share warrants to bearer, 2,000, making altogether 2,007 shares issued at that date—that is signed, "A. F. Baker, Secretary"—then there is another return at the end of the year 1892 to the same effect; seven signatories with one share each, and then the 2,000 share warrants in addition; that is made up to January 30th, 1893—the next document is dated June 16th, 1893, a notice of address—there is another documen t dated June 16th, 1893, giving the address of the company as 6A, George Street, Edinburgh—so far as I can teil, that is the first address of the company that I had for registration—the next document is a petition filed on February 10th, 1894: ia petition to the Right Honourable the Lords of Council and Session; that is the Division of the Court of Session in Scotland—that is presented on behalf of John R. Blackiston, Inspector of Schools, of Peyton Lodge, Sheffield, for rectification of register by the removal of his name from the list of shareholders—the petition itself shows that the ground for that application was the appearance of the name of a Mr. Scrafton in the list of governors—"The petitioner has learned, and now avers, that before the said shares were allotted to him the said Robert Scrafton had intimated to the company and to the other governors named in the prospectus that he withdrew his consent to become a governor of the company—on April 10th, 1894, I got a letter from F, J. Baker, the secretary, giving me notice that Mr. Blackiston's name had been removed from the list of shareholders; it is dated April 10th; it would be received on the 11th—the next document is a notice of change of situation from George Street, Edinburgh, to 23, St. James's Square, Edinburgh, as the registered office of the company—the next is the summary, showing the number of shares which had been issued and taken up, to December 24th, 1894—that shows that in addition to the 2,000 fully paidup shares, 2,529 shares had been taken up to that date; the 2,000 being the 2,000 fullypaid shares previously referred to, I presume; there are seven subscription shares, and 1,993 others—the summary further shows that the total amount of calls received up to that date was £24,760, and the total amount of calls unpaid £530—then follows a long list of shareholders; and then I find the very last entry on the return, "share warrants to bearer allotted, 1993"—that would be the

2000 less the seven original signatories' shares—the next document is a petition dated December 13th, 1894, for the windingup of the company presented by Mr. M'Gill and Mr. Barr; they were the petitioners—among the names mentioned there I find the names of Messrs. Davidson and Syme; they were the solicitors for the petitioners, Mr. M'Gill and Mr. Barr—the Court made an order for the windingup of the company on January 16th, 1895, Mr. Richard Atcheson being appointed liquidator.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The memorandum says: "To promote any company or companies for the purpose of acquiring all or any of the property and liabilities of this corporation, or for any other purpose which may seem directly or indirectly calculated to benefit this corporation "; and under lett r p.: "To remunerate any person or company for services rendered, or to be rendered, in placing or assisting to place, or underwriting or assisting to underwrite, or guaranteeing the placing or under-writing of any of the shares in the corporation's capital, or any debentures or other securities of the corporation, or in or about the formation or promotion of the corporation, or the conduct of its business"—in Clause 5 it is stated that "the capital of the corporation is £102,000, divided into 10,000 shares of £10 each, and 2,000 founders' shares of £1 each, vith power, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, to divide such shares or stock," and, a little later, "by resolution to increase or reduce such capital"; there is power to increase or reduce—Clause 6 says: "Dividends may be paid in cash or by the distribution of specific assets, shares, stock, or otherwise"—at first, when the registration took place in August, 1892, they were registered without articles under Table A—there was just a memorandum alone; but later I find that on February 15th, 1893, articles were filed with me, and a special resolution was passed, altering Table A in the shape of special articles according to the resolution.

On December 14th, 1894, the 2,000 shares are referred to there at fully paid—it is quite clear that there are 2,000 founders' shares of £1—that is 1893, and then the seven signatories' shares make up the rest.

Cross-examined by MR. A. E. GILL. This is the windingup petition—it was made by Robert McGill and James Barr—those are the two names printed on the face of it.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The notice of the change of address is 23, St. James's Square—it is sighed "F. J. Baker"—John Macdonald, 23, St. James's Square, Edinburgh, is the name of the man who presented this document to us; it is signed by Baker.

By MR. GILL. 1 find among the shareholders the name of Mr. Carruthers Wain, 18, Eldon Street, 20 ordinary shares—those are fully paid up—it is put with a call of £10 on them, and assuming that he paid his calls, because there are some unpaid.

ALFRED PHILIP KING . I am an accountant, of Palmerston Buildings, City—in 1891 I was secretary to the Copthall Avenue Office Company, Limited—I own Copthall House—I remember at the beginning of 1891 Hanson applying to me for an office—Charles Singleton is the man; he gave me some references, and amongst them Beall and Co., solicitors—

I wrote a letter to that name—this is a copy of it: "Mr. J. C. Hanson, of 100, Harrow Road, W., intends renting offices of ray company, and has given our name as a reference. Please inform me what you know about liim, and if you consider him a trustworthy and responsible person, Thanking you in anticipation of your reply,—Yours faithfully, A. P. KING. Messrs. Beall and Co., Solicitors, Tower Chambers"—I got an answer on the 13th—I have not kept it; we sold the property in the following year, and handed over all the books—after I read the answer, I agreed to take Mr. Hanson as my tenant at £70 a year, or something like that—after I received the letter from Beall and Co., I wrote this letter (367) to acknowledge its receipt, and then accepted Hanson as my tenant.

FRANCIS BKRNARDINE STAFFORD . I live at 352, High Road, Tottenham—in 1891 I was the housekeeper in Copthall House, Copthall Avenue—I remember some rooms being taken in that building, in 1891, by a person named Hanson—Charles Singleton is the man—" The Metropolitan Stock and Share Association, J. C. Hanson, Manager," was up—he occupied those offices about 12 months—I know Mr. Beall by sight—I have seen him in that building, but not in Mr. Hanson's office—I have seen him there during the time Mr. Hanson occupied the office—I saw him and Hanson together once—after Hanson ceased to occupy those premises some rent was owing by him, and there were proceedings in the Marylebone County Court to recover such rent—I attended—Beall and Co. acted for Hanson in those County Court proceedings.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. It was my business to be about the office a good deal when I was there; I am not there now—I was at that time constantly about, seeing the people go in and out.

JOSEPH BREWER . I am housekeeper at 80, Coleman Street—I have been there about 10 years—I produce an agreement (No. 171) between the landlords, of 80, Coleman Street, and Thomas Bernard Lawrence, of 100, Harrow Road, Middlesex, whom I recognise as Charles Singleton—so far as my memory goes, the Empire Finance, and a longer name, was up at the office—I remember Miss Rich, a lady clerk, being employed there, and Mr. Baker and Mr. Coley—I know Beall by sight—I have seen him at 80, Coleman Street, from time to time, going into the room, which Mr. Lawrence occupied.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I can give you the correct name if I may look at this paper—I wrote it down to make sure—I was first asked at the Mansion House to say how often I had seen Mr. Beall—that was in 1899, when I was giving evidence in the afternoon—I do not think I was in Court all the time—I knew what I was there for—I think I was simply there to identify Mr. Lawrence with the offices there—the tenancy lasted from 1891 to 1892; September, 1891—I have the agreement here; I have not referred to it—there were other offices down there in the same part where Mr. Lawrence was—there was an office of a Mr. J. W. Smith, a solicitor, next to Mr. Lawrence; Mr. Davis, a solicitor there, was not on the same floor, but in the building—I cannot give you the dates when I sa him during that time—I pledged myself to having seen him six times—during the whole of the tenancy I had no reason to pay any particular attention to Mr. Beall—many others used to call on Mr. Lawrence—there are a lot of people I do not know by name; I knew Mr. Beall by

name do not recollect anyone else who used to come there—I never did particularly notice, I am not paid for it; I am not a paid servant.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. This agreement I produce ia between Corbett and Newsom, and a person named Lawrence—during the period that the "Empire Finance" was on the door I will pledge my oath that I saw the person who was called Lawrence every day, or eveiy other day, I should say—during the tenancy of Mr. Lawrence I saw him in the office nearly every day, unless something special called him away—I am not paid to stand at the door, only to clean offices—I am about the premises—I do not perform any other business than cleaning or looking after the cleaning of the offices—I see people coming out if I am waiting about the door—I use my own discretion where I shad be—I saw Singleion not very long before I saw him at the Mansion House—I saw him about where his office was—I knew where he was.

Re-examined. I got to know Mr. Beall by name a long while before this tenancy—I noticed him for some two years.

WALTER NEWSOM . I am a solicitor, of 8, Great Winchester Street—I I act occasionally for Messrs. Newsom and Corbett, the owners of 80, Cole-man Street—I commenced an action for them against Thomas Bernard Lawrence, in January, 1898, for the recovery of the balance of rent due in respect of 80, Coleman Street, under tile agreement—I sued him as Thomas Bernard Lawrence—Beall and Co. acted for him—I recovered judgment in consequence of some information I received, execution under that was levied at 20, Lausanne Road, Peckham—I imagine, indeed I believe, that the house was in the name of Lawrence; it may have been Singleton, or any name, I cannot say—I got the money I asked for eventually.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I did not" clear the house; I did not take anything; they paid the execution out—I was acting for the land-lord of 80, Coleman Street—we had wanted this rent from 1893—I made no inquiry from the housekeeper as to whether he knew where Mr. Law-rence was—I took my instructions from my clients, and they told me—my instruction was to do my best as a solicitor to recover the arrears of rent due by one Lawrence, for 80, Coleman Street—I was not instructed till 1898.

HENRY BERNARD JOSEPH PARKER . I am a solicitor, of 13, Clement's Lane—in 1891 I was acting as solicitor to the Copthall Avenue Company, Ltd.—they are the owners of Copthall House—I produce an agreement (No. 259) which purports to be made between James Charles Hanson, of 100, Harrow Road, stock and share dealer, and the Copthall Avenue Company, Ltd.—under that agreement certain rooms were let from December 25th, 1890, at £60 a year, to James Charles Hanson—I do not know who he is; I simply acted as the solicitor—at the end of 1891 we received instructions to sue for rent due; and, after inquiry, we found Mr. Jameson; I do not remember at what address—a writ was subsequently issued and served on him—Beall and Co. appeared for him—after a considerable time I got judgment—I think execution wag levied—I got some furniture that was in the office.

THOMAS HENRY GUERRIN . I am an expert in handwriting at 59, Holborn Viaduct—I have had a good many years' experience in the examination of handwriting—I have had before me document 169, which

is an agreement between some gentlemen and James Lloyd Morgan, of 4, Copthall Chambers—I have also had 171 before me, signed "Thomas Bernard Lawrence "; and 172, an agreement signed "Jacob B. Morrison"—these three signatures of Lawrence, Morrison, and Lloyd Morgan are, I believe, all written by one person—I have also had the bankruptcy file of Charles Singleton in 1884, and Exhibits 50 to 55, and the signatures on those share warrants; looking at the Signatures to the share warrants, and comparing the signatures of Lawrence, Morrison, and Lloyd Morgan on the three agreements, I formed the conclusion that the writer of those three signatures and the writer of the signature to the share warrants was one and the same person—on the file of Charles Singleton, I examined the signature of "Charles Singleton," and the examination of that signature has led me to the same conclusion as the signatures of the three agreements; so that the same person signed all the documents that are now before me.

WILLIAM JACOBS . I am an auctioneer, of I, Angel Court, City—in June, 1890, I acted for a Mr. Miller in the letting of one room at St. Stephen's Chambers, Telegraph Street—that room was let to Jacob B. Morrison at a rent of £17 10s. a quarter; this is an agreement under which the premises were let, but not the first letting—he occupied those premises until about September, 1891, and then he vacated—Singleton is the man.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I know Beall—I never saw him at this office,

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have had a good many years' experience in the City—my office is close by the Stock Exchange, and I know something about outside brokers and their habits and customs—outside brokers nearly always trade in names other than their own.

FRANCIS P. BACON . I am an architect and surveyor, of 4, Copthall Chambers, and act as agent to the owners—I produce an agreement, No. 169, under which a room there was let to Mr. J. Lloyd Morgan, dated October, 1895—he had occupied the building two or three years, and the occasion of the agreement was an increase of rent—he has been into my office—Charles Singleton is the man—about the beginning of 1897 he left those premises; there was some rent owing—in consequence of certain information I wrote a letter to Messrs. Beall and Co., of which this is a copy: "4, Copthall Chambers, March 23rd, 1897. Gentlemen,—I understand that you act for Mr. J. Lloyd Morgan, who held an office of me in this building. Will you kindly let me have his address, as he owes me one quarter's rent, amounting to £12, and has left some furniture, which I will hand over to him on receiving this amount.—Yours faithfully, FRANCIS C. BACON "—I got a reply, which is destroyed, I think—it said they were not acquainted, I think they said, with Lloyd Morgan and Co., and did not act for them, or something of that sort; I am not quite sure.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. A prior agreement to this I cannot find, but I was not the agent when that was entered into originally—the name of Lloyd Morgan and Co. was up before Singleton went into possession—Singleton gave instructions to have it up, I presume, but it may have been up for several years since 1893—I do not suggest that Mr. Singleton

went to these premises before 1895; he was there before 1895—I saw him when I was appointed agent about the date of this agreement—I know nothing of what took place prior to the date of this agreement—I was appointed agent about 1894 or 1895—I am a tenant in the place myself, but 1 had no interest otherwise until 1 took the agency over—I am not prepared to say that there were not other persons for some considerable time prior to the date of this agreement, not Singleton, or connected with him, carrying on the business under the name of James Lloyd Morgan and Co.—I do not know that there were people actually distinct from him carrying on this business—I cannot say that he did not adopt the name in 1895 of people carrying on that business before that date.

RICHARD JONES . I am the housekeeper at 4, Copthall Chambers; I have been there nine years—I remember the name of J. Lloyd Morgan and Co. being up on some offices there; the namo first came up in 1893, I think, and they left their offices at the end of 1895 or the beginning of 1896—the rooms were occupied before Lloyd Morgan took them—while the name was up on the office the offices were occupied, but for the first two months there was no one there at all, and then a lady clerk was put there, and then there was a second lady clerk—I recognise James Lloyd Morgan as Mr. Siugleton; I have seen him there.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I do not suppose I saw Mr. Singleton in his office more than a dozen times the whole time he was in our premises—the first time was before 1895—I did not know Singleton by that name till I saw him at the Mansion House—I did not know him till 1895.

Re-examined. I knew him by sight, but I did not know his name—I first saw him in 1893, but did not know any name for him—the letters were addressed to Lloyd Morgan, and I never knew of any other name—I did not know it was a company he was working.

Wednesday November 1st.

JAMES MEBRINO . I am a printer—I was formerly employed by a company which printed a paper called the Financial Critic which went into liquidation—I became acquainted with Mr. Beall at that time—I used to see him in the office of that company frequently—after that company went into liquidation, as the result of some conversation with Mr. Beall about another paper, I started the Financial Gazette—the arrangement between us was that Mr. Beall would supply, without pay, the articles, and I was to do the printing, and pay for everything myself—any profits, of course, would come to me—I had to supply all the printing of it—the leading articles were supplied to me by Mr. Beall from time to time, and proofs were submitted in the ordinary way to Mr. Beall—I now his writing—the articles when they first came were very seldom in Mr. Beall's own writing; they came through him in writing, or typewritten at times—the proofs were corrected mostly by Mr. Beall—the paper was sold in the streets, and, as near as I can think, there were about 300 subscribers—I printed per week 1,000 copies, and sent them out for distribution—I used to have five or six men round the City selling them—I sent copies every week to subscribers—the addresses and names of the subscribers came from Mr. Beall—he used to have 50 copies or 25, whatever he wanted, sent to him from the office—Exhibits 174 175, and 176 in 1892 and 1893 (Produced)are specimens—

I also, at the request of or for Mr. Beall, did the application forms, prospectuses, the usual routine of jobbing printing—most of the work was connected with companies—I printed the prospectus of the London and Scottish Banking Corporation on Mr. Beall's instructions—I can not tell you the date, but we did all the preliminary work before it went to the public; what are called proof prospectuses; I should think about 1893, it may have been in 1892—I printed the Exhibits 177, 178,179, and 180, including the inset, a slip that went out with the proof prospectus—the copy was supplied by Mr. Beall and corrected from time to time, and it was inserted in the prospectus from time to time: it had nothing to do with the Gazette—it is supposed to be a list of agents for the Scottish Bank, and that, I suppose, was got from Mr. Beall—I got from Mr. Beall the material for that—a 3 in. advertisement of the London and Scottish Bank appeared from week to week in the Financial Gazette—they were paid for through the bank, I believe—I received my money when I sent in my bill to the corporation, the bank—they were paid by cheque, so far as I can recollect, from the bank at the end of every month—the cheque was the bank's cheque, I think; I mean a cheque signed by the directors—I never had any cheques from Beall to pay for those advertisements—I have had plenty of cheques from him for miscellaneous printing; all the printing I did—in most cases I sent the bill in and got a cheque for it—I did printing for a firm named Morrison and Co., of Telegraph Street, through the orders of Mr. Beall—A. F. Baker was a short, dark man; he used to be one of Mr. Beall's clerks—I do not know the difference between F. J. Baker and A. F. Baker—all I got paid for was through Mr. Beall, not by the cheques of anybody named F. Baker; not to my knowledge—I printed Exhibit 25; a little article headed "Banks and Banking," and "Extract from the Financial Gazette of July 30th, 1892"—it had previously appeared in the Financial Gazette; I should say after the paper had gone to press we lifted it out, and printed the copy of the article from the Financial Gazette by Mr. Beall's orders—all this time I was carrying on the business simply in my name of Meeking—I tried to form myself into a company, but with no result—I had a good plant and plenty of material, but no work—the name was the Printing Press Agency, Ltd.—I got seven signartures, and I registered myself—I did not have a banking account in the name of the Printing Press Agency, Ltd., nor did the Printing Press Agency, Ltd., have a banking account—I had a banking account myself in the name of Meeking—this is my signature in the signature-book, "James Meeking, Managing Director"—I was supposed to be the managing director if the company went, but the company did not go—this is my signature, but I have forgotten all about it—the account in the bank-book at the bank was, "Printing Press Agency, Managing Director, J. Meeking"—J. Meeking and Son's account was at the London and Scottish Bank—I do not recollect having an account of the Printing Press Agency there—I always signed cheques "J. Meeking and Son"—this account is in 1893, from June to September—I know nothing about the cheques (produced)—I do not know the names down here—I know one Millington; they are the paper people—I paid them money—I used to buy all my paper there, but not through the Press Agency; I never did—some are drawn to J. Meeking

—I only drew cheques to myself on my own private banking account—I used to pay it in to J. Meeking and Son, and take it out—I have not got any passbook now—when I failed in business I left everything there—my banking account is closed.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I opened an account when the bank started in my own name of Meeking, and, to the best of my belief, at least I am sure of it all the cheques I signed would be signed "J. Meeking and Son"—I did not call myself the Printing Press Agency before I turned myself into a limited company—the Financial Gazette was run entirely for my profit and at my expense—I found the money necessary for the upkeep, and at the same time I took what there was coming in in the way of advertisements, sales, and otherwise—all that Mr. Betall had to do with it was that he contributed articles inserted in the paper—everything Lad to pass through Mr. Beall's hands—I cannot tell you who wrote them—I never paid for any of them—a lot of people wrote articles, but they came through Mr. Beall and went back to him again—I said at the Police-court, "Very few people wrote for the Financial Gazette except Mr. Beall, so far as I know"—I always took instructions from Mr. Beall as regards the different articles and things to go in the paper—I was not used myself to the editorial department, and he was what I should say was my editor; he used to pass the proofs—I used to get all my instructions from Mr. Beall—I knew no one else connected with it—I was examined in the bankruptcy of Mr. Beall, on February 17th, 1893, at a private sitting, and by the Assistant Official Receiver in bankruptcy in Carey Street, before Mr. Registrar Giffard—I recollect being there, but I do not recollect any question that was asked me now—I printed the Finan cial Critic for the Rev. Rivington—a man named Boffey was his editor and his managing man—that "then I brought out a paper of my own, the Financial Gazette," is quite correct—I had the copyright of the Financial Gazette—I had no instructions from anyone else than Mr. Beall—I could not have possibly denied that—Mr. Mason's time was before I was in business; when I was managing the place for the City and Counties Publishing Company—that was not when I was printing on my own account, or when I printed for the Rev. Rivington—I am referring to the Financial Critic—it is so long ago—Mr. Mason never had anything to do with the Financial Gazette in his life—I did not take instructions from him; I got my instructions from Mr. Beall, and not from Mr. Mason—"Proof Prospectus" is underlined—I did all the preliminary work until it went to the public—these prospectuses were printed by me; I cannot say about all—in the ordinary course, I suppose a dozen prospectuses would be as much as I should print—I would print one, send it, and get it back, correct the alterations, and then print it—I never worked for Morrison and Co. themselves; the work came through Mr. Beall's account—Mr. Beall introduced me to Morrison and Co.—I got no introduction; the work came in the usual form, through the usual channel—I did not know Morrison and Co.; I did not know whether there was a company or not; the heading was "Morrison and Co.," and that was all I knew—I got instructions, and did tho work—I could not tell you when I was first asked a question about Morrison and Co.; thousands of names passed through my memory—I kept only private books; not a ledger, or

anything like that—I do not know about odd printing jobs—I was asked about this question of Morrison and Co., Mansion House, I believe, a few months ago in the Court—I did the work, I suppose, from 1893 to 1895—I cannot tell you; I have no record of it—since I failed I have had to go back to my case, and I have been working at it ever since, from 1895 to 1899—nothing has transpired with regard to this matter till the Treasury asked if I had done work for Morrison and Co.; the matter was brought up, and I was asked if I had done work for Morrison and Co., through Mr. fieall—nothing was contributed by Beall towards the Financial Gazette in the shape of money—I do not think I charged him for the papers he had; he used to pass everything for me, and if he wanted 25 or 50 copies, r do not think 1 charged him—he would say, "How many copies have you got left?"—I would say, "perhapas '200"—he would say, "Send them round to the office; I can do with them"—25 or 50 was the general order—sometimes I was sold out, and I would not put them on the machine again; sometimes my 1,000 copies would go by Monday.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL I have never had any cheque signed by Mr. Lambert, to my recollection—none of the prospectuses I printed had Lambert's name on them, to my knowledge.

Cross-examined by MR. A. E. GILL. I do not know Mr. Wain; I do not see his name on prospectus No. 179—on 180 there is no list of governors—these are the names of the governors and directors on No. 179: Trustees: "The Right. Hon. Lord Elibank, Sir Alexander Armstrong, K.C.B., F.R.S., and the Hon. H, Stanhope"; and the governors: "The Hon. Ashley Ponsonby, David F. Carmichael, Esq., E. T. Gourley, Esq., M.P., Noel Allix, Esq., J.P, D.L., Lieut.-Col. W. Hope, V.C, A. Shoolbred, Esq., and Octavius Stokes, Esq."—prospectus No. 179 is headed "Founders' Issue"; 178 is headed "Founders' Issue" and "Proof Prospectus" as well—that also does not contain the name of Mr. Wain—the only one of the documents which I have produced which contains the name of Mr. Wain is that headed 'Froposed Officers of the Bank" and "Not for Publication"; also "Proof, subject to Alterations and Additions,"—and is simply a list of names and addresses.

Re-examined. Mr. Mason, the name mentioned in connection with the printinir of the Financial Critic was the manager—it was called the City and Counties Publishing Company, if I recollect right, and I went there as their overseer, and he was their managing man over at the office—the address of that company was Mansion House Chambers, where Beall's office was, on the same floor—Mason was sometimes Oliver R. Mason, and sometimes Frederick Mason—I know his signature; T should say this is his writing.

By MR. ISAACS. In Mansion House Chambers, I suppose, they have got 500 offices—the office of Beall and Co. was some considerable distance in Mansion House Chambers from the office of this company; on the same floor, but a couple of hundred yards away, I should say—Beall's offices were situated at Mansion House Chambers at the time the Financial Critic was running; I suppose, in 1890, or somewhere about that—I know it was about four or five years—I was their overseer—their offices were at Mansion House Chambers about 1890.

HENKY ANSON CAVENDISH, LORD WATERPARK . I live at Doveridge

Hall near Derby—I kuew the defendant, Thomas Harrison Lambert, in 1892—I got a letter from him before March, 1893—I kept it for a time—it has been destroyed four years at least—he wrote to me and told me there was a bank, the London and Scottish Bank, coming out, and he asked me to be one of the trustees of it, and added that he was going to be on the board himself—I believe he said the remuneration would be £100; but, even if he did not, I should have taken it for granted that that was to be remuneration—£100 a-year I believe he mentioned—this is my reply, dated February 20th—I should think I answered it the same day—(Read; "Doveridge Court, February 20th, 1893. Dear Sir,—I will consent to hecome a trustee of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, provided that the trustees haveaseparate firm of solicitors to act for them, at the expense, of course, of the corporation; either my own solicaiors, or a firm to be mutually agreed upon by the trustees—Yours faithfully, WATBBPARK. T. H. Lambert, Esq.")—I got no reply to that—I came to London, I should think, three weeks afterwards—it would be in the first ten days or so of March, 1893—I wrote Mr. Lambert.a letter the day before I came to London, making an appointment to see him at his own office, in Victoria Street—I kept the appointment, and saw him there—the first thing he said to me was, "Well, you see your name all over London this morning"—those were his exact words—I did not know what it meant, not in the least—I asked him, of course—he handed me one of the morning papers with a prospectus of this bank in it, an advertisement—I saw my name in that advertisement as a trustee, with Lord Elibank—I naturally expressed great surprise and extreme annoyance—I said that, of course, he had had no authority for using my name—he said it was all right, or something of that sort—I believe he did say, "But you gave your consent"—I said that my consent was qualified—he asked me to go down to the bank premises and look at them—he said there was going to be a board meeting—I said I would meet him down there—I did meet him at 35, Lombard Street, or up Plough Court—I met him outside, and went into, apparently, a boardroom; it was a small room—I did not know anybody there—I was introduced to them, but I did not catch any of their names—I was introduced to Mr. Beall and another gentleman whom I do not see here; I do not know who he was to this diay—I was not there very long—later on Mr. Wain came in; I should think about five minute: before I left—I stayed there altogether ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—there was a sort of desultory conversation about the future oi the bank—I did not follow it—I knew nothing whatever; I had never seen a prospectus—I was handed a copy of the prospectus by, I think, Mr. Lambert at this meeting; I had been provided with a copy of the prospectus—I took no part in the discussion—I never went to the bank premises again; I left before the other gentlemen—I communicated with Lord Elibank, who was advertised as cotrustee with me—I got some letters from Lord Elibank; he was in Brussels, and there was some delay—a few days after my visit to the bank I sent a communication to the Times and other papers; then I got this letter oi March 20th, 1893—it is addressed to Lord Waterpark, Surbiton, Surrey—I remember getting that letter now; I have never seen it since—(Read); "My Lord,—I am sorry to hear that you sent a

Letter to Mr. Larabert, stating that owing to a letter that you had seen in the papers from Mr. Scrafton, you intended to communicate with the Press, stating that it was your intention to sever your connection with the bank. T accordingly sent you a wire, of which a copy is on the other side. Both Mr. Saunders and Mr. Scrafton consented to join, and I need not now refer to the reasons that may have actuated them in adopting the course that they have done, which, to say the least of it, is as unbusinesslike as it is ungentlemanly. I have not yet received any communication from Lord Elibank, except of a very satisfactory character, and I am not aware that he has any desire to withdraw.—Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Assistant Secretary"—then I got another letter, dated March 23rd, from the same person, No. 167: "The Right Hon. Lord Waterpark, Surbiton, S.W. My Lord,—I have heard from Lord Elibank, and I gather that he gave you no authority whatever to write or tele-graph on any of the papers as you did, but simply to send in his resignation here.—Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Assistant-Secretary"; and another letter, No. 168, from the same person, F. J. Baker: "The Right Hon. Lord Waterpark, Surbiton, Surrey, March 27th, 1893. My Lord,—Noticing a comraunicanon from you in the daily papers that you have resigned your position as one of the directors in the above bank, and understanding that you are not desirous of acting, I desire to say that your resignation is accepted. I need hardly say that with regret I am, my Lord, F J. BAKER. Assistant-Secretary"—Lord Elibank gave me cartr blanche to do as I thought right in the matter—I did not at any time have any knowledge of the affairs of this company at all—from the time J got Mr. Lambert's letter till the morning I saw him three werks afterwards I had not heard a single word nbout it—after I had sent this disclaimer to the papers I met Mr. Lambert now and again—I think T once said 'o him: "How is the bank getting on?" but just casually—I saw him very little after that—he said, "All right, I think," something of that sort, but my business transactions with Mr. Lambert came to an end very soon after that; so I did not meet him very often.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. This letter of February 20th was intended to be the record as it is of the terms upon which I was willing to act—what I intended was that a fi'm of solicitors should be appointed whose name was to go on the prospectus for the trustees, because before they agreed to have their name on the prospectus they would have investigated the whole thing, and seen as to its bona fides and all that—the London and Discount Corporation was to have a separate firm of solicitors to act for the trustees—myownsolicitors constantly made inquiries forme—I go to my solicitors and say, "I am asked to join this company; I want you to make inquiries," and I pav them naturally—before I go on a board, or consent to act in this way, I employ my own solicitors, and pay them myself—I was quite willing to become the trustee, but I wanted to advertise a firm of solicitors upon the prospectus as solicitors for the trustees, quite apart from whom the solicitors to the corporation were—I do not know what there was for the trustees to do—in any event I was going to be remunerated, I suppose—I snw this prospectus was advertised the morning I called on Mr. Lambert—I cannot remember the date; it is seven years ago—I remember Mr

Lambert drew my attention to it, and said, "You see your name all over London," and T believe that was the day it appeared—that was March 8th, so far as I know—there was nothing between me and the corporation or Lambert till the day I called at his office—it is quite news to me that the company had been advertised from the 8th to the 17th—I had never seen the advertisement nor the prospectus till my attention was called to it by Mr. Lambert; the momins: I called on him; the morning after I came to town—I came to town the night before, and I saw him on the next morning, and he told me that my name was all over London—I have said that he put a daily paper in my hand—it says on the prospectus that the list for applications will close on Saturday, March 11th, for town, and on Monday, 13th, for the country—Mr. Lambert said either there was going to be a board meeting that day or the following day, "Will you meet me there I"—it was not a week after—I was not in London a week, it was within a day or two—I tell you it is nearly seten years ago, and I cannot say if it was the same day or the next for certain—there were three or four days' delay in communicating with Lord Eiibank—when you talk about this l)oard meeting, I heard no minutes read over or anything of that sort—on March 17th, or whatever the date was, I saw Mr. Lambert together with soine other gentleman—there was no conversation there about the fact of my name appearing as one of the trustees on the prosp ctus—I think I had made up my mind on that meeting of March 17th that I was not going to continue as trustee—at this distance of time it is very difficult to recollect to a few days, but t say that if my first interview with Mr. Lambert was on the 8th, and I did not go down to the bank till the 17th, in the meantime I had communicated with Lord Elibank with a view to withdraw—if Lord Elibank had had, "I am content to go on; it is a most excellent concern," I would have gone on—on the 17th I do not think Lord Elibank's name was mentioned—probably on March 17th, when I called, there was some conversation about my name having appeared on the prospectus, and I was told, "Oh! it will be all right"—I have no recollection of writing to Mr. Lambert six and a-half years ago.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I had always found Mr. Lambert an honourable, straightforward man—I have never changed my opinion with regard to him in the least—I know his people are just on the borders of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, and I know his family by reputation perfectly—he was connected with some Welsh coal syndicate with me, and other matters of legitimate business, and I saw a good deal of him—from what I knew of Mr: Lambert at that time, I do not think he would willingly have put me into anything, even as trustee, that he did not believe in.

Cross-examined by MR. A. S. GILL. I never saw Mr. Wain until I visited the offices of the bank on March 17th—my letter addressed to Lambert of February 7th is all the knowledge he could have on the subject—I did not know his connection with the thing; I did not know a single one of the directors, or who they were.

Re-examined. The length of interval between seeing Mr. Lambert and going to see the directors on March 17th was not more than two or three days at the outside, to the best of

my recollection—when T saw the directors I listened—I came away without any information; as I say, it was nothing but a desultory conversation—what he said was this, "Come down and see the premises; we have got rather nice offices," or something of that sort; I did not in the least go with the intention of attending a board meeting—I gave no expression of opinion—I sent telegrams about my withdrawal from the trusteeship to the papers—I first of all telegraphed to the Times and several other papers, and I followed it with a letter; I was so anxious for it to appear—my telegrams and letter appeared—I saw my letter in the Times; somebody can get the date of that—this is a copy of a telegram I sent to the Times and four or five other morning papers on March 18th—(Read); "Telegram handed in at Surbiton on March 18th, 8.30 p.m., received here 9.6 p.m. To Financial Times London. Please insert notice withdrawal Lord Eli-bank and self from trusteeship London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation. LORD WATERPARK "—I was not added as a co-trustee at my solicitation—I did not know who the other trustee was.

By MR. ISAACS. I gave notice of withdrawal immediately I had an answer from Lord Elibank, who was in Brussels; Lord Elibank wired to me—I gave that notice on the 18th—my name had been inserted without authority—on March 18th, 1893,1 wanted to withdraw from the thing.

By MR. MARSHALL HALL. It is not true to state that it was in consequence of something I saw in the paper from Scrafton that I decided to withdraw my name as tusrtee of this bank—(Read from letter from Mr. Baker, of March 20th (Exhibit 166): "I am sorry to hear that you sent a letter to Mr. Lambert, stating that owing to a letter that you had seen in the papers from Mr. Scrafton you intended to communicate with the Press, staling that it was the intention to sever your connection with the bank ")—that letter may have had something to do with my telegram—I had had letters and telegrams, and they must all have passed between us between the 8th and 17th; I want it to be understood that I did not make up my mind only on the 17th to the withdrawal—Lord Elibank's communication was the result of his letters and correspondence with me—I would not allow my name to be put forward as one of the trustees—I should not like to swear at this distance of time that I actually told Mr. Lambert that, but Mr. Lambert knew my objection at the interview when I went down to his office, and he first showed me the prospectus—you are all wrong about your dates—I had one interview with Mr. Lambert in London at his own office, the day that he asked me to come down and see the nice new offices, and meet the directors—to the best of my recollection, March 17th was not the day I sent that telegram; not less than four or five days elapsed between seeing Lambert and telegraphing to the papers—I should like to explain, I am not trusting to my memory entirely about this, because one's memory is rather treacherous at the end of seven years; but I had to find out Lord Elibank's address, and then I had to write to him—I thereupon telegraphed to him, and the end of it was, he telegraphed to me: "I put myself unreservedly in your hands," to act for him in this matter—I may have seen him again, but there was one interview at his office—finding that my name appeared, I did

not ask for an explanation, because I thought no explanation was wanted it is sell-evident that nobody should put my name on the prospectus without any further communication with me—between February 20th and the time when that prospectus appeared I never heard one single word about it: I had never seen the prospectus—I went to Lambert and said, "Why is my name appearing on the prospectus?" and he answered, "Why, you gave your consent to it"—I believe Mr. Lambert acted perfectly bond fide Mr. Lambert gave an explanation, which I never accepted—I never saw the letter of February 20th until it was produced at the trial of Norris v. Beall, and I was very much surprised that I had not got something more in it than there was; it will be a lesson to me.

WILLIAM OSBORNE . I live at 47, Cunningham Road, Shepherd's Bush—I am a printing agent—in 1891 a man of the name of Stewart introduced me to a roan of the name of Lawrence, whom I recognise in Court as Singleton—I took orders from Lawrence for printing paper, envelopes and so on—I have no copies, and it is so long ago—I do not keep copies—I saw Lawrence in Coleman Street; I think No. 80—I knew the clerks, F. J. Baker and Coley, in the summer of 1892—I remember going to Coleman Street, and seeing F. J. Baker—I did not know Mr. Beall then, except by reputation as a City solicitor—I remember meeting Lawrence later on in the day at the office in Coleman Street—he spoke to me about a company—he wanted it registered as quickly as possible to secure the title, for fear some other rival association should get the title; I think that was the reason given, speaking from memory—he asked me to be one of the signatories, and to get other signatories as quickly as possible, if I could secure the names, the proper gentlemen—he told me later on that the name of the company was the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited—I signed Exhibit 3 at the office in Coleman Street—Mr. Singleton was present—I see that I undertake to take a founders' share in this company—I was to have one share—I never paid for it—they were £10 shares—I made no agreement whatever—people came in the room and went out again, but Mr. Mason was not present, I do not know him—that is my signature in the document of August 19th, 1892, which says: "For and on behalf of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited,—Leonard Barker, William Osborne, Directors"—I did not know that I was a director of this company—I did not know the contents of this document—I did not read it before I signed it—I see it is signed by A. F. Baker—I did not know A. F. Baker, nor Arthur Francis Baker, nor that I was assigning shares numbered 1 to 2,000 inclusive in this company to Mr. A, F. Baker—I can not swear to the writing—I signed several other documents in connection with the company—I received money only with regard to the other documents, altogether two guineas—I received notices of meetings a long time after this—the next thing I was asked about it was to attend a meeting at the offices of the new bank in Plough Court, Lombard Street—I did attend—I cannot say the date—I have no memoranda to go by—it was in the following year to these occurrences, 1893—plenty of resolutions were passed—my co-signatories and I elected as chairman Mr. Clark—we did not propose the resolutions; they seemed to me to be cut and dried—

there were present Mr. Singleton, Mr. Baker (as he was then), and sometimes Mr. Beall; not always—the resolutions were type-written—as a rule, I think they were typewritten—I had taken a sort of interest in this company; in this way, that I wanted to get all the work for it, and I thought it would be a very good thing; I thought it would be a prosperous concern, and I wanted all the printing, which amounted to a thousand or two—I attended several meetings, and the same thing, I suppose, happened from time to time—certain resolutions were put and passed, as a matter of course—there was a little champagne refreshment, and whisky and soda, and very good cigars—the two guineas Mr. Singleton (Mr. Lawrence, as it were) gave to. me—Mr. Beall was appointed financial manager in the same way, with a resolution written out—I do not swear that it was written out; it was put before us, but I do not swear that it was put in the hape of being written out, or any other way; it was put before us in some way: "That Beall should be appointed financial manager," and he was appointed as such; that I can swear to—I had always understood that he was one of the best financial men in the City of London, and therefore I had confidence—Baker acted as secretary—Singleton or the clerk I looked upon, one as manager and the other as secretary; I do not know how to describe the positions; Mr. F. J. Baker I should put as secretary, and Mr. Singleton as manager—that is the view I take or it, took of it then—looking at Exhibit No. 97, T remember Carruthers Wain, Robert Scrafton, Octavius Stokes, Harrison Lambert, and Eden Erskine Greville being appointed governors; I signed that—the document came before us in the same way as the resolutions that we had passed from meeting to meeting, as they were put before us; this was handed to us, and we all signed it, as handing over authority to these gentlemen—I will not swear who was present—I remember prospectuses going out—they were placed before us (copies, proofs) by Singleton; once, I think, we signed them in the same way that we signed this; we took them as read—I did not inquire into applications for shares from the public; it was nothing to do with me—I did not trouble; I suppose they did; as a matter of fact, I know they did—Mr. Beall said we should all have a founders' share as a kind of reward, I suppose, for our services—I never got mine—Exhibit No. 98 never came before us in the same way as the other documents—the signature is not mine—(Read: "Proposed by R. Clark, and seconded by W. Osborne, that Mr. F. J. Baker is hereby appointed assistant-secretary, at a remuneration to be hereafter agreed upon, for one year")—I was present; I seconded it as a matter of form—Baker did not get up; he was the chairman who proposed that, and I seconded it, and I did not get up either; it was not necessary—I had this document before me—I see it is type-written, with certain names filled in.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Since 1893, when the affairs of this company were before me, a good many other matters have parsed through my hands—there was no particular reason why I should remember the affairs of this company any more than any other—I had been a signatory before and since many a time—I was first spoken to about the affaire of this company just a little before the examination at the Mansion House during this) ear, so that from 1893 to the summer of 1899 I had no reason

to think about the affairs of this company—I told them at the Mansion House that I thought it was all dead and buried, and so it was, as far as I was concerned; I had got nothing out of it—I wanted a profit out of the printing—it is usual to act as signatory and take one share, to apply for one share, and to have seven signatories, who each sign for one share when the company is formed before it is issued to the public; I would do it to-morrow; there is nothing wrong about that, as far as I am aware—I think I signed about half-a-dozen documents; the memorandum, I think would be the first—my impression is that I was never at a meeting but what all the other signatories were present except one, and, therefore, I cannot understand that the other signatories were not there—I will not swear to that—at the meeting on March 17th we were asked to appoint, and did appoint, the directors of the company who were to succeed us under the articles:;, and from that date we ceased to be directors, and these people took our places—until March 17th I had no communication of any kind with Mr. Beall—I had not been doing any printing work for a month, or more than that, previously; in fact, I had never done any printing work for Mr. Beall—I will qualify that answer by saying, not knowingly.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I saw the prospectus several times—I I read on the front page that Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson, of 6, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall, London, were the solicitors to the proposed company—I do not know Mr. Brandon; I cannot swear that he was not present, because I do not know him—he. was not identified at all as solicitor to the company.

Cross-examined by MR. TURRELL. I knew Mr. Lambert before March 17th—these meetings that I attended Mr. Lambert had nothing to do with—I never met him in connection with this bank; I never saw him before the Police-court proceedings, to speak to.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. At the last meeting was the first time I saw Mr. Wain in my life—I saw him come that day—that was the first meeting of the newly appointed directors—I did not see him any more after ihai, I had nothing more to do with it—I never saw him again until called upon to give evidence against him at the Police-court.

EDWARD JOHN DREW . I live at 77, Lothian Road, North Brixton—I am an accountant—I knew Mr. Beall before 1892, also Mr. Fred Mason—I remember Mr. Mason bringing me a memorandum of association to sign—this, is, my, signature for founders' shares—I did not pay anything, nor get any certificate for the share—I did not know Baker, or Singleton, only Air. Beall—after having signed that memorandum I got a notice to attend a meeting—I met some gentlemen I did not know, except Mr. Robert Clark—resolutions were passed—I attended more than one—there were small fees, which increased—I think the first fee began at 5s.; it was increased to a guinea and ahalf—I think Mr. Clark took the chair on one or two occasions—a Mr. Baker, I think, took the chair at the last or last but one meeting—I am very nearsighted, I cannot distinguish him—I saw him at the Mansion House, in the dock—I think Mr. Beall took the chair on one occasion—the name of the company was the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited—I read the memorandum and articles of association—there was a list of applications

presented to us at one of the meetings—we proceeded to allot the shares which had been applied for.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have been secretary of several public companies—before becoming a signatory to this memorandum I was well acquainted with the process of the formation of companies and company work—I did not see anything to find fault with, complain of, or to excite suspicion, or I would have resigned at once—the minutes I signed were correct minutes of what had taken place—I should say at all the meeting which I attended there were agenda papers put before us, and upon that agenda paper the business was discussed according to the order in which the business appeared—there was discussion in some cases, and the resolutions were passed as appears in the minutes—I had known Mr. Beall in a friendly way for years before this—I did not know Mr. Beall was interested in the matter until I attended this meeting and saw him there—when gentlemen become signatories to a memorandum of association and attend meetings of the signatories they expect to get something for it, and they do as a rule—signatories are not asked to pay for the shares for which they sign in the memorandum of association when they sign for one or two shares like that; you do not expect to.

Cross-examined by MB. GRAIN. Singleton took the chair at one meeting, perhaps Mr. Clark took the chair on one occasion, and Mr. Singleton, known there as Baker, sat at the other end of the table, acting as secretary.

Cross-examined by MR. TURRKLL. I do not know Mr. Lambert.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. I do not know Mr. Wain.

ROBERT CLARK . I am a commercial traveller, and one of the signatories to this corporation—Mr. Fred Mason asked me to become one—I always understood him to be Fred Mason, not Oliver Mason, at that time; only since—I got notice to attend meetings of the signatories, and attended them—I was paid for these attendances, half-a-sovereign or half-a-guinea the first time I was there, and after that sometimes a guinea, and I think upon one occasion two guineas—there was there the gentleman I knew as Mr. Baker—that was Singleton, but T did not know him then as that, and I think on one or two occasions Mr. Beall was there—I was generally in the chair, and signed the resolutions—I did have a share, but no certificate.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have been 40 years connected with business, not always for myself—before I signed this memorandum I made inquiries to satisfy myself that the bank was a bona fide concern—as a result of those inquiries, during the whole of my time there was nothing whatever to excite my suspicion in connection with this company—I saw nothing wrong at all in what was going on—articles of association were submitted to me—solicitors were mentioned, but I cannot say what name; they were solicitors representing the bank, quite apart altogether from Mr. Beall—I remember that there were shares to be allotted, but I cannot remember the amount, to Mr. Baker—there was an agreement discussed at a meeting—it was dated August 19th, 1892; that agreement came before me after August 19th, 1892, at a board meeting, I believe, and was initialled—the agreement to which it referred was the agreement of March 10th, 1892.

Cross-examined by MR. GRATN. There were eeveral progpectues put More me—I looked at them generally—I saw the names of a nmber If awnts in Scotland and elsewher—there were letters from some peraons agreeing to beagents-the last witness, Mr. Drew, has been my fnend for some years—I knew he had a goodish deal to do with companies—I had a conversation with him before I became one of the signatories—from what I heard from him, I became one of the signatories-from all I saw, everything was fair and straightforward.

Cross-examined by MR. TORRBLL. I had never seen Mr. Lambert till I saw him at the Mansion House, to my knowledge.

Cross-examined by MR. A. E. GILL. I must haveseen Mr. wain, but it is so many years ago I could not recognise him—I never saw him in connection with this bank.

Re-examined. Mr. Mason introduced this business to e—Ialsoasked Drew what he thought of it before I became a signatory; the opinions of both were favourable—very likely I was one of the gentlemen who resolved to raise the capital from £100,000 to £1,000,000.

EDWARD JAMES KNIGHT . I am accountant to the London and County Land and Building Company, Limited of 31, Lambard Street—there are three owners of 36, Lombard Street; they are the landlords of 31 and 35 I had the letting of both—35, Lombard Street is about 60 yards up Plough Court-those premises were let by our company to a person described as "Alexander Frederick Baker "this is the agreement for seven Years from December 26th, 1892, at a commencing rental of £375 a Years stated that Alexander Frederick Baker is acting on behalf of the London and Scottish Bank—offices, private room, clerks office, strong room, and lavatory are comprised in the ground floor and basement—the ground floor contains clerk's offices, private room, and what might be used as a board room; and in the basement was a clerl's room, strong room,". and lavatory-the bank continued as the tenants, but in 1898 our company took posession for rent, and our solicitors sold the furniture which was left, and handed the proceeds over to Mr. Aitcheson, the liquidator of the company-31, Lombard Street is let out in offices—on Aprd 29th, 1893. some offices in that building were let to a gentleman named John 1894. Milner, upon this agreement between our company and John milner of 1895. 17, Eastbourne Street, acting on behalf of the London and North British 1896. Discount Corporation, Limited-during the tenancy I saw Milner at the 1897. office, and he came to see me—I recognise the person I used to see as Singleton—I witnessed Alexander Frederick Baker's signature to the agreement for the London and Scottish Discount Banking Corporation—I saw him sign "A. F. Baker," for and on behalf of that company—the date is November 23rd, 1892—he took the agreement away and brought it back, signed by Milner, and witnessed by E. Wilson—when I went to 31, Lombard Strit. in the first place I wed to ask for Mr. Milner if he was in, a lady clerk would introduce me to the gentleman I knew as Baker that is Singleton—I said at the Police-court that the North British Company occupied the premises for about nine months—I was trusting to my memory, and unfortunately it misled me—they there nearly 18 months, and when they left they owed nine month rent.

Cross-examined by MR. ISSACS. The 36, Lombard Street premise were

let at £376 for three years, and then at £400 for the next four—they are substantial premises; being the ground floor, of course, it is rather cheap for Lombard Street, a little cheaper because they are up the court, and rather dark; they had been occupied before—I believe Lizare Bros, had been tenants before I came.

FREDERICK LEVICK . I am a member of the firm of Levick and Plum. mer, of 7, Drapers' Gardens, office fitters—I recognise Singleton as the Mr. Baker who gave me an order for some office fittings at Lomband Street—at the beginning of 1893 I fitted up the bank premises, 35, Lombard Street—the account came to £118 15s.—I was paid, chiefly cash, I think—I had a cheque by Baker—I remember going on one occasion for an instalment of account to the bank premises—I saw the clerk in the first instance, the cashier—I was referred to Mr. Beall—that was at the bank—I asked him for the money for my account—he told one of the canbiers to pay me and debit his account with it—the cashier paid me about £12, I think, of that instalment.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. When I was first asked to recollect what had taken place when I went to the bank for £12, I believe I was in terviewed by some solicitor; I do not know now—that was in May or June this year—I am clear in my mind as to the words Mr. Beali used—I won't say that he did not say, "Pay it, and debit it to the expenses I account."

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I put up the counter, and the work one would expect to be put up, where a bank was proposed to be carried on; it was very well done.

RICHARD JAMES THRELFALL . I am a foreman mechanic at Belgrave Terrace, Gateshead—in 1892 I received a small pamphlet on "Banks and Banking," supposed to be written by a Mr. A. F. Baker; it was a little smaller than this (Exhibit 106)—it was written acioss here, "With the compliments of A. F. Baker"—I read it—at the same time I got a form like a proof prospectus of gentlemen's names, Lord Elibank on the top, and Sir James Carmichael, as far as I can remember; as to the formation of the London and Scottish Banking Company—founders' shares were mentioned—I have sent to the solicitors all the papers I had sent me—I answered this communication, and got this reply (Letter 110)—I sent £2 as a deposit in respect of the £20 for which I was going to buy two founders' shares of £10 each—the letter I got was dated May 7th, 1892—the beading is "London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation. Limited, capital £1,000,000, La Banque d'Escompte de Londres et de L'Ecosse (Societe Anonyme), capital 25,000,000 francs. All communications to be addressed to the Secretary. Agencies; Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester,. Paris, Brussels, etc., etc.—R.J. Trelfall, Esq.,7 Belgrave Terrace, Hexham Road, Gateshead. London Offices: 5, Copthall Avenue, London, E.C., May 7th, 1892. Dear Sir,—I have your favour of the 6th inst., enclosing P.0.0. for £2 on account of two founders' shares in the above corporation at £10 each. Kindly forward balance, £18, at your early convenience, when provisional scrip will be sent you.I enclose you two more prospectuses and applicatio forms.—Yours faithfully, A. F.BAKEK, Secretary pro tern"—I sent the £18; I think by cheque; I cannot be sure—I then received the letter 111, with

the same heading, "May 10th, 1892: Dear Sir, Thanks for your letter of the 9th inst. enclosing cheque for £18, balance for two founders shares in the above company, I will see that you have provisional serif and application forms forwarded to you.—Yours faithfully, A. P. BAKER, Secretary pro tem"; and later on another letter (112), dated June 20th 1892, with the same heading:"July 20th, 1892,—Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure of enclosing you herewith the last proof of the prospectus, and desire to draw your attention to the additional influential names. We are now only waiting for the definite appointment of the Scoich board. As soon as the elections are over it is proposed to publicly advertise the company. Should you desire to take a few of the remaining founders' shares, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I cannot reserve more than 15 or part. Some attempts are being made to secure these shares by brokers and others at far below their value, I hope you will not be influenced by these outside and not quite disinterested people. Personally I am of opinion that the intrinsic value of these shares is nearer £50 than £10.—I am yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER"—I also received a circular letter about that time. No. 113, undated: "I have the pleasure of enclosing you an advance proof of the prospectus of the above undertaking. The company is to be shortly launched under the best auspices, and will bo controlled by influential gentlemen, both in thefinancial and social world. The yearly increase in almost every branch of commercial business gives evidence of there being ample room for such an undertaking. As has become customary, it is proposed to adopt the usual course of giving the subscribers for the first founders' shares the right of acquiring these shares without the obligation of taking any of the ordinary capital, the first contributions being used to defray the preliminary expenses relating to the formation of the company, and with these objects it has been decided to issue only 100 founders shares at the very moderate sum of £10 each. No other founders' shares will be offered except where the subscriber takes at least £300 in ordinary capital. The advantage of this arrangement will no doubt commend itself to you, and, having regard to the present price of founders' shares in some of the bestmanagedcommercial undertakings, it will be seen that the issue price is low, and that within a short time of the public launching of the company they will become of considerable value, and will yield a handsome profit should you wish to realise. As it is only proposed to have 1,000 founders' shares, and in the firstinstance to issue £250,000 capital, half to be called up, should the profits only suffice to pay 12 per cent., the profits on each founders' share would be equal to 32 1/2 per cent, per annum. If you desire to secure any of the founders' shares on the above terms, your application ought to reach me during the current week on the enclosed form,—Yours obediently, A. F. BAKER, Secretary"—also another letter dated August 29th, 1892, enclosing the scrip for founders' shares—I handed them all over to Mr.Davis, the solicitor, and all myotherpapers—I got another letter of December 29th, 1892 (115): "Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure of enclosing you herewith slip showing the number of additional names we have secured. Bank premises have been taken at No. 35, Lombard Street, which will be opened in the new year for business. If you or your friends require to secure a few more of the

founders' shares without the obligation of taking up any ordinary capital, I enclose you a form, which should be returned to me at your earliest convenience"—this is the printed form that was enclosed: "To Mr. A. P. Baker. I herewith send you cheque, value [blank] to procure for me [bank] founders' shares at £10 each in the London and Scottish Banking corporation, Limited, in terms of your letter. I agree to accept such shares or any less number you may procure for me, it being understood that I am under no further liability, or under any obligation to subscribe for or take ordinary shares in the said bank"—a little later on I received this prospectus (Produced)—believing it, I applied for 40 ordinary shares on this application form—this is my writing—it gives the names of the applicants, myself and wife—I was entitled to one founders' share at par—I enclosed with that application form a cheque for £21, and received letter 118: "Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your application for 40 ordinary shares and one founders' share in the above bank and I beg to hand you cashier's receipt herewith. I also have your cheque, value £21. I beg to enclose you a further prospectus and application form should any of your friends desire to have some shares. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary"; and another letter (119) dated March 13 th: "Dear Sir—As you are a holder of founders' shares in the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, perhaps you would like to have an interest in the ordinary capital. I enclose application form, which will be in time if returned to me filled up by Wednesday morning, 15th inst. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, secretary"—then I got letter 120: "Herewith I beg to enclose you letter of allotment in respect of ordinary shares which you hold in the above corporation.—Yours faithfully, A. J. BAKER "—I wrote and sent letter 121: "A. F. Baker, Esq., 36, Lombard Street, London, E.C. Dear Sir,—I beg to herewith enclose draft for £100, as per enclosed allotment form, due for 40 ordinary shares in the London and Scottish Banking Corporation"—I then received letter 122, dated March 15th: "Dear Sir,—I have your favour of 14th inst., enclosing draft for one hundred pounds (£100), being the allotment money on your forty ordinary shares, cashier's receipt for which I enclose herewith. I will see that the scrip is made out in the way that you mention"—that was in the joint names—on April 29th I wrote letter 123: "Dear Sir,—I herewith enclose bankers' receipts for £121, and Bank of England note, value £100, eleven pounds over and above what is required for forty £5 paid-up shares, and one founders' share. The £11 you can place to our credit in yourdeposit account in the names of Richard James and Elizabeth Hartley Threlfall I will send the remaining half of the note as soon as I hear from you that it has arrived safely. Yours sincerely, R.J. THRELPALL. P.S.—Please give me the name and address of your Manchester agency"—I never got the name and address of the Manchester agency—I did get a letter, acknowledging the receipt of the £124 I sent—I subsequently sent the second half, and in letter 126 got an acknowledgment of it—as far as I can remember, I wrote and asked if Icouldpay £5 per per share up to that time—then I got a letter from the bank, No. 129, saying: "Dear Sir,—Your letter of 10th inst. to hand, and the directors have agreed to your proposal to pay your shares up on August 1st next—

Yours faithfuly, F. J. BARER, Assistant Secretary; and in letter 130 I enclosed £200 in cheques, as the baianoe of £5 on each of the £10 shares I had taken—then I got letter 131, acknowledging the receipt of this sum of £200—in October 1 got a cheque for £9 28.11d., being the 7 pet cent, interest on the shares taken—I returned that cheque, requesting that it should be placed to my deposit account—this letter (134) is from F. J. Baker, of October 10th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—Thanks for your letter and kind wishes of 17th inst., enclosing cheque, value £9 2s.11d. We have placed this dividend to your deposit account"—in March, 1894, I re member getting two circulars which refferred to a syndicate—after reading the circulars I wrote letter 136—the first lines of document 276 are: "Dear Sir, we have had oftered to us the opportunity of contributing to a limited syndicate, the object of which is to form a company to ac-quire and work Livet's Patents for London and 20 miles round; and, although the terms proposed are of a very remunerative character, my directors do not see their way to entertain the proposal in its entirety, it not being what could be properly termed a banking or discount transaction. My directors, however, have made inquiries as to the value of the patents, and also personally had an opportunity of inspecting the installation at Halifax, and of seeing the results, and are so satisfied with the great value of the invention and the bona fides of the undertaking, that they individually have joined the syndicate to form the London company, and have pleasure in bringing the. matter under your notice, believing that a very handsome profit Will accrue to those who participate in the advantages offered to the subscribers. I enclose particulars, which will give you full information. Your application should be sent direct to the secretary of the syndicate. The money subscribed will be under the controll of my directors, and will be lodged at our bank"—I read the circular; I cannot say positively whether this was the one I got or not—that was the subject matter of the circular—I wrote this letter, No. 136, of March 1st; "I write to thank you for sending me forms, ete., of a limited syndicate to form the company to work Livet's Patents, which appears to me a very good thing, but am not in a position to speculate just at present. I may say that.I have lately lost money by taking up shares in new companies limited. Trusting our bank is doing well, I am, yours sincerely, R. J. THRELFALL"—in Auguest, 1894, I wrote letter 138: "Dear Sir—I shall feel much obliged if you will let me know when the next dividend of the above will be declared"—I got the next day No. 139: "Dear Sir, I have your letter, but I den't think you have paid the amount for the founders' shares to the company. The brokers, of course, are entitled to charge whatever they like"—at the end of the year 1894 I wrote some letters as to the price which I paid for the founders' shares; one is dated December 22nd, 1894: "Dear Sir, we have your letter of the 21st inst., with postcard to fill up, but before doing so shonld like an answer satisfactory to my query re founders' shares. I have written you twice, and given a full explanation when and how I paid the £30 for three founders* shares, and I received a reply from you to say that you have known founders' shares to sell at £11, which is nothing whatever to do with the question. I will just say again that I paid to A. F. Baker the sum of £30, on his application for three founders' shares

in the London and Scottish Banking Corporation, Limited, in the same manner that we paid for the 40 ordinary shares, and I hold scrips for three fully paid founders' shares, and if these are only £1 founders' I have been deceived, because I have letters and acknowledgments from A. F. Baker to prove that he applied to me to take the few £10 founders' shares. Our only aim is to see the company prosper, or we should never put our money in it. Trusting to have a satisfactory reply at an early date, &c."—I received this letter from F. J. Baker: "Thanks for your letter, but I don't think you have paid the amount for the founders' shares to the company"—I wrote on January 3rd, 1895: "Sir,—I have yours of the 2nd inst. With enclosed form to fill up. I and my wife hold three founders' shares in the above, for which we paid £30. Scrip for two of them are dated August 29th, 1892, No. 53, and signed A. F Baker, secretary; the scrip for the other is dated March 20th, 1893, No. 5,201, and signed F. J. Baker, assistant secretary. This one was allotted to us on taking 40 ordinary shares, and the other two we took previous, sending £20 to A. F. Baker. Now, I have written you three times on this matter, but cannot get a satisfactory reply, and I cannot conscientiously sign any paper until this matter is cleared up to my satisfaction."—the reply was of January 7th, No. 145: "Dear Sir.—It is not unusual for this class of shares to be issued at a very large premium. If the petition falls to the ground, and we are allowed to continue business, the dividend due to you on your founders' shares will make these, even at the price you paid for them, more valuable than your ordinary shares. If the attempt to wreck the company is frustrated, I think you will be pleased with the dividend falling due to you on your shares.—Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, secretary "—I got no dividend other than the£9 2s.11d. in October, 1893—I lost the £4101 paid; £10 for the founders' shares and the 40 ordinary—they charged me £10 for one founders', altogether £430.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. No. 113 does not refer to the London and Scottish Bank, nor to the writer's experience as a banker, but merely gives the history of the various institutions it refers to; but the book was "by its author, A. F. Baker," written on it—I knew the company was about to be registered, and that what I was going to subscribe to the first founders' shares for, was to help find the registration and formation expenses, and for that I was to get founders' shares; also that if the company, when formed and launched, proved a failure, supposing it had not gone to allotment, founders' shares would have been lost—I know very little about forming companies; I knew by the book, and by the statement in this letter, that it was a good thing—as to founders' shares I never got any statement—I thought they were valued at£10—learnt that they were £1 shares, which they were valuing at £10 at a late stage—it was never stated in any pamphlet or paper I saw; that they were £1 shares at £10 each—this was not the first company I had invested in—all I got was the provisional scrip; a provisional certificate—I did not notice that the form produced is addressed to Mr. A. F. Baker, and is "To procure for me (so many) founders' shares at £10 each"; that is not an application to the company, or anyone, for so many shares of £10 each, but a request for shares of £10 each—A. F. Baker wrote to me and I to him, but I did not take into consideration whether it was a man or a company

—so long as it was going to be a company; he was the secretary pro tem—if he had told me they were worth £11 should not have sent him £10—it did matter to me what the nominal value of it was; if it had been on the circular that they were £1 shares, and I was asked £10 for them, I should not have sent the money—I cannot say what T thought at the time—the circular did not say anything to me about the profits; not the founders' shares; I do not think so—nothing was done after the meeting of December, 1894, by me until 1899; the matter dropped; it was dead and buried so far as I was concerned—I received a circular from the Investors' Protection Association or Agency, or something of that kind, run by a Mr. Boaler—I got a circular from him—attacks were made on the company—there were a good many attacks on the company, because the money had not been properly used—nothing was done by me till after I received these circulars in 1899.

Cross-examined by MR. TURRELL. I am not taking proceedings against any individual that I know of—the last shares in the company I applied for on or about March 10th—the document speaks for itself—those shares were allotted to me by letter dated March 13th, 1893, it may be.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I gave instructions for legal proceedings to try and get the money back—proceedings were not actually taken to my knowledge.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I took no proceedings against Mr. Wain—the correspondence put in has been between me and the bank—F. J. Baker and A. F. Baker have signed all the letters that have been read, that have been sent me—I thought I was dealing with a company newly forming—what influenced me in the prospectus was I thought they were very honourable names at the head as trustees and directors—I refer to 1892, when I took ordinary and founders' shares—that was a great influence for me taking the shares—Lord Waterpark I did not know personally; but I thought they were gentlemen, and they would not see the thing go wrong.

Re-examined. This circular (Exhibit 115) enclosed in a letter of December 29th, 1892: "If you or your friends require to secure a few more of the founders' shares without the obligation of taking up any ordinary capital, I enclose you a form which should be returned to me at your earliest convenience" is written on paper with the heading of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, and is signed A. F. Baker, Secretary—I thought they belonged to the London and Scottish Bank, and that A. F. Baker was the secretary.

Thursday November 2nd.

JOHN WILSON EALEY . I am a fish merchant, of Holderness Road Hull—about October, 1892, I received this pamphlet. No. 6, "called" Banks and Banking, "by A. F. Baker (Produced)—about the name time I received a prospectus and a document accompanying it; this (Produced) is the prospectus that I received—I read it through—it is headed "Proof Prospectus—Founders' Issue"—this document. No. 25, accompanied it—this is the actual document I received; there is my indiarubber stamp on it—it is a printed paper headed "Banks and Banking' Extract from the Financial Gazette, July 30th, 1892"—it begins: "Mr. Baker has published a little work on the above subject"—there is a

passage: "We understand this gentleman, who evidently has a practical as Well as a theoretical knowledge of banking, is associated with a very influrntial group of financiers who are to be responsible for the London and Scottish Banking Corporation, with branched in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and London,' and a final paragraph: "Both classes of shares in the London and Scottish Bank should prove a remunerative and lasting investment"—after receiving those two documents and reading them I wrote to A. F. Baker to the address given upon the prospectus, 5, Copthall Avenue; I got this dated October 21st, 1892 (saying that the issue price of the founders' without the obligation of taking any ordinary shares was £10, and after the public issue of the prospectus they would not be allotted except where £400 worth of ordinary capital was applied for ', that they were their own bankers, their clearing banks being in London and Sco land; that the company had been registered, and they expected to advertise the prospectus in the course of the next fortnight or three weeks; and should I desire any founders' shares I was to fill up the enclosed application form and return it at my earliest convenience—the application form was something like this document—I am not quite clear that I applied for 10 founders'shares—this is the cheque with which I paid, drawn to the order of the London and Scottish Banking Company, and endorspd "London and Scottish Banking Company, A. F. Baker, Secretary"—it was paid through the Metropolitan, Birmingham, and South Wales Bank—it has got the bankers' stamp across—I got then letter 29, and enclosed in it there was the share certificate No. 30. "November 3rd, 1892. Dear Sir, Confirming ours of the 1st instant, I beg to hand you herewith scrip for 10 fully paid-up founders' shares in my bank. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the same, and oblige. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary"—this is the share warrant that T got—the share warrant bears on the top a kind of serial number 50B—it is signed by A. F. Baker, Secretary, and certifies that the bearer is entitled to 10 fully paid founders' shares in the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, and that the common seal was fixed on November 3rd, 1892—the serial number of the scrip is in ink, not printed—early in 1893 I received another prospectus, and in February, 1893, I applied for some more founders' shares—I received in reply to my application letter "No. 32, February 16th, 1893: I have your esteemed favour of yesterday's date, together with application for 25 founders' shares in the above bank, and also your cheque, value £25, being deposit of 10 per cent, upon same. I beg to enclose you herewith scrip for these 25 shares, and shall be obliged by cheque for balance in due course. Yours very faithfully, pro A. F. BAKER, Secretary"—33 is the certificate which was enclosed in that letter; the serial number was altered to 74B by this time—34 is my cheque for £25 with which the deposit was paid which was drawn, and is endorsed in the same way as the other one, in favour of the London Scottish Banking Company—I got that letter just a few days before I applied for the 25 shares—letter No. 35 is dated February 9th; my cheque was dated February 16th; this is the letter: "Dear Sir,—I thank you for your favour of the 8th inst., and regret that it is impossible now to alter the terms that had been agreed to after a great deal of discussion, namely, 40 ordinary shares to

entitle the applicant to one founders' share at par. As regards the founders' shares, we can let you or your friends have a few more without the obligation of taking any ordinary capital if the application is made before the public issue of the prospectus. Herewith I send you a specimen of the certificate to be issued to those who apply for shares on the continent, and I hope it will meet with your approval. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary"—I had not appliea for anything but founders shares—that is what was enclosed to me as the foreign founders' share certificate form; it is much the same as the other, but with a number of coupons for interest attached—it does not say whether this is a founders' shared or not; it does say it is £10—I got this letter, dated February 23id (Produced), from A. F. Baker (Asking whether the witness or his friends wanted any further shares as they had a final meeting for the following day to settle the prospectus prior to its public issue)—on February 25th I sent a further cheque for £40, in payment for the founders' shares I had applied for, drawn and endorsed in the same way—I got a letter (39) acknowledging the receipt of the cheque for £40, dated February 25th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your esteemed favour of 24th inst, and thank you for the very kind expressions therein contained, and I shall have very great pleasure in reading your communication to our directors at their next meeting. I thank you for the cheque for £40, which shall be placed to your credit as you desire. As regards the additional founders' shares, I should be only too glad if I could fall in with the suggestion you made, but, having regard to the fact that no founders' shares can be reserved without the obligation of taking ordinary shares after the public issue of the prospectus, I am afraid it will be impossible for me to fall in with your suggestion. I myself would be only too glad if I could with a payment of even 20 per cent. obtain the control of any of the founders' shares within the next three months, as I am satisfied within that time they will be changing hands at nearer £30 than £20; indeed, I only heard yesterday that some of the brokers who could only get parcels of twos and fives are selling them at about £12. With reference to the additional 15 founders' shares, I enclose you an application form, which kindly fill up and return to me at your convenience. The amount at present standing to your credit is £65, on account of 40 founders'shares at £10 each. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER "—having read that letter, I sent an application for 75 more founders' shares—I got letter No. 40, acknowledging the receipt of that application, dated February 28th, 1893: "Dear Sir, I have to acknowledge receipt of your application for a further 75 founders' shares at £10 each, and also your cheque, value £75, deposit. I wired you this morning as on the other "side, as I do not know whether you want the scrip sent to you for these additional 75 shares plus the 15 applied for on the 24th. I have already sent you the scrip for 25, and I have received from you £140. Kindly let me have a line from you by return. Yours very faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary. Postscript.—Since writing the above I have your "wire, and you may rely on my personally doing what I possibly can, but there are others to be consulted, and I hope to write you tomorrow, if we can arrange matters"—No. 41 is the cheque I sent; it is payable to A. F. Baker or order, endorsed A. F. Baker, and paid through the London and

Midland Bank—I got another letter (No. 42), dated March 1st, 1893. "Dear Sir, I am indebted to you for your favour of 28th ult., and while you may rely upon my doing all I possibly can to meet your wishes, you must not forget that it is impossible for me to make arrangements with reference to subscriptions and payments different to those affecting others. I think I explained to you that no founders' shares after the public issue of the prospectus could be subscribed and paid for, unless the applicants also undertake the obligation of subscribing for at least 40 ordinary shares in respect of each founders' share. As regards the payment, of course, this is a matter that does not in any way personally affect me, and I would suggest, so that I can say that they have been definitely taken and paid for, that you should remit a further cheque for, say, £150 in the course of the next few days, and send your acceptance at six weeks for the balance. In that event, I can send you the scrip in the proportions that you ask for, and thus enable you to keep faith with your friends, and also at the same time enable you to collect from them their proportions for their respective subscriptions. Yours very faithfully, A. F.BAKER "—I had mentioned those founders' shares to some of my relatives—then on March 2nd I got another letter from A. F. Baker (No. 43): "Dear Sir, I received your wire, and on the other side send you a copy of wire, in reply, confirming the arrangements, and I accordingly send you here-with two drafts for your acceptance at two months each for £430 respectively. Please accept them in the ordinary way, payable at your bankers, and kindly let me have them by return, so that I may report the matter as being completed. Your cheque for £150, I presume, will reach me in the course of the current week. Please wire me how you want the scrip made out"—No. 44 is my cheque drawn to the London and Scottish Bank, and endorsed by them, A. F. Baker, and paid through the London and Midlanden—closed in the letter there were two drafts for £434 each which I accepted and returned to the bank—they were at two months—Exhibit 45 is: "Dear Sir, I am much obliged for your favour of the 1st inst., and offer to meet me by taking my acceptance for the balance for founders' shares as applied for, along with cheque for £150, in a few days. I have also your further confirmation by telegram this afternoon, agreeing to make the acceptance two months for said balance, for which I also thank you. Seeing I have now taken the responsibility for all the shares, I will instruct you in a post or two in whose names to make out the set ip for. Yours truly, JOHN W. HALEY "—I made a copy of that, and not of the other ones, because I did the greater part of the business at home, and as this was particular, and referred to a matter I should have to deal with later on, I got a press copy—I got letter 49 from A. F. Baker, dated March 9th, enclosing my five certificates for founders' shares made out according to my instructions: in the names of myself and family—these are the share warrants, all signed "A. F. Baker"—the serial number is altered to V 102 to 106; the previous ones were B—these are printed, the others were in ink—then I got letter No. 56 from A. F. Baker: "Dear Sir, Your esteemed favour of yesterday crossed mine of same date, enclosing your scrip of founders' shares, and I herewith beg to enclose you a further share warrant to bearer for 15 founders' shares fully paid up. With

respect to the interest upon deposits, of course, you must be aware that it occasionaly varies, but for the fixed period of three years we could allow 4 per cent. Anything beyond this I should not like to promise. If you will let me know if this rate of interest: which' for any sound bank is considered somewhat high: would suit your friend, I could then definitely let you know. Of course, you will understand that I do not bind myself to 4 per cent. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary"—the scrip was closed there—about that time I received prospectuses; Nos. 46, 47, and 48 (Produced)—I read them—I got letter N6. 57 dated March 13th, from A. F. Baker: "I have your letter of 11th inst. acknowledging receipt of the balance of 15 founders' shares. Of course if you applied for 40 or 50 founders' shares they shall most undoubtedly be reserved for you, inasmuch as you are one of the original subscribers for the founders' shares. I enclose you herewith four prospectuses, with the necessary application forms, and I shall make a note, so that I secure you an allotment for your friends. You will be pleased to hear that the bank is going wonderfully well."—No. 59 is an application form for ordinary shares which I received, but did not fill up—I did not apply for any, I had my quantity then; I thought I had paid enough—that letter follows my contract—I sent up to London money in the shape of cheques for £180 5s. 2d., and a deposit receipt for £250 of Mrs. Haley's: that comes to £430 5s. 2d.—the letter of May 11th is an acknowledgment of the receipt of those moneys, signed by F. J. Baker: "In Mr. A. F. Baker's absence I have opened your favour, of 9th inst., which only arrived this morning, and T have to acknowledge receipt of cheques, value one hun-dred and eighty pounds five shillings and twopence (£180 5s. 2d.), and Mrs. Haley's receipt for withdrawal for £250. As regards the acceptr ances, I find on reference to the books that they were passed on to the advertising agents some time ago, and I am sending on to them to know if they are still in their hands, and will write to you in the course of post. In the meantime, I have sent on the cheque for £430, asking them to protect one bill, and also to arrange with them for the renewal of the other"—Mrs. Haley, my wife, had sent up £250 on deposit, through me, in order to take up one of those bills for £430—I used her deposit money in addition to my own cheques—I had written proposing to take up one bill for £430, and asking to have the other renewed—letter 61, recites what I did: "We understand that Messrs. de Renter have the bills, and the writer will call upon them tomorrow to take up the one that we have in hand of yours, and also to try and arrange the other; although, in the absence of Mr. A. F. Baker, I do not think that this can be done for the next few days"—I telegraphed on May 15th, and in answer I got letter 62 from Mr. F. J. Baker: "Dear Sir,—I have your wire, but I cannot get Messrs. de Renter and Co. to agree to anything definite, and, therefore, in the meantime I send you our cheque for the amount we have of yours, in case you may desire to take in any of the bills if they are presented. We are to see their representative tomorrow. Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Assistant Secretary"—enclosed in that letter there was a cheque for £430 4s. 9d.—this is it, No. 63 (Prorduced); the London and Midland Bank's cheque—the heading of the cheque is the "London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation,

Limited; pay J. W. Haley, Esq., or bearer, the sum of £430 48. 9d."—it is signed by Octavias Stokes and T. Harrison Lambert, directon, and countersigned by F. J. Baker, assistant secretary—I wrote letter No. 64, and addressed it to Mr. A. F. Baker, London—this is a copy of it; "Dear Sir,—I am rather surprised at the tenor of your telegram today, which rather suggests you also decline to renew the other acceptance for me. 'I wrote you in good time, so that same could be arranged before maturity, and not afterwards, and I never dreamt that my request wonld be subject to the favour of others, after having written you an honest and straightforward reason why, in consequence of the present labour crisis here, it was not just now convenient to take one up, otherwise I should not have been under any further obligation for your kindness. In plain words, I ask the favour of renewal from our own bank (the London and Scottish), and you will excuse me for obsering I do not recognise anybody else to extend such with the security in hand of the whole of the founders' shares (£1,250) in your bank to cover only £430; the consent in writing of E. Haley and S. M. Haley, in addition to mine, for such I can, of course, send you; and to say such is not satisfactory would be to admit a bad state of things for our shares. I should think, however, even if you submitted the same offer to the holders of the bill, they would accept readily, but under the circumstances I consider you should recognise you are dealing with honourable people who have gone into this matter as an investment, and, under the unforeseen circumstances of the present strike, endeavour to oblige, and charge a conscientious discount for so doing. However, I shall rely upon you doing so at three months."—I wrote another—letter next day, No. 65: "Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of yours ofyesterday's date, eovering cheque £430 4s. 9d., which I return herewith in accordance with my telegram today, in consequence of the two bills having been presented and returned unknown to me by my bankers yesterday. You would also be aware yesterday when writing me they had been sent here, and I am astonished to find you had not retired one of them as directed, and holding cash in" hand in full for that purpose. Such a proceeding is most unwarrantable, apart from the injury and reflection cast upon myself as a commercial man in the estimation of my bankers and others, and it is not surprising Messrs. Renter declined to renew anything of mine, as you infer, when you failed on my behalf to redeem one of the bills, and my honour and status thus far sacrificed, and you actually held the money for such. If it should resolve itself into anything like a writ by Messrs. Renter, then I can only say to the extent of one bill of £430 you must be held responsible, as it is no fault of mine you failed to retire that; but why should Messrs. Renter have any voice or control in any renewal that I ask from you to favour mc with, and both bills be presented, when it was your duty to retire one and held payment in hand for the same? However, I am asking you as the London and Scottish Bank, and not others, to renew the one unpaid for three months, to favour me accordingly a: a reasonable charge for the same (which is part of your operations, I believe), and hold security as offered, which I think you should not object to do now, and have my grateful appreciation for"—I got an answer, No. 66. May 16th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—I have your wire and aho your letter, and you may rely upon my

doing all I possibly can to arrange for the bills. I did attend at Messrs. de Reuater's, the holders of your acceptances, but they point-blank refused to let us retire one bill without the other. Personidly I know very little of the matter, as it was an arrangement made by Mr. A. F. Baker with Messrs. de Reuter. Mr. A. F. Baker is not expected at the office until next week. Do not think for a moment it is out of any disrespect to you, and I will do all I possibly can to arrange the matter to your satisfaction, and only regret that personally I am unable to do anything"—then I got No. 67, signed F. J. Baker, and dated May 17th 1893: "Dear Sir,—I have your letter of the 16th inst, which crossed mine of yesterday. I thought I had informed you that I had personally tendered Messrs. de Reuter your two acceptances and cheque for £430, and they were not disposed to renew one without the other, and that the manager could not say anything definitely until he had taken the instructions of his board. I did all I possibly could, and am writing them a copy of your letter today. I do not think you need worry yourself; I have no doubt it will all come right in the end. I don't think we shall see Mr. A. F. Baker until Thursday in next week—before the next letter Messrs. Reuter served me with a writ in respect of both bills, for £860—I wrote this letter. No. 68, on June 2nd, 1893, to A. F. Baker—the stationery of the bank says I am to address all communications to the secretary—I had had no intimation that Mr. A. F. Baker had ceased so to be; it was put "Assistant Secretary," so I imagined that Mr. A. F. Baker still held the office; "Having defended Messrs. Renter's action, I take it that the matter is now in your own hands as to the settlement of my matter, and I would, of course point out against your observation of going judgment for the bills that you already hold payment of £430 for on of the two bills, and the other only seems to be a matter of arrangements, as you feel disposed; but, firstly, there is a discrepancy in your letter as to there being two of £230 each by way of renewal. There is one £200 and another of £230, which together covers the one of £430 unpaid. In asking you to accept the same in renewal, I am only asking you do what you are advertising for, and also as the business of the bank, and, surely, as one of its proprietors, and holding a large stake in shares, £1 250, you cannc t have anything better to approve of as security for the time being, and payable business into the bargain. Your advertisement must really go for nothing if you decline, and especially for one of your largest proprietors. What do you think? However, I rely on the bank's advertisement answering my present application or meaning nothing of the kind at all"—I got another letter, dated June 8th (No. 69), from F. J. baker: "Dear Sir,—I have your favour of yesterday, but am I again to remind you that the transactions with Mr. A. F. Baker have nothing whatever to do with the company? I have already explained to you that Messrs. de Reuter are applying for leave to sign judgment against you for the total amount of bills, £860, and that as there is no advance they will be obliged to sign judgment and issue execution on Saturday unless the amount is paid. I have already told you that I have tendered them £430, and I have a cheque in hand which was sent to you and was subsequently returned, and Which, as I have already informed you, was also tendered to then It is not a question of declining to discount the bills at all. I again

say that if you will send a cheque for £200 or £300 Mr. Baker will find the balance"—I got this letter (No. 70) from Mr. F. J. Baker: "Dear Sir,—I am pleased to inform you that Mr. A. F. Baker has satisfactorily arranged your matter with Messrs. de Reuter—from time to time I remitted money as against the remaining £430, and drew a bill for the balance on each occasion, as set out in this account (No. 71)—so that by May 21st, 1894, I had paid for the whole of the £860 for which I was liable by my two acceptances; so that by May 218t, 1894, I had paid for 125 founders' shares, £1,250—in August, 1893, I made inquiries as to how the bank was going on; and this is the letter, dated August 29th, which I got in reply from F. J. Baker: "Dear Sir,—In reply to your inquiry, I have much pleasure in informing you that the bank is doing a very satisfactory business, and it is under the consideration of the board to declare a dividend for the first half-year's working next month on ordinary shares. The founders' shares are not freely dealt in at present, but when this announcement is made, it must, of course, increase their value very much"—I did not take any more founders' shares—on October 4th, 1894, I wrote letter No. 73—this is the last paragraph: "I congratulate the management of the London and Scottish Bank on earning such a satisfactory dividend of 7 per cent, for its first halfyear's existence in bad times"—I had received a balance sheet just before the liquidation of the company; not at that time—I knew about the 7 per cent, dividend by a postcard—I only held founders' shares—later on, in 1894, I felt some anxiety about the bank, and in consequence I wrote No. 75 on October 30th, 1894: "Dear Sirs,—Whatever you attempt to explain fully to mine of the 25th inst. Cannot possibly justify the evasion of issuing report and balance sheet and your misrepresentition of facts concerning the same. You wrote me in April, May, and June, asserting every time the auditors were auditing preparar tory to issue of the balance sheet: but why four months to audit your accounts?, and in August, extending the audit to six months, you wrote definitely, the accounts were finished by the auditors and the balance to follow in a few days. A month after this you fiatly contradicted this statement and all the previous correspondence, and that such was not true, but were then being audited, and a satisfactory report would come to hand in a few days. That again is nearly six weeks ago, and there is no report yet or summoned meeting, and your further reply of the 26th evades the matter again altogether. Common sense, of course, tells the merest novice what all this means, and that there is something radically wrong, and evidently mismanaged, and you must not suppose people as shareholders to swallow anything you like to write, neither can you be surprised that the whole of your correspondence on this matter is being submitted to the Board of Trade, and further action beingtakenotherwise.—Yours, etc., J. W. HALET "—I got a reply dated October 31st (No. 76): "Sir,—I have your favour of the 30th inst. Please don't impute misrepresentation or evasion where it does not exist. If you care to trouble you might see at the office here the auditors at their work, and until this is done, also an important piece of business which is not yet completed and which will materially afiect the dividend, I don't suppose the directors in their discretion will call the meeting.—Yours truly, F. J.

BAKER "—at the beginning of December I got this directors report and balancesheet (Produced)—I looked at the profit and loss first; the net profit, subject to the realisation of bonuses, was £39,183 178.) ld.—read the report of the directors and the balancesheet—I believed this statement to be a true statement of account; I could only accept it as it appears here—the report states that a general meeting of the company was to be held at Dowall's Rooms, Edinburgh, on Monday, December 10th, at 11 o'clock; 1 did not go—one reason I did not go to the meeting was it was called for a Monday, which would have necessitated my leaving oa the Sunday, and leaving my business, and that was why I did not attend the meeting—I got after December 10th what purports to be a printed report of that meeting (No. 77)—it is headed "Private: Report of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, held at Edinburgh on Monday, December 10th, 1894"—it is a long printed report—this is the actual thing I got; here are my marks, on it—I got then this letter (No. 78) dated December 21st, 1894: "Sir or Madam,—I am pleased to inform you that the application of the two shareholders for the appointment of a provisional liquidator came before the Court yesterday and was refused. It has been suggested that you have signed some document addressed to Messrs. Davidsou and Syme giving your assent to the windingup, and trusting the liquidation to this firm and Mr. Gowans, chartered accountant. I need not again remind you of the disastrous result which this would entail to the shareholders, but I shall be glad to have your views if you will kindly signify the same on the enclosed postcard. So far, I understand that very few of the shareholders are desirous of windingup, and the majority of these are associated with others in their attempt to wreck the corporar tion"—I wrote another letter, dated December 23rd, No. 79: "Dear Sir,—Again I am put off with another evasive acknowledgment of my four letters of the 12th, 14th, 17th, and 21st instant. If you keep a proper share register, it is only a few minutes to refer and answer ray requesi of above dates. I now ask you finally to confirm that the £1,250 which I have paid you at various times, All of which you have acknowledged the receipt of by letter, is duly and properly credited in your share ledger to each party named at foot, and in the amount written to each name. It is a simple question, and duty on your part, to comply and if you decline to supply the information, or there is any reasonable cause why you should not, I am the party to know it; if not I shall adopt a course that will soon put me in the possession of your reticence and evasion of the matter, which I am bound to say I have ever met with from you when wanting any information, and to which you have had my strong complaints several times. There is no wonder shareholders are so dissatisfied with such work and treatment like this, and the bank will always be in bad repute under such deliberate and palpable evasion of proprietors looking into their own interests, which, under the present phrase of management, necessitate it. In fact, as a bank it seems to have been brought to that level almost, that it is no bank at all, and only an apology for such, and a convenience for others, and new companies of uncertain prospects.—Yours truly, JOHN W. HALEY "—then follow the names of my relatives, to whom these shares

were to be issued or had been issued—I then got an acknowledgment (No 80) of that letter saying my letter should be placed before the directon at their next meeting—there is another letter on January 5th, 1895, from the bank: "Dear Sir,—May we ask your vote for my directors as per form enclosed you. We anticipate the matter will be in Court early next week. and would suggest that you write to our office, 23, St. James Squars Edinburgh, with form filled up in our favour at once." And the form was "To the London and "Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited. I do not desire the company to be wound up, nor do I support the petition presented by Messrs. Davidson and Syme"—I never received a single farthing from the bank in respect of these 125 shares—in the earlier transactions with the bank,—I received a circular signed "J. Lloyd Morgan and Co."—it was a type-written circular, dated March 27th 1893 (Exhibit 82)—it is a document which says that the public issue has been a great success.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. When I was communicated with about the bank, with the object that I should take founders' shares in a concern which was about to be started and which might or might not prove a success, I did not take it to be speculative, I took it as an iovest ment—I did not think they were like debentures in a railway—with founders' shares I could not get anything in respect of them until the ordinary shareholders had got their seven per cent.—I knew I was subscrib ing to a company which was going to be formed and issued to the public—I did not understand that I was contributing to the expenses of forming a company—I got document 24 which I have identified—it came by port—I did not get with it the circular explaining what it meant—I have no recollection of seeing it before, only at the Mansion House—I think I did say that—there was nothing at all to show what the nominal value of the founders' shares was to be, only in subsequent correspondence—the basis of the scheme was, whoever applied for ordinary shares was to get one founders' certificate allotted to him—no person who applied for ordinary shares in a subsequent issue would have the right, with his application to have ordinary shares, to get a founders' share allotted to him—the profits were to be divided, half going to the holders of the deferred or fonnders shares and half to the holders of the ordinary shares—then by a later pros' pectus 1 ascertained that that allotment of one founders' share meant an allotment of one founders' share at par, which I should have to pay for at par, whatever par might be—I accepted it that it was £10—in the subsequent prospectus it is stated that the allotment of founders' shares to me, if I applied for ordinary shares, is to be an allotment at par—there is no statement so far as to what par is—upon the same prospectus there is the statement, "Brokers, Clayton and Bullock"—I did not know who Clayton and Bullock were—the appearance of the name on the prospectus which says, "The subscriptions to some of the deferred shares will defray the registration, legal, and other expenses, as prescribed by the agreement of March 10th, 1892, between the above corporation and A, F. Baker as trustee, which can be seen at the offices of the corporation," I did not interpret deferred and founders' shares to be the same—I did not see how the profits were to be divided—I saw that the company had been registered and that the prospectus was going to be advertised, as they thought then,

in the next fortnight or three weeks, and if I desired founders' shares I was to fill up an application and return it at my earliest convenience and that the issue price of the founders' shares was to be £10 to any person who wanted to takefounders' shares without taking ordinary shares—it was upon that that I subscribed—as the founders' shares were £10 I subscribed £10, believing they would be of the value of £10 in the bank—Ithought I was not onlygoing to get value for my money, but that I was going to make agood deal of money out of it—it was represented so—that was my object in applying—if at the time I applied I was paying this 10 per cent or 15 per cent., for an application for founders' shares, and if I deferred my payment for founders' shares for some time and then sold my founders' shares in the mean time at a good profit, that would enable me to take up more founders" shares than I actually had money to pay for and make a profit on it, but I did not buy them to speculate in that way; I took them for an investment—I took it as an investment, so that it would repay me in my older days when I could not work—the first batch of shares that I applied for for myself was 10, I think—the £1,250 I invested was to form a provision for my old age—it was all paid by me eventually—there are my cheques fo it—the next lot was in the name of my wife, for myself—I suppose I should be quite justified in doing that in any company—that is a family matter—I paid the money—Mrs. E. Haley is my wife, and S. M. Haley is my widowed mother—there was only one lot in the name of S. M. Haley; all the others. were in the names of my wife and myself, I think—15 were mine, 25 were S. M. Haley, and 85 E. Haley—I got a letter on February 9th, 1893, in which reference is made to the fact that there is to be an issue then of the prospectus for ordinary shares, inviting applications for ordinary shares; and it is pointed out that I could have a few more fonnders' shares without the obligation if application was made before the public issue of the prospectus—I got a letter from Mr. Baker, dated March 19th, 1893, it which he says, "I am in receipt of your esteemed favour of yesterday's date, but really I do not see how we can offer more than 4 per cent, upon deposits"; and on April 17th, 1893, he wrote this letter to me: "I am desired to inform you that we are now in a position to undertake banking business," etc.; and on May 8th, 1893, I received this: "Notice is hereby given, that the interest allowed," etc.—with regard to what took place as to Renter's is that there were two bills for £430 each, which I had given on account of money I had to pay for the founders' shares, and when the time came I wanted one renewed, I was prepared to retire the other, and for that purpose I sent up the £430, including the deposit—then, as a matter of fact, they told me that they could not get that bill back, because those bills had been lodged by them with Messrs. Renter for the advertising in connection with the company, and that they tried to get the bill back by the payment of the £430 I sent, but as they could not do it, they sent me back my cheque for £430, which I had sent up, and which had not been used, but I received that too late to meet the bills—in the result, Renter's, who had the bills when they fell due, issued a writ against me to recover the money on the bills—the bank, through Mr. Baker, undertook really to defend the action, and see what he could do—in answer to my letter to settle the matter—he did settle with Reuter's;

so that I did get from Mr. Baker what I wanted to get; so that in the result Reuter's action was disposed of, my bill for £430 was taken up; the other bill for £430, so far as I was concerned, was renewed; so that I only paid £430, and they settled the matter with Reuter's by paying some £200 or £300 on account of it—I noticed that on December 10th, 1894 at the meeting which I did not attend, it was stated with regard to the bonuses, "The principal items consist of shares in the British Steam Generator Company and a subsidiary company for the Home Counties"—it is not in the balance-sheet, but I got this just after the meeting: "The proprietors of the companies, of which these shares form part of the capital, are companies formed for the purpose of working with the object of introducing to the public the moat successful of refuse destructors and steam generators which, I suppose, have been seen in this country, and have been at work successfully in Halifax for a considerable time, and the Press and the expert opinions are unanimous in commending it. There is an installation at Westminster, in London"—I was very sceptical when I read that, as to what it meant with regard to the assets—I was communicated with by the Official Receiver about the case.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The fraudulent pretences which are contained in the letters from A. F. Baker, which induced me to part with any portion of my money, I think I will leave with the Solicitor-General—I never saw Singleton until I saw him in the dock at the Mansion House, and never heard of him by the name of Singleton—I gave acceptances to the tune of £870 for the purpose of acquiring more founders' shares in the Scottish Bank when I had not got the cash in hand, because I thought it would be more convenient, and instead of making it inconvenient, I could get it out of my business as it came in ', not that I resorted to borrowing money in order to purchase something which I thought would be of very great value, and for which I had not the money at the time: that is not the plain way of dealing with it.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. It was in October, 1892, that I first received any communication with reference to this bank—it was in 1892 I received the proof prospectus—the names there are the Hon. Ashley Ponsonby, E. T. Gourley, M.P., A. Shoolbred, Esq., T. G. H. Glynn, Esq., W. Hope, Esq., V.C., and Mr. Stokes—they are the directors—I say that I was induced by what appeared in the prospectus to subscribe for those shares whereby I lost my money—the last application I made for founders' shares was for the additional founders' shares; the whole matter was completed on or before March 13th, 1893—nothing that occurred after that could have affected my application for the shares—I have brought a civil action to recover my money—the only two people against whom I have brought an action are Messrs. Beall and Singleton—I cannot say that I should attempt to fix Lambert with any liability in respect of the loss I have sustained, or for the fact that my money was afterwards lost, knowing all I know now.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. You may take it from me in a compendious form that what I say with regard to Lambert applies equally to Wain,

Re-examined. Before I had any communication about the London and Scottish Bank at all I only held shares in a public company; just a small

affair, that is all—I held them at the time I was communicated with first about the London and Scottish Bank.

By the COURT. I was favoured with a good many prospectuses; the wastepaper basket full sometimes.

RICHARD CHARLES STRACHAN . I live at Leytonstone, and am a liceused victualler—an uncle of my wife's, named James Birchall, lives with me; he is very old and infirm—I conduct the major part of his business for him—prior to October, 1892, I received in the ordinary course of post some prospectuses of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation similar to these (Produced)—I also received a copy of the book like this (Produced)on banks and banking—I went over these documents with Birchall he wrote to the company—I saw that he enclosed a cheque—we received by post the answer (Exhibit 292) (Produced)—with a printed heading, "London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited; La Banque d'Es-compte de Londres et de L'Ecosse (Societe Anonyme). All communications to be addressed to the Secretary. Agencies: Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Paris, etc. J. Birchall, Esq., Ashton House, 10, Borthwick Road, Stratford. London Offices: 5, Copthall Avenue, London, E.C, October 28th, 1892, Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour with application for 10 founders' shares in the above bank, and also application for 40 seven per cent, ordinary shares, and your cheque value £140, being the amount for purchase of the 10 founders' shares, and also £40 application money on the 40 ordinary shares. I beg to enclose you herewith scrip to bearer for the 10 founders' shares, and the allotment letter for the ordinary shares shall be forwarded to you in due course"—this certificate was enclosed with this letter, I think—having subecribed for those 10 founders' shares and 40 ordinary shares, my uncle subscribed for 12 more founders' shares—about November 19th I received letter (Exhibit 293) (Produced): "I thank you for your application for twelve further founders' shares and cheque for£120, certificate for which will be sent to you on Monday"—that was followed by the letter, November 22nd (Exhibit 294): "Herewith I have the pleasure of enclosing you scrip for your 12 founders' shares in the above corporation"—I saw the certificate that was enclosed—my uncle afterwards paid the further amount payable on the ordinary shares, and I received the receipt (Exhibit 295): "Received from James Birchall, Esq., of 10, Borthwick Road, Stratford, E., the sum of £80, being final payment on 40 ordinary shares in the above bank, up to the sum of £5 per share, making altogether the sum paid £200," dated January 28th—there is a pencil mark, December 17th—it came to me on January 28th, I should say—I cannot tell who put the pencil date on, this is the first time T have noticed it is not in my writing, I do not know it—I cannot say if there was any delay in sending the £80 and getting a formal acknowledgment of it—Mr. Birchall's cheques were on the London and Provincial, corner of Angel Lane, Stratford—I received by post printed forms similar to Exhibits 187 and 188(Produced)—they are similar to the forms which were filled up for the application for these shares—one is the form for the application for. The ordinary shares, and the other is the form for the application for founders

shares—I also received a circular similar to 189 (Produced)enclosing the advanced proof of the prospectus—the winding up says, "To secure any founders' shares your application ought to reach me during the next few dajs on the enclosed form"—I received also letter similar to 190, enclosing a list of the names of the proposed officers of the bank, dated in December, 1892—191 is the list of the names of the proposed officers, etc., which was sent to me—I looked through the names of the proposed officers—among the governors I find "W. J. Carruthers Wain"—I had three separate lists—they came at different times, I think—I also received the circular letter dated December 15th, 1892 (Exhibit 192) (Produced), beginning "I am desirous of keeping within as few hands as possible the founders' shares of our bank, believing that apart from their intrinsic value, they will command a very large premium within a few weeks of the public issue. Of the few founders' shares remaining to be subscribed (without the obligation of taking ordinary shares of the minimum amount of £400), would you care to take up 30, or any part thereof, at the issue price of £10, giving me the option at the end of three months of re-purchasing these shares at £11, or £1 premium, so that in the event of the shares not rising to £11, or a bigger figure, you would be netting a profit of 10 per cent, for the three months, or at the rate of 40 per cent, per annum? The scrip will, of course, remain in your possession. We are making every arrangement to publicly issue the prospectus next month, and our bank premises in Lombard Street, London, and Paris will be opened to commence business for the year"—having received those letters, I decided to apply for some founders' shares for myself, and I went up to the office at 35, Lombard Street, somewhere about March, 1893, I should think; I cannot quite remember—I found the office with the name up—I asked to see Mr. A. F. Baker—that is the name of the secretary on all these documents—I saw A. F. Baker (Singleton)—I told him from the result of communications I had had from him in different letters, I thought it would be a good investment to buy founders' shares, and I proposed to buy the 12—I paid him for them; if not on that particular morning, within a morning or two—I gave him a cheque for £150, out of which he gave me £30 change—it was drawn on Messrs. Saville Brothers, brewers, Stratford—after I had done that, when I got home I received the letter (Exhibit No. 193) (Produced), dated January 23rd; my interview was prior to January 23rd: "I enclose you herewith scrip for your fullypaid 12 founders' shares in the above corporation"; then the number of the scrip is given—about March, 1893, I went up again to the office with Mr. Birchall, where I saw Singleton—while in the office Mr. Beall came into the room—Singleton said to me, "Allow me to introduce you to Mr. F. J. Baker, our new secretary"—shortly after that date I was attending a meeting of the shareholders of the Cassidy Hill Gold Mines; a gentleman got up to speak, and, to my astonishment, he was Mr. Beall; there was a shareholder in the room, and I asked him, and he said,

" Edward Beall"; I said, "Why, it is the same gentleman who was introduced to me as the new secretary of the London Scottish"—I think it was on that identical morning that Mr. Birchall suggested to me that he should change the whole of these ordinaries into all founders' shares on the recommendation of A. F. Baker—he pointed them out as a good

investment, founders' shares in a bank—he said they were doing all right—Mr. Bircball exchanged his ordinary shares for founders' shares after that date—I received this document, dated April 11th, 1893, addressed to James Birchall: "As arranged, I send you herewith scrip for 20 fullypaid shares in lieu of the ordinary shares"—I got scrip for the founders' shares; so that after that date I and my uncle both held 5 1/2 founders' shares, or thought we did—we never got any dividend or anything on our shares—about the spring of 1895 we began to get anxious about this bank, because we had had no communication from them at all, and we had seen in the papers that an interim dividend of 7 per cent, had been declared—we went up to the offices of the bank; it was shut up; the brokers were in—I ascertained the address of Mr. Carmthers Wain, the director—I could not tell you for the moment how I got it; he had an office in Finsbury Circus—I went to see him there; I should think between a dozen and twenty times—I only succeeded in seeing him on one occasion, the last—I had been so many times before, trying to see him, and I was denied every time, and told he was not in; so at last one day I waited about, and saw him go up in the lift—then I followed him up in the lift the next time—when I went in I said I should like to see Mr. Carruthers Wain—the man said, "May I ask your name?"—I said Strachan—then he said, "He is not in"—as soon as I gave my name I was told he was not in—I said to the young fellow at the counter, "You are a liar, because I followed him up in the lift"—I ultimately saw him—I daresay we bad a conversation for at least half an hour; he repudiated the shares I showed him altogether—he said that he knew nothing at all about it—I produced my scrip—I wrote him a letter afterwards, and I got an answer to it—(Read): "Dear Sir,—The founders' shares of the London and Scottish Bank were not sold by the directors: they were issued by the founders, and neither I nor any of the directors know how they were disposed of or to whom, and being shares to bearer have no knowledge of the holders or the transfers; consequently also the directors could not communicate with the holders, not knowing who they were. I regret to say that owing to the action taken by certain malcontent shareholders, the company's business has been ruined, and it has been wound up.—Yours faithfully, W. J. CARRUTHRES WAIN. ")

Crossexamined by MR. ISAACS. I was willing to buy the founders' shares for £10 each—I could not get founders' shares at all, except either by asking Baker under Exhibit 188 to procure shares for me at £10, or else later by taking 40 ordinary shares and getting one founders' share—I never knew that the founders' shares were £1 shares—to my knowledge, I have never seen the prospectus with the founders' shares at £1—I paid the money on the first application in January, 1893—then in March, 1893, I went to the offices—the introduction took place in the premises of the London and Scottish Bank, in the private room off the office on the left (MR. P. J, BAKER was called into Court)—I know that man; I have seen him at the offices of the London and Scottish Bank, in 1893—I did not know his capacity—he was behind the desk—I have spoken to him several times when I met him in the City—I am quite sure he was not there at the time when Mr. A. F. Baker said, "I am going to introduce you to the assistantsecretary "; only A. F. Baker and Mr. Beall were present

—possibly the clerks were at their desks—possibly they could see me—possibly they could hear what took place—I think F. J. Baker was in the office; I will not be positive—I do not suggest any reason why A. F. Baker should introduce Beall to me as F. J. Baker—I have known F. J. Baker since I had to do with the bank—I have been out and had a drink with him now and then, when I have met him in the City—I did not know that he was actually employed in the office as secretary to the company—I knew him as assistant-secretary.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Singleton introduced the Cassidy Hill Gold Mining Company—I got my shares in that at 6s. 8d. a share—I attended the meeting at the Cannon Street Hotel as a shareholder—I was advised by Singleton to sell my shares, and I could have sold them in the open market, the shares which I had given 6s. 8d. for, at about 32s. 6d.—if I had accepted that excellent advice should not have said that Singleton had defrauded me in that, it would have been a good profit—I could not have done that after the meeting where I saw Mr. Beall—I am afraid the shares were very much deteriorated at that time—I doubt that I could have done it at 20s. 6d.—I did not try, but I could see the prices quoted in the Financial News every day—Baker did not follow Mr. Beall into the office on that day when Mr. Singleton said, "Here is our new secretary."

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I said before the Magistrates that I did not know Mr. Lambert.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. In these two prospectuses I produce, the name of Wain does not appear—those were the prospectuses on which I applied for my founders' shares; those or similar—my last application for shares was about January, 1893; I should not like to bind myself to one day—it was just before the letter of January 23rd, from A. F. Baker, in which he says; "Dear Sir,—I enclose you herewith scrip for your fully-paid 12 founders' shares in the above corporation"—I do not think I applied for any shares on the prospectus of March, 1893—Mr. Birchall's shares were exchanged from ordinary shares to founders' shares—the first time I ever saw Mr. Wain was about April, 1895, at his office in Finsbury Circus—if Mr. Wain said that he never heard of my name until that time in 1895, I should not contradict that—when I saw him, and had told my story, he did not tell me that what I was telling him related to events which had happened before he had become director of the company—what he told me at the interview was practically the same as what he told me in the letter produced—if it be a fact that Mr. Wain did not become a director of the company until March 17th, that would be true, because all that had taken place between us with regard to the founders' shares was before March 17th—the correspondence that I had was with Mr. A. F. Baker; and, if Mr. A. F. Baker was the founder of the company, it would be correct of Mr. Wain to say that they were issued by the founders.

Re-examined. This is one of the certificates I got for Mr. Birchall's founders' shares; it was given on April 5th, 1893.

CHARLES HENRY HAMMOND . I live at 26, Trinity Road, Scarborough—in October, 1893, I received this prospectus by post. No. 83 (Produced); I read it through, and also the heading: "An interim dividend at the full rate of 7 per cent, has been declared on the ordinary shares for the six months

ending September, 1893"—then I saw that the governors were Carruthers Wain, Octavias Stokes, Harrison Lambert, and Eden Erskine Greville; but I took very little notice of that, because I did not know any of the parties—I see at the third paragraph on page 3: "The dividend of 7 per cent, per annum just paid as the result of the bank's operations during the past six months is sufficient evidence of the profitable nature of its business "; but I never received anything—accompanying the prospectus I think there was an application form for shares, but I got mixed up a little bit with Mr. Lloyd Morgan—having read the prospectus through, I determined to take some shares, and I wrote the letter No. 84 (Produced)of October 31st, 1893: "Dear Sir,—Enclosed please receive a cheque for £12 on application for 12 £10 shares in London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, and for which I enclose the application form filled up. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, C. H. HAMMOND "—then a day or two afterwards I got letter No. 85 (Produced): "Dear Sir,—I thank you for your application and cheque for £12, the application money for 12 ordinary shares, which I will place before my directors at their next meeting. I enclose you official receipt herewith"—No. 86 is the official receipt: "Received on account of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, this first day of November, 18£3, of Charles Henry Hammond, the sum of £12, being a deposit of £1 per share on 12 ordinary shares," and signed by F. W. Colee, cashier—I also received letter No. 87, November 7th, 1893 (Read: "Dear Sir,—I beg to enclose you herewith letter of allotment for your 12 ordinary shares. Kindly forward me cheque for £30 at your convenience, and oblige.—Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Secretary; number of allotment letter 202)"—I wrote letter No. 88: "Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of allotment letter, No. 202, along with your favour, making a call of £2 10s. per share on 12 £10 shares in the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, and I herewith enclose cheque for the same, viz., £30, also allotment letter for receipt. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, C. H. HAMMOND "—then I got the receipt No. 89 for £30, signed "W. F. Colee, cashier," enclosed in letter No. 90; then I got letter No. 91, December 12th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—I am desired to inform you that it is optional for the shareholders to pay up their shares in full, in which event the interest will accrue on the full amount paid and from the date of payment. Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Secretary "; then I wrote letter No. 92: "Dear Sir,—Enclosed please receive a cheque for £84 to pay up in full the amount of my 12 £10 shares with the premium of 10s. per share. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, C. H. HAMMOND "—I wrote this letter No. 93: "I am this morning in receipt of your favour of the 18th inst., enclosing Certificate No. 1,029, for 12 £10 shares fully paidup and numbered 2,527 to 2,528 inclusive, for which please accept my thanks"—I continue to hold those shares—I have never had any benefit from them whatever—I received a letter, I believe, from Lloyd Morgan—I remember receiving document 96—it is from "J. Lloyd Morgan and Co., Stock and Share Dealers. Telegraphic Address,' Physically,' London. 4, Copthall Chambers, Throgmorton Street, London, E.G. Extract from our Special Monthly Circular for October, 1893 "; that is the heading—I did not receive that before I sent in my application for the ordinary shares that I know of, but in consequence of this I

sent for some founders' shares—I received Exhibit 94—it is dated June 1894: "Sir,—At the forthcoming meeting of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, we hear that a very satis. factory balance-sheet will be submitted, and noticing you are interested in the undertaking, we think that you would do well to take advantages of the shares of financial undertakings by purchasing some of the founders' shares at the present low price. We have for sale two parcels of 5 and 10 shares, for which we are instructed to take £4 10s., covering all commission and transfer fees. Yours obediently, J. LLOYD MORGAN and Co."—I do not remember that last line, the rest of it is right—I applied for five at £1 per share premium—I had to give £55 for five shares—five tens are fifty, and £5 premium, that is £1 per share additional premium—they were £10 shares, and I gave £11 each—I got my share certificate for the five shares—I never got anything in respect of my founders' shares—this is my certificate for the 12 ordinary shares that I took in the bank (Produced)there is my name on it—that purports to be signed by "T. Harrison Lambert, Director," and countersigned by "F. J. Baker, Secretary," dated December 15th, 1893.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. When I got the first prospectus I did not notice the names of the directors upon it—I knew nothing about it if I had noticed them.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I did not know anything of them.

HENRY NORRIS . I was a licenced victualler, I am out of business now—about the beginning of March, 1893, I received by post a copy of the prospectus of the London and Scottish Banking Corporation—I think I can identify which one it was; a similar one to that (Exhibit 5) it gave the names of the governors, W. J. Carruthers Wain, Robert Scrafton, Octavius Stokes, T. Harrison Lambert, and Eden Erskine Greville—I had an enclosure from the Financial Gazette somewhere about the time I received the prospectus in 1893—I read the prospectus and the enclosure—I noticed some of the names of the brokers; one name I know; Messrs. Clayton and Bullock, the brokers for London—I received at the same time a copy of the little pamphlet or book on "Banks and Banking "; the author of it was A. F. Baker, I think, the secretary of the company—that made an impression on me, because when I read the pamphlet I thought it was an excellent thing for the bank to have such an efficient secretary who had written a work on Banks and Banking—I tought it was a most excellent addition to the bank—I noticed that these gentlemen, Carruthers Wain, Lambert, and the others were called governors; that impressed me, because I thought of the meaning of the word governors, and the Bank of England having governors, I thought it was a substantial bank—I take the Daily Graphic in—I could not say if they sent it co me—they might have sent it to me—I took it in at the time—one was something similar to that—it had four views: three or four—I thought it looked very grand—in consequence of reading all those documents, I applied for 40 ordinary shares, which would entitle me to one founders' share—I sent £21—I got a receipt for the money and the certificate in course of time—I saw the common seal of the company which is affixed, May 13th, 1893—this is a

certificate for the founders' share, and why I took the 40 shares Was because it was represented to me as very valuable—prior to getting my certificates I got this letter (Exhibit No. 8) dated April 17th saying they were in a position to undertake any banking business with which I might be pleased to favour them, because of the scale of interest—this is the letter (Read) I paid altogether in the aggregate £401—in the first instance I paid up £201; that represents £5 per share—I afterwards got the circular (Exhibit 11) dated May 19th, 1893; that suggests that I should pay up in full—I was asked whether I would sign the form; it very much upset me when I read this—I cannot remember whether I signed the form; I remember I wrote and told them I could not pay the balance; I was not in a position to do it—I wrote this: "In answer to yours of the 19th, in accordance with the prospectus, I shall be unable to pay up my shares in full"—I got this letter on May 31st (Exhibit 12), saying: "In accordance with the circular letter addressed to you on the 19th inst., I am desired to inform you that at a meeting held on the 30th inst. it was resolved that in accordance with the request of a number of shareholders, the remaining £5 per share can be paid up on or before July Ist next. I am desired to remind you that interest will accrue from actual date of payment"—in answer to that I believe I wrote, suggesting that I should like to see the secretary of the bank—I got an answer, saying that he would see me at one day's notice—that is the letter I received—I believe I did see the secretary after that; I do not see the secretary here—he was a short man—I think A. F. Baker was the first secretary; F. J. Baker, I think, was the one I saw—in the result I was called on to pay up the remaining £5—I did pay it up, making the total of £401; I had to borrow the money to do it—on October 16th, 1893, I received this letter (Exhibit 14) enclosing a cheque for £6 7s., 11d. for dividend—I had seen the name of Mr. Carruthers Wain among the directors; I knew that name by his becoming chairman or being chairman of the North Staffordshire Tramway Company—I was a shareholder in that—in consequence, somewhere about September, 1894, I wrote a letter to Mr. Wain himself, and got an answer from him—after that answer I believe I called, and saw Mr. Wain at the bank; I can nob be positive, but I believe I did—the date I do not know anything about, but I believe I called on Mr. Wain—about the beginning of December, 1894, I went to Edinburgh—I was asked to go by Mr. Wain—he said there was going to be a meeting held at Edinburgh, and he wanted me to go down to attend the meeting, to second the resolution—I did not know what resolution it was—I went down prepared to second anything—I was asked to go by Mr. Wain, and he said to me it was a shame the company should be wound up, they could pay 125 per cent., and I thought so too, but I do not think so now—I did not know at that time, or did not know it otherwise, that there was any suggestion of winding up the company—I was led to believe from the bank itself, or the officials of the bank, that the bank was in a sound, solvent state, and I was to take no notice of outside statements—they had entered an action against the Financial Times—they wrote so to me—I told Wain I could not go, for I could not afford to go—he said they would pay my expenses

—that Mr. Wain would pay my expenses, or my expenses would be paid to go down—I did go to Edinburgh; I can not say the date; it was on a Sunday night I travelled, to be there on Monday morning—I did not go to any place—when I got to Edinburgh on Monday morning I did not know the place; and I was walking up the square, some place where the meeting was to be held, and I met Mr. Wain—I did not know where the bank premises or offices were supposed to be—there were no bank premises there, not of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Company—I met Mr. Wain in the street—he took me to an hotel; I wanted some refreshment, travelling all night—I ultimately got to a place called Dowell's Rooms, where the meeting was held—the room was crammed; there might be 60 people there, or there might be more—Mr. Wain, I believe, took the chair—I knew no other officials—I was totally unacquained with the officials of the bank, except the secretary and Mr. Wain: the secretary, F. J. Baker, not A. F. Baker—it was very stormy indeed; you could not hear anybody speak—they made an attempt, a dozen at a time—I have been to a good many meetings, and I never went to one more noisy than that—I cannot tell you what they were speaking about—they were making a noise about the chairman's speech; they would not believe in it; they made all manner of remarks—there was a very great disturbance; I heard that—it was during the meeting that the noise was—it did not begin at once—there was a rush into the room; they broke into the room—they were to be excluded, I believe, but they got into the room by breaking the door open, and they all rushed in pell mell—They said the bank was a swindle and a roguery, and Dickens knows what they did not say—the Scotchmen would not have it at any pricecopies of the directors' report and balance-sheet were produced at that meeting; I had one sent me—I will not be positive whether that was, but I think so—I am not very much used to reports, but I thought it was a very good one—I saw in it that the net profit for the year amounted to £39,183 17s. 11d.—I can not tell you what became of the resolution! had gone down to second—I did second it—I was more towards the door, and the hall was packed full—I was asked to do a certain thing, and I did it according to the best of my ability—I can not say if anybody heard it—I am satisfied I seconded the resolution, but it was on the statement of the profits the bank had made, and people trying to wreck the company; I thought it was a very unjust thing—there was a tremendous row and bother—they closed the meeting the best way they could—I did not come back with Mr. Wain: I went alone and I came back alone; the only gentleman I knew by sight was Mr. Wain—I got expenses for going up there after a little trouble—a gentleman took me round the corner to a refreshment shop and paid me £3—he was a gentleman out of the bank, not at Edinburgh—I think it was some time after, the latter end of January or February; I think it was some time in January—I had applied several times for my expenses; about two or three times; the third time I got it, I think; I got £3—I could not say if it was a clerk in the London and Scottish Bank who paid me; I was totally unacquainted with the officials, but he took me round the corner and paid me three sovereigns—he gave me no reason for taking me round the corner rather than paying me over the counter; he said, "Come along with me

round the corner"—there was the usual drink shop round this particular corner; a respectable house—Exhibit 21 is one of the circulars that I alluded to (Read)—that circular is signed "J. L. Morgan"—the circular says it is from Lloyd Morgan and Co,—in the autumn of last year, 1898, I became acquainted with Mr. Joseph Davis—I think it was a little before then—under his advice I commenced an action in the High Court against Beall and Singleton to recover back my money—when I was paying my money to the company for my shares I never dreamt that Beall and Singleton had anything to do with the company; I never had the slightest idea—I knew nothing of them before, only by reading about them in the public papers; I never knew them by sight, only by name—that case came on for trial before the Lord Chief Justice—after one or two witnesses had been called on my behalf, the defendants, through their Counsel, submitted to judgment for the full amount—the full amount claimed, with costs, was given—I never got anything from my judgment, not a penny—the defendant, Mr. Beall, filed his petition within 24 hours—I knew them before the bank was in existence, only by reading of Beall and Singleton in the newspapers—I knew them by name before this; I knew them before the Scottish Bank was started—I knew them by name, reading in the newspapers about them—if I had known that either of them was connected with this enterprise I would not have parted with my money, not a farthing.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I never knew Mr. Lambert, and I never heard anything about him at all.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have been in business ever since I was a boy; I have had to work—I was a licensed victualler in the country and London—I mean that I had had some dealings in shares in various companies—I never had any dealings with Clayton and Bullock, but I knew they were gentlemen on the Stock Exchange—we look upon every man on the Stock Exchange as a gentleman—I am proud of saying that; I am not a member of the Stock Exchange, nor of the bar—a member of the Stock Exchange is always very cautious of allowing his name to be on a prospectus unless it is very sound—I take it for granted that Messrs. Clayton and Bullock would not allow their names to be on the prospectus unless the company was a sound one, because they were members of the Stock Exchange—I got that prospectus on or about March 9th, 1893—I cannot say within a few days—it was as nearly as possible about that day—my solicitor has the original prospectus of mine: perhaps the Treasury might have it now; I think the Treasury has all my papers—I have the original prospectus—I did not get any other prospectus at this time, only one—when I received it I made up my mind to make an application—I took a few days to consider it—this picture in the Daily Graphic did not induce me to apply for these shares, because I believe I had my shares before the Graphic was issued, but it might have an influence on my having a good opinion of the bank, but it could not have had an influence on my applying if I saw it afterwards—I cannot give you any opinion about whether the pictures of that bank were a fraudulent representation; it would not dp, perhaps, for me to answer yes or no on that point—I cannot say it was a misrepresentation—these things have a pleasing influence—this picture (Produced)in the Daily Graphic of March 11th

fairly represents the outside of the premises; the first customer it had was me, I think—I said in my evidence that I was induced by the statement that there were governors of the bank; I did not know any of them, only one person—my humble experience always taught me that the governors of a bank were directors—when I came to find the governors' names on the prospectus it conveyed to me that they were directors of the bank—when I saw the names of Lord Waterpark and Lord Elibank as directors of the bank I thought it was a sound concern—I saw Lord Waterpark; I did not know anything about him—I saw the name on the prospectus; I considered he was in office, and that he was on the prospectus as a trustee—this is my writing (His application)—I called at the bank in 1894, about going up to the meeting at Edinburgh—the chairman made a speech, but I could not hear with the noise—there was not much of a noise when I got to the meeting before the chairman began to make his speech—there was a very great amount of dissatisfaction among them—the balance-sheet and report had been circulated before the meeting—they were dissatisfied with the balance-sheet and the report; there is no doubt about it; and then the chairman spoke and tried to explain—I cannot tell you anything that the chairman said, if I could have heard it at the meeting I should remember some portion of it, but it was completely drowned because of the disturbance—the Scotchmen, I tell you, fairly broke into the room; they came up with the reserve forces—I was up at the commencement, but I did not second it before the chairman tried to speak—I had notice when to second it, and I did—I mean to say that the notice was given to me, and I got up and said I seconded it—I got up and seconded what I had never heard at all, because it was my duty to do so—I was asked to do it, and paid to do it; I was paid to go there to second the resolution, and I carried it out—I was not going to see the bank knocked into a cocked hat when it couid pay 125 per cent.—there might have been a discussion about the balance-sheet or about the report; how can I say if I did not hear it?—I got against the door because I thought that was the safest place—I could not distinguish very well what was being said—not being able to distinguish what was said, and not knowing what was done, I got the signal, and got up and seconded it—when I left that meeting I got dissatisfied; my mind was a little unhinged soon after I left Scotland—I could not find the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation; that upset me a little; I thought of finding a fine building—I was a stranger in Edinburgh, but I could not find the bank there—I went to look for it at the address, George Street, I think it was—I got that address from the prospectus, and the meeting was to be called at Dowell's Rooms—I was not aware that the bank had given notice, of change of address, and had given a proper statutory notice to Somerset House—between the time I came back and the time I brought my action nothing was done by me, except keeping my papers; I got everything in course of time.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I kept a very large place at Romfor—I am 70 years of age next birthday—I did not go over the bank premises in Lombard Street; I went inside—they were nicely fitted up—I thought it was a larger place; I thought it was in the banking place,

in Lombard Street, not up the yard—because I saw the word "governors" I expected to find it as large as the Bank of England; it led me astray—I never saw Singleton till I saw him in the Court; I should not I know him now—I saw him at the Queen's Bench at the trial; he was one of the two defendants—I believe it was necessary to include Singleton as a codefendant with Beall, and so I consented; my solicitor advised me to do it—it was in the latter part of 1898, I think—soon after I left Scotland I began to feel that I had been defrauded by the Scotch bank; I had great doubt in my mind; that doubt gradually grew—I did not communicate with the police.

Cross-examined by MR. A. E. GILL. In bringing my action and making my claim I made no claim against Mr. Wain—I think the suggestion about my going to Scotland came from Mr. Wain; I had nothing to do with making any arrangement for Scotland; I was asked to go down, and I said I could not afford to go; they said they would pay my expenses—I am speaking of a conversation with Mr. Wain; I think I saw him at the bank; I do not know any other gentleman—I said that I could not afford to go down—he did not say, "Well, I will see what can be done;" he said, "I will pay your expenses," and I went on the understanding that my expenses would be paid—I did not know Mr. Lambert; I was totally unacquainted with the gentlemen at the bank, bar Mr. Wain, and I had no idea the bank was going wrong, because they sent me so many letters—the few words I said at the meeting I believed were right, and I believed 1 was speaking the truth—I went down because I thought it was the best thing for the bank; they had sent me so many of these things that I could not believe but what the bank was right—I cannot say that Mr. Wain may not have had the same feeling that I had, I am not answerable for Mr. Wain; I should be very sorry—I made no complaint against Mr. Wain at the meeting in 1894—I did not say before the Alderman at the Mansion House, "I make no complaint against Mr. Wain "no more I do—when Mr. Wain asked me to go down he told me to second the resolution, nothing else that I know of—he always praised the company, always said it was earning good money, and was able to pay dividends, and all that sort of thing—if I said before the Magistrate that Mr. Wain said that the company was not prosperous it was wrong, because he had always said it was a prosperous bank—he has always praised the bank up to me in writing and in words—this is my signature to my deposition, immediately under the words: "Wain did not tell me if the company was prosperous or not; he simply asked me to go. HENRY NORRIS "—I do not see now that there is much in the meaning of those words; he did not tell me; Mr. Wain might not have told me, or he might have told me—he has always told me the company was prosperous—he did not tell me if the company was prosperous or not, but simply asked me to go—he might have asked me to go; they put questions to me, and asked me whether he said that—I am satisfied with the signing of that—at the meeting in Scotland I could not hear what Mr. Wain said—those that were close to him I daresay could; shorthand writers are generally underneath the chairman's voice—if a shorthand writer was near the chairman he could hear what was said, or most of it, I should think; they do not sit at the other end of the room where they cannot hear, not as a rule.

Re-examined by MR. AVORY. All I said was, "As a large shareholder perhaps one of the largest, I beg to second that"; those are the words—I holloaed that across the room—I discussed with Wain the affairs of this company on other occasions than the particular one when he asked me to go to Edinburgh, but I think only on one occasion; it was some time before the Edinburgh affair—he spoke very highly of the bank; I had it with the greatest assurance from Mr. Wain—it was shortly after Lord Waterpark and the noble Lords resigned, and I thought there was something wrong, and I went to Mr. Wain, and he assured me; I either had a letter from him or I attended on him personally, but he assured me faithfully that the bank was sound, and was doing good business, that my I money was invested safely, and I need not worry at all—it was in consequence of hearing of Lord Waterpark's resignation that I went to see Wain, or I had a letter from him; I will not be positive which, but I had an assurance from Mr. Wain.

Friday November 3rd.

THOMAS SALTER . I am a clerk in the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice, and produce the file of proceedings in an action between Henry Norris, plaintiff, and Edward Beall and Charles Singleton, defendants—the writ is dated January 3rd, 1899—judgment was entered for the plaintiff for £401 and interest and costs, making £493 in all—on March 22nd I got the intermediate pleadings, the claim, defence, and reply.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The solicitor on the record of those proceedings is Mr. Joseph Davis, 21, Liverpool Street, solicitor for the plaintiff—I have not got the affidavit of documents, I have only got the pleadings—the affidavit of documents was made by Norris in the action—it is a very long affidavit sworn on March 3rd, 1899.

EDWARD FOOTVOW GOULD . I live at 20, Sturdie Road, Peckham, and am a traveller in the printing business—in 1892 and 1895 I was travelling for a firm named Whale, Smith and Co., printers—they are now out of business—I did not know a Mr. Baker until I called in 1892, I think, at 5, Copthall Avenue—that is Singleton—the office had the name of the London and Scottish Bank—I saw on the door the name of this company going, and I left my card—I knew Mr. Beall some years before that—I went to 5, Copthall Avenue, about an order for some paper and envelopes, in consequence of a letter we received, signed by Mr. Baker, with a printed heading of the London and Scottish Bank—I was asked to give an estimate for some envelopes, I think, and a sketch for the heading of papers—this is the kind of thing we were asked to do, and we printed a quantity of paper with that heading on it—Mr. Baker, as I knew Mr. Baker, gave us the materials to do it—that supply of paper was about the end of December, 1892—I went to the company's office at 35, Lombard Street, in 1892, at the time they were taking the premises—when they moved from one to the other I went there—I saw Mr. Baker there then—I saw Mr. Beall there on several occasions—I mean Singleton when I speak of Baker—in consequence of interviews with Beall and Baker we printed a number of prospectuses, 225,000, I think, altogether—that was the final form of the prospectus—for about three months we were submitting proofs—it is usual to order 25 proofs, or more than that I

have had ordered—we printed some 225,000 of these prospectuses(Exhibit 5)—we also received orders to print an extract from a newspaper, and we printed the quarto extract from a newspaper enclosed in the prospectus; it was an extract from the Financial Gazette—this is the form—we printed a similar number of these quarto extracts accompanying the prospectus—we received the manuscript to print the prospectus from Mr. Baker, and also the material to print the quarto extract—I took all the orders from Mr. Baker—I do not know who corrected the proofs—I think these proof corrections are in Mr. Beall's writing—this is one of the corrected proofs that came back to us to print from; we had so many.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have known Mr. Beall about 25 years; during that time we have done a good deal of printing work for him—in the ordinary course of our business we have always been paid by him—I did not know Mr. Beall had anything to do with this bank when I went there—I thought there was some business to be got, and I went with the idea of getting the order—then I went and saw Mr. Singleton or Baker, and got the business to do—we did not do any printing of prospectuses as early as June, 1892.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. After we had begun and carried out some of these circulars with Clayton and Bullock on them, we got instructions to withdraw those names from the prospectuses—I had the order, but I was told so when I called in the office of the bank, and I went back at once and stopped it—it had to be taken out—from that time no prospectuses contained the names of Clayton and Bullock.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I took all the orders from Baker or Siagleton; I was paid by his cheques—I never saw Mr. Wain in connection with the matter at any time.

Cross-examined by MR. TURRELL. That also applies to Mr. Lambert; I never saw Mr. Lambert.

Re-examined. We first got the order to print; prospectuses about November or December, 1892; it was done towards the end of the year, as far as I can remember; it is a long time ago.

WILLIAM THORNTON . I am manager of the Debenture and Finance Company, at 80, Coleman Street, and in 1893 was secretary of the London Share and Debenture Company, Limited, Union Court, Old Broad Street—a Mr. Le Ruey was managing director of that company; he died some three years ago—part of the object of that company was to issue prospectuses of new companies about to be floated—for that purpose the London Share and Debenture Company kept lists of names of possible or even probable investors in London as well as the country—we applied to the companies for those lists—we got them firsthand from the companies, but the companies have to send them in to Somerset House, and we can also get them there—on getting an order to post and circulate these prospectuses it is the practice to send intimations to the person who gives the order as to the number of prospectuses sent out from day to day—I personally did not take the orders for the publication of these prospectuses of the London and Scottish Bank—this (No. 199) is a bundle of intimation notices addressed to "E. Beall, London and Scottish Banking Corporation, 35, Lombard Street, EC," dated March 6th and 8th—the top one of those four shows that the

total posted up to March 8th was 123,936—I do not know who paid our company for that work in March, 1893—I cannot say whether in June, 1893, our company undertook some further work of sending out prospectuses—this document (No. 200) is an intimation dated June 6th, 1893—in October and November, 1893, our company distributed 20,000 further prospectuses for the London and Scottish Bank, of which the documents in the bundle, No. 201, are the intimations—in March, 1894, our company sent out some further prospectuses; document 202 is the intimation notice, addressed to Messrs. The Atlas Contracting Syndicate, Limited, 31, Lombard Street, E.C., re the 150,000 prospectuses of the London Refuse Steam Generator Company, Limited; our company published those prospectuses to that number—I produce a letter (No. 203) to Mr. Le Ruey from Mr. Beall, dated March 4th, 1893, relating to the London and Scottish prospectuses: "My dear Sir,—I have your letter of yesterday, and appreciate your kindness. You shall have a further cheque on Monday. I am writing this away from my office, where the terms are, but I have no doubt they are such as we agreed to, and, as you desire, I formally confirm them. Do you not think it would be better to cut one's advertising expenses down, and send out more prospectuses? What do you say to sending out, say, another 100,000 or 50,000? and by what time could this be done? We do not propose closing the list until next Saturday for the town, and Monday for the country"—the next letter (204) is a letter from Mr. Le Ruey, dated March 6th, 1893: "My dear Sir,—I have just returned to town, and found yours of the 4th awaiting me. At the same time your note of today, with cheque for £50, has come to hand, for which thanks. Please hurry up the printers, as they are delivering prospectuses very slowly, only 23,000 up to now. You might with advantage send out 50,000 more. If we receive instructions by 4 o'clock today, we could address them tomorrow. In that case you could reduce your advertisements to two in each of the country papers, with two notices as to close of list, about 2 in., to follow"—205 is a letter from Mr. Beall to Mr. Le Ruey, dated March 6th, 1893: "My dear Sir,—Thanks for yours. We are hurrying on the printers. Will you please have put in hand a further 50,000? The printers have instructions, and will supply the total, 150,000, by tomorrow"—there is a letter in answer (No. 206) from Mr. Le Ruey to Mr. Beall, dated March 6th, 1893: "My dear Sir,—I think that the notices referred to in my letter of this morning need not contain any further matter than that which I have left standing in the enclosed sheet"—then comes a letter of the same date from myself to Messrs. Beall and Co. (No. 207): "We beg to enclose statement of account re issue of 50,000 additional prospectuses "—208 is another letter from myself to Mr. Beall, dated March 7th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—We regret that we shall be unable to post beyond 100,000 prospectuses until you let us have a cheque for £175, in accordance with your interview with our representative this afternoon"—then there is a letter (209) from Mr. Beall to Mr. Le Ruey on March 8th, 1893: "My dear Sir,—I am off to Paris by the Club train to bring back applications and money on Monday. Will you please send letters to Mr. Baker, who will send you instructions and comply with your request as regards cheques?"—this is a letter (210) from Mr. Le Ruey

to Mr. Beall, dated March 8th, 1893: "My dear Sir,—I have yours of today, enclosing three cheques for £50, each dated respectively 8th, 9th and 10th inst.; £25 additional should have been sent. Please make it up. I am very sorry that I cannot see my way to post against the last two cheques, as the drawer is not a man I consider sufficiently strong financially. I shall give instructions for 14,000 to be posted against the first cheque at 1 p.m., and if this prove all right a similar number will be posted against the second cheque tomorrow, and a similar number against the third on Friday. These delays will reduce the efficiency of the prospectuses, and I should advise your making every effort to let our company have cash before these dates"—there is another letter enclosed in that one: "My dear Sir,—I have yours of today, enclosing further cheque for £25, and I have given instructions for 10,000 additional to be posted at 3 p.m. Please have a representative then present at Howlett's, 71 St. Mary Axe, E.C. I am doing the best I can for you. I don't think much could be gained by increasing the issue. All the good country names, except about 4,000, have been used. The printers have not yet completed the delivery of 150,000, but they will probably do so this afternoon. I think it would be better to make a second issue in a few weeks, should you proceed to allotment, than to increase the present issue at this late hour"—this letter (211) is from Mr. Le Ruey to Mr. F.J.Baker, dated April 28th, 1893: "Dear Sir,—We have yours of the 18th inst. respecting the commission due to us on shares in your corporation. You sign as assistant-secretary. Are we to understand from this that we are to charge your corporation for the amount? We received previous cheques from Mr. F. A. Baker. Inasmuch as there is a commission on founders' shares as well as ordinary, Mr. Beall has agreed that we should make the amount of the commission £310. Please confirm this, and oblige. Yours faithfully, E. LE RUBY "—I cannot tell you if it was part of the arrangement with the company that we should get a commission in shares; Mr. Le Ruey managed that—it would seem so from the letter—that was a usual thing with our company—No. 202 is a receipt from myself for £146 13s. 4d., for the postage of 50,000 prospectuses—that is to the secretary of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Cor poration, Limited—then 213 encloses an account from our company to the London and Scottish Corporation, charging on May 23rd, 1893, a sum for the issue of 50,000 debenture prospectuses, and also on May 29th, 1893, for the issue of 6,000 foreign prospectuses, and then giving credit for certain cheques, and showing a balance of £10 13s. 10d. due—then 214 is the receipt for the £10 13s. 10d.—then there is another letter and an account in June, 1893, charging further sums for the issue of prospectuses—then 216 is a letter from myself to the London and Scottish Bank: "I am directed by Mr. Le Ruey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and to inform you that he will be glad if you will arrange for Mr. Beall to call and see him"—on October 25th (No. 217) there is this: "Reissue of 20,000 prospectuses. We are in receipt of your letter of even date, and will put your order in hand upon the terms contained in ours of the 19th inst; modified by ours of 23rd inst. Please note that investors in home railways are contained in Class 6, and not 14. We presume it is the former that you require. Upon this point, and also as to

the selection of districts, our representative will call upon you to-morrow morning"—our lists grouped investors under different heads—there are 20 classes altogether—Class No. 1 would be founders' shares, I think—that is a special class by itself—I can not tell you what No. 20 would be; it might be investors in breweries—we have got banks among them—No. 220 is a cheque paid to our company for work—I do not know what it is for—it is payable to our company, and has been cashed by us—it is for £510, and drawn by T. Harrison Lambert and E. E. Greville, dated March 14th, 1894.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Mr. Le Ruey had been in the City in business for many years—as this was his business, I suppose he knew a good deal about companies—he was going to place some shares, both founders' and ordinary, and get a commission—that commission was for placing shares, not an additional payment for sending out these prospectuses—I should not think our chairman would attempt to place shares in a company in which he did not believe at the time—whatever was due was paid—the commission that would have to be paid was paid in cash, not in shares—in all there was a commission of £310; that was paid, and also all the account, whatever it was, in respect of the distribution of prospectuses, was also paid—we should get these prospectuses from the printer, and then we should send them out—we distributed practically the bulk from March 6th to March 8th—I do not remember who the printer was who sent them to us—our firm has known Mr. Beall many years—in the ordinary course of business we have done, one way and another, a good deal of business with him, and have always been paid—so far as I was concerned, or our company, there was no distinction to be drawn in what was done in respect to this company and any other company for which we were acting—I should think that it was quite usual, especially about this time, 1892 and 1893, to issue founders' shares with a view to provide the preliminary expenses for the formation of a company—when a man is going to form a company and to issue it to the public the expense is very considerable if he wants to advertise properly—in the ordinary course of issuing a company and inviting a large amount of capital there would be nothing unusual in £6,000 or £8,000 being spent in preliminary expenses—one of the first things to be done would be to provide the money to pay for the preliminary printing and advertising of the prospectuses, and then subsequently for the registration of the company when sufficient money is in hand—you have first to get sufficient money in hand, and when you have got sufficient money in hand for advertising and printing, the usual thing is to register the company—it is quite a usual thing for clerks, mere nominees, to sign as signatories, one for each share, so as to make the seven signatories necessary for registration.

Re-examined. We pursued our ordinary course in declining to send out the prospectuses until we were paid—I cannot tell whether Mr. Le Ruey placed any shares in this company; I had nothing to do with the matter.

GEORGE HENRY WATSON . I am ledger clerk at the Metropolitan Bank of England and Wales, 60, Gracechurch Street—that bank was formerly the Metropolitan, Birmingham, and South Wales Bank, and before that

again it was the Metropolitan and Birmingham Bank—there was a customer in the Metropolitan and Birmingham Bank named J. B. Morrison, whose name with us was J. B. Morrison and Company—I produce a certified extract from the bank ledger of the account of that firm from April, 1892, to December, 1892—I find a number of payments to a payee named Meeking—I also produce a certified copy from the bank ledger of the account of E. Beall and Co., commencing January 1st, 1892, and concluding August 15th, 1892—in that account also I find various payments to Mr. Meeking, as in J. B. Morrison's account—I hare here the signature book of the bank (Produced); it shows that J. B. Morrison was introduced by F. Mason.

ALBERT EDWARD LARDNER . I am a clerk in the London, City, and Midland Bank, 52, Cornhill—I produce the signature book of the London and Midland Bank for July, 1892, with the signature of "Arthur Francis Baker, 5, Copthall Avenue, accountant"—in the first column there are the Christian name and surname in full, and then in the next column there is the ordinary signature—that person kept the accounts at our bank—I produce document 162, a certified extract from the accounts ranging from July, 1892, to April, 1893—from about July, 1892, the first and J several subsequent items are payments to Meeking—on October 28th, 1892, I find a payment to Beall of £4 11s. 6d., and under the date of November 2nd, 1892, a payment to Singleton of £10, which cheque was paid—in March, 1893, I find several payments of fairly large sums to the Share and Debenture Company—I also find on March 8th and 9th cheques to E. B. for £50, and under the dates of March 6th, llth, and other dates, payments to persons called Wheeles and Wholes and Whales—I also produce a certified extract from the bank ledger of the account of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, with our bank, ranging from March 22nd, 1892, to December 31st, 1894—I also produce what is called the order-book of our bank—on page 277 I find that our bank was appointed the bank of the Scottish Corporation by a resolution—any orders we may receive to open accounts for public companies or orders from customers are generally put in the order-book—the resolution is signed by four directors, W. J. Carruthers Wain, Octavius Stokes, Eden E. Greville, and Thomas Harrison Lambert, dated March 16th, 1893—I also produce a certified extract of the account of Messrs. Beall and Co. (Exhibit 303) with our bank, ranging from November, 1892, to January, 1895—on October 5th, 1894, there is a cheque drawn to Singleton for £5, and at the very commencement of the account there are a couple of cheques to Meeking—those cheques were cashed by our bank by the bank-notes which are also shown in the second column of this paper—document 325 is a certified extract from the cashier's counter-book; and supposing a customer paid in bank-notes to his account, those notes would be numbered in the cashier's counter book—this extract shows that on August 22nd, 1893, £100 was paid in £10 notes to the credit of the account of Messrs. Beall and Co.—the number of those notes are 51,861 to 61,870, and are the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, of a cheque for £250 which is mentioned in the earlier Exhibit 324, drawn oh August 21st—document 326 shows that on May 9th three £10 notes were paid into the same account of Mr. Beall—the numbers of

those are 16,434, 16,435, and 16,438—those were the proceeds, or part of the proceeds, of a cheque for £250 cashed by our bank for the London and Scottish Bank on May 5th, 1894—I also find that on June 4th, 1894, a cheque for £250 was cashed by our bank for the London and Scottish Bank into bank notes—the numbers of the notes into which it was cashed are 89,601 and 89,602—those were £100 notes, and 93,160, a £50 note.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. No cheques on the Scottish bank's account would be authorised by me unless signed by two directors, and countersigned by the secretary or the assistant-secretary—for the purpose of my knowing the signatures of the directors and so forth, the signatures in the book are recorded there next the names—the names I have here as persons entitled to sign are W. J. Carruthers Wain, Octavius Stokes, E. E Greville, Thomas Harrison Lambert, directors; and F. J. Baker, secretary—that makes it clear that Beall had no right to sign or have anything to do with that account—I have brought two letters addressed to me, of March 21st and March 23rd, 1893—there are two apparently of March 21st; the first is: "Herewith I send you the authority of Mr. A. F. Baker, and shall be glad if you will transfer at his request, under the direction of our directors, the sum of £3,477 10s. from his account. Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER."—that was to be transferred from A. F. Baker's account to the account of the London and Scottish Bank—on March 23rd we got a letter from the London and Scottish Bank: "To the Manager of the London and Midland Bank, Limited, March 23rd. Dear Sir, We are aware of the fact that Mr. A. F. Baker has paid into his account at your bank, for the purpose of clearing, cheques drawn to the order of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, limited, and we beg to say that this had our sanction, inasmuch as at the time this was done our corporation had no clearing bank, and Mr. Baker did so merely to facilitate the encashing of the moneys on behalf of the corporation. We are, yours very faithfully, OCTAVIUS STOKES, ED. E. GREVILLE "—until March 21st, when there was the payment of £3,477, the London and Scottish Bank had no account with us at all—on March 16th they had signed and given us the minute showing what had to be done for cheques to be passed, but the money had not been paid to their credit—we had had an account with A. F. Baker for some time—we never paid in the bank's cheque to Mr. Baker's account.

THOMAS GORDON BURT . I am a clerk at the London, City, and Midland Bank, Paddington—in 1893 Mrs. Edith Beall had an account there—this is a print of the certified extract which I produced at the Mansion House of Mrs. Beall's account—it is a certified account from the cashier's counter-book at that bank—referring to Mrs. Beall's account, I find that on May 7th, 1894, three £5 notes, numbered 64,203, 60,203, and 60,205, were paid into that account—on April 20th, 1898, a £10 note, 38,765, was paid into that account—on the 31st a note, No. 38,772; on the 24th a note. No. 38,771; and on May 2nd a note, No. 38,769; four £10 notes—on May 4th I find the two notes, 17,851 and 17,852, were paid into the account—those were part of the proceeds of a cheque dated May 3rd, or document 324—then, on May 6th, I find two notes, 17,854 and 17,855 were paid into that account—they are another part of the proceeds of

the same cheque; then, on May 9th. I find that 17,861 was paid into that account, which is also a part of the same cheque—I find that on July 19tb three £5 notes, Nos. 11,016, 11,017, and 11,018, were paid in—on July 19th two notes, 25,014 and 25,015, were also paid in, part of the proceeds of the cheque of July 7th, 1893—in May, 1894, three notes, Nos. 64,202, 64,203, and 64,205, were paid into that same account—they are part of the proceeds of the last cheque on document 324, dated May 6th, 1894.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. These particular items that I have taken out, and of which I have given particulars, are certain articular items which are taken out of the general account.

ORMSBY TOPHAM HILL . I am a clerk in the Bank of England—I produce an £80 note, No. 89,602, bearing an endorsement with an india rubber stamp, "Beall and Co., Throgmorton House"—I was examined at the Mansion House on July 27th of this year, and said then that a few weeks before I was examined I had two other notes in my possession, Nos. 89,601 and 93,160, and, owing to an unfortunate rule of the Bank, those notes were burnt, although at the time they were destroyed I had had inquiries made in reference to them—all notes are destroyed five years after they are paid in—before they were destroyed, I believe, Sergeant Willis, of the City Police, saw them.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I cannot tell you what was given in exchange for this £100 note—this was paid into the Bank on June 16th, 1894—the five years had expired by that time, but notice had been given to the Bank that they were required in this case; if notice had been given as to the others they would have been preserved.

JOHN WILLIS (City Detective). I am a detective constable in the City Police—a few weeks before July 27th I went to the Bank of England, and saw there two bank-notes, No. 89,601 for £100 and 93,160 for £50—they each bore a rubber stamp impression, at the back, of Beall and Co., 31, Throgmorton Avenue—it was a similar stamp to the stamp on 89,602.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. This stamp is Beall and Co., Throgmorton House, Copthall Avenue, E.C.—it was my mistake; I have not seen it for two or three months.

LEONARD HARRV BARKER . I am a clerk, living at 20, Lawrence Lane, Cheapside—in 1889 1 became acquainted with Beall—I was in no employment then—Mr. Beall got me a situation as a clerk in a company called the AngloContinental and Trust Corporation—my duties there were confined to things like circulais and matters of that kind—I remained there about a year—in the summer of 1892 I was ill, and was staying at Southsea—while there I received a letter from Beall's office, enclosing this memorandum of association—I signed it, and returned it to Mr. Beall; the letter asked me to do so—according to the document I was supposed to have signed it in the presence of Mr. Mason, but I signed it in bed when I was ill; Mr. Mason was not there—I have seen him—then I got better, and came back to London—I do not remember signing this agreement of August 19th, 1892—it is in my hand writing—I remember signing some documents, but I cannot remember any particular document—I think all the documents I signed were all signed when I was at Southsea, but J cannot be sure—I was there about a

month—I did not know anything about this Scottish bank myself, or about the company—I understood I was signing the signatories—I think early in 1693 I went to Beall's office to try and get a berth in the bank, which I had been promised, if possible—I had a letter asking me to come up to the bank from Mr. Beall's office, and I saw Mr. Singleton—I was employed at the bank principally addressing circulars, and getting lists of shareholders—Mr. Beall sometimes told me to get the lists of shareholders in other companies, and Mr. Colee at other times—Mr. Colee was the chief cashier—when I got those lists from various companies I had to pay for them—in most cases Mr. Colee gave me the money; on some occasions Mr. Beall gave it to me—I gave the lists into the bank generally—I have often taken them downstairs to the typewriters—I do not remember who told me to take them to the typewriters—I do not know what was then done with the lists—I addressed envelopes at different times from the lists of shareholders—when I was first employed after my illness in 1893, the bank premises were at 35, Lombard Street—I attended some meetings of my cosignatories, and was present when the champagne and cigars were handed round, I think—I think I was paid about 30s. extra for attending—it was handed to me in an envelope—I do not remember the minute: "That there is a meeting of shareholders of the London and Scottish Banking Corporation, Limited, held at the offices of the corporation on Tuesday, August 23rd, 1893; present, L. Barker in the chair, R. Clark, C. E. Williams, E. J. Drew, A. Bradley"—I have no distinct recollection of it—I know I attended some meetings—I do not remember at this or any other meeting adopting an agreement of March 10th, 1892, made with A. J. Baker, referred to in the prospectus and memorandum of association of the corporation—I do not remember being present at any meeting when it was stated that the registered capital of the company was £100,000, and it was resolved that the capital should be increased to £1,000,000—I remember being at a meeting when the proof prospectus was produced—I think I proposed that the proof prospectus should be approved—I do not remember it being approved—I remember applications for shares in this bank coming in—I cannot remember that they were in considerable numbers—I remember attending a meeting when it was resolved that the bank should go to allotment; not very clearly, though—I cannot remember applications for shares coming in—I was there before the time when the list was opened—I was there, I think, from about January, 1893—I had been paid, in the earlier part of the year, 30s. a week—Mr. Singleton, I think; sometimes Mr. Pappadaki used to pay me—I remember my weekly salary being raised from 30s. to £2—I do not remember how it came about; I remember that one week I had £2 instead of 30s.—I did the same duties, but think I was called assistant cashier—my chief was Mr. Baker about ordinary matters, and then Mr. Beall I used to go to when I had to—Mr. Colee was the chief cashier—after I was appointed assistant cashier I continued to address envelopes and circulars, but, as assistant cashier, I got lists of shareholders principally—I had not had the slightest experience in the way of banking business before—Mr. Pappadaki was inspector of gencies in the bank; he had an office in Fenchurch Street—I think he

sold cigarettes and Turkish delight, but I did not know anything about his offices—I never bought cigarettes or Turkish delight from him, to my knowledge, I only heard that he had something to do with them—I did not see much more of Singleton at that time—I knew him as Singleton—I had known him before that—when letters came to the bank in the morning I think they were taken into the board room—Mr. Beall came into the board room from time to time—I do not know exactly who opened them; Mr. Beall may have opened them, and Mr. Baker may have opened them—the answers were written by lady typewriters—I do not know who dictated the answers to the typewriters—I have heard Mr. Beall dictating to typewriters when I have been in the boardroom, but I do not know at all what he would be dictating, I never paid any attention to it—I was not overworked—when I got there in the morning, about 10 o'clock, perhaps, I addressed some circular, and after that time I went out, or did anything that was asked me, any ordinary work that was asked me to do; and after that Mine I went out, getting lists of shareholders—I did what I was told; I cannot remember every little thing—there was not very much for me and Mr. Colee to do—there was the ordinary kind of banking business going on, for which a cashier would be required.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The offices were nicely fitted sp as a proper banking establishment—I went to the Anglo-Continental, and was there a year—from that time I had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Beall—after I left the Anglo Continental I went to a Mr. Wright's, a relative of mine unfortunate'y—I was with him for about two years, I think—then I went to Southsea—Mr. Mason was a gentleman whom I knew, and who knew my signature, I should think—when I was asked to give evidence about this case, it wan about June, 1899—from the time that I ceased to have any connection with this bank at all I never troubled myself about the bank's affairs—I left when everybody else left, when it came to grief—I remained there as long as I could—during the whole time I was there there was nothing in the slightest degree to excite my suspicion that this was not a bona fide business carried on in the proper way; I saw nothing to make me think there was anything wrong—I see that I signed the agreement on August 19th 1892—I do not know if I could have signed that without seeing it; I may have known it was an agreement, I cannot say—I see that certainly, but I do not remember signing it—I do not suggest that it was concealed from me that it was an agreement; I simply say my memory is defective on the point—I thought the agreement was a mere form gone through, and that I had to sign any documents I was asked to—I knew that I was acting as a signatory, and, being a signatory, I was also a first director until the others came on the scene, but I understood that they took the responsibility for what we did as signatories; in fact, I know that the directors did take that responsibility on March 17th, when they first came—I thought there was a difference between a signatory and a director—I did not know that I was a director for the time being; I thought I was a signatory—what I mean is that I thought there was a difference between the first directors and the other directors—I do not know that the application forms that came in according

to the minute on March 6th were private applications before the issue of the prospectus—I daresay I was present at the meeting on March 14th—when Mr. Colee was not in it was my business to attend at the counter and cash cheques when they were presented—I paid cheques presented over the counter, and made entries, in the ordinary way, of what I did pay or what I usually received in the books—I put them on a slip, and left Mr. Colee to enter them up, because he was responsible—Mr. Colee kept the petty cash; on some occasions I did—it would not be any part of my duty to write letters; I only attended to the cashier's work—I know, as a matter of fact, that a very large number of letters were written on the business of the bank—I have heard that Mr. Pappadaki had been employed at the Union Discount Company for some years—I think it was the Union Discount Company; I will not be sure—I said at the Mansion House, "I knew Mr. Pappadaki had been at the Union Discount Company for some years; he had a room to himself there, so I heard "; I meant a room to himself in this Scottish bank—I daresay Mr. Pappadaki had a great deal to do with the business of the bank when he was there—I knew very little about him—I have no recollection of agenda papers being prepared—Mr. Colee drew up a list of the weekly balances—I do not think the occasion presented itself for me to do it; it was certainly done—the founders' share which I signed for I got and sold to Mr. Colee, my head cashier; some little time after I was in the bank; he gave me, I think, £5 for it.

Cross-examined by MR. TURRELL. I acted as signatory, I understand, down to March 17th—before March 17th I do not think I knew anything of Mr. Lambert—after March 17th I knew Mr. Lambert as a director of the bank—the directors of the bank attended the board meetings—I had nothing to do with the board meetings, and did not know at all what took place there—Mr. Lambert had nothing to do with superintending the business done by the bank—he was not brought into direct contact with me, or with any other official of the bank, to my knowledge—Mr. Lambert suggested that all of us should be guaranteed, and, in consequence of that, we were all guaranteed by a Guarantee Society—this bank appeared to be conduciing its business as a bank, carrying on a straighforward business, as far as I know; and my view of my own position was that I was assistant cashier—I acted as such from March 17th until the bank was wound up, down to December, 1894, until the end.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. I never saw Mr. Wain before March 17th, to my knowledge—he came there after March 17th as a director and after my appointment by the signatories—he was never brought into personal contact with me over my work, to my recollection—I think I can safely say that I never had a conversation with him at all with reference to my work—he attended the board meetings in the same way as Mr. Stokes or Mr. Greville—I do not think Singleton came there at all after the appointment of the directors.

Re-examined. I did not know anything at that time of the way in which a bank ought to carry on its business—it appeared to be carrying on business in a straightforward way, as far as I knew, but as to the way business is done over the counter, things that an ordinary customer of a bank would know, I should know all that—Mr. Pappadaki's room was

facing the opposite court to Plough Court; the further corner, opposite the board-room, in the same offices in the bank premises—I copied this document (Exhibit No.277)—I do not know that this wasexhibited—I did see it exhibited on the premises—I do not sufficiently remember whether this is a copy of the statement which was exhibited on the premises—I must have copied it from something or other—I suppose it was given me to copy—I had no recollection about it—I only know what I see written here, that is all—I should say that it was the statement; I do not know how to describe it; I do not know what to describe it as—I should say it was a statement of the capital—it mentions other securities, £66,500; I cannot tell the Jury what the other securities were; in fact, I did not know sufficient of the affairs of the bank to write that myself; I must have copied it from somewhere—I certainly did not know sufficient about the bank to write the thing—I do not know of what nature the statement was that I saw exhibited in the bank premises, I simply knew that it was put on the wall; I took no notice of it.

By the COURT. I think there was a reference to an Act of Parliament, followed by some figures on the top of it—what the figures were I do not know; there were other banks in Plough Court.

DEMETRIUS PAPPADAKI . I carry on business at 140, Fenchurch Street, and sell cigarettes and sweetstuff—prior to 1892 I knew Mr. Singleton and Mr. Beall—I first heard of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation soon after the start, I think—I asked Singleton if there was any room in the bank for me; if there was any position—he said that he would ask the directors, and see if there was room for me, and a few days afterwards he told me that there would be probably a place for me, a position in the bank as a bill discounter, a bill clerk discounting bills—they told me that they required an inspector of agencies—they put the matter before the directors, and Mr. Stokes recommended me also to the directors that I was qualified for that position, and they engaged me there at £200 a year, and he introduced me to the directors generally, Mr. Wain and Mr. Lambert and the others, and I was then appointed inspector of agencies, and bill clerk also—I cannot exactly remember the date; it is so many years ago now; I believe it was entered in the minute-book when they engaged me—it was in March, 1893—the minute of March 17th, 1893, is "Proposed by R. Clark and seconded by W. Osborn, that Mr. F. J. Baker is hereby appointed assistant secretary at a remuneration to be hereafter agreed upon"—I was not present at that meeting; I knew Singleton at that time by the name of Singleton, but he had a different name in the bank; Baker they used to call him—I did not know him by any other name—I never heard of Jacob B. Morrison and Co. till this case came on—I never had a cheque from Jacob B. Morrison and Co.—in the year 1892 I did not have cheques from Jacob B. Morrison and Co.—I was appointed inspector of agencies soon after I entered the bank, and I went and saw several people in different parts of Scotland, and told them that we had started business, and that we were open to receive proposals from them to do business with them—I used to report everything I did, to the directors—the copy-book shows the business done with or by the agents—all the letters written to the agents used to be copied in the copy-book—beyond the copy letter-book

I used to have a small book to show the different names we had; the people that I had called upon—I did not keep any books at all; the books were kept by the clerks—the copy letter-book showed any business done with the agents; nothing beyond that, I think—I must tell you that I had rather uphill work while I was in Scotland; all the Australian banks had smashed—theagents proposed several businesses to the directors; the directors had to do direct with them; of course I had nothing to do with them—it was my special department; I had to report everything to the directors—there was some bill business done—there were some propositions for business—the agents proposed business to the directors; I do not think it was accepted—no business was, in fact, done with the agents as far as I remember—I went to Scotland once to see agents—I got instructions as to what I was to do from the directors, and sometimes Mr. Beall, who was the financial manager there—towards the end of 1894 I remember the name of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—I had something to do with that—I do not quite recollect who spoke to me about it first; either it was Mr. Beall or Mr. Cooper; I think it was Mr. Beall, as far as I remember—it was in 1894, about a month or so before the company was registered—he told me that I should become a director, as he was going to bring out a refuse destructor—I had studied the subject—this is my signature to the memorandum of association of that company—I was going to have one share when I signed it, but at that time I did not have anything at all—Mr. Cooper had given me £2 or £3 when T attended the meeting, but I did not have anything at the time I signed it—I had my fees, £2 or £3, for attending the meeting as a director, as far as I remember—I do not think I had anything before that—I do not remember having a guinea—I made a mistake at the Mansion House; I told Mr. Bodkin at the time—I do not quite recollect what I said at the Mansion House—I apologised at the time—I became a director afterwards of the Atlas Contract Syndicate—the offices were at No. 39, Lombard Street—it was not at the same place as the London and Scottish Bank; it was 31, Lombard Street—I believe Singleton used to be in the same offices—I did not know his business at all—I did not know his name; I always addressed him as Singleton—I saw no name there at all—there were three rooms, or two rooms, I think—I do not remember whether the name of the London and North British Discount Company was up there—I know it was the Atlas—there were three doors, or two doors—the name of the London and North British Discount Company was not on the same door as the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—I do not recollect whether it was on the outside door—the business of the London Contracting Syndicate was to bring out this destructor; the letters patent—we did bring it out—I understood the object of the syndicate was to find the money in order to bring out the other thing—there were never more than seven shares taken in the Atlas Syndicate—there was the signatories' £7: that was all the money the Atlas Contract Syndicate ever had, as far as I remember—this company was called the London Refuse Company—I have seen the installation of the "London Refuse Steam Generator and E'ectrical Power Corporation, Limited "at Westminster, and several other places—I have seen the very furnace itself; the

destructor itself, and a splendid thing it was too—the company was brought out, and it did not take—it was issued to the public—the London and Scottish Bank found the money for paying for the advertisements—they were going to get the money back—the arrangetnent was, allotting to them so many shares in the Refuse Company, as compensation for the money that they advanced—I cannot tell you the exact amount spent in advertising; it was a very large sum, I know—I believe there were some subscriptions which were sent back again—I cannot recollect now, so many years back—it never went to allotment; it did not take—I have seen a Mr. John Sheridan come into the bank, but I did not know him personally—he had the patent of the Atlas Syndicate—he was the person who proposed the patent—I am not certain of the man, there were two Sheridans—he had the patent of Levett's atent Destructor—that is the same destructor as I have been talking about—he proposd to sell it—I believe, as far as I remember, he was going to sell it to the company—I had two or three pounds for my attendances as a director—Mr. Cooper, the secretary of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate, paid those; they had a banking account at the London and Scottish.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have carried on business at the same offices in Fenchurch Street over 20 years—I speak English, and a good many other languages—I never kept a shop in my life; I am much above that—as a general merchant I used to do a large business in the Levant—I came into the bank about March, 1893, I think; before that I knew Mr. Stokes, one of the directors—he was a great friend of my friends in the Levant; in Roumania—he was the General British Consul in Roumania, and he knew a great many of the people with whom I was connected over there—he knew that I had been employed in a discount company before in a large way—I was 12 years in the General Credit and Discount Company, 7, Lothbury—we used to turn over about a million a day—my business there was connectied with bills, and the sorb of work that would come to a bank, except paying money over the counter—I was also introduced by Mr. Stokes to the other directors; he told the other directors that he had known me as a gentleman who had been employed at this General Credit and Discount Company for a number of years, and recommended them to employ me—there was some little discussion, and they were going; to consider it, and they did employ me—I had a small room at the bank in which I sat—I acted chiefly as discount clerk, bill clerk, and, besides that, I was appointed inspector of agencies—my relatives are bankers in Constantinople; my father and uncle and I have been brought up there—I knew Mr. Brandon as the solicitor to the company—the proposal that I should visit Scotland was confirmed—the general object of my visit was to see the various people whose names were upon the prospectus as the agents in Scotland—I was to go round and pay a visit to them, tell them that the bank was starting business then, and see whether I could get them to do any business with it—I went to see what business I could get from them—the people I was to go to where the people who had already agreed, according to the prospectus, tobe the agents—I went to them as the agents of the bank to see them, spoke to them, and proposed business with them; and, if they had any

business to propose, they were to write to the directors—I told them that I understood that they were the agcents of the bank—the bank had an office at this time in Edinburgh—I did not go to it; I went round to see the other people—I had an office there—the secretary was Mr. Tulloch—I had a connection with Scotland before I went up there—I went to school there two years, at St. Andrews—I came back on May 24th—during the whole of that time I was engaged on the business of the bank trying to get business from these various agents—money for my traveling expenses was sent me from the bank while I was in Scotland, cheques from time to time £10, £15, and so on, and while I was in Scotland I reported to the directors what was going on—this is a minute of April llth, 1893: "It was reported that Mr. Pappadaki left for Scotland on Thursday night, and his letters since then were produced"—Mr. Greville, one of the directors, went to Scotland after my return, I believe—it was contemplated that I should open an office at Aberdeen—I do not recollect as to Glasgow—while I was there I wrote letters telling them what I had done, and what the result was—various proposals were made to mo of business, such business as this bank would do—any bank doing the same business would do discount business—I should transmit that, but the business was not accepted—I was at this bank right up to the end—from first to last, the whole time 1 was there, there was nothing at all that was at least out of the course of a banking or discount business, such a would make me suspicious that it was not a bona fide concern—I at times believed that it was a genuine business, being conducted to do the best it could with what capital it had; it had very small capital—they were trying to discount bills; discounting bills and making inquiries—they did, in fact, discount some bills, and commissions or discounts were earned in that way—the best was done that they could do with the small amount of capital we had, and the competition we met with—we had as agents in Glasgow a firm of W. V. and J. R. Orr—they are very good people—we bad a meeting at Messrs. Orr's office—they were going to write to the directors to inquire and settle up the different things they wanted to know—they were people connected with the banking business there; I met them—it was with the object of discussing the question of what business they were going to do with us—they told me they were writing directly to the directors—when I came back from my tour in Scotland to the bank I looked after the business there in the ordinary way—I went to Edinburgh, Inverness, and Aberdeen, and met with a good deal of difficulty on account of the competition of the banks there—it was just the time the Australian banks were failing; there was a great commotion at the time; I was there in Scotland, because it was the time of the collapse of the Australian banks—all the Scotch banks were jealous of us—it was not only the collapse of the Australian banks, but the Scotch banks did not want the new competition to be starting, and the Clydesdale Bank took the lead in that opposition, I believe—the main object of the business I had to discuss and dispose of was the making of advances and discounts, and so on, for business people, for trade purposes; and, as I suppose we were to go into competition with much older banks, we should have to put up with business which was, perhaps a little worse than the Londonand Westminster Bank would get—the London

Refuse Company was to be promoted to work the licence of a patent of Mr. Livet, who had invented a process by means of which refuse could not only be destroyed, but could be utilised as a force; that is, as a motive power in generating steam when you burnt it up—that was shown to be a thing which could be done very much more cheaply than it had been hitherto done—there was a trial of that at Halifax; an installation was fitted up there—this is the prospectus—the directors are Mr. H. SetonKarr, M.P.; Sir Oriel Viveash Tanner, K.C.B.; George F. Priestley, Wheater White, T. Harrison Lambert, and J. Evelyn Williams; the secretary is Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Eden E. Greville is the solicitor to the company—that was the gentleman who was a director of the London and Scottish Banking Corporation—the consulting engineer was Mr. Edwin Glaskin, and the engineer was Mr. Cheesewright—a number of representatives of leading newspapers were invited to Halifax to see the trial, and some of their reports were embodied in this prospectus—I signed the memorandum of the Atlas Syndicate; the Atlas was merely a promotion company—it was promoted for the purpose of launching the London Steam Refuse Generator Company, which was to work under a licence from the British Company, which had general powers—the impression of everyone at the time was that the right we had to work here under Livet's patent was a very valuable thing indeed—there was at that time an installation at Westminster; it is working there now, and it is worked at the present time—there was one at Westminster and one at Shoreditch working at the time this was launched—it was being used by the vestry.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was not in the Capital and Counties Bank for some time—it was the General Credit and Discount Company—when I left the Credit Company I had a letter given to me, and also a cheque in remuneration for my services—Singleton had not done anything that was unbusinesslike or wrong—he had nothing whatever to do with the Atlas Company, or the Refuse Company, or with the affairs of the bank after allotment—he was not the secretary—F. J. Baker was secretary after the allotment—you are right in saying that F. J. Baker, who is not Singleton, was appointed at the end of March—he performed all the duties of secretary after his appointment—as far as I know, from about March 7th, Singleton had nothing to do with the affairs of the bank—after March 17th F. J. Baker signed, as assistant secretary, the cheques—to complete the proper order of the cheque, it had to be signed by two directors and the secretary—after that date, to my knowledge, Singleton, otherwise A. F. Baker, never signed any cheque at all in that capacity—I do not remember seeing him at the bank after that period on business matters; it is such a long time ago.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I knew that there was a parent company called the British Steam Generator and Refuse Utilisation Company, and that all the London company did was to acquire the London rights of the parent company—London refuse has to be paid for at the rate of so much a ton to be carried away—that is an enormous cost to the ratepayers—the question of the value of this process was entirely dependent upon whether the vestries could be persuaded to take it up—it" the vestrie

of London had taken it up, no doubt it would have been a great success;—beyond the dreams of avarice, decidedly, because in addition to saving the whole cost of destroying the refuse, you get a large profit out of it—I saw the Penny Illustrated Paper of February 17th, 1894, and the Sketchy of March 7th, 1894, a paper written by Mr. Payne, "Chat with Mr. Glaskin"—in consequence of the lapse of the patent, all value to private individuals is gone, anybody can now work the process—in the prospectus issued by the London Refuse Company I had no doubt that it was a valuable patent—(The patent was here read)—it sets out the contracts, and then, although the patent lapsed and they had no control over it: it is being worked in its entirety in Westminster and Shoreditch, as far as I know.

Gross-examined by MR. A. E. GILL. I do not remember whether Mr. Wain became a director to look after the interests of the London and Scottish Company—I did not go to Halifax.

Re-examined. There was, as far as I recollect, something mentioned about Mrs. Livet, the alleged owner of this patent, having commenced proceedings against our company to stop us from interfering with it—the company did not go to allotmentthere were no shares in regard to its not going to allotment—I believe the secretary had a minute-book of the Atlas Syndicate—I cannot give you tho dates at which the Atlas Syndicate resolved not to go to allotment—I see this, Illustrated London News £75, debited to the banking account of the Atlas Syndicate—I do not recollect exactly what What paid that money for—I was a very short time a director of the company, so I do not recollect—I do not recollect the amount—I had nothing to do with the cheques at all—I was a director, but anybody can draw a cheque; I never saw £195—I cannot give you any idea what it was for—it had something to do with this exhibition at Halifax, possibly—there was a special train to Halifax; all the newspaper people were taken down in it—I was not on board to know whether there was champagne on board—I did not go—this exhibition at Halifax cost a sum of money; I do not recollect whether it was £50 or £100; it was not £200—when I spoke of there being no allotment I meant no allotment to the public—there was an allotment to the vendors; certificates to them.

By MR. AVORY. Mr. Tulloch was in charge of the office there—I did not go to the office myself—there was no office in Edinburgh when I went there, to my recollection.

THOMAS CHARLES HARVEY . I am a pergeant in the Corps of Commissionaires, 419, Strand—on January 3rd, 1893, I was engaged as a messenger at t he bank by Mr. Baker—that is the defendant Singleton—I took up my duties at the bank premises on January 4th; I was stationed inside—there used to be meetings of some gentlemen named Osborn Barker, Drew, and others; I waited on them, and at those meetings Mr. Singleton was present—I'cannot say that there was anyone else—Mr. Beall used to come to the premises; he might be on one or two occasions present at those meetings—I used to go and get refreshments, and after the bank was started in March T still continued as commissionaire—in the morning when the letters came they were put in the board-room, and laid on the table there—sometimes Mr. Baker opened them, and sometimes they were taken over to Mr. Beall's office—there were some lady typewriters

at the bank, down in the basement—Mr. Beallused to come across and dictate to the lady clerks—there was a pipe down from the board room into the basement, so that lady clerks downstairs could hear what he said in the board-room—one of those laides was Miss Rich—my salary fell some three weeks in arrear—I was in the bank every day—there was a good deal going on—sometimes there was a meeting of the secretaries there—I never saw they any bank business done there at all—I had never been a commissionaire at a bank or at any office before.

Cross-exminied by MR. ISAACS. I was engaged to act there as a commissionaire, and the principal part of my work was done at the door; I unlocked it in the morning and locked it at night; posting lletters and taking people's names who come to enter in the call book—I have not got the call-book; I expect the liquidatore has it; he should have it—I mean to represent to my Lord and the Jury that during the whole ime I was there I never saw any business done in that bank—a good many people called; I took their names and put them in the call-book—what they called about I did not konw—I cannot say whether it was for busines or not that they called; I saw no business done—I never saw people pay money in; there might have been two or three draw money out—a good many drew eheques; I saw cheques drawn out, but I saw no money paid in—what I mean is, I saw cheques drawn and saw money paid out over the counter to the people who came and presenter cheques—that was the only gold I saw anybody bring a wheelbarrow of gold there nor a cartload.

Re-examined. I kept the call-books for people's names who came to inquire if anybody was in the bank—this is one of them(Produced)—the people whose names I took down called to see Mr. Beall—anybody who called to see Mr. Beall I entered his name there, and tore the name out, and took it into the board-room, or wherever Mr. Beall was—most of the people whose names I have entered there were people who come and asked to see Mr. Beall—it was generally for Mr. Beall; I do not remember at present the name of any other person they asked for, but they did come and ask for someone else—I did not put in the call-book the people who came to cash cheques or pay money in.

Monday, Novemeber 6 th

JOHN PITMAN . I am a clerk in the Joint Stock Companies Registry Office, somerest House—I produce the file of the European and Commercial and Industrial Company, Limited—that shows that it was registered as the European Contract Company on April 5th 1892—the first signatory of the company was Mr. Carruthers Wain—the addres the gave insigning the memo randum is 25th, College Hill—that is the registered office of the comapny—there was a resolution in July,1892, to change the name to the European and Commercial and Industrial Company, Limited, signed by Mr.Wain—then I find on the file a notice that on October 24th,1892, the office of the company was changed to 18, Eldon Street—on April 1st,1893, I find a resolution for the voluntary windingup, signed by Mr. Wainas chairman, and filed October 30th, 1893—that was registered on June 24th, 1893, by Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson, solilcitors—it was registered without articles—the first signatory was Mr. Eden E. Greville, of 60, Haymarket—

the capital was £600,000 in 600,000 shares of £1 each—I find on the file an agreement dated November 9th, 1893, by which 470,000 shares are allotted as fully paid up to Mrs. Livet—that is signed by three persons, including Mr. Fordyce Sheridan and George Meadows, the secretary—in 1894 the company's offices were registered as at 6, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall, the address of Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson—later on, in July, 1894, the address was changed to 60, Haymarket, which is the address of Mr. Greville—on the file there is a summary of capital and shares made up to December 29th, 1894, showing that nine ordinary shares had been subscribed for, including the seven original subscribed for by the seven signatories—I have not checked the names—there are nine altogether, dated October 31st, 1895—I find an order to wind up the company made on a creditor's petition—I find that the liquidator who was appointed was discharged in December, 1897—the liquidator was the Official Receiver in companies winding up—I also produce the file of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate; that was registered by Jordan on February 9th, 1894, with a nominal capital of £10,000 in 10,000 shares of £1 each—among the seven signatories there was William Cooper, of 31, Lombard Street, and Mr. Demetrius Pappadaki, of 157, Fenchurch Street—the registered office of the company was 31, Lombard Street—I find on the file a summary of shares made up to June 14th, 1894, by which it appears that seven shares only had been taken—those were the seven subscribed for by the original signatories—on September 29th, 1895, there is a change of address to 35, New Broad Street, and from that date there has been no further communication from the company—it is the practice on noncompliance with the requirements to send in a summary of capital and shares and so forth, for the registrar to write to the company at its last known place of abode—three letters were sent in this case—they have come back through the post, marked "Gone away" and "Not known"—they appear on the file—those three letters having been written on May 14th, 1897, the company was dissolved by the registration—I also produce the file of the London Refuse and Steam Generator and Electrical Power Corporation, Limited, which was registered on March 16th, 1894, by Jordan and Sous—amongst the signatories there appear Cooper, of 31, Lombard Street, F. J. Baker, Thomas Harrison Lambert—the witness to the signature is Eden E. Greville—the nominal capital was £600,000 in 600,000 shares of £l each, and the registered office was at 18, Eldon Street, Finsbury—upon the file I find a summary of shares of July 25th, 1894, by which it appears that seven shares were taken, those are the shares originally subscribed for—I also find filed an agreement dated September 11th, 1894, between the London Refuse Company and the Atlas Contracting Syndicate, purporting to transfer 200,000 shares to the Atlas Contracting Syndicate, fully paid, signed by Cooper, on behalf of the London Refuse Company, and Charles Oram, on behalf of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—it is not sealed by either company—on November 1st, 1894, the office was changed from 18, Eldon Street, to 25, New Broad Street, and on April 14th, 1896, I find a resolution filed to voluntarily wind up the company, signed by W. Carruthers Wain, chairman—on July 25th, 1898, there is a resolution that the liquidators accounts be adopted, and the liquidator authorised to destroy all books,

papers, and documents of the company, signed by Charles M. Grimwood, chairman and liquidator—only seven shares were subscribed for.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I believe George Meadows was the secretary of the British company; I believe he was at the office of Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson—as the company was registered by that firm, I presume he came from them to get the certificate—I have not looked to see, but of the companies I have mentioned three are registered by Jordan and one by Brandon and Nicholson; I am not quite certain.

Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL. The name of Mr. Wain does not appear on the file of the Atlas Syndicate, and I do not see it on the British Steam—he signs as chairman on the London Refuse Steam Generator Company.

GEORGE MEADOWS . I am a clerk to Brandon and Nicholson, solicitors, of 6, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall—in June, 1893, I was requested to become a signatory to the memorandum of association of the British Refuse Company—I subscribed for one share—I did not pay for it—I acted as secretary pro tem, for a short time; I could not say now up to what date, or for how long, it was so long ago—a Mr. Hunter was appointed secretary after me; I was only secretary pro tem, till a proper secretary was appointed—he acted for some time before it came to an end—the directors gave me 200 shares for acting as secretary pro tem.—they gave me no salary or anything of that sort—while I was acting as secretary the company did not do any business that I know of—there were no books of account kept during my time—the directors were Mr. Fordyce Sheridan, Mr. Houldsworth and Mr. Oliver—I did not know anything of the transfer of a number of shares in this company to the London and Scottish Bank—while I was acting as secretary I did not hear anything about the transaction of 16,500 shares being transferred.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. My connection with the company was a purely formal one—I have been about 11 years with Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson, solicitors—I am still with them—they acted for the Sheridans in various actions about this time—they were also acting as the solicitors at this time for the London and Scottish Bank; and they acted as solicitors for the London and Scottish Bank during 1893, and up to April or May in 1894—during that time they had a large number of actions and various matters entrusted to them by the London and Scottish Bank—either actions by the bank or against the bank—I cannot tell you if this miatter of the British Refuse Patent was first introduced to the London and Scottish Bank by Messrs. Brandon for Mr. Sheridan—I do not know that Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson were acting for Mr. Sheridan in this matter before it was introduced to the London and Scottish Bank—Mr. Sheridan was at our office nearly every day—Mr. Greville was there a good deal—that was before the introduction of this British Refuse Steam Generator Company to the London and Scottish Bank—I think when the company was formed it was registered by our firm, Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson—Mr. Fordyce Sheridan asked me to become the secretary—when I became the secretary I had no reason to suspect that it was anything but a bondfide company to work a valuable patent—it was believed by everybody at the time it was started that it was an extremely valuable patent—I have beard

that Mr. Brandon loat something considerable in it—I do not know anything about Mr. Greville—I think I told the police that Mr. Brandon would know all about the case—Mr. Brandon was the gentleman who attended the meetings of the company of the London and Scottish Bank, so he would know what was going on—I cannot say if he went to the board meetings almost every week, I did not go with him if he did—I have not got the drafts of the bills of costs that were sent in—Exhibit 97, except the signatures, is in my writing—that was got by me on the instructions of Mr. Brandon—I cannot say that it was for the purpose of Mr. Brandon going over to Paris in order to conform with certain formalities there.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Our firm has not an office in Paris, it is only an agency place there—we describe ourselves as Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson, 6, Suffolk Street, and Paris—I am not the managing clerk, but only a junior clerk—I am one of the principal clerks—I do not know that Mr. Brandon, from the commencement, was cognisant of all that was done as to the preparation of draft prospectuses—he attended practically all the meetings, I believe—I cannot say whether he knew all that was going on—I do not know whether Mr. Nicholson attended any of the London Scottish Bank meetings, but I should think he would, in the absence of Mr. Brandon.

Re-examined. I think Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson were acting as solicitors to the London and Scottish Bank from its inception till April, 1894.

WILLIAM COOPER . I am an accountant—early in 1894 I became secretary of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—I was asked to do so by Mr. Beall—he said it was for the purpose of promoting the London Refuse Company—my first duties were to go down by a special train with the Press to Halifax, and explain the methods of the London Refuse Company—Iwas to explain to the Press the methods of this particular destructor—I read them up after Mr. Beall had spoken to me about it—I cannot describe the documents I read, but they were documents explaining the process—I explained it all to the Press the next day in the special train—the offices of the company were at 31, Lombard Street, I think—I believe that was Singleton's office; he was in it—after our journey to Halifax, and my explanations to the Press, there were a number of notices in the papers regarding this process; the notices were not from my explanation—we went down to see a demonstration by the engineer at Halifax, and it was from that that the Press took their notices—I think it was about February 13th, 1894, that we went, perhaps a little before then—the item in the accounts of the Atlas Syndicate, "Hotel expenses, February 18th, £195 18s. 3d.," was for dining car, refreshments for all the members of the Press and the managers of the vestries who went down; refreshment expenses in the train down, and lunch and dinner at the hotel afterwards—I was installed at the office as secretary—the directors who attended to the business were Mr. Oram and a Mr. Pappadaki, two directors of the Atlas Syndicate—those were the only two—Mr. Oram kept the book—I did not as secretary, because the secretary does not keep the books, the ledger and the cash-book and the journal, as a rule—a director does not, as a rule—there was a share

register—I cannot tell you if I kept it; it is six years ago—I know there was an arrangement that the London and Scottish Bank should pay to or for the Atlas Syndicate a sum of £2,000, and for that they were to get 20,000 shares—the Atlas Company had an account at the London and Scottish Bank—I received the money subscribed for by the shareholders to the Atlas Syndicate; it was about £1,800—it was not returned, it was spent—the shares were allotted—the share register ought to show it—I do not know where any of the books are at all—I last saw them three or four years ago; I was not a year in the service of either company—I severed, my connection with the Atlas Syndicate towards the end of 1894—at that time there was a share register in the office; all the books were in the office—I cannot tell you if I kept the share register—Mr. Oram would have kept it—I believe that Mr. Oram kept the share register, he was an experienced clerk originally—as secretary, I looked at the share register; it had heen kept up to date properly—I say all the books had been kept up to date properly—the London Refuse Company had been promoted before I left; it was promoted very shortly after the Atlas—I was a signatory to that—it is wrong to say that there were no shares allotted in that, a considerable amount of money was subscribed; it was afterwards returned, as it was not then sufficient to go to allotment; cheques were returned to the subscribers—shares were subscribed; I know the directors who returned them—I am responsible for the returns made to Somerset House of the shares up to June, 1894; that return. I cannot account for—I signed that under a misconception, it being the first I had ever signed—the printed heading is, "List of Persons Holding Shares in the Atlas Syndicate at June 14th"—I signed that as a list of persons holding shares up to that date, thinking it meant signatories only—the meetings of the London Refuse Company were held in the first place in the board-room of the London and Scottish Bank, and afterwards in the board-room of the registered office of the company at 18, Eldon Street, Mr. Wain's offices—the London Refuse Company never earned 6d. during its existence—this (Exhibit 255) is in Mr. Oram's handwriting, and signed by me as secretary: "This is to certify that the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, of 35, Lombard Street, London, E.C., is the proprietor of 30,000 shares of £1 each in the London Refuse Steam Generator and Electrical Power Corporation, Limited, numbered 125,618 to 155,617, all inclusive, subject to the articles of association and regulations of the company, and that the sum of 20s., has been paid in respect of each of such shares. Given under the common seal of the said company, October 8th, 1894.—I, J. STAINTON LAMBERT, W J. CARRUTHERS WAIN, Directors; W. COOPER, Secretary"—I see my signature, but I do not remembe.r it particularly; I signed thousands and thousands of things—I have no recollection of the circumstances of that certificate being given—No. 256 is "The London Refuse Steam Generator and Electrical Power Corporation, Limited; capital £600,000, in 600,000 shares of £1 each This is to certify that the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation, Limited, of 35, Lombard Street, London, E.C., is the proprietor of 15 shares of £1 each in the London Refuse Steam Generator and Electrical Power Corporation, numbered 110,618 to 125,617, all inclusive, subject to the articles of association and regulation of the company,

and that the sum of 20s. has been paid in respect of each of such shares. Given under the common seal of the said company, February 14th, 1895. GEO. F. PRIESTLY, W. J. CARRUTHERS WAIN, Directors; W. COOPER, Secretary"—I do not know about that—I signed it—I had 1896. ceased to be secretary of the Atlas Syndicate, but I was still secretary of 1897. the London Refuse Company—I cannot explain in what way the London 1898. and Scottish Banking Company became proprietor of 15,000 shares—that 1899. also is in Mr. Oram's writing—there was never any market for the shares 1900. in the London Refuse Steam Generator Corporation—one vestry took it, 1901. St. Margaret's, Westminster—the Shoreditch Vestry did not take it 1902. during my time, but they now have what is practically the same thing; 1903. they were some of the men who attended in the special train—this is a 1904. letter of mine to the present liquidator (Produced)—no business was ever done; never, except that one.

Cross-Examined by MR. ISAACS. I had known Mr. Beall before I was employed as secretary, or he would not have employed me; he acted as solicitor for me afterwards—the item for £195 for hotel expenses does not include the special train; it is for hotel expenses—there were perhaps 70 who went down; I cannot recollect at this time—there were three corridor carriages full; I do not know how many a corridor carriage holds exactly; it depends how you pack them—people from the vestries also went down—when we got there a test was made, and an explanation given by Mr. Glaskin, the engineer—I believe Mr. Cheesewright, the engineer, was also there—the test was perfectly satisfactory; everyone, so far as I knew, came away believing it was a very valuable thing—I cannot say that the articles which were found together in the form of a pamphlet were articles that were written by the Press after having seen it; as comments, and not as advertisements—a certain amount was paid for advertising—I should say they were simply comments written by men who eame down by that special train—I think I can safely say that they were not advertisements at all—the payment of £75 to the Illustrated London News was for the purchase of the Illustrated London News with the illustrations and comments in it, and they were distributed all over the place—I do not know if the syndicate bought 3,000 copies; I know that very large quantities of illustrated papers were bought because they contained the pictures of what had taken place at Halifax, and it was done to show what could be done and what had taken place at Halifax at the test—I paid visits to the vestries for the purpose of getting this system adopted—I think I went with Mr. Glaskin and Mr. Cheesewright at different times for that purpose—there was an illustration at Keighley, in York shire; I cannot say whether it was by a vestry—afterwards there was an installation at Westminster—I believe that contmues to the present day; and after the time I have been talking of tiiere was an installation by the Shoreditch Vestry—I believe the British company owned patents for the United Kingdom; T had nothing to do with the British—I knew that the British company were the holders of the patents for the United Kingdom, because the Atlas bought them of them—I think there was an action threatened by Mrs. Livet against the London Refuse Company, which was then stopped—it was for the purpose of preventing the shares being distributed except to her;

she claimed that she was the owner of the original patent—I can not tell you what the action was about; it was a matter for the lawyers, not for me—agreements were made with the Atlas Syndicate by which the bank became entitled to shares; I cannot remember all those agreements; I remember one, that in consideration of the bank paying £2,000, they were to have what I thought were 20,000 shares; it appears, no doubt, by a certificate 30,000—after the subscription had been returned in the London Refuse Company, the London and Scottish financed the Atlas Syndicate—the London Refuse Company did not want much financing; it only had to pay clerks' salaries and that sort of thing—I cannot tell you whether that was found by the London Scottish Bank; I know the London Scottish Bank found the money for the Atlas; that was the promoting syndicate—after the return of the money the directors of the London Refuse Company themselves found money to go on with it—the vendors' shares I do not recollect anything about; I do not know that there were any of the vendors' shares of the Atlas Syndicate.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I think I have some knowledge of City matters—I am not a chartered accountant; I am an accountant of some years' standing—it is the usual practice in the City for a syndicate consisting of very few members to be formed for the purpose of floating a larger company—one share in the syndicate represents a very large holding in the company when it is floated—you most have seven signatories in order to register—this Atlas Syndicate was floated for the purpose of floating the London Refuse Company—I honestly believed, and I do now, in the London Refuse Company as a fine undertaking—the Atlas Syndicate endeavoured to float the London Refuse Company, and they put it out to public subscription; there was a public subscription, but Lambert did not think the public subscription was sufficient, and they returned the money—that would be immediately after the issue of the prospectus, within two or three weeks, which was at the commencement of 1894, not the tirst two months, but before June—there was no allotment to the public, but the syndicate still exists, and they have still got any rights they have acquired over the patent, and if part of those rights had to be paid for, or were to be paid for at the time by the issue of certain shares, they would still have the right to hold those shares as fully paidup shares, apart from the public allotment—in proportion as you reduce the number of shares allotted to the public the greater becomes the value of the shares held by the syndicate—the only property was in the patent—many fortunes have been made out of a patent without any other assets—I have seen Lambert in connection with the London and Scottish Bank—he was a director Of my company—in my judgment Mr. Lambert did nothing as a company man that was wrong in that company.

Cross-examined by MR. E. GILL Mr. Priestly was a director as well as Mr. Wain—I believe it was on Mr. Priestly's premises that the installation at Halifax was—I cannot say if that installation was provided at his expense—I presume the engineer would be paid, but I cannot tell you who paid for the installation—I rather think he would have paid—he would have paid the furnacemen and that, probably—the cost of patting up the destructor was long before my time—having seen the thing, it

seemed to me that it would have cost a considerable sum of money to put up—I cannot remember whether Mr. Priestly was interested in the London Refuse Company, because all the money was returned—Wain was never paid any directors' fees in the London Refuse Company—I believe he was paid nothing on account of the fact of his office being the registered office of the company, and the meetings being held there—I do not believe Wain ever got anything out of the London Refuse Company—I think he put in money—that was after it had failed to go to allotment, when the directors returned the money that was subscribed—after that the directors provided the money to keep the company going, and Wain was one of those, like Mr. Priestly, who provided what was necessary to keep the company going—there were engineers' expenses always going on—while the company was still going; on after that in that way these negotiations were being carried on with a view to induce the vestries to take up the system.

By MR. MARSHALL HALL. I know as a matter of fact that Mr. Lambert himself found some money to try and work the London Refuse Company.

WILLIAM FREDERICK COLEE . I live at Kilbum now—I am not in any employment now—I came back from Australia in 1889, and meeting a friend, learnt from him of the firm of Messrs. Morrison and Co.—I went to the office of J. B. Morrison and Co., where I saw a person that I knew as Mr. Morrison—that was Singleton—I took employment from him at £1 a week, and acted as a clerk in the business of J. B. Morrison, which was the business of an outside broker's office—I was engaged in sending circulars, and addressing envelopes and prospectuses—Singleton used to give me the names of the people to whom to address the envelopes—Mr. Stewart gave me his name when I had been there some eight or nine weeks—after I had been employed there for a little time I got to know a Mr. F, J. Baker as a clerk in the same employ—during the time I was there I used to go up to Beall's office; Singleton sent me—sometimes I would take letters up and cheques, or anything like that—I think there was a Miss Rich employed at Morrison's; the latter part of the time—I recollect Morrison and Co, moving to Copthall House—the name at the Copthall House premises was J. C. Hanson, the Metropolitan Stock and Share Agency—the J. C. Hanson of that establishment was Singleton—a little while after, we removed to 80, Coleman Street—the name up there was Lawrence, and the name of the business was the Empire Finance and Stock Corporation, I think—Lawrence was Singleton—those three difierent businesses and names were successive; they were not going on at the same time—they were all of the same class, outside stockbrokers' offices—I first heard of the London and Scottish Banking and Discount Corporation towards the end of the Lawrence time, in 1892: I won't be quite certain—I think Singleton spoke to me first about it; it might have been Beall—it was one of the two—I was told that I should be employed as cashier in the bank—we were all up at 5, Copthall Avenue before the bank came out—I cannot say if the name of the bank was up there—I remember the bank taking some premises at 35, Lombard Street—we sent put circulars from 5, Copthall Avenue, for the London and Scottish Bank, before the premises were taken at 35, Lombard Street—we used to write

envelopes from lists—Beall provided the lists; they were sent out in very large numbers, I think—my fellow clerks were employed in the same way—Miss Rich was there, I think, too—Singleton used to pay us—in the beginning of 1893 we moved to 35, Lombard Street—Singleton moved there as well; he was there as Mr. A. F. Baker—Miss Rich and F. G. Baker went, too—I met there a man named Leonard Barker—the first two or three months of 1893 we were employed at the bank addressing circulars—I noticed some prospectuses being distributed in the early part of 1893 of the London and Scottish Bank—in the early part of March or the end of February I remember having a conversation with Beall about my position in the bank—I said I did not understand cashiering or keeping books—he said, "Oh, you will manage it all right"—I had not had any previous experience in book-keeping—I had been with Messrs. Day and Martin as loading clerk before I went to Australia—that was loading up the parcels on to the vans—I do not remember receiving any written appointment as cashier—I have seen a Mr. Drew; I did not know him to talk to—I do not know Mr. Williams at all; I never saw the man in my life that I know of—they proposed and seconded me for the position of cashier—I do not remember ever speaking to Mr. Drew in my life—I remember the bank starting and the distribution of prospectuses and the applications for shares coming in—Wain came once or twice before the bank really started; that was the first time I ever saw him—I was appointed cashier—I took up my duties as cashier, and commenced the keeping of a cash-book—this was the first cash-book I kept (Produced)—kept it on my own system—in the middle of the book I started the customers' accounts—that one book is the cash-book and the customers' ledger an well—in addition there was a petty cash-book kept—I entered on one side the sums I received, and on the other side the sums I paid away—I made a cross entry of having paid away the sum which on the other side I acknowledged to have received—it is a cash-book between me and the London and Scottish Bank—I find here an account of Beall and Co.'s No. 1, and on folio 90 I find Beall and Co, No. z—Beall had two accounts there—I think one was a business account, and the other more of a private account—I cannot tell which was which—there were four directors when I commenced my duties: Mr. Stores, Mr. Greville, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Wain—I used to put the cash-book on the board-room table at every board meeting—I find on the face of the cash-book the initials of either Wain, Lambert, or others of the directors, showing that they had seen my account—the petty cash-book was likewise put before the directors to look at—I find a number of cheques entered in my book between April 18th, 1893, and June 4th, 1894, as having been paid,—these cheques (Produced)are drawn by the directors and counter signed by the secretary of the London and Scottish Bank, and the amounts of them are entered in the establishment expenses account—the first one is April 18th, by cheque £500"; the second, May, £200, is entered—the bodies of those cheques and the counterfoils are in Beall's handwriting—most of them are in his; some of them are mine—they are signed by two directors and the secretary, drawn on the London and Scottish Bank forms, but drawn on the London and Scottish Bank's account at the London and Midland Bank—I had

the duty of cashing them from time to time—I got the money from the London and Midland—I used to send the commissionaire round to the London and Midland sometimes, or go myself—I have paid Mr. Beall some of the cheques—I do not remember giving some of the cheques to A. F. Baker—most of them are drawn to numbers, and all of them are B. to bearer—after the first few weeks of the Scottish Bank doing the C. business, I very seldom saw A. F. Baker at the premises—there were D. some customers of the bank who kept accounts in addition to Beall—I kept E. their accounts in my cash-book—there was not sufficient always to employ F. me in the daytime—I used to fill up my time by addressing envelopes G. from lists—I had an assistant cashier to assist me in my duties as cashier H.—after the bank started business Mr. Barker used to get the lists—he got I. the money to pay for the lists from me—I got the money from the till J.—I made entries in the petty cash-book of the moneys which I handed to K. Baker—I find several entries in the petty cash book of "Lists L.B., L." "Expenses L.B.," that being the money I paid for the getting of the lists M.—I continued as chief cashier up to the liquidation of the bank, and at N. the end of 1894, or January, 1895, I remember seeing Mr. Aitcheson, O. when I handed over to him £1 0s. 8d., which was the cash in hand at the P. time—in the bank premises there was a safe upstairs, and one down—Mr. Q. F. J. Baker kept the keys of the safe—Mr. Beall kept the duplicate keys R. of the top safe; the other one downstairs we used to keep the books and S. letters in, and all manner of things—Beall was there nearly everyday—T. I used to take orders from him—there were directors' meetings, some U. times once a week and sometimes once a fortnight—Mr. Baker kept the V. minute-book and the records of what went on there—I remember Mr. W. Baker going up to Scotland; in December, I think—after his return I X. remember his making some inquiries about some papers and books—I had Y. seen Mr. Beall going to the safe while he was away—my back was to Z. him, but I could see him take some sort of papers—he took them in the board room—I never saw them afterwards—I see in this cash-book No. 2 (Produced)that I debit myself with the receipt of a cheque for £200: BB. "To cheque Beall and Co. account, £200"—on the other side I find an entry with regard to the same cheque: "To cheque Beall and Co. account, £200, establishment expenses"—in the establishment expenses account I find entered a cheque for £200, credited to the account of March 1st, 1894—in Beall and Co.'s account I find there, under the date of February 28th, £200 credited to Mr. Beall's account—I should say that £200 is the same sum that is entered in the second of these books.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. At the bank, whilst I was there, there was a ledger kept in the ordinary way and a journal; Mr. Baker kept them, a cash-book and a bill-book—there was not a cash-book besides mine; there was a petty cash-book—pass-books are usually kept, paying in books with slips, and there were cheque-books of the London and Scottish—the books were kept in a safe downstairs; that was a safe to which everybody in the office had access—in the morning, when the office was opened, the sergeant would generally open this safe and take the books out, and when the business was done in the evening, and everybody had gone, it was his business to put the books back there—I do not know that there was a lock to the safe with a code word; there was no secrecy

about these books in any way—it was the habit of anybody who wanted to find anything that was there to go to the safe and get it; that was the strong room, the bottom safe—I should say it was about five or six yards long and about three yards wide—the safe upstairs was just behind Mr. Baker in a corner in the clerk's office—different papers were kept in it that was not open during the day when business was going on—if anybody wanted to go there, if Mr. F. J. Baker wanted anything out of it, or anything like that, we had no access to it at all—Beall had not been to the upstairs safe many times; I have never seen Mr. Beall go more than two or three times to the safe—the safe where he went was the place where the clerks and everybody were going in and out; he went there in the daytime when I was there, and the sergeant—I knew that at that time he was acting as solicitor to the company—there were two Beall accounts, one with no number to it and one called Beall account No. 2—it was my practice to make out a balance every week for our board for the purpose of showing whether there was a debit or credit, and how much to each particular customer; I usually included in that the Beall accounts—there were one or two instances in which I did not put it in—I used to take them into the boardroom and put them on the table; I used to make up the account myself—when it was passed by the board I do not remember if it was initialled—I sent the balances quite separately—I did not have anything whatever to do with the agenda—I could not say if there is anything wrong or suspicious about making out a cheque to a number—I think that every one of these cheques, except one to A. F. Baker, is made out to a number—there is one, which is not, "Cashier 10 guineas"—the second counterfoil in this book of counterfoils is May 2nd for £200, For establishment expenses further on account in pursuance of resolution"—that is in Beall's writing—these cheques were placed to Beall's credit—it says on the counterfoil that the £200 was drawn out for establishment expenses—the next counterfoil says the same thing—on each counterfoil it is stated that it is in pursuance of a resolution that the money is paid—that is carried through to balance account; I will not say with regard to all—I was at the bank the whole time—I put the money that I received on this side of the book, and the money that I paid away on that side of the book—I never kept books before, so I really do not understand book-keeping at all—when we were going through the books I was called in two or three times by Mr. Weller—except for one small item, there was no dispute with regard to my account, and my accounts were quite right; there was no dispute at all—the question of £15 error which appeared in the amounts was made the subject of discussion in the board-room, and appeared on the minutes—I have got a receipt for the £15.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. When I went to Morrison and Co. the name of J. B. Morrison and Co. was upon the door—Singleton used to come in and out—he used to sit in the office—he was my govemor—I knew him as Singleton after I had been there some weeks—I addressed him generally as Mr. Morrison—after March 17th, 1893, or thereabouts, I do not think that Singleton ever did anything at all in reference to the London and Scottish Bank.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I think Lambert came two

or three days before March 17th—I only knew him as one of the directors of the corporation—he has on one or two occasions initialled my book—two of the signatories appointed me—when cheques are payable to bearer, the question of the payee, except for the purpose of reference, is immaterial—it does not matter to whom the cheque is payable; they are paid to anybody—the object of putting n number is for the purpose of identifying the cheque, 1 suppose—Lambert kept an account at the bank—I think on one or two occasions Lambert deposited some bill there which he discounted, and then he took it up, and the money was repaid to the bank—Mr. Baker would know more about that; he had all to do with that—I cannot say if there were never any payments to Lambert outside a matter of business as a depositor at the bank.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I think Wain borrowed some money from the bank, and repaid it also, with interest—he also lent money to the bank—I think that was repaid to them. Re-examined. I do not hold myself out as an accomplished cashier—I am not doing anything now; my wife has got a confectioner's shop, and I am assisting in that—this book is really a cash-book; a continuation rf the cash-book.

By the COURT, The book I began with is this (Produced)—wewould draw cheques at the board meeting to last, we would think, for the week; cheques upon the Scottish company's account at the Midland Bank; they were entrusted to me—if anybody came with a cheque, I paid it over to them—I should go and get the money, or the sergeant would, from the London and Midland Bank; then I should put it in the till and hand it over to the customer and place it in my books—I always had money in hand—I had cheques given me by the directors, and sent for the money and put it in my till—on the other side I put down cheques that I paid away—I balanced up every day.

By MR. ISAACS. If a cheque was presented to me for payment at the counter, and I had sufficient money in the till, I took the money out of the till and paid it over and received the cheque—supposing a cheque was handed to me to be cashed for an amount larger than I had in the till, I should send over to the London and Midland Bank and draw that money from them and put it in my till and then pay the cheque—I should have to get a cheque signed first to get the money from the London and Midland Bank—if any large cheque was to come through, we should have to know beforehand—then we should get a cheque drawn on the London and Midland, and get the money and pay the cheque.

FREDERICK JOHN BAKER . I live at 10, Albany House, King's Cross Road—I am on the Press—in the middle of 1890 I answered an advertisement, and in consequence came to be employed by Jacob B. Morrison and Co.—Singleton is Jacob B. Morrison—while there I did not see Beall on the premises, but while in that employ I saw him—I used frequently to go to his offices while at Morrison's—I prepared the monthly circular that he used to send out dealing with stocks and shares—then we went to St. Stephen's Chambers, and then to Copthall House, where he became Mr. Hanson, and there I met Colee, Miss Rich, and other clerks; and afterwards to 80, Coleman Street, where Morrison was T. B. Lawrence—I saw Beall a few times at Coleman Street; not often

—in the case of Morrison and Co. the correspondence was done by hand; the letters which came to Lawrence at Coleman Street Singleton took—I did not go for any answers to them to any place; it was all done through Singleton—in 1892 Baker was in occupation of 5, Copthall Avenue—a Mr. Fred Mason was there, but I had seen him before then—about the middle of 1802 I remember being spoken to by Beall—I was authorised by him to find seven signatories, if I could do so, for the London and Scottish Bank—whilst doing that I met Mr. Mason, and found one signatory only—evidently Mr. Mason had the same instructions that I had—in 1892 I saw a pamphlet called "Banks and Banking"—I had charge of writing the envelopes—they were sent out in large numbers, some thousands—in every case the lists came from Beall; whilst at 5, Copthall Avenue I knew of some prospectuses being sent out of the Scottish Bank—I remember a paper called the Financial Critic—I think it was extinct at the time; it had been used before that—I remember a paper coming afterwards called the Financial Gazette—I wrote for it; generally criticisms on prospectuses or balance-sheets that had appeared in the public press—I recollect, with some earlier prospectuses which were sent out from Copthall Avenue, what purported to be an extract being sent out as well from the Financial Gazette—there was another sheet attached to this (Exhibit 25) when I saw it before (Product)—I was away at the end of 1892, and came back again in January, 1893—then I was employed at 35, Lombard Street—I sent out proof prospectuses there, and circulars—I kept on my journalistic duties fer the Financial Gazette—I used to write these things more for practice than anything else in the evenings at home—this document No. 5 (Produced)purports to be an extract from the Financial Gazette of February 11th—I see here an article headed "Joint Stock Banking Prospects, the London and Scottish Bank, extract from the Financial Gazette, February Uth, 1893"—I am responsible for a portion of this; it is a reprint from the Financial Gazette—I wrote some portion of it for the Financial Gazette; not in this form—I wrote it by instructions from Beall—at the beginning of 1893 I knew of founders' shares in the London and Scottish Bank being sold—they were distributed in the autumn of 1892, and after that up to 1893—coming backwards and forwards to the bank, I saw Wain and Lambert, probably a couple of months before the company went to allotment—I was assistant secretary at the bank after allotment—I remember some conversation between Beall and myself one afternoon—he simply said that he had arranged that I was to be assistant secretary—I agreed to it—I had no experience of secretaryship before that, or of banking in any way or shape—with the possible exception of Mr. Pappadaki, none of the staff of the London and Scottish had any experience of banking, to my knowledge—Singleton simply remained with the bank until the arrangement was made with the London and Midland—the money that came from the public in answer to the general distribution of prospectuses went straight to the company itself—the money originally sent with the applications went to the bank itself—there were no bankers on the prospectus; applications with cheques came straight to the company itself, and the cheques were received by Mr. A. F. Baker, and paid by him into his account at the London and Midland Bank, and afterwards a part of what had been paid into his account paid

out to the credit of the London and Scottish Bank—I continued as assistant secretary, and later as actual secretary, right up to the death of this bank in January, 1895—my salary was £3 a week throughout that period—we had a set of books kept—I remember speaking to Mr. Beall; he was financial adviser to the bank—I suggested that a set of books suitable to the bank should be opened by a professional man whose name was in the prospectus, one of the auditors—he said, "Oh, you will be sufficient for this purpose; you can keep a set of books suitable for banks,' so I opened what I thought was necessary, a general ledger, a loan ledger, a shareholders' ledger, minute-books, and letter-books—then Mr. Colee, the chief cashier, opened his book—when I first became the assistant secretary I remember letter-books Nos. 1 and 2 being there; that dealt with the period up to March, 1893, previous to the company going to allotment—I was asked in Edinburgh what became of those books, Nos. 1 and 2—the only explanation I could give was that the promoters had them; they were there for some time after I became secretary of the bank—they might have been there up to quite close on the finish—they only dealt with the promotion matters—the shareholders' ledger was in the bank; I kept sight of that right up to, I should fancy, just before the company went into liquidation—I do not know what became of that—no register or account was kept at the London and Scottish Bank premises of holders of founders' shares—there were share warrants to bearer—there was no record there to whom to send such profits as might have been earned—Beall had a list of founders' shares as he disposed of thorn; I have seen it at his rooms—I have made an entry in that at times—supposing a sale of founders' shares had taken place, to my knowledge, at 35, Lombard Street, or Copthall Avenue, it was not my practice generally to go to this other book—if I was in the neighbourhood there I should be asked to make entries of it—I think Beall has been there when I have made entries in it—there were 2,000 founders' shares advertised in the prospectus—I have signed share warrants to bearer for Beall when the bank was running—I invariably put the question to him, "Are the 2,000 exceeded yet or not?" and he would say, "I wish I had sold the half of them?" quite in an offhand, jocular way—there were two guard books—it was the practice to stick circulars in them, which were sent out by the bank from time to time—this is one of them—this letter, which is stuck on at the back, shows me that it has been in the guard-book—it would be circulated—(Read: "Sir or Madam,—I am enclosing you prospectus of our bank, and I desire to draw your attention to the names of the gentlemen who are associated with the undertaking, some of whom are doubtless well known to you, including Mr. W. J. Carruthers Wain. "Sou will observe that the list closes in the course of the next few days, and should you desire to apply for shares, as subscribers will receive allotment in order of priority, your application should reach me not later than the 11th inst. Yours faithfully, A. F. BAKER, Secretary.)"—for the purpose of selling founders' shares, letters were written from time to tune by me, as assistant secretary, to different persons—this one (Produced) is dated April 10th, 1893—I remember that; this is a copy; it is not my signature—we sent out a number of them—(Read:

Sir,—One of our shareholders has asked me to dispose of four of his fully paidup founders' shares at the price of £12 15s. each, without the obligation of taking any of his ordinary shares, and should you be desirous of acquiring these, will you please let me have a line at your earliest convenience. This price includes all costs of transfer.—F. J. BAKER, Assistant Secretary')—there were no expenses of transfer for founders' shares—I had no books to make any entries in with regard to them; it was simply the stamp—some of the shares were sold in that fashion—this, of May 9th, is in blank; it is not signed—there is a space for the assistant secretary's signature—(Read; "Sir or Madam,—A number of shareholders who have an aversion to hold shares on which there is an uncalled liability, have expressed a desire to pay up the full amount of £10 per share. The directors have given the matter their consideration, but before coming to a decision, would like to know to what extent I this wish is general, and whether it is likely to meet with the approval of the majority of shareholders. The directors fully appreciate the advantages to be derived from the general adoption of the course suggested, inasmuch as it would place at their disposal more capital to be profitably employed, and that dividends would be payable on the amount actually paid up. I am, therefore, instructed to ask you to signify your views on the enclosed form, and return the same to me at your earliest convenience. I am pleased to inform you that the bank premises have been opened at the above address, and that the directors have been able to secure very profitable business. The Paris office is also completed, where the usual hanking business is transacted. Branches are also being opened at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, and negotiations are now pending for the establishment of branches in Birmingham and Manchester under the superintendence of experienced managers. Yours obediently, [blank] Assistant Secretary")—then follows a form for the shareholders to fill up; this has reference to ordinary capital—I know that a circular did come at that time in May; I cannot say at this date; I have no reason to doubt it was that—from the commencement of the bank Mr. Beall used to superintend the correspondence—he undoubtedly composed the letter of April 10th, 1893; no one else had the power to do anything of that kind—he was there daily if he was in town—the letters were simply placed before me; except formal ones—I did not attend the directors' meetings—I did not attend the board meetings; I was in touch if I was sent for—Mr. Stokes and Mr. Greville resigned in April, 1894, February and April respectively, or something of the kind—after that Wain and Lambert continued to be the two remaining directors—the directors' fees "were five guineas a meeting—before the meetings, agenda papers were got out in the usual way; we made up the agenda paper in preparation for the board meeting—I kept the minute-book—those are minute-books 1 and 2—I kept them from the agenda paper which was before the board—votes were made upon the agenda paper of what had been done, and those were handed to me, and then the minute-books were written up, and at the following board meeting the agenda was compared—in consequence of that minute I opened an account called Establishment Expenses Account; I had instructions to do so—this is how I opened it: "1893, April 10th, amount due, A. F. Baker on promotion account, as

per minute of today's date, £6,909; less deduction from agreement dated March 10th, 1892, £2,132; leaving a balance of £4,777"—then," Amount paid by A. F. Baker on account of establishment expenses previous to accounts being taken over by board, £18,555 £3,632 is the total, which was discharged by the various cheques appearing on the other side of the account—this item of £1,855 is a cross entry; there is an entry on the other side exactly balancing it—that must be the sum deducted by A. F. Baker when he handed over the amount to the bank, I take it; roughly speaking, I take it so; I may be wrong—there is a cross entry appearing on each side; it is there for a purpose, undoubte—I have had no access to the books for many years; I have no knowledge of it—Mr. Beall had two current accounts at the bank. No. 1 and No. 2—in June, 1894, Mr. Beall's No. 1 account was overdrawn £341 19s. 8d.; that overdraft went to liquidate the debt of the bank—we had a liability to the promoters of £4,777, and Mr. Beall liquidated that liability in this fashion, so that part of that liability was discharged by £34 10s. 8d. being credited as against Mr. Beall's overdraft on No. I account—No. 2 account was overdrawn to nearly £1,249 10s. 4d.; it is £1,215 really, and that overdraft wiped off in the same way by a transference of £1,219 10s. 4d. from the establishment expenses account—those two items, £346 10s. 8d. and £1,219 10s. 4d., balanced the establishment expenses account—in the bank's ledger I find those two sums entered to the credit of Beall's No. 1 account and Beall's No. 2 account, and then overleaf I find the other one—in June, 1893, some debenture prospectuses were sent out; it must have been drafted in the board-room or submitted to the board—no clerk in the bank drafted it, to my knowledge—No. 264 is a print of the debenture prospectus as finally settled—the bank were interested in some promotion accounts that some people in the City had made some advances to—they had assisted some promoters, and certain bonus shares were to reach the bank, and there wore others besides those—I cannot give you any investment which the bank had in June, 1893, upon which the bank were to be secured; "investment" is not the word, certainly—some thousands of those prospectuses went out, and there was one application, that was all, Mrs. Tilton's; this is it: "Having paid to your bank the sum of £10 as a deposit of 5 per cent, on £200 debenture stock, I request you to allot me that amount, and I agree to accept the same or any smaller amount that may be allotted to me on the terms of the prospectus dated June, 1893. I engage to pay the further instalments upon such allotted amount as the same shall become due, in default of which all previous payments shall be liable to forfeiture. ISABELLA TILTON, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, Widow. June 2nd, 1893"—at Exhibit 266 is Mr. Colee's receipt for the £10 deposit dated June 7th, 1893; the figures are mine, but the signature is Mr. Colee's; it is a joint receipt—Exhibit 267 is a letter by me to Mrs. Tilton: "Dear Madam,—I have the pleasure of enclosing you formal letter of allotment for £200 debenture stock, and allowing for the interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum, the amount of cheque that you have to remit will be the sum of £189 6s. 2d."—Exhibit No. 269 is a printed document which has been altered in manuscri pt; here are some alterations—the manuscript is Mr. Beall's writing—I sent

out this letter (Exhibit 268) to Mrs. Tilton; this is my signature: "Madame,—I beg to inform you that, in accordance with your application, £200 43/4 debenture stock in this corporation has been allotted to you, and the amount payable to make these fully paid is £189 6s. 2d.; will you be good enough to send this to the credit of this corporation at the above address.—F. J. BAKER, Assistant Secretary"—I recollect Mrs. Tilton sending that sum of money, and this is my receipt for it: "June 20th, 1893. Dear Madam,—Thanks for your favour enclosing cheque, value £189 6s. 2d., which completes the purchase of your £200 debentures. Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKER, Assistant Secretary"—Exhibit No. 271 is not my signature; I am not responsible for it; it is a formal letter per pro—this is my signature—I can say that in December, 1893, I enclosed her a cheque value £4 15s., interest at 43/4 per cent, for the half-year; I signed that as assistant secretary—in September or October, 1893, I remember preparing some accounts of the bank's half-year's working under instructions from the board—I had never done such a thing before as to prepare the accounts of a company; it was not a balance-sheet, but simply a rough draft—I did the best I could with my rough draft, and it was submitted to the board—; do not think I had any conversation with Mr. Beall as my financial adviser about this; that was done between me and the board—I have the minute-book here for October 3rd, 1893; it is at page 113—I find there were present Mr. Wain, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Greville, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Brandon, solicitor—it says: "The secretary was instructed to send out the remaining debenture prospectuses, numbering about 3,500, in envelopes already addressed, and to insert a slip, printed in red, of the following note: 'An interim dividend at the full rate of 7 per cent, per annum for the half-year ending September 30th, 1893, has been declared, and will be payable on and after October 6th '"—a little further on I find: "The secretary presented a statement for the financial half-year ending September 13th showing the gross profits of £2,785 4s. Id., and the net profits of £1,269 13s. 4d. It was resolved that an interim dividend at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum be paid on all shares £5 paid for the past half-year, and also on all amounts for fully paid ordinary shares paid in advance"—I was further instructed "to insert an advertisement in the principal daily and financial papers, that the transfer books and register of members of the corporation would be closed for the 12 days from the 4th to the 16th October, inclusive. It was further ordered that notice of this be given to all shareholders, agents and officers of the corporation, and that printed notices be ordered, Proof of circular letter was submitted and ordered to be printed, also circular letter to all shareholders as to opening current accounts"—and then later on, "The secretary was instructed to draft a new copy of a share prospectus with a view of issuing 20,000 or 30,000 copies"—the account which is referred to in the minute here is the account which I prepared; the one that shows these figures—it was quite a rough draft on the profit side; the statement was made of different discounts and sums that had reached us—on the other side there were the expenses, salaries, directors' fees and rent—something was added by the board for any profits to be earned—no note was made, it is simply a rough draft; it was not entered in the

books, but something was added in the shape of bonus shares, which would reach the bank for financial assistance they had given to the promoters—then as to the payments that had been made, it was agreed by Beall and one of the directors, Mr. Wain, the chairman, that they should not be charged to the first year's working, and after an account had been made out in that way, the net profits brought out were these £1,269 13s. 4d.—it must have been so, or it would not have been entered in the minutes—I make out my amount of discounts from the discounts that had been carried through—there is a ledger here to prove that, the discount ledger gives a record of the different discounts that have been carried through; this must be my loan ledger in which the discounts would be entered—I take it this would be the ledger—a record could be made from this undoubtedly; this book covers that period; I must have used it; the facts were placed on paper before them, undoubtedly—there were several slips in addition to the sheet I made up giving particulars of the different items; the dates are all here—I took into account Colonel Schaffer, the first discount we had, £60, and March 30th, the date of the discount, and a further £60 on August 2nd—that was on the renewal of the bill, which was still running at the time I prepared my account—Colonel Schaffer had deposited collateral security—that was not taken into account in arriving at my total; simply the bonus shares—I can give other instances from the loan ledger; on that account was this dividend of 7 per cent, declared—the amounts before me give a total gross profit of £12,000—I cannot say what I make the total of these discounts to be—I have had no access to the books for years—I know I prepared it in this fashion; a debit and credit account—several slips were prepared and given to each member of the board showing the items—it was agreed that certain sums that had been paid away should not be charged to the first year's working, such as stationery—stationery had been paid for and had not been used, and they considered it unfair to charge the first year's working with that, and then they took into account certain bonuses that were to be taken into account which I had not taken into account—I know there was some £1,500 or £1,800 we considered as being a proportion which the first half-year's working was entitled to—that was on arriving at the profits for the first half-year—£1,500 or £1,800 was added to the figures I handed to the board—it did not show a profit when I presented it to them—if the directors' fees and salaries were taken into account with rent and sundry payments it amounted to more than we had received in the way of discounts, but the directors upon that day declared, and subsequently drew, a cheque for the 7 per cent, dividend which is mentioned in this minute—this is the cheque—it is drawn by Harrison, Lambert, and Stokes, as directors, countersigned by myself as assistant secretary, and it is for £472 19s. 10d., and dated October 16th, 1893—this is the printed prospectus as it was circulated—this draws attention to this statement, and in answer to this prospectus, about 59 shares were applied for and allotted; I think four or five shareholders did reply; something of that sort—I knew that there was a branch of this bank at Paris, No. 20, Rue St. George's; and at the end of June, 1893, that branch ceased to be a branch of the bank; we had a lot of trouble with it—so far as I know,

no business was done there at all—I knew Mr. Brandreth was discharged—by the loan ledger there were two persons with whom the bank had accounts, named John and Fordyce Sheridan—I find on folio 20 an entry in my writing which shows that the bank discounted an acceptance of John Sheridan for £600 on May 17th, 1893, and the bank charged him for that discount, £50—it was a three months' acceptance; this is simply a record of the transaction; there is another ledger that gives the full particulars of it apart from this—that advance to Mr. John Sheridan was followed by another advance of £125 on July 19th, 1893; and then I find an entry here referring to some shares in the London Refuse Company—that loan was never repaid—the entry is: "Our charges as per above agreement, under which we received 30,000 fully-paid shares of £1 each in the London Refuse Steam Generator and Electrical Power Company"—that is carried out at £30,000—there was an agreement, of course, which covered this charge; this ledger entry is in my writing—I had instructions some long time after this while the Sheridan matter had gone on; we had some litigation with the Sheridans, and this ledger entry was made in this fashion at that time, during the litigation, some time in 1894—it does not say that we got £30,000 for discounting a bill of £600 and a bill of £125; it says, "as per the above agreement"—then there is a farther entry here, folio 47, by which I find that the bank discounted an acceptance of Fordyce Sheridan's on August 18th, 1893, for £500—that was a three months' acceptance—the sum was £60, but the charge amounted to 16,500 shares—the entry is: "Our charge re the above as per agreement, under which we receive 16,500 fully paid shares of £1 each in the British Refuse and Steam Generator and Electric Power Company, Limited"—that is carried out at £16,500—in February, 1894, the bank advanced money for the promotion of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—ledger cash-book No. 1 is the account of the Atlas Syndicate in the bank; I see three cheques here, £500, £600, £700, are Nos. 219, 220, 221—these are the three cheques that are debited to that Atlas Contracting Syndicate account—each of them is drawn by the directors of the London and Scottish Bank, but yet cheques are debited to the account at our bank of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—the first one is for £651 10s., and the counterfoil shows registration fees, No, 220 is for £510 drawn to the London Share and Debenture Corporation for stamping and addressing envelopes, and the third is for £750 in favour of Messrs. Vickers advertising contractors, for advertising the company—all three of them bear the word "Atlas" on the counterfoil; so that our bank, the London and Scottish, paid those three sums, at any rate, towards the promotion of the Atlas Contracting Syndicate—I remember this circular being sent out: "February 22nd, 1894. Dear Sir,—We have had offered to us the opportunity of contributing to a limited syndicate, the object of which is to form a company to acquire and work Livet's Patents for London and twenty miles round; and although the terms proposed are of a very remunerative character, my directors do not see their way to entertain the proposal in its entirety, it not being what could be properly termed a banking or discount transaction. My directors, however, have made inquiries as to the value of the patents, and also personally had an opportunity of inspecting the installations at Halifax, and of seeing the

results, and are so satisfied with the great value of the invention and the bona fides of the undertaking, that they individually have joined the syndicate to form the London company, and have pleasure in bringing the matter under your notice, believing that a very handsome profit will accrue to those who participate in the advantages offered to the subscribers. I enclose particulars which will give you full information. Your application should be sent direct to the secretary of the syndicate. The money subscribed will be under the control of my directors, and will be lodged at our bank. Yours faithfully,—Secretary"—that circular referred to the Atlas Syndicate Contract, Livet's Patents—the company that the Atlas was to promote was the London Refuse Company, 30,000 of whose shares are referred to in the loan ledger under the heading of John Sheridan's account—I remember a statutory notice being put up in the bank—document 277 is in Mr. Barker's writing—I recognise the lower portion—it remained up till the time of the liquidation, till the time Mr. Aitcheson took possession; it was up at that time, so far as I remember—we have no reason to recognise that this is correct, but I remember the lower part of it—I know it was there shortly before the bank went into liquidation—I have no reason to suppose that Mr. Aitcheson did not have it—it was by the side of the sergeant's box—I will not swear this is not the paper—I recognise the lower part of this as being exactly like one we had in the place, and higher up I see £24,000—that represents the amount subscribed for capital; that would be right—in the autumn of 1894 Messrs. Abbott were employed to audit our accounts—the books at the bank which had been opened and kept by me were at their disposal—I do not remember Messrs. Abbott sending in their report; I was in Edinburgh at that time, preparing for our annual meeting—there was a difficulty about the wording of the certificate; I was up in the north then; I do not remember the circumstances, therefore—the financial adviser, Mr. Beall, sent me up there—we knew at that time that several of the shareholders had been anxious to have the annual meeting held for some time before that; we knew there was a chance of having some trouble at the meeting, and I was told off to interview them, and try to make them as friendly as possible—Mr. Beall told me to promise the shareholders a cash dividend—he told me that several of the bonus shares we had; some 65,000 shares we had; he said negotiations were pending whereby a number of these shares would be disposed of for cash, and a dividend would be paid; negotiations with some City house; I do not know which—those are the words he used—I went to Scotland and saw some of the shareholders—I promised them a cash dividend—I took some money there with me—I was running between Edinburgh and Glasgow; our largest shareholders were in that neighbourhood—I saw a friend of mine in Glasgow, and in consequence of that I interviewed a number of Glasgow persons—I had instructions as to that before I went to Scotland from Mr. Beall—I was to make every arrangement I could to carry the meeting through without any disturbance, if possible, and employ some men to attend the meeting; practically, make them friendly shareholders for the moment, just to support the chairman—I interviewed those persons in Glasgow, and gave them some money, and arranged for the meeting to be held on Monday morning,

December 10th, at Dowell's Rooms, at Edinburgh—I arranged for the pereons I had seen at Glasgow to be present at Edinburgh—they were not shareholders of the company; they had not anything to do with the meeting—on that Monday morning I was in my hotel at Edinburgh overnight from Glasgow—I paid those persons' railway fart, and gave them 10s. apiece attendance fee—there were 15, 16, or 18 of them; all men—on the Monday morning I was at my hotel at Edinburgh, and Mr. Beall and Mr. Wain came to see me there—there was some inquiry as to whether my friends would be there; I said, "Yes, they'll be there"—I told them what I had done—about 8 o'clock in the morning, Mr. Beall came to my bedroom at the hotel and said, "Is it all arranged 1" I said, "Yes, it is all arranged"—Mr. Wain was at the breakfast table; I told him about it afterwards—I said, "I have got a lot of men there; they are quite a scratch team, but perhaps they will answer the purpose"—he said, "I daresay it will be all right"—I think there were 17 or 18 of them—I went to the meeting on December 10th at 10.30—I did not pay the people beforehand, but afterwards—Mr. Wain took the chair—Mr. Beall went there, and was present throughout the meeting, so far as I know—my Glasgow contingent were there—slips of paper were kept at the door for the shareholders to sign their names as they went in—some of them did sign—they were all capable of signing—there was a rush—they were all people who looked like bank shareholders—my post was at the door—I wanted to keep the Press out, the reporters—I think I managed to keep the reporters out, but some of the people who got in were not shareholders—my friends were not shareholders; other people as well—I saw Mr. Norris there—the meeting began—Mr. Wain spoke for a long time—I heard Mr. Norris's speech; he seconded the motion—there was a lot of interruption, but finally the resolution was put to the meeting, and a show of hands taken—I presume my Glasgow friends took part in that—the chairman declared the resolution was carried—Messrs. Aobott's report was read at that meeting—it was printed and distributed; it consisted of a report and a balance-sheet and a certificate—the report was posted from London, after I had gone, to the shareholders; the balance-sheet No. 20—I know the accounts were before the shareholders when they were at the meeting, but the trouble arose over the wording of the certificate—I cannot identity this document (Produced)—I was not in London when it was sent out; I was in the North—it is to my knowledge that each shareholder who attended the meeting had a report and balance-sheet in his hand—I can speak for the accounts, not the other; the one with the figures in the balance-sheet—I cannot identify that report—they had one, but I cannot say that it was this one—the report in the hands of the persons there was a printed report—I identify the figures on the balance-sheet—this is No. 20—after the meeting a petition was presented to wind up this bank—the shareholders held a meeting after we had left the room, and instructed Counsel to proceed—this document is signed by me; Mr. Beall drafted it (Read)—that is the circular that was sent out—I saw it at the Mansion House, a long printed report of Mr. Wain's speech, and all that took place at the meeting—that was circulated with it—when I come up to London from Edinburgh I went to the bank premises

on the following morning, and the safe had been opened, and was completely empty—then I wrote this letter, No. 280: "35, Lombard Street, January 3rd, 1895. Dear Sir,—Will you kindly furnish me with a list of the documents in your possession which were taken to your office on December 17th and 18th last?—Yours faithfully, F. J. BAKKR4, Secretary. To Beall and Company, Throgmorton House, Copthall Avenue, E.C."—Mr. Beall was away ill immediately the windingup order was granted—the documents I was looking for at that time were the securities; the scrip for the bonus shares we held, and a lot of share warrants to bearer which belonged to Mr. Beall or the company; they were kept in this safe; I had a number of them in my charge—I never saw the sharoholders' ledger after I came back from Scotland—I believe I saw the letter-books, 1 or 2, up to the close—I sent a telegram to Mr. Beall about that time, of which this is a telegraphic copy—I had not seen Mr. Aitcheson, the liquidator, about that time; he was not then liquidator—Mr. Aitcheson came up to make a report, and I wrote the letter 282 the same day as the telegram—this is my letter (Read)—then there is another letter, of January 1st, from me to Mr. Beall, also original, No. 283 (Read)—while I was writing those letters to Mr. Beall, as secretary of the bank, circulars were sent out to the shareholders of the bank, dated December 21st—I remember No. 248 going out; I say we were continually in touch with Mr. Beall; he was sending up notes—from beginning to end I never constructed a circular to send out—Mr. Beall instructed me to send that out—285 is a postcard or circular which was to accompany it, and be returned by the shareholder; it was in the nature of a proxy—287, January 5th, is another (Read) although Mr. Aitcheson was not liquidator when I first saw him, he was afterwards appointed liquidator, and all the affairs of the bank, including all these books, so far as they were to be found, were placed in his hands; but the share ledger could not be found—I do not think there was anything in that, but I offered Mr. Aitcheson, in Edinburgh, to write him up another from what he had in other books—among the shareholders of the bank there was a man named Chance—this letter (Produced)did not reach me; 1 had no position there at that time—290 is a letter from Mr. Chance to the bank—this letter-book 3 is open at folio 201—I find there a typewritten letter, presscopied, which has been signed in manuscript; it is very faint—the signature in manuscript is Mr. Singleton's, A. F. Baker—a list was made up, which I checked at the Police-court, of the documents which have been used in thi.s case and exhibited, so as to determine the handwritings of them—there is some handwriting on the documents—301 is a list of documents which bear my own writing—I have had an opportunity of checking those with the originals, and it is correct—363 is a list of four other documents bearing the handwriting of Singleton, and 364 is a further exhibit, bearing my writing.

Tuesday, November 7th.

The minute-book was here put in and extracts read.

FEEDERICK JOHN BAKER (Continued). Inthisloan ledger, at folio 20,1 find the account of Mr. John Sheridan, and entered there the advance to him of £600—there is another entry, £125—underneath those entries there is an

entry beginning, "Our charges"—it is not dated—it is in my hand writing—it is impossible to fix the date, but it was in 1894—we had a lot of litigation with Fordyce Sheridan; they were frequently threatening him with bankruptcy proceedings, and a further number of shares was received from him after this entry was made—I also wrote this entry, at page 47, the same day, and under the same circumstances—this one relates to Fordyce Sheridan.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I was employed by this company about the date of the registration of the company, in August, 1892—it was not the London and Scottish when I first joined; temporary offices were taken in Copthall Avenue, not Lombard Street.

Re-examined. This letter in document 326, at page 357, is signed "E. Beall," in Beall's handwriting, dated October 24th, to Mr. Brandreth—there is some pencil at the end of it, and the signature is in pencil—these are all in Mr. Beall's handwriting—(Read: "Dear Mr. Braudreth,—Thanks for your letter. I had the pleasure of seeing your son yesterday, but only for a moment, and he is to let me know when I can see Mr. Wain, which I hope to do on Monday. We had, on the whole, a very pleasant passage, and thank you for your kind inquiries. I found every-thing upside down, and shall have to devote the afternoon and some few hours tomorrow in putting things straight. I will take an opportunity of discussing matters fully with Mr. Baker, so as to write you in detail on Monday, and send you copies of all necessary doouments. I suppose you do not suggest, owing to the time it will take, writing to any of your banking friends on the Continent to put their names on the prospectus.—Yours faithfully, E. BEALL. Alfred B. Brandreth, Esq., 20, Rue St. George's, Paris. Am so pressed with work, you will excuse me dictating this")—327 is a letter dated October 24th, the signature is in Beall's writing: "Dear Mr. Brandreth,—I send you herewith a copy of our share certificate, and will you have it altered, so that we may send to the printers in Paris for them to make a sketch of it I also send you herewith a copy of the memorandum of association, and shall be glad if you will have it translated and the necessary documents prepared and lodged with the Tribunal de Commerce, to enable the company to have an office and start business in the French capital. When these papers are ready, if you will kindly send them over, I will get the secretary to execute them and the seal of the company affixed. The gentleman I mentioned to you, who I think might join the Comité Etudes, is. Vicomts E. de la Panouse, and I think his address is Rue Saint Dominique. The other gentleman is Le Comte de Hedonville. I hope in the course of post to receive from you the prospectus, with any suggestion, and, at the same time, the names of the gentlemen you desire to act on the committee in Paris. I have had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Baker with reference to the terms of working arrangements, and the only thing that he takes exception to is the expense of the offices at £40 per month. I have told him that this will not accrue before everything is definitely arranged and they commence to work, when the bank's transactions should be able to pay this. I hope to have the pleasure of seeing Mr. Wain this afternoon. and I will write to you again tomorrow.—Yours faithfully, E, BEALL. P.S.—Since writing the above I have had the pleasure of a long interview with" Mr. Wain, and was 'extremely

pleased to make his acquaintance, which I hope will develop into friend-ship of a mutual character"—then 328 has Beall's signature, October 25th 1892: "A. B. Brandreth, Esq., 23, Rue St. George's, Paris. My Dear Sir,—I hope to hear from you to-morrow with the additions that you think advisable in the prospectus. Will you also let me have the names of the gentlemen that we can put on forming the committee in Paris? Mr. Wain yesterday gave me a letter of introduction to a friend of his in Glasgow, where I propose going at the end of this week to complete the Scotch board and the appointment of other officers. Great haste.—Yours faithfully, E. BEALL "—No. 330 is signed "E.Beall"—it is apparently type-written, but there are notes in Mr. Beall's writing—331 is just the same, and the same writing—332 is signed "A. F. Baker"—that is Mr. Singleton's writing, and 333 and 334 are signed "E.Beall, "in Mr. Beall's writing—335 is signed "A. F. Baker "; the signature is Mr. Singleton's—336 is signed "E Beall, "and is Mr. Beall's writing, and 337 also—338 is signed "A. F. Baker" in Mr. Singleton's writing—339, 340, 341, and 342 are signed by Mr. Beall; and in 343 the "E. B." initials are in his writing, also 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 361, and 352; that is a letter dated January 3rd, 1893, the last paragraph of which is, "You need not bother about such a lot of details here, and you may rely upon my getting them through, and getting everything in order. I can get the subscrihers together at a moment's notice, and the majority of the governors have already been elected by the subscribers"—353 is Mr. Beall's—in 354 there is a paragraph, "I hope you will not forget we are as pressed for money to keep things going as is possible to be. I cannot but think there is some way, without difficulty and expense, of being able to place some shares on the Continent"—355 is Mr. Singleton's, and it is signed "A.F.Baker"—356 is signed by Mr. Beall in pencil—357 is that signed by Mr. Beall—358 is signed "A. F. Baker" by Mr. Singleton—359 is signed by Mr. Beall—360 is initialled "E. B."—361 and 362 are Mr. Beall's—they are in the writing of all the people who purport to write them; most of them are typewritten.

By MR. ISAACS. My position was plainly a continuation of what it had been before, with Beall and Singleton there were no directors at that time—the office wad at Copthall Avenue, with "London and Scottish Bank" on it—we continued there—it was my duty to prepare the agenda paper and put it before the board after allotment—I assisted Mr. Beall in preparing the agenda paper; I had permission from him to assist in doing it; I did not compile it, but I assisted in it—I was authorised to put anything on it that I thought the directors should deal with, and I wrott up the minutes from the agenda paper, and from the notes on it of what had been done—it was from that that all these minutes were written up—these minutes contain a record of what had been done fit the board meetings from the notes made on this agenda paper when I saw them—they were written up from week to week, and compared with the agenda paper, and signed if they were found all right—the minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed—I take it that the minutes contain very full records indeed of the business done, so far as the staff knew; so far as we could see what was going on—the business was known to us, but none of the staff knew what went on in the boardroom—first, there was a balance submitted to the board at every board

meeting, showing what there was on current account and what there was on deposit account—every cheque that was drawn appears on the minutes as authorised by the board, and whatever business was done of other kinds, loans and so on, appears on the minutes generally—the first minute is March 17th, 1898; Mr. Stokes, Mr. Wain, Mr. Greville, and Mr. Lambert were present—that was when they entered on their duties as directors; Mr. Brandon, solicitor for the company, was also present—then the minutes of the meetings of the signatories to the memorandum of association of March 13th and 16th were produced, and the same were duly read and agreed to—that was what the signatories had done previously to that, and the minutes were all approved at this meeting—then: "It was proposed by Mr. Stokes and seconded by Mr. Greville, and resolved. That the London and Midland Back be appointed one of the clearing banks to the company, and that the necessary resolution and papers should be sent to the office, and that all cheques and drafts bo paid thereto." "Secretary to report as to staff to be employed in head office, to arrange for them to be guaranteed through the Provident Clerks' Society. Resolved, That the agreement with the manager of the European company be adopted"—that was the agreement with the European company by which the furniture of the European company was sold to the Scottish Bank, and the office was taken by the Scottish Bank in Paris—the financial manager was instructed to negotiate with reference to the appointment of a manager and secretary in Glasgow, and to submit the names and credentiak at the next board meeting; and also with reference to the offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and to conduct the necessary correspondence and general business of the bank, with the assistance of the committee—that relates to what Mr. Beall was to do, and at the meeting the minutes of the Paris committee were read—Mr. Schaffer's proposal was submitted—that was a business matter; that was the first discount matter that came before the board—Mr. Braudon, solicitor, appears to have attended right through, very frequently—it was reported that the following cheques drawn on account of the Paris office have been presented and duly honoured—they all came before the board—it was reported that the lease of the premises, 20, Rue St. Greorge's, Paris, has been duly transferred to the bank, and that the company has been duly registered in Paris—the company was registered there—apparently the £330 was made up of £240 for furniture aud £90 for rent—"The secretary is to have £100 petty cash; the balance over that now in his hands to be paid into bank; secretary to present statement of disbursements every board meeting"—it was quite early that that resolution was passed—I never presented anything personally to the board; it was simply made up in the form of the agenda, but it went before the board—I did not walk in with it in my hand, but right through it says: "The secretary reported and presented this and that"—it was down on the agenda—I was not there in person—the appointments and salaries were under that minute—the total salaries were at the rate of £13 10s. 6d. per week—not including Mr. Pappadaki's—at the next meeting:—"The minutes of the previous meeting were read, confirmed and signed. Colonel W. F. Schaffer's loan on his acceptance of four months with the following collateral securities, viz., 200 shares District Messenger Company, £1,000

Ordinary Shares Evening News Company, Limited. It was agreed to aidvance £750 on payment of bonus £32, and interest of £21 to be new deducted. Cheques ordered to be drawn for £750, £104, £104, £114, £400, £28, and acceptance completed for £782."—"Standing advertisement; approved ": that was the standing advertisement of the bank—"Estimate to be obtained of cost of advertising in journals as per list submitted. It was agreed to provide door plates, stationery and postages for Scotch agents. The question of remuneration for same was deferred for further inquiries and consideration"—then "Mr. F, J. Baker's appointment was confirmed. The offer as to underwriting contract in the 'Perfect Kiln,' Limited, was considered and declined"—Mr. Brandreth was authorised to arrange for office staff for Paris branch at a cost of not exceeding £18 per month"—that was apart from himself; all he was entitled to charge was £18 a month—"Bank pass-book produced and balance of £4,802 14s. found correct. Cheques were ordered to be drawn in pay-ment of rent £104 15s. 6d., and electric light fittings £64 3s., also £20 petty cash for Paris branch. It was ordered that Mr. Pappadaki and the other clerks be guaranteed"—then on April 6th, 1892, the minutes of the last meeting were read and signed—there were present Mr. Stokes, Mr. Wain, Mr. Greville, and Mr. Lambert, and "Mr. Brandon, solicitor, again attended"—he was there frequently—"the financial manager attended and reported that he had visited Paris" (that was Mr. Beall) "in accordance with the requisition of the last board meeting, and was present at a meeting of the Consultative Committee in Paris, on Wednesday, April 5th, at No. 20, Rue St. George's, at which meeting Mr. Verneuil was present"—Mr. Vemeuil was an official of the Credit Lyonnais in Paris, I believe—"The French prospectus was submitted and approved. The duplicate of the lease of the office in favour of the bank was also produced, also the assignment of the furniture. A long discussion ensued with reference to the French right" (that was some question about a railway) "and the proposition of Mr. Lorimer" (he was a gentleman apparently who was proposing some business with regard to this railway)—part of the premises were sublet to another company in Paris—"Bank pass-book was produced, and the balance found to be correct." The petty cash-book was produced, showing the balance in hand £2 14s., 5d. The rough cash-book balance, £66 15s., was also correct"—"It was agreed that estimates be submitted to an early board meeting from a list of French journals for advertising for six months at a total cost not exceeding £400"—that again was advertising the business—then "The proposal re Theatrical Trust, Limited, for £400 loan on mortgage (instead of £500 us previously agreed on) was submitted and approved of. Cheque for £400 was ordered to be drawn"—apparently from that there were various proposals, among them two were specifically dealt with: the French Kighi and the Theatrical Trust, Limited—I think they get longer as more business was done, but substantially the minutes were carried out in that form—on April 11th "Current accounts were opened by Mr. E, E. Cireville and Mr. Brandon"—that was Mr. Greville, one of the directors, and Mr. Brandon, the solicitor—we had Mr. Brandon and Mr. Lorimer from Paris there more than once—then "The following cheques were drawn"—and after the checiues came

this: "The cashier's book was produced, showing balance on hand £211 38. 4d. The petty cash-book was produced, showing balance on hand £3 1s. 5 1/2 d.": that was carried through at each meeting—then "It was reported that the remaining shares held as security for Colonel Schaffer's loan in District Messenger Service and News Company, Limited, had been lodged, and transfer executed in favour of Mr. Lambert and Mr. Stokes, and duly registered at the company's office, Mr. Grant's application for Manchester agency was considered. This gentleman was interviewed by some members of the board. Mr. Johnston's application for a Scotch agency was referred to Mr. Greville"—so there is not the slightest doubt when I refer to these minutes that at this time they were carrying; on a bonafide business, and were trying to do a bigger business—Mr. Lorimer came over irequenily, and just about the time they went to allotment—Mr. Dupont was another—Mr. Verneuil was a correspondent of the Credit Lyonnais; there was some correspondence about it—the Credit Lyonnais is well known here as well as in France—whether it was expected at first from what the French people had said that there would be large subscriptions by them is a matter the staff would Dot know anything about—I did not know it; I knew ir was under discussion at the board, certainly—I knew that the board was disappointed because they said the promises of the French people had not been carried out; that was true, I know—that was after they had gone to allotment in England—the bank in London expected a great deal from their Paris branch; they were disappointed there, I know—it can be shown that they went to heavy expense with regard to the Paris branch, aud as an inducement to the French people to do business it was eventually arranged that they should have 15 per cent, commission on whatever the people in London received on business the French people could introduce; there is a minute as to that—on May 16th there appears this minute, "The report of Messrs. Wain and Lambert on their visit to Paris"; they had been over to Paris, apparently—"It was agreed to approve of the remuneration to the French committee at the rate of 40f. each per meeting, with a commission of 15 per cent, on business introduced by the French house, payable in such manner as the bank may be paid through trade transactions carried to a successful issue initiated and carried through by the French office. The sum of £400 was ordered to be placed to the credit of Paris branch at bank to pay for advertisements on the Continent"; so that whatever the bank over here got in consequence of an introduction by the Paris committee the Paris committee was to get 15 per cent, for—Mr. Pappadaki had nothing to do with the bank account books—Mr. Weller, a friend of Mr. Pappadaki, had; he came in—he was a bank accountant; he came after we had gone on a certain distance with the books we had before that, and he suggested certain additions to the books—the books were opened by myself first, and Mr. Weller came in afterwards and suggested further books, and they were kept in the way Mr. Weller showed they should be kept till Mr. Abbott came on the scene—Messrs. Abbott complained of the system—I mean from the time I opened and dealt with the books under Mr. Weller's suggestion they were carried on in that way, and were properly carried on, to the best of my ability, till Messrs. Abbott came on the scene, and suggested that there should be a different system of book-keeping; they

refused to give their certificate till they had authority to open a fresh set of books—they differed from the way Mr. Weller had opened the books—they objected to the way they were made up, and would not certify them until they were written up in the way they wanted—Mr. Weller, the bank accountant, carried out the audit subsequently; that would be in 1894,. under the supervision of Messrs. Abbott—Messrs. Abbott had nothing to do with it except give the certificate; they were chartered accountants; Mr. Weller did the work—I understood that the liquidator got a fresh set of books; I did not see them—Messrs. Abbott and Co. gave the certificate in December, 1894, but we never saw the fresh set of books—they would be written up then at Messrs. Abbott's offices; they never came to the bank—it was that question of writing up the books that led to a considerable delay in the preparation of Messrs. Abbott's accounts—they were there three or four months, and I at times, under the direction of the board, was pressing Abbott's to hurry up—the only question that arose between the books that were kept under the suggestion of Mr. Weller and the books that were ultimately written up by Messrs. Abbott was as to the system—there was no question that I had not included everything—when Mr. Weller came in to make the audit, the books had been used before; they contained entries of everything that had gone on before then; but they objected to the system—the share warrants were made out to bearer, but only for the founders' shares—Mr. Brandreth did not suggest that the shares should be made out as share warrants—I think a form was printed—the shares in England would be registered shares, but all the founders' shares were share warrants—the principal distinction between the share warrants and the ordinary certificates for registration is that the share warrants pass by delivery to bearer—I do not require a register of shares with share warrants—the bearer is the holder—I have here the account of the establishment expenses—they begin to be entered on April 18th, 1893—that entry was made in pursuance of a minute on April 18th passed by all the directors, and according to that entry we start by this, that the amount due to A. F. Baker on promotion account is £6,909—on April 11th the matter was referred to a committee of Mr. Lambert and Mr. Stokes to consider the expenses which were brought in by Mr. A. F. Baker, as having been incurred as establishment charges and report upon them, and then apparently they sit as a committee and consider this matter, and on April 18th the matter is brought before the board, and there is the minute: "Having been submitted to Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lambert these gentlemen reported that they had been through the same and were satisfied with the amounts and that the same were in order, showing that the sum of £6,909 had been paid by the fouuders, thus leaving a balance now due to them of £4777. It was agreed that the agreement dated March 10th, 1892, so far as cash payments are concerned, should be reduced, and in lieu of the amount therein mentioned the aforesaid sum should be accepted," that is, £6,909—on March 20th a banking account had been opened at the London and Midland Bank of the London and Scottish Bank by a payment on credit of £3,700 odd from Mr. A. F. Baker's account to the London and Scottish account with the Midland; that was taken over—the exact amount was £3,400, I think—that was the difficulty between the auditors and myself when they

came in—on April 8th certain amounts had been received and paid into A. F. Buker's accounts, and they were received by the founders and promoters, and had not gone into the London and Scottish Banks account; and those amounts had to be accounted for therefore—the copy of the account spoken of in the minute as presented by Mr. Lambert and Mr. Stokes to the board I never saw; we simply had to go by the amount—it was agreed that the establishment charges were to be £6,909—as against that there were payments that had been made by Mr. A. F. Baker either for the account of the London and Scottish or to the account of the London and Scottish Bank, for which Mr. Baker was entitled to be credited in the accounts between them—that was the question that arose with Messrs. Abbott and the liquidator—this account contains the expenses made made out by me from the minutes—it was agreed in the fninutes that the sum to be still paid to the promoters was £2,477, not because the agreement of March 10th was to be altered, but because they had had that amount already; that was the position—my explanation is this: the sum of £4,777 was paid by the directors after the company went to allotment; then sums had been paid before that—Messrs Abbott make it out that some £8,000 was spent in establishment and promotion expenses; that is in the balance-sheet—this £4,777 represents a sum that was actually paid after the company went to allotment, by the promoters—the sum of £3,000 was paid before that—I made in the ledger these entries from the minutes—I must have had some instructions, because it says here, "Less deduction from agreement, dated March 10th, 1892"—I never saw that agreement—I opened this account soon after April 18th, and then I entered those other payments as they were made, but that agreement of March 10th, 1892, never reached me; I never saw it—what I entered in the book is what I thought it was, from the minutes, certainly—it was agreed iu the minutes that that sum of £4,777 was still to be paid; then the auditors, when they came to examine the account, found that instead of taking £3,477 over from A. F. Baker they should have had over £6,000—they found that he had received the application money and certain sums paid into the bank on allotment—that is the only explanation I have to give—I can explain that entry—Birtwhistle had sent £200 to Mr. Beall, or somebody connected with Mr. Beall, in 1892, and he wanted ordinary shares—it appeared that the matter was quite forgotten, and after the company went to allotment Mr. Birtwhistle wrote and asked whether he had been allotted his ordinary shares—then this amount was traced, so that it had to be accounted lor—it was pait of the money of the company; that was the view I took of it—I debited them with that £200, under instructions, so Mr. Beall said at once, "Oh! this matter has been overlooked"—the £4,777 which was still to be paid is made out paid by the two credits of transfers from Beall's account Nos. 1 and 2, and the sums granted by the board periodically—the cheques paid out by the board were always in pursuance of resolutions—Mr. Beall never overdrew more than was due to the promoters—in order to get all the accounts square he had been paying himself in that way, and then the accounts were transferred so as to finish the. whole thing up, the £4,777—the amount which had been actually overdrawn by Beall on Beall's account No. 2 was £1,215, but in order to square up the whole of this account they debit him with the exact balance, which happens to be £4 10s. more

and the result of that is that the whole account is wiped off and then the promoters have been properly paid the £4,777, which was still due—the £3,477 was the payment over by Baker—the next sum, £526, was a shareholder's cheque payable on allotment—they are receipts from no one else but shareholders—the next is £917 10s.; that is a number of cheques than had reached the bank and were placed in one payment in that fashion—they were a portion of the allotment; they were maue payable to Baker—Messrs. Abbott, I may mention, always complained that the establishment expenses account had nothing to do with the promotion account—I have got the establishment expenses account before me—the cheques as granted by the board are in consecutive order, but other entries, such as the balancing entries, are simply the totals; they could not be in this ledger—the last three entries were made when the amounts were found to total to £4,777—I see Beall and Co. No. 2 account closed in July, 1894—as soon as the entry was found to total the entry would he made—it may have been a month or so afterwards, but there were no further payments made—in the account of Beall and Co. No. 1 the latest entry may he August 15th, 1893; in No. 2 account a transfer is made in December, 1894—that is the balancing entry—I have only got the totals here; I cannot speak as to details—those figures were arrived at by current account over the counter paid away by Mr. Colee, the cashier—Mr. Beall was provided with London and Scottish cheque-books, and he drew the money over the counter, so that those figures were taken from the current account, and had nothing to do with the directors at all—in May, 1893, the debenture prospectus was about to be issued—from March 17th or 20th until May 25th, 1893, the bank was discounting bills and doing the best business it could with the money it had—at that time there was not much money to work with—if with a small capital they could earn a fair amount in discounts and commission, the more money they had to use the better—on May 25th, 1893, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Greville, Mr. Carruthers Wain, and Mr. Brandon, the solicitor, attended the meeting (The minute was here read)—the debentures were to be the security of whatever the bank had—from time to time the debentures were to have the security of a floating charge—the agreement was signed for the offices in George Street, Edinburgh, which had been taken on agreement in May, 1893, at a rental of £80, and on that day the insurance for the guarantee of the staff in the office was increased from £1,200 to £2,000, £500 apiece for four of us (Further extracts from the minutes were here read)—no business resulted from anything the French committee put before the board, and in the result Mr. Brandreth was discharged—a dispute arose with regard to the furniture at the office in Paris—an action was brought by certain people, on behalf of the debenture-holders of the European Contract Corporation, in which they claimed that the furniture on the premises at the offices of the London and Scottish Bank belonged to the debenture holders, and thereupon the London and Scottish Bank intervened in the action, to protect the furniture, their own property—Mr. Brandreth obtained about that time, or some little while afterwards, a judgment against the London and Scottish Bank, ejecting them from the premises—that judgment the London and Scottish Bank asserted was fraudulently obtained by Mr. Brandreth—I think that was the tone of the proceedings—in my affidavits I stated that

Mr. Brandreth had fraudulently obtained this judgment behind our backs, in order to get the benefit for himself and to oust us, and thereupon the action proceeded, the London and Scottish Bank claiming to have the offices and the furniture—we had paid for the lease at that time—they were desirous of going on with their business there with somebody other than Mr. Brandreth—as a matter of fact, the directors and Mr. Brandon went across, to take forcible possession of the premises, so as to oust Mr. Brandreth from the fraudulent possession which they said he had taken; and they got possession—it is the fact that from June, 1893, until the end of September, 1893, the company continued doing the same business, the discount business and banking business that they had, to the best advantage, according to their capital—in October, 1893, or the end of September, this question arose with regard to the preparation of a statement, 80 as to show what the position was for the six months—I was instructed to make a rough balance-sheet, a rough draft, to show what profits had been made for the six months—I proceeded to do that, without the assistance of the board in any way, but by the assistance of the staff; and the board interfered in no way whatever with that until the thing was completed—there was not a great deal to do; I think I did it all myself—none of them had it until it was ready for the use of the board; there had not been a great deal of business done up to that time, and it was a simple matter to do it—all I had to do was to find out what had been the outgoings and the incomings, the receipts and the expenditure—the first item was to ascertain how much had been received by way of discount and commission—there was no other source of revenue at that time—there were shares which they had received, and that was taken into account after I had presented the statement—suppose there had been shares which could have been sold in the market at a profit of £1 apiece, they would have to come into account in ascertaining what the profits were, and against that I should have, to take into account what had been the working expenses of the company, salaries and rent and other payments, directors' fees—I cannot remember the figures; it is quite impossible, I have had no access to the books for five years—a detailed statement of what had been received in that way was annexed to the statement I have drawn up; it was added to it—I cannot remember what the totals were; I presented a statement to the board and gave all the details—one of the items of which I gave details was this amount of commission and discount—I cannot tell you the balance within £1 or £100 at this date—it would not take long to find out from the ledger—it was well on for £1,000, I believe, the amount that had been received—it was not a balance at all; it was simply a statement of either side—no balance was struck—it showed a statement of receipts and expenditure; that is all—the question of pro£t was not taken into account at all, because the payments were spread over a certain period of time; for instance, a payment was made of £64 for electric lighting—I could not take the whole of that into account for the first six months—the board dissected the accounts afterwards—in the account which I prepared I did not put on one side all the items that had been paid out, regardless of whether they were for the six months or twelve months, or longer: but the current slips prepared for each of these entries would show everything—it would not be so much as £ 100,

but if there was an account of £100 for stationery, and I had £70 or £80 worth in stock at October, 1893, I should only take into account what had been used, and then again stamps had been paid for by the board for cheque books and other things, and the stamps were still there—when I prepared the minute I knew very well what the statement was for—it was in order to see whether the profits had been sufficient to enable them to declare an interim dividend—I am not clear that the statement as prepared by me was in the hands of the board, and considered by them for some time—I remember Mr. Wain and I and Mr. Beall going through the account afterwards—you may call it a committee from the board—it was not considered by the full board—the committee of the board met, I suppose, before we came to a final settlement of the account—I was brought into the board-room, and certain suggestions were made, and they were carried out—the official half-year ended on September 13th, so that I had from then to October 3rd to prepare this account and adjust it—I was instructed to take certain items out, and to spread them over—that is to say, items such as those I have given you—it was considered unfair to charge the first half-year's working with these items—the decision they arrived at was that the whole of the preliminary expenses could not possibly be debited against the trading for six months—right through to the end you will find "the secretary presented a statement"; that is simply a minute in the book; he did not do so; I simply handed it in; I was not there when it was presented—"The secretary presented a statement for the financial half-year ending September 13th, showing gross profits £2,785 48. 1d., and net profits £1,269 13s. 4d."—I wrote that minute from the agenda, of course; not that day, the minutes were always written a week afterwards, not on the day, but at the time I entered this up I had no reason to doubt that it was right—the figures were arrived at after the board had dissected the accounts—I never presented any such account with those figures—there is no account made up after the figures were dissected by the board—the figures wore "added and the additions were made afterwards, and it was left in the board-room—I did not make the additions—I did not make the alterations—the statement was simply altered and retained by the board—it was in the possession of the board, I know—I saw it afterwards, certainly, but only the totals from the agenda paper, which was always signed by the chairman, and from that I entered up the minute—if the chairman was not there on the day, the chairman who officiated for the day would sign it—it never came back into the outer office—I did not make the alterations—I made the minute from what I found on the agenda—in February of 1895 I was examined before Lord Stormonth Darling in Scotland in the liquidation proceedings of the London and Scottish Bank (Exhibit 258, read)—I was being asked about the statement which I had referred to as having been presented according to this minute, showing aprofit of £1,269 13s. 4d.; it is the same statement in an altered form—my answer then was: "It was in the hands of the board; it was presented duly to the board"—I say so still, undoubtedly, but in an altered form; it was not altered outside at all; it was altered in the board-room—the minutes were altogether wrong when they say thai the secretary signed it—I say I presented a statement; it was altered by the directors at the board room, and I never saw it—

I cannot see that there is much in not saying that when I was being examined in Edinburgh; but it never came out of the board-room—I said, "So far as I know, it is in the hands of the liquidator; it was amongst the other documents "; so far as I know, it is still—I said that it was prepared by ray instructions; I believe I did it myself; I may have had some assistance from the other members of the staff, but, speaking at the present date, there was not much of it, and I do not see why I cannot have done it all myself in one day—I was asked about a number of questions—I know I presented a statement to the board; it was altered in the board-room, and never came out—I did not give that answer then; the question was not pressed in Scotland in the way you are doing it now—I am practically of the same mind that I was then; I say it may be in the bands of the liquidator now; it never was in my possession—it is misleading to say that the secretary presented it; that is right through the minutes from beginning to end, and it is misleading—I wrote it all from the agenda paper; it was always done in that fashion—I did not present it personally—my explanation is that the statement was handed into the board-room; it never came out after; it was altered there—it was never presented by roe or any of the rest of the staff after it was altered—I said, "None of the directors took active part in making up the account"; I say so still—it is only that one account that is dealt with; then I said: "It was submitted to the board (Q.) Prepared by you and submitted to the board?—Prepared by me and the staff. (Q.) Did the four directors, before they authorised the payment of this 7 per cent, dividend, take any means to satisfy themselves that the profit had really been earned?"—they may have done so—the chairman, before the dividend was paid, may have had the statement in his hands for a week; I do not remember it now—I have already told you to-day that it was a committee of the board which passed the account finally—it was not on the same day—whether before they authorised the payment of a 7 per cent, dividend they took means to satisfy themselves that the profit shown on that statement bad actually been earned is not within my province—the directors had the opportunity to satisfying themselves that the statement prepared by me was correct; they had the slips of paper which contained the details of each entry along with the statement—Mr. Beall was questioning me; he insisted on being in Court—the statement, as prepared by me, contained the then value of the securities the bank held, and their various assets; the value of the deposits that we had negotiated, and the sum that had accrued to the bank; we held it as security, undoubtedly; if we discounted a man's security that was our security—the statement contained the then value of the securities which the bank held; in this statement that I prepared, for instance, you will find that Colonel Schaffer had a discount of £782; that was down in the statement, and what had accrued to the bank in discount for the same—the man's bill would be the only security we had—I was asked, "Can you say from your own knowledge, as an accountant and secretary of this company, that the directors were entitled to declare a dividends and I said, "Yes, it neemed all right;" it was a qualified reply—it goes on, "The sum to be expended on dividends is not

a large one"; that is a qualitiod reply—they passed it, I did not pass it; I had nothing to do with it except to fill in the minutes from the agenda paper afterwards; so far as I was concerned, it ended there—I took no responsibility at all—it was put to me, "It was not bonus, but it was earned?" and I replied, "Yes, according to the statements submitted to them, and they satisfied themselves about it"; that is altogether misleading—I did not submit any statement that warranted a dividend being paid; I could not have said so in evidence—I remember the circumstances perfectly well; there was a strong discussion between the chairman, Mr. Beall, and I as to whether the directors' fees should be taken into account—they were taken into account on the statement I made; that was a most important item; it was the largest item in the account—it was taken into account in that statement—I cannot remember what the directors cut out—I did not say just this minute that they cut it out; I said there was a discussion on that point; it was talked over in the board-room between the chairman, Mr. Beall, and myself; that was the largest item to come against the profits; it amounted to £21 per week, about £480; it was the largest item I know of in the account as I drew it; against the net profit—there was a strong discussion on that point, but I know the accounts were cut up in such a way, they never reached me afterwards—whether I have ever made the statement in any affidavit or in any examination that you make to-day and that you made at the Mansion House, is impossible to remember—I know tliere were a great many affidavits being made—from beginning to end there was litigation right and left while the bank was running—I cannot remember having talked over this matter at all with anyone—I have got a fair grip of the matter yet—I do not think I said anything in 1895 that I could not practically verify to-day—an interim dividend of 7 per cent, was declared, which took some £400 odd—if the net profit was £1,269 138. 4d., which paid away £470 odd in dividends, supposing they had made that profit, or anything like that, they had done wonderfully well with the little capital they had had; they had a small amount then; therefore, the more capital they did get the better thoy would be able to do, if they could get it on moderate terms—so far as that prospectus for further capital was concerned, that was a further issue of 50,000 ordinary shares; at a little premium if I recollect right—what had happened with regard to the ordinary shares was that none had been issued at all until March, 1893, when the first issue of 100,000 shares was made—then in October they did as they had power under the articles to do; they issued a further 60,000—I cannot say whether the two Sheridans were clients introduced by Brandon and Nicholson, the solicitors to the bank—it may have been so, but I do not remember at this dare—Brandon and Nicholson acted as solicitors to the Scottish Bank until April, 1894, I should say, roughly speaking—they acted for about 12 months; that would cover the time—it was during that time that the Sheridans were introduced—Brandon and Nicholson were also solicitors for the Sheridans in certain proceedings; I am not sure whether they were solicitors for them all through—I think Mr. Greville, a friend of Mr. Brandon's, acted for Mrs. Sala—he was a solicitor, and was also a director of the Scottish Bank—the Theatrical Trust was either Mr. Greville's or Mr. Brandon's business—I believe they

also acted for the British Refuse Company; Greville was the solicitor to that—Mr. Beall may have been averse to the trafisactions being entered into with the Sheridans—there may have been conversation on the board, but we did not know anything about that; we cannot say one way or the other—I cannot remember at this date if the bank was advised by Brandon to advance this money to the Sheridans—it may have been the case—that is six years ago, and I am not clear upon that point—wheu because they took away certain documents—I know we claimed certain documents from them—there was litigation—I cannot remember at this date if I swore this: "In the month of August, 1893, under the advice of Jocelyn Brandon, of the firm of Brandon and Nicholson," etc. (Beading to the words). "and that the security was a valuable one"—if the affidavit is there, of course, it had been made—I was in the habit of making a lot of these affidavits at that time—they were all prepared for me—it is within my knowledge that Messrs. Brandon and Nicholson haveactedfor the Sheridans recenily, and it is possible that they did at that time—if Brandon advised that this would be a valuable security, that was done by the board; that wasnot within my knowledge—the London Refuse Company's shares were, in the view of myself and the staff, at that time a very valuable security; we looked upon them as being very promising indeed right up to the finish; up to the end; I think, really, Mr. Beall did—when I went to Scotland he told me that a lot of these shares were going to be knocked into cash immediately, and I quite believed him—I thought they were very valuable, and so did he—in pursance of what I heard in regard to it I sent out the circular which states, "We have had offered to us the opportunity of contributing to a limited syndicate, the object of which is to form a company to acquire and work Livet's patents for London and 20 miles round"—it says, "My directors, however, have made inquiries as to the value of the patents, and also personally had an opportunity of inspecting the. installation at Halifax, and of seeing the results, and are so satisfied with the great value of the invention, and the bonafides of the undertaking, that they individually have joined the syndicate to form the London company"—the particulars which were sent with it were to show what Livet's patent was to do—I remember there was an enclosure went with that circular—when the accountants came on the scene, that is Abbot's, we were urging them to complete their accounts; chey were there for three or four months—the directors told me to hurry them up, and I did try to hurry them up to get the accounts finished; they were a nuisance in the place—the first conversation with regard to what I was to do when I was going up to Scotland probably took place a day or two before December 6th; I know I left on the 6th—it took place in the board-room of the bank, I presume—we had only two directors at that time—I do not think they were both present; it must have been Mr. Beall, the chairman, I think, I am not clear on that point—I know Mr. Beall was there, and one of our directors—it is within my knowledge that Mr. Wain was there the night I left for Scotland; he came there that afternoon; that came to my knowledge the day after I was examined at the Mansion House—my view of my instructions was certainly not that I was to go up to Scotland to commit a fraud; to bring a lot of people into a meeting to pretend

that they are shareholders when they are not is a thing done every day in London—it is certainly not what should have been done: it is done 80 often here that you get quite used to it—I am not personally so often entrusted with messages of that sort that I get quite used to it, but I hear so much about it—I had never done it before—it did not strike me as a very extraordinary thing that I should be asked to do it—I did not go to Scotland for the express purpose of carrying this out; that was a detail—I carried it out, but the chief duty I had to do was to interview shareholders and make them friendly to the board, and I did so—there had been an opposition going on to the board for some months before then—as soon as I arrived in Glasgow, the first man I interviewed told me they had been holding meetings—there was already considerable agitation—I had £25 in my hands to go to Scotland—I was to go and engage the room, not to see the shareholders and stop there till the meeting; I was running about between Glasgow and Edinburgh—I was to stop in Scotland till the meeting—I went on the 6th, the meeting was on the 10th—I received instructions two or three days before I had to go, about the 3rd—I knew I should have to stop there a week, anyhow; I did stop a day or so, and I had to stand treat; a little detail—I got there on the morning of the 7th; I travelled all night—the first thing I did was to interview, before 11 o'clock in the morning, a share-holder in the western end of Glasgow; one of our largest shareholders—I went to Glasgow first—I wired to London the result of the interview with that gentleman—he gave me some particulars of what had been going on—I next saw another shareholder in Glasgow—I went to Edinburgh n the afternoon, and saw some more shareholders there—on the Saturday morning I took the room—the office I had was not large enough to hold a meeting in, and I took Dowell's room—I paid either two or three guineas for it, and I had to get a commissionaire also to assist me at the door, whom I also had to pay—I stopped at an hotel in Edinburgh—on the Sunday afternoon, the 8th, I was running backwards and forwards continually—I went between Edinburgh and Glasgow possibly three or four times, it is only about an hour's journey—I put up at relatives, at Glasgow—at Edinburgh I had to stop at an hotel—I was instructed to make the Royal Hotel, Edinburgh, my headquarters for letters from London—the first day I tried to get these non-shareholders to come over from Glasgow was on the Saturday—the meeting was held on Monday, the 10th—I did not see these various people personally, and make the arrangements with them—I told someone to get a lot of men for the purpose: his name is Leopold Rombach—I had known him years before—as a matter of fact he had a large boarding house, and a number of men in the place were made useful for the purpose; they were quite willing to go over to Edinburgh for the express purpose at the rate of 10s. each—I. believe I said 15 or 16 yesterday came over, but I am more inclined to say that there were 18 or 19—I had to pay all their fares, and 10s. each—that was the instruction I had before I left—my friend was simply one of the men—he was the leader of the band—I cannot tell you personally whether or not any of these people I say were present voted; I was at the door; I am inclined to may that they did; their instructions were to do so—Mr. Rombach was one of those scattered about the room inside—the principal part of my occupation was to stand at the door to prevent the

Press coming in, and shareholders who had decided practically to break up the meeting—there were some people coming in who were not share holders—I could not stop the shareholders coming in—what went on at the meeting I could not attend to very particularly—I stood ia an anteroom by the door, just to keep the passage clear, and the meeting was going on inside the room—those people I brought over from Edinburgh at 10s. each had a full dress rehearsal the night before, and they know what to do—they were not brought over the night before and stayed at Edinburgh, they stayed at the house where they lived; they came on by the 8 o'clock train in the morning—I could not attend to two duties at once, and I did not see that they did what I hired them to do—beyond Rombach I do not think I know the name of one of them—Bombach lived at Homehead Street—I do not think he is alive now; I heard of his death recently—one of the men who voted at the meeting met me in the Strand the other day; he remembered me—there is one man who can corroborate the story I have told—I forget his name for the moment—I remember him at the meeting—I do not know his address—they were strangers to me—I cannot tell you the name of any single living person who saw me pay that 10s. a head to them—I did it in Princes Street, Edinburgh, after the meeting was over, in the street, where everybody could see, if they had chosen to see it—it was the main thoroughfare—the whole 17 or 18 did not march in a band after me; they grouped at a certain place, and as they came up I paid them—I handed the money to Rombach, and—he looked after it—I do not recollect swearing the affidavit which Was to be used in the liquidation proceed jugs—a petition was presented for the winding up of this company in Scotland; it was carried through, and I made an affidavit in answer to it, very likely; I do not remember now—this meeting was packed by more people than myself—the opposition also hnd the meeting packed; it was to counteract the influence of the other side—the instructions I got were to counteract the influence of the other side; I was to get as many friendly shareholders as I could—I never drafted an affidavit; it was drafted for me by the then solicitors for the company, Beall and Co.—it it was sworn by me—those were the figures that were given to me—I was not in the room—I knew a Mr. John Stewart Gowans; he was not a shareholder; he was an accountant, who came in and acted against the board—Mr. Archibald Oliver was also not a shareholder—those two had the most to sty at the meeting—Mr. Gowans proposed an amendment to the resolution which had been proposed by the chairman—I cannot tell the wording of it, but it was hostile to the chairman—the affidavit was not drafted by me—if it has been sworn, I certainly have sworn it—if I also said: "Messrs. Gowans and Oliver were also accompanied with other persons who forced their way into the meeting, although they held no shares; the votes in favour of the directors by proxy were far in excess of those held by Messrs. Gill, Gowans, aud Oliver"; that was also from figures supplied to me—the directors could carry whatever' they liked, but the proxies might not be at the meeting—the proxy is given lor the purpose of being used, but if you hold a proxy it is not as good as having the men there themselves—if you have a lot of hostile people against you, yoii have a lively meeting, but the people in London did not want a disturbance; they were not hostile; they supported the

chairman—they were not hofttileontheother side, like these people; they were clamorous—my friends did not say, "Hear, hear," or make some disturbance; they just went like that—that wag all they had instructions to do—we had notice of a number of bona fide shareholders who supported Mr. Gill and Mr. Gowans; it is impossible to say how many were present, I could (not notice, I was not in the room, but I could hear the uproar from the door—the meeting lasted, possibly, an hour to an hour and a-half—I went to tell the largest shareholders we had that they were going to be paid a cash dividend—Mr. Beall had told me that—the chairman never said a word about the payment of a cash dividend; I was as much surprised as anyone to hear it—the clamour had not commenced till the chairman's speech had pretty well closed—I never drafted an affidavit—when I was before the Magistrate I never said one word about this—I heard the chairman distinctly say that there was only to be a division of ahares, from the door, and that the shares were to be divided as a bonus to the shareholders—he told them that the shares they did hold were to be divided up; each was to get his share of it, his bonus in the way of ahares which he held—someone asked whether there would be a cash dividend, and I believe he said there would be no question of that—iour days before the meeting I was to go and tell the shareholders that there would be a cash payment, whereas when they came to the meeting there would be no statement of the kind, but only a statement as to a division of shares as a bonus to the shareholders; a parcel of shares, 56,000 or 58,000, we held; a lot was under negotiation with a City house—that was the message I had to tell the people—if the shares had been sold there would have been a cash dividend—at the time the corporation was wound up, or a petition presented, I do not think there were any trade creditors—the bank owed nothing, only a quarter's rent—a number of things in the way of fitting up in the bank were new, or practically new, and nothing was required to be replaced, so we had no debts—Messrs. Abbott's report was provided to the shareholders; they came to the meeting with a copy of the accounts in their hands, and a report—I take it to be Abbott's; they passed me at the, door with a report and accounts in their hands, and it was that report that made them hostile—during the last year or two there have been disputes between me and Mr. Beall.

Cross-examined by ME. GRAIN. I made Mr. Singleton's acquaintance somewhere about 1890—I became his clerk—as far as I can say, he was conducting the business of an outside broker, dealing in shares—I knew he was not a member of the Stock Exchange, or anything of that sort—I first heard of the proposed launching of the London and Scottish Bank about the time the company was registered, about August, 1892—I knew it was proposed to launch this company; a month or two before August, 1892, probably—I never saw this agreement of March 24th, 1892—the signature is not mine; the handwriting here is partly mine—where the filling up and writing comes in it is filled up by me—this A. F. Baker in the right hand corner is not mine—the name is also up in the corner here—it is not signed by me—I know Singleton's writing very well—I do not say that that is signed by him—it is scarcely the same aignature that he usually used—it is very close to his signature, but I would not bind myself to say that it is his—I would not bind myself to

lay either way—I should pay it was the signature of Singleton before he had properly got into the way of signing the signature of Raker—I believe it to be; it is like it in that fashion—I have signed the name of Baker all my life, and no one else—I never did sign "A.F. Baker"—I am absolutely prepared to say that, that is not in writing—the thing is certain—I tilled it up, but did not see it signed—I cannot remember where I filled it up—I do not remember the document at all, but I know the signature is not mine—I see my own filling up—I do not know what I did with it when I had filled it up—up to the time of my hearing of the proposed flotation of the Scottish Bank I had never known Mr. Singleton to use the name of Baker, I do not think he did—I cannot explain why he adopted the name of Baker, which is my name, and with one of my initials transposed, or why he forgot what the initials were later on—on one occasion he signed "Arthur Francis," and on another "Alexander Frederick," but up to the time of the hearing of the proposed flotation of the bank I had never heard him use the name of Baker; that is true—when I heard of the proposed flotation I may have asked him to do his best to get me appointed secretary—I do not remember I have said that Mr. Beall approached me on the point—they were continually together in 1892—I do not suppose I ever asked for the position of secretary; I may have asked Singleton to get me a billet, to get me appointed to some position, and ultimately I was appointed to the post I held—I was in hopes that this bank would be something of a permanent nature, that something good would turn up, and up to the tune of my appointment there was nothing to raise any suspicion as to the proposed bank—after March 17th, 1893, Mr. Singleton did not take any substantial part in the affairs of the bank—he was there probably from eight to ten days, until we got a clearing bank arranged for—he occasionally came to the bank after that; we saw him frequently—I was assisted by him in performing the duties that I undertook—that was previous to the allotment—he did give some suggestion as to how I should open the books, how I should do it as a clerk in the bank—that is all he did; he had no duty in the bank at all after the company went to allotment.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL. I have been connected with this company from its inception in 1892—I had known Mr. Beall a couple of years or so prior to that—I had been working with Mr. Singleton, who was acting for Mr. Beall—I knew nothing of Mr. Lambert at all until I first saw him in connection with the matters of this bank—it is not to my knowledge that Mr. Lambert was introduced to Mr. Beall by Mr. Humpage in February, 1893, but I know Mr. Humpage used to come about the bank at that time—about a month before the signatories appointed the directors I first saw Mr. Lambert there—he acted as a director, and attended a large number of meetings—he was put down for Wednesday at 12 o'clock, and Mr. Wain for Thursday, to attend at the bank for any business that might be wanted, not board meetings, and Mr. Lambert did attend to that part of the work—I was very seldom brought in touch with Mr. Lambert at all, but he knew that I was acting as secretary, because my name appeared—I saw very little of him indeed—he had nothing to do with the correspondence—you may exclude Lambert from the direct instructions—the first founders' account of any importance was that of the April 18th minute—Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lambert

were appoiuted a hubconinjittee to go into the accounts—that was a sub-committee for the purpose of vouching the accounts as presented by the founders—I have no reason to doubt that, as far as they were able to vouch them from the figures, they did so vouch them, and found them correct—I happened to be in the board-room the day the accounts were presented, and Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lambert handed these things over, and said they had found them practically accurate—that being so, assuming the document of March 10th, 1892, was a binding document in favour of the promoters, the minute which was the sanction for the payment by Limbert and Stokes was less than they were legally entitled to—there has been a big deduction; so that, so far as the entry of the company or the shareholders is concerned, the passing a resolution in favour of passing the accounts was in favour of the shareholders, according to the agreement—Mr. Stokes was late Her Britannic Majesty's Consul—I have not seen him since he left us in 1895; I do not know if he is alive or not—Mr. Greville is a solicitor; he is alive; I saw him the other day—you could make poor Mr. Stokes practically do anything he was wanted to—Mr. Greville was there pretty frequently; he acted for several of the clients with whom the bank carried on discount operations—the next item of account is that furnished for the purpose of declaring the interim dividend; the figures were before the board for some time—I do not know what part the board in a body took—when I gave my evidence before the liquidator there was no question that I was liable, either civilly or criminally—four or five years have elapsed, and now a very serious question has been raised, imputing criminal liability to there people in the dock—I have been seen by the Treasury authorities and by Mr. Gray and others—I am trying to do my best to give you a true account of what took place in October, 1893, when this account was presented—it is more probable that I should have been more accurate in my memory in 1895 than I am in 1899—I was asked, "Did the four directors, before they authorised the payment of this 7 per cent, dividend take any means to satisfy theinselves that the profit had really been earned? (A.) Certainly. I know the chairman before the dividend was paid had the statement in his hands for a week. (Q.) Can you say whether any investigation was made? (A.) I understand there was investigation. (Q.) What investigation? (A.) I cannot throw my memory back so far;"so far as Mr. Lambert was concerned; I never received any difficulty of any kind whatever from him as to the answering of any figures in this account—I cannot say how far Mr. Lambert knew of the figures, but I received no instructions from him—I was satisfied that at that time, at any rate, he was doing his duty as a director to the Scottish Bank; the staff knew that he was connected with other companies, and we looked upon him as quite a Martinet—it was Mr. Lambert that I had to deal with on its staff being guaranteed—there was some delay in the guarantee going through—Mr. Lambert applied to me week after week to see if the Guarantee Society had accepted the proposal; finally, Mr. Lambert instructed me to take steps to have each man of the staff separately guaranteed—we had a directors' attendance book—I know he did not attend the meeting in Edinburgh—it was his intention to go to Scotland, but it may have oeen illness that stepped in—he did not go—

I heard from Messrs. Abbott that Mr. Lambert said it was not a question of valuation by the directors, but a question of taking the securities at their par value, and it ought to be stated; that was Mr. Lambert's intention, I know—I know there was a very strong interview between Mr. Lambert and Mr. Abbott on that—Mr. Wain resigned on December 14th, according to the minutes—that would of itself have dissolved the board, because there would be only one director then—I do not believe there was after December 5th a properly constituted board meeting—those letters that were written after the Scottish meeting were written; without Mr. Lambert's knowledge—I do not remember that some cheques were submitted to Mr. Lambert about that time for his signature which he declined to sign—the letter from me in which I offer founders' shares for sale was a private matter of my own—I do not suggest that Mr. Lambert knew anything about that; I was not selling the shares privately; I was assisting the promoters, of which Mr. Lambert was not one—we used to send letters out frequently, but they were written on the instructions of the promoters—Mr. Lambert had nothing to do with them; he had nothing to do with the founders', and the founders' had nothing to do with the bank; because all the founders' were allotted to Baker and his nominees—so far as I knew, Lambert never received any money at the bank in any way except for directors' fees—anything he had from the bank has been repaid, and in addition he had lent the bank money—the bank were his debtors at the date of the liquidation; he had nothing whatever to do with my going to Scotland, or anything of that kind—I have had a great deal to do with this company, from start to finish—I will admit that I had a great deal more to do with it than ever Mr. Lambert has had—so far as I know, there has never been any proposition made to include me in a criminal charge with regard to this matter.

Wednesday. November 8th.

FREDERICK JOHN BAKER (Recalled) (Cross-examined by MR. A. GILL). Mr. Wain had nothing to do with the issue of founders' shares, to my knowledge, or with the correspondence with the persons who purchased shares—that was a matter between the promoters and the persons who bought—Wain came on other occasions beside the board days—he used to come in occasionally when he was passing in the neighbourhood—I cannot say that Wain never received a shilling of promotion money in connection with this company—the signature in this letter to Messrs. Abbott (Exhibit 238) is not mine—it is per pro Mr. Colee, the cashier; I was in Scotland at this time—it was written by Mr. Colee for me, who was acting as secretary in my absence—I see in Messrs. Abbott's report (Exhibit 223), under the head of promotion account, the item, "Account presented by W. J. C. Wain, Esq., £313 13s."; that is the sum the directors paid to Mr. Wain for office furniture in Paris—the furniture belonged to the European company who were former tenants of the office, and when the bank took the office in Paris they paid Mr. Wain for the furniture—I now remember that the amount which Wain had paid out in connection with the Paris office between December, when the agreement took effect, and the allotment in March was agreed at £469—against that there were

certain payments which the bank had made on behalf of the European company—I cannot remember that now, but the minute says so—I do not remember receiving this letter (Produced)—I did not open the whole of the correspondence—it is addressed to the secretary—it would be received at the bank, but I did not open the correspondence in the instructions to me; it is dated August 1st, 1894—(Read: "Dear Sirs,—The asuditors have seen me today. It is most essential that you ihould be in London on Tuesday, so that the audit may be proceeded with without delay. Personally, I shall be present, so as to give all the assistance that may be necessary. Please have all securities ready for production, register of debentures, and everything the auditors may require, including the payingin book cf the London and Midland Bank, and the 'Founders' Shares Numerical Register'")—there was no such book kept in the office as the "Founders' Shares Numerical Register"—the founders' shares belonged to the promoters; the bank had nothing to do with the numerical list; that would be in the possession of the promoters—I know Mr. Wain went to America in 1894; I cannot say if it was in September and October—he was away for a considerable period about the time that the auditors were examining the books—I thiuk it was two or three days before December 6th that I went to Scotland to attend the meeting—it was not done in a hurry—I did not get instructions in the afternoon and leave that night—Beall gave me instructions—there was a second party undoubtedly there at the time, but I cannot identify him at the time—I was asked if I could provide a number of men in Edinburgh; I said I was a stranger there, I did not know anybody in Edinburgh, but I could do it in Glasgow—I knew that Wain was going to be the chairman of the meeting—I had some conversation at the hotel on the 10th with Beall on the landing, that was right outside my door—he came at 7 o'clock in the morning—with regard to what took place in the breakfastroom, I am giving my recollection after five years to the best of my ability, as to what I said to Wain—I said I had a number who would support him, and we talked about the interviews I had had with shareholders as well—I called upon shareholders in Scotland and promised them a cash dividend—they were present undoubtedly; they intended to be present whether they had seert me or not—nothing was said about 130 per cent, cash dividend—there was quite an uproar when the chairman spoke about 125 per cent, in shares—my instructions were simply to call on people who held 40 shares, the larger holders of shares—40 was about as many as are issued to anyone, and I called on six or seven of them in Glasgow—they were all present—I remember that a report was read—the shareholders came to the door with a report and balance-sheet in their possession—I did not hear Wain's speech—I was busy at the door—as to the interim dividend of October, 1893, any alteration that was made in the account upon which that was baaed was made in the board-room—it was prepared by me and handed to the directors—it was not a report—it was a rough draft of a balance-sheet, simply figures; it did not show a profit—I never suggested that any alteration had been made by Wain or any other director—I caunot recollect what I did say, but I know what took place perfectly well—I did not prepare a document showing the valuation of

the bonuses; all I did was to make a statement of the entries from the bank books of the sums we received and sams we have paid out, and there was a slip showing a detailed statement of the items in the acouunt—there was no attempt made even to make a balance of it—Wain's fees as director amounted to about £200, or rather more—the directors' attendance book would show it—I do not think he was paid for the later attendances; he held 40 ordinary shares in the company, which he paid for—that would be £200, so that he has lost.

Re-examined. I do remember the minute of March 28th, which has been read a few minutes ago to me: "Resolved on the solicitor's advice that the bank do pay to the European Commercial and Industrial Company the amount of £330, being half year's rent of Paris office paid in advance by European company (£90), with £240, price of furniture, fixtures, and fittings as per vouchers produced; cheque for £320 granted"—this is the counterfoil of that cheque dated March 28th—there are entries in red ink on it—the cheque is not there; that is only the counterfoil—it is dated March 28th, "half-year's rent Paris office," 9,000 it looks like, but it is £90," Office furniture, £240"; and then there ii some pencil here—that is £330; the writing on this counterfoil dated March 28th for £330 is Beall's Wa—Exhibit 163 it an account of the London and Scottish Bank with the London and Midland Bank, April 4th, Paris office, £330; that is the same cheque—in the ledger, No. 5, I find there an account in the name of Mr. J. O. Wain: "March, 1893, promotion expenses, £469 5s."—that is to the credit of Mr. Wain; that is discharged, August 16th, 1893, cash £10, £25, £100, and so on; and then Promotion Account, European Company, £114 16s., September 7th. Cleme, £18, ditto £12 16s.; Chevaleau, £10; November 28th, W. J. Carruthers Wain, £103 13s.—that is how by those dates the £469 for promotion expenses is cleared off—when the persons came into the room they had reports with them—I cannot say what they were like—they came with two papers, but I did not examine the papers—I did not take the papers from their hands and read them—they satisfied me, by having those papers in their hands, that they were shareholders, and I did not read the documents—before I went up to Scotland I had instructions from Beall—Wain was at the office on the day I had those instructions—the cashier was called into the room and instructed to give me £25—in the cash-book it is "December 6th, by cheque, F. J. Baker, £30"; I had £25—it was not a cheque; it was cash—the affidavits that were sworn by me were drafted by whoever was solicitor for the company at the time—during the existence of the bank there were three firms of solicitors that acted for us—I went away on the evening of the 6th, and I got that money that afternoon—the affidavit was prepared by Beall—Brandon and Nicholson are the solicitors here, but it was prepared by Beall; his notes are here—both these affidavits were prepared and settled by Beall—when Mr. Stokes and Mr. Greville resigned I think it was early in 1894—I always believed the share-, in these London and British Refuse Companies to be valuable from the general conversation in the office—we knew Mr. Cooper, who had treat faith in the future of the company; we were in the habit of meeting him generally from the board—I had no knowledge of the matter—njy opiuion was merely what I heard—I see in the minute of

June 23rd, 1893: "Correspondence from Paris was produced, and the resignation of the committee, and also the chairman's replies to Mr. Brandreth as to Giving up the French offices, and instructions were given the manager in Paris not to arrange for the appointment of any fresh committe"; andon June 27th, 1893, I "see this entry: "Present, Wain, Mr. Stokes and Lambert, directors; and Mr. Brandon, Solicitor: Re the French offices" at thai end of the minute: "It was resolved that they be continued for a short time longer. No committee to be at present appointed, and the staff to devote their time to the sale of the company's shares"—then on July 4th, "The resignation of the conn mittee of the Paris office was considered and accepted, and it was regretted that they did not inform the London board previously of their inability to introduce business of a profitable character; and the representations under which the French offices were opened not having been carried out, it was resolved that steps be taken to close the same and the staff be discharged; "and at the end of that minute there is, "The directors took into consideration the various letters and communications from the Paris office; and having regard to the fact that none of the promises originally held out had been fulfilled, and that no business whatever had been transacted, it was proposed by Mr. Greville and seconded by Mr. Stokes, and carried unanimously, 'That steps be taken to close the Paris offices, discharge Mr. Brandreth, and, if necessary, the staff. Mr. Brandon (solicitor to the company) is hereby empowered to take the necessary steps to carry out tliis resolution, and to that end a power of attorney be executed in his favour, and that he be requested to proceed forthwith to Paris'"—in the minute of August 29th, 1893, "Present, Mr. Carruthers Wain, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Stokes,. Mr. Greville. Mr. Brandon, solicitor, also attended"—towards the end there is this: "A cheque for Mr. A. Brandreth was also ordered to be drawn for £250, and it was reported that he had withdrawn his action on the terras of the following letter, viz., '3 and 4, Great Winchester Street, London, E.C., August 23rd, 1893. To the Directors of the London and Scottish Banking andDiscount Corporation, Limited. Gentlemen—In consideration of the settlement of the action brought by me against your corporation, the teims of which have been agreed upon, I hereby undertake to discontinue all litigation against your corporation or yourselves personally, also to withdraw my opposition to your obtaining possession of the premises at 20, Rue St. George's, Paris, lately occupaied by the corporation; and further, not to communicate to the public Press, either in England or elsewhere, any information that may be detrimental or injurious to the corporation or its directors personally—Yours faithfully ALFRED B, BHANDRETH '"—when I prepared tjie statement which was sent in to the directors with reference to the payments and receipts before the 7 per cent, dividend was declared I had a discussion about one of the entries for directors' fees with Wain and Beall—if the directors' fees had not been charged for the first half-year it would have shown a profit—at that time only £5 per share had been called up, and the amount of capital they had to work with was a small one—the directors' fees had been paid; they were paid each board meeting—so far ns I remember, it was agreed that the half-year should be charged with this expenditure in that fashion; they could not withdraw the amount

from the accounts—a. profit was to be brought out by adding some of the bonus shares that would fall to the bank for the work, that the board. did—they had financed the Sheridans at that time—they were going to get bonuses in addition for assisting those people—the bonuses were to be. shares in the business the Sheridans were going through at the time.

RICHARD SCOTT AITCHESON . I am a chartered accountant, of Edinburgh, and was appointed official liquidator to the London Scottish Banking Corporation on January 16th, 1895—I came up to London about January 18th or 19th to the office of the bank, 35, Lombard Street, where I took possession of such of the books and documents as I could get—I think I mentioned at the Mansion House that I saw Wain there, but on referring to my notes afterwards I found that I did not see him at the bank on that occasion; I tried to arrange two meetings with him, aud he disappointed me on both occasions; but I saw Lambert afterwards, not at the bank, but at the hotel—I also arranged that Lambert should be at the bank meeting, but he did not come up; I saw Beall as the bank, I did not see him on the first occasion, I saw F. J. Baker—I had been up once before; I was formally appointed liquidator—I did not collect any books before I was formally appointed—I only came up once for the purpose of collecting the books—I had the assistance of a clerk from the office of Clarke, Rawlins and Co.—I was not acquainted with the English style of doing business, so I got the assistance of a clerk—I made a list, which is—Exhibit 252, of tho books which I had possession of, and which I afterwards handed over to the Director of Public Prosecutions; it was a list made when the books were sent up to him—the letter-books which I got began with letter-book No. 3—I never saw letter-books 1 and 2—letter-book No. 3 commences with March 14th, 1893—I never had any share-holders' ledger, or a list or account of any sort of the holders of founders' shares—I never saw any account of the founders' shares at all—I never saw any minutes of the meetings of the signatories prior to the appointment of directors or governors or any agreement of March 10th, 1892—I did not find among the papers any account showing the position of the company at the date when the 7 per cent, dividend was declared—the petty cash in hand was £10s. 8d—at my instigation the directors and F. J. Baker and Mr. Beall were examined in Scotland b fore Lord StormonthDarling in February, 1895—shorthand notes were taken of their examination—I was present the whole time of their examination, and I have since checked the transcript of the shorthand notes—I do not say that that transcript produced is a correct transcript of the evidence given by Lambert, Wain, and Beall—that is the actual transcript I checked, and it is certified by Lord StormonthDarling as correct—I did early in my appointment communicate with Messrs. Abbott, who had audited the books—I obtained from them a copy of their report and balance-sheet, and also some books—I prepared from the books and from Messrs. Abbott's balance-sheet a balance-sheet up to January 16th, 1895, the date of my appointment—Exhibit 253 is the balance-sheet which I prepared, with a profit and loss account from March 31st, 1894, to January 10th, 1895—the profit and loss account shows £2,739 odd—my profit and loss account shows that the total amount earned in that, period was £152 1s.—I think there was tid., toomuch, and did not go back over the older account; I took Messrs. Abbott's account for

that—that was the total amount earned by interest, discount, and commission—during that period the directors' fees on the other side of the account amounted to £389 odd; salaries, including the financial manager, £l,012; law charges, etc., £698; and the rent and other expenses are divided up—the financial manager does not take all the £1,012; It is divided: office staff £687 6s., and financial manager £325; then there is rent and other expenses, making a total of £2,891 13s. 8d.—I did accept Messrs. Abbott's balance-sheet up to 1894 as correct, and, taking Messrs. Abbott's balance-sheet as accurate up to March, 1894, my balance-sheet shows a total loss during the working of this corporation of £11,755—the total loss on the whole working is £11,755 14s. 4d.—from my examination of the accounts I could find no justification whatever for the declaration of this 7 per cent, dividend or any other dividend—I saw that a total sum of £29 10s. had been received in the shape of premiums on the second issue of shares, and that second issue was at 10s. premium, so that that represented over 59 shares—with regard to the debenture stock I found traces of one person only, a lady, having applied for debenture stock—that was to the amount of £200—I found among the documents the certificate that has been produced for the 30,000 London Refuse shares, and also the certificate for a further 15,000 shares in the London Refuse Company—I did not receive or collect at all any certificates of shares in the British Company—having collected the documents which represented assets of the company, I made a valuation of them in the first place—all these shares, I think, I valued at £50—my valuation of the total of the assets was £786 odd—the shares I put down at £50—that included some other shares besides the London Refuse and British Refuse Companies—Exhibit 251 contains a list of the assets of the bank, and in the result I realised £336 4s. 9d. from the whole of the assets, which includes calls unpaid on shares which I got in—I tried to realise these shares in the Refuse Company—I could not get anything at all for them—I found among the shares which were represented as assets some Buenos Ayres Tram shares—I found that those shares had been deposited as security for a debt—those were not properly included in the list of bonus shares—they were, in fact, included in the list of bonus shares representing a total of £48,000—that particular loan had been repaid before I was appointed—I find 100 £5 shares in the Lambert Collieries; received from 0. Hendrof £250—they were not properly included in the list of bonus shares, because J was informed afterwards that they were divided between Mr. F. J. Baker and Mr. Beall; between the assistant-secretary and Mr. Beall—I never got them—there are two bracketed together: "Five shares, founders', and 100 shares, ordinary; Olympic Music Hall (in liquidation), received from Shenton, no value"—the third one here is Wallace's acceptance for £300, which is put in the balancesheet—the balance is made up of these items—in the minute of May 29th, 1894, I see "Re V. W. Wallace. A letter was read from Beall and Co., stating that a receiving order has been made against this person"—I cannot say whether I found this document (Produced)—I found in the books an entry with regard to shares in this London Refuse Company—at the examination of Beall before Lord Stormonth-Darling something was said about 5,000 London Refuse shares—I did not examine the books to ascertain whether

any shares in the London Refuse Company had been transferred to him, Beall—I understood the London and Scottish Bank were entitled to 50,000 shares in the London Refuse Company—I only got documents to the extent of 30,000 and 15,000, and the other 5,000 went to Mr. Beall, for services rendered.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I came up to London before I was appointed liquidator, on December 26th, on an order of the Court—there was a petition presented on the Record before the Court, and on that there was a conflicting opposition, and then the Court ordered me to go down to the bank and make some report—I came up here in order to inquire, and when appointed liquidator I employed Messrs. Clarke and Rawlins, the solicitors, to act for us in London—I had nothing to do with Messrs. Davidson and Syme, and I had no solicitors at all when I came up the first time—I first went to the bank on the 27th—it was closed on the day I came up, the 26th—I went there in the morning, and stated what I had come for—I saw Mr. F. J. Baker—I was informed that Mr. Beall was away at Brighton ill—I got a certificate from his doctor in the beginning of January—I had no reason to doubt that Mr. Beall was at Brighton ill—in January he came back—it was about January 23rd that he came back—in December, 1894, when I was in Scotland, I was told that the persons, that is, Mr. Glaskin or high officials in connection with the London Refuse Destructor, would be asked to meet me to explain what had been done and what was being done—Mr. Glaskin was the consulting engineer in December—I did not see them; I was told that they were there, but I did not want to see them; I made no engagement with them—I understood about this balance-sheet of Messrs. Abbott; I knew that one of the assets which, at any rate, the Scottish Bank claimed to have were the shares in these Refuse Destructor companies—I was making inquiries in other quarters as to the balance-sheet—it did not occur to me that those were the best people to tell exactly what was being done with regard to it, as I wanted an independent witness—so far as these shares were concerned, there was no market value or Stock Exchange quotation—my reason for not seeing the people who were actually working the thing was that I wanted evidence outside the directors of the London and Scottish Bank—I never did, in fact, see either Mr. Glaskin or Mr. Cheesewright—I saw Mr. Cooper about it at his office, and I saw Mr. Wain about it—although the certificate did not come into my hands, I satisfied myself as to the title of the Scottish Bank to the £16,500 British; that is to say, that the Scottish Bank was entitled to the shares, although they had not got the certificate in their hands—ultimately I got all the books and papers except a shareholders' ledger—I know-a shareholders' ledger was kept, and I am almost sure I must have seen one iu December; when I came and took possession it was not there—so far as the ledger is concerned, it would be a register of ordiuary shares—the shareholders' ledger was of this importance, that I could" not tell who were in arrear, it is only to ascertain who had not paid the calls; I got £23—I had to get my clerk to make up a complete statement of the calls, and I found several inarrear—I came up later on in January, and employed Messrs. Clarke and Rawlins as solicitors—when I came on the scene in January, 1895, I

found the balance-sheet, wbich had been made out, and upon which the litigation had arisen which had given me the appointment, and, so far as that was concerned, which had been made out by Messrs. Abbott and certified by them, I accepted that as correct; then, as they had only worked up the figures to March 31st, 1894, dealing with the year previous, to it, I set to work to see what the figures showed from March 31st, 1894, to January, 1895—I found that the interest, discount, and commission amounted to £152 only—the discount, commission, and interest from March 31st, 1894, to January, 1895, were considerably less than they had been after the corresponding period of the previous year, which showed that that part of the business was less from March, 1894, to January, 1895; there was no money to lend—the greater part of the money left had been used with regard to the Atlas Syndicate—£2,885 had been used by the Atlas Syndicate in the promotion of the London Refuse Destructor, and instead of having liquid assets fo work with, what they had got were these shares which they had received instead—this item, "Auditor's fees, £126," was paid to Messrs. Abbott for writing up the books and preparing the balance-sheet, I understand, then there are other items which bring the figure for that nine months up to £2,739 loss—the loss for the whole period was £11,755, made up of three items shown in the balance-sheet, which give no credit of any kind for the bonus shares, but if I took that £11,459, which was apparently the cash loss for the year Irom March 31st, 1893, to March 31st, 1894, I show a cash loss of £11,459; with the dividend it makes up the £11,755, which is the loss; that is how I got at it—as to these Buenos Ayres Tr urns, Abbott's ledger states: "100 shares Buenos Ayres Tram Ways Company and charges on interest on 2,000 shares in the London Metallurgical Company (in liquidation), J. Stewart Boyle, liquidator, received from C. A. Reeve," and there is another one here: "45 shares £5 paid preference in Buenos Ayres Tram Company, received from J.W. Clarke"—that is the one I was referring to—it is Clarke's account—there are two lots of shares, amongst which there are 45 Buenos Ayres Trams—the whole lot realised £800—the entry I have just read and some other shares are taken in en bloc without any sum being put to them—some items are estimated, and some are not, and the whole amount altogether is taken in at £1,700, which is composed of the figures which are inserted in the columns against the shares—Messrs. Abbott have taken Wallace's acceptance into account at £300—that is their figure down here—it was they who did that from the books.

Cross-examined by MR. MARSHALL HALL.—I tried to realise this estate with my usual judgment, to the best of my ability—the only interest I had was to get the assets in from a professional point of view, to their est advantage—the estate is not wound up yet—I mean there was no immediate hurry—with regard to the 300 Grappler Tyre shares, valued here at £300, I got a valuation on the whole shares—I do not know that the shares which were realised in this liquidation at something like 3s. 6d. a share, sold within twelve months at something like £5 a share in the open market in 1896; free buyers—we believe in Irish tyres—I was not told that these shares were of great value, and ought to be held—I have already said that I know nothing of the shares being

freely quoted at £4 10s. and £5 witbin twelve months of this time—I cannot say that I ever heard that until you suggested it to-day—I will swear I did not—my attention has never been called to the value of those shares—I had heard of it at the Mansion House; I thought you meant, did I know from my own personal knowledge—I did not take up the attitude of treating this thing as a fraud from beginning to end, and refusing;; to listen to any advice on the subject at all—if you take the Grappler shares, for example, I got the opinion of a first-class firm here in London on the subject, Messrs. Faithful! Begg and Co.; they are members of the Stock Exchange—they valued the whole shares—I could not ask the stockbroker to go and value each thing separately—I have not sold the Grappler shares; I could not, they did not belong to the company—I did not say at the Mansion House that I sold them—I never had the certificate—I took the shares as appearing in the list of assets; Abbott's list—he said he had satisfied himself that these belong to the company—this valuation is by Faithfull Begg and Co.: Mr. Begg, M.P.—I made further inquiries—"which would take—considerable time and involve corresponding expenses, which we are-not justified in incurring without definite authority. We are of opinion that a lew hundred pounds at the very outside is the utmost that could be realised by the sale of the whole of the securities. The majority of them we regard as absolutely without any value whatever"; now my point is this, how could I have sold those 300 Grappler shares for between £1,460 and £1,500 when I had not thecertificate?—that is the very reason why I got these directors to Edinburgh, to-get the certificate—I brought an action to get it—I had the directors before the Scottish Court—I asked Mr. Lambert where the certificate was—I never communicated with the Grappler Tyre Co.—I did not write to the Grappler Tyre Co. and ask them whether this corporation were on the register of the company as the proprietors of these shares, after the explanation made by these directors in Edinburgh—it was information I got from Mr. Beall and from Mr. Baker—Mr. Lambert was asked for information generally—I cannot say I asked specifically—anyhow, I never communicated with the company with regard to it, because after the information I got there was no occasion to—both Baker and Beall were asked about the Grappler—it was simply a security; they never got it registered—I understood it had been a security for a loan, which loan had been repaid, and therefore they were no longer entitled to the shares—I looked up the statement with regard to Beall at the time—Mr. Lambert was in Court, and if he considered the Grappler shares were in existence he should have said so—we had him up there for this very purpose—the directors were examined on February 26th, 1895—it was before that that I submitted these shares for valuation to Faithfull Begg and Co., for the purpose of my report in December—what good was it to go or send to Dublin to ask for information from the Grappler Company, when I was told they were security for a debt?—the directors were there, and if they did not consider it right they should have said so—anyhow, I have never realised those shares, and I never made any inquiries about it—I made inquiries about the other shares other than getting this valuation from Faithfull Begg and Co., from the

brokers in Edinburgh, Scotch brokers—Miss Tilton's was a debenture for £200, charging all the assets of the company—Miss Tilton was not paid because there was no money; she would have a right over costs even—what was realised went in costs.

Re-excamined. I can find nothing to show that the company bad any title to these shares; it was not possible for me to sell them—I asked some Scotch brokers to get information for me on the value of the aecurities—I just sent them the list of those Grappler shares; they informed me that they could get no direct information at the time—I had not got them to sell—I believe the London Refuse Company and the British Refuse Company never went to allotment—I was asked a good many questions about the shareholders' ledger: whether it was in existence, and so on—I never saw any register showing what founders' shares had been issued, and to whom.

WILLIAM ABBOTT . I am one of the firm of William Abbott and Co., chartered accountants—about July of 1894 I was communicated with by a Mr. Weller, and attended at the London and Scottish Bank for the purpose of auditing the accounts—I received instructions when I got there from the directors and Mr. Beall—we saw Mr. Wain and Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Beall, from what I remember, and commenced, with the assistance of our clerks, an examination of the books—I found from the books the receipt in the shape of subscriptions for the ordinary shares; March 31st was £21,706—I should say, less £2,000 for founders' shares, which I see are treated in the same item; I did not notice that at first—if I put it at £19,706 that will be the correct answer—we found that the moneys first received from the subscriptions, £6,969 10s., had been paid into A. F. Baker's account; that is all in respect of ordinary shares; and payments to the corporation made by Mr. Baker were £5,325 19s. 9d. leaving a balance of £1,642 10s. 3d. unaccounted for—I made inquiries of either of the defendants as to what had become of the balance—we inquired of all of them, I believe—the explanation given by the secretary was that this amount was payments made on behalf of the London and Scottish Bank on promotion account by the promoters—we asked for vouchers to show those payments, but never saw any—we asked for an account of The items of these payments; that we never received—the establishment expenses account was put before us; I believe this is it (Produced)—this would undoubtedly be the book from which it appears to be taken—that was in the book at the time we audited—the itein on this account, "Birtwistle, £200," appears in the book when we first examined it, I imagine—that was an amount which had been paid by Mr. Birtwistle for shares—I see our journal note on it is that it was an amount received by Mr. Beail from Mr. Birtwistle for shares in this company prior to the company going to allotment, and it was omitted in the account of the allotment—the money had not been handed over—I cannot remember now; I know it was carried to establishment expenses after I came on the scene, I think—I said I did not quite remember, but I think it might have been so, from the reason that we allude to it in our accounts and owing to the journal entries—in the establishment expenses account 1 find at the end these two items: 'Beall and Co., No. 1 account. £346 19s. 8d.; ditto. No. 2 account, £1,219 10s. 4d."—at the time I came on the scene I found, according

to the general ledger, that Beall's account No. 1 was overdrawn to the amount of £346 19s. 8d., and that amount of the overdraft of Beall's account has been transferred to the establishment expenses account—according to the figures before me, Beall and Co. No. 2 account is overdrawn £1,219 10s. 4d.; from the figures in the general ledger, it appears tu be £1,193 138. 10d., or Us. 10d., and in the ledger that is balanced by transferring that overdraft to the establishment expetses account—the account is not ruled off here at all; it is not finished off, but that is the result—the result is to balance it; that is how it was treated—I inquired of Beall himself, and of all the directors, I believe, that is Mr. Wain and Mr. Lambert, and the explanation given to me was that it was to be transferred to the promotion expenses account, for payments made out by Mr. Beall—we had no vouchers before us to show those payments made—it was transferred because it was assumed that the balance appearing on that account tobe due to Mr. A.F. Baker was, in fact, due to Mr. Beall—the accounts of Mr. Beall and Mr. Baker were apparently one and thesame almost—we had to take those figures as we found them in the book—we had to work from that minute; we had to take the figures given in the minute that a certain sum had been expended—by the minute of April 18th, when the promoters' account was admitted, "It was resolved to admit the account at the above figure," that is £4,777—this is our note: "No account showing how this amount has been arrived at has been shown to us, although asked for, and we have been simply guided by the minutes "; that is as to the £4,777—I do not think I have the whole of the minute here; this is our journal note—this minute is April 18th—I have an account of all the moneys—we simply started with the balance of £4,777, and then we may have worked out the payments from that, but I do not see that we have got any account to show the difference between £3,409 and £4,777—I cannot make the figures fit, and I do not think, as far as I know, that any of the Counsel have succeeded in doing it—I do not know whether it is important or not, but it is a mystery—I did not say that I accepted this figureof £4,777 balance, and deducting that from the £6,909, I got the other figure; we have nothing to do with the £6,909—the deduction of £2,132 is by an agreement dated March 10th, 1892, as I understand it; "less deduction from the agreement dated March 10th, 1892": that is the figure they arrived at themselves—we accepted the figure £4,777 from the minute as the balance j we had no means of checking it—so far as our figures are concerned, that £2,132 is merely arrived at by subtracting the £4,777 from the £6,909, and by an agreement with the directors and the promoters to do so.

By the COURT. "£6,909 had been paid by the promoters"—according to our figures they had retained in their hands £1,642, moneys received from shareholders, which they had not handed over—I am afraid I can give no further explanation now; it is so long ago—at the time possibly there was some fuller explanation, but it looks as though it was an item—our figure of £1,642 never comes into this Establishment Expenses Account at all—there is another one of £1,855 below it, "Amounts paid by A. F. Baker on account," which is a payment made to A. F. Baker on the opposite side; that is a different item of the account—I have all the dates and amount paid in to the credit of the account.

By MR. AVORY, I saw no vouchers of any sort representing the deduction of £2,132—we saw no vouchers in connection with the account at all, either for the £6,909 or for the £4,777, nor for the £1,855—on November 3rd, 1894, we sent in our report to the directors—this is my report—(This stated that they found the hooks imperfectly kept, and it was therefore necessary for them to write up the accounts of the corpoporation from March 13th, 1893, to March 31th, 1894; that the liability of the corporation on capital account amounted to £24,264, less calls unpaid at date £2,556, leaving a net amount of £21,706; that they had included in the capital 300 shares applied for in Paris, but upon which nothing had been paid; that several of the moneys received on amplication and allotment first issue, were paid into Mr. A. F Baker's private banking account, and he made several payments on behalf of the corporation out of such moneys; that they had asked for Mr. Baker's account, but it had not been produced; that from the books it appeared the the corporation's moneys paid into Mr. Baker's hanking account amounted to £6,969 10s. and the payments to the corporation made by Mr. Baker amounted to £5,325 19s. 9d., leaving a halance of £1,642 10s. 3d., which the secretary informed them was the amount of payments side on hehalf of the corporation on promotion account, hui as no account had heen presented to them, they were unahle to vouch the accuracy of these payments; and that the suspense account was made up of various unexplained items, including sundry deficiencies of cash; and that they helieved the accounts to be a correct statement of the corporation's affairs)—enclosed with that report I sent the balance-sheet and profit and loss account up to March 31st, 1894—in our profit and loss account, as sent in, we showed that the bank had earned in that period £1,296 198. 6d., and that the expenses were £9,840 3s. 9d., showing a loss of £8,543 4s. dd.—that was when I had taken only one-third of the promotion expenses for that period—that report and profit and loss account being sent in to the directors, I saw both Lambert and Wain upon it—the principal subjects of conversation were with regard to the absence of vouchers and the promoters' accounts, and also as to the bonuses—they requested that bonuses between us and Wain and Lambert should be treated as an item of profit—they asked us to treat them as securities—they presented a list of these things—it was in a book, I think; I have one book with the list in it—this is a copy that I made at the time from list—they said that these shares represented securities held by the bank to the value of £48,200, and that they wanted them to be credited in the account as such; that was stated by Mr. Wain and Mr. Beall—we then put into the account, "By bonuses valued by the directors, but which are subject to realization"—it was while I was preparing our accounts that I had this conversation with Beall and Wain—it was spoken of on several occasions; it was spoken about, I believe, before we made out our profit and loss account, showing the loss at £8,463—I imagine the account would be sent, out with £8,540; the figures would be arrived at afterwards, the grand total—the account would be probably submitted with the £8,543 loss, ami then the question of how these items were to be dealt with would come on—I thought I was speaking of the making up of the list amouuting to £48,200; I should

say that that figure of £48,200 would not be given to us until after we had dealt with the loss, but we should, of course, come across the securities at the time we were going through the account all along—we never put any value upon these securities in the accounts until after we had submitted our draft profit and loss account—after we had submitted our profit and loss account we got the value, the figure of £48,200, from the directors and Mr. Beall—by "the directors" I mean Wain and Lambert—I described them as bonuses because they were received as bonuses for business done, as rewards for certain advances and that kind of thing—we thought it fairer to describe them as bonuses than to use the word "securities"—I have got the copy of our balance-sheet as we sent it in ultimately to the directors—the item occurs in two places at the right-hand side of the balance-sheet, "By bonuses subject to realisation, £48,200"—I have not got a print of it—the print is not as we sent it in; I have it here as I sent it in—I will tell you how it is as we sent it in—it was "By bonuses valued by the directors, but which are subject to realisation," and in the profit and loss account it was repeated—it is the fourth item in the balance-sheet, and in both places in the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account I sent it in with those words—the result of bringing in that £48,200 was to show a net profit of £39,183, subject to the realisation of the bonuses credited per contra—we added in the certificate, "We have examined the foregoing balance-sheet of profit and loss account, and find them to, be in accordance with the books of the corporation in London, and subject to our report of this date, we believe them to be a correct statement of the corporation's affairs"—I did not underline the words, "subject to any. report of this date"—one item is "By investment" in the balance-sheet "£425"—I have detaih to show what those investments are—there are 200 fully paid shares in the District Messenger Company, taken over at £2 each, and in the Union Newspaper Company ordinary shares are taken ovw at £25; that makes the £425—we took them at the price at which they had been taken over, not at what they were worth—I made a stipulation when I sent in this report, with Mr. Wain, I believe, that our report was to be read at the meeting—he promised that it should be done—this letter (231) dated September 2nd, 1894, is addressed to F. J. Baker; that enables me to fix the date when I sent in our draft account—it says: "In accordance with the arrangement made with your directors today at our interview with Mr. Lambert, we send herewith copy of the draft accounts we have prepared. We shall be pleased to meet the directors hereon any time on Wednesday morning"—that would be the same account practically, but leaving out these bonus shares, but it is so long ago—I do not remember whether I had put them in by that time or net—No. 233 is the next letter, November 2nd, addressed to Baker, secretary (Read)—I then received the letter of December 8th, which has been read by Mr. Arthur Gill—(Further correspondence was put in and read)—we gave Messrs. Lewis a copy of our balance-sheet; we originally drew it—this is it (Produced)—we supplied Mr. Aitohison after h» was appointed with a copy of our original report and balance-sheet.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I was approached in the first instance by Mr. Weller—he was never in our employ—I did not know him when

he came—I did not know him at all—when I went there some of the work had been already done—this is the establishment expenses account (Produced)—there is no explanatory entry—there is this: "By T. Birtwistle, 40 shans, £5 paid"—all the entries above that are by cheque—"By Birtwistle, 40 shares," shows that 40 £5 shares had been credited, instead of handing the money over, and that I found in the book when I came there—I believe the two items of the overdrawn account are not our entries—I did not find the account balanced up in that way; I am inclined to think this is one of our clerks' writing; it is not my own—I found a minute of April 18th, which stated that the sum of £6,909 had been agreed, to, and that from that sum a balance of £2,132 had been subtracted in order to make the £4,777, and that the figures making up those items had been before a committee of the board, Lambert and Stokes—when I oame on the scene and inquired into these matters was some time in July, 1894—when we came on the scene we raised a great question, but that was the position in which we found it—I do not remember the date our report was delivered; the papers show it, you have a receipt there showing the date—I do not think we had a cheque, I think cash was paid—we were paid, any way—they brought notes, I think; there was a receipt given by Mr. Pappadaki for the accounts, which was put in—that fixes the identical date—a receipt was put