CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 7TH, 1901.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court.
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
REVISED AND EDITED BY
EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ., Q.C.
OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED. 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the Queen's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City Of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, January 7th, 1901, and following days,
Before the Kight Hon. FRANK GREEN, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir ALFRED WILLS, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knt; Sir JOSEPH RENALS, Bart.; and Sir JOHN VOCE MOORE, Knt. Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., Q.C., Recorder of the said City; JOHN POUND , Esq.; HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN, Esq.; and FREDERICK PRATT ALLISTON, Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; and FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET, Q.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN, Esq., Alderman.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
GREEN, MAYOR. THIRD SESSION,
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT.—Monday, January 7th, 1901.
Before Mr. Recorder.
100. WILLIAM GASSER (49) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing while employed in the Post Office two post letters containing postal orders for 7s. 6d. and 3s., the property of the Postmaster General.— Nine months' hard labour.
101. REGINALD GUY LOWE (26) , to forging and uttering cheques for ₤15. 14s. 8d. and ₤12 8s. 2d, also to embezzling ₤8 11s. 9d., the moneys of the Dairy Supply Co, his masters.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Nine months in the second division. And
103. JOHN BAYLEY (60) , Breaking and entering the shop of Sir William C. Leng & Co., and stealing a show case containing eight razors and other articles. Second Count: Receiving the same goods, well knowing them to have been stolen.
MR. BOROUGH Prosecuted.
JAMES BROWN (City Detective). I saw the prisoner detained at Kennington Police-station, charged with unlawful possession, on December 30th—he was charged the following day and discharged—I re-arrested him and told him I was a police officer, and should charge him with breaking and entering a shop in the City and stealing a show case—he said, "I do not know the place"—in answer to the charge, he said, "You will have to prove I stole it; there was another man with me, but I will not round on him."
SIDNEY HERBERT PERRIEN . I am the London publisher to W.C. Leng and Co., proprietors of the Weekly Telegraph—they have offices at Mitre Court, Fleet Street—this show case (Produced) is the property of the firm—it is kept inside the window of the office—the knives are sold as an advertisement—I last saw it on the night of December 30th—on the 31st the window was broken, and the case was missing—I subsequently saw it and identified it.
saw this case in the window, unbroken—I went down again at 4 o'clock; the window was smashed, and the case was gone.
WALTER SMITH (53 L). On December 30th, about 4.10 a.m., I was on duty in Blackfriars Road—I saw the prisoner carrying a brown paper parcel on his shoulder—he was coming from the bridge—I stopped him and asked him what he had got in the parcel—he said, "Knives"—I asked him to undo it—he did so, and I found it contained a show case, containing 18 pocket knives and eight razors—I asked him where he got it from—he said, "I got it from Messrs. Scarffe, 113 and 114, Gray's Inn Road"—I said I should take him to the station—he said, "Meet me to-night at 6 o'clock, and I will tell you all about it"—I took him into custody.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate;"Who saw me break the window?"
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, said that he met a man who asked him to take the parcel home for him, as he had got a message; that he did not know what was in the parcel, and that he would not say what the other man's name was.
GUILTY .— Nine months' hard labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 7th, 1901.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
104. GEORGE GRAY (28) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a watch and chain from the person of Adolf Levison, having been convicted at Clerken well on March 16 th, 1897. Seven other convictions were proved against him.— Five years' penal servitude.
105. THOMAS WELCH (31) , to breaking and entering the shop of Salmon and Gluckstein, and stealing three silver cigarette cases and other articles, also to breaking and entering another shop of Salmon and Gluckstein, and stealing two silver cigarette cases and other articles, having been convicted at Clerkenwell in January, 1897.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Eight other convictions were proved against him— Four years' penal servitude.
106. DANIEL SHEA (30) , to stealing a letter and a guarantee form, from a letter box, having been convicted at Clerkenwell in January, 1899.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Another conviction of alike offence was proved against him.— Twelve months' hard labour.
107. EDWIN THOMAS BAKER (20) , to burglary in a dwelling-house and stealing 12 fish knives and other articles, the property of Matilda Louisa Sadgrove and another, also to burglary in a dwelling-house and stealing knives and other articles, the property of Julia Cole, also to burglary in a dwelling-house and stealing a pair of fish carver and other articles, the property of Alice Wilkinson, having been convicted at the Thames Police-court on June 12th, 1900.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Five previous convictions were proved against him.— Five years' penal servitude. And
(108) AUGUSTA FOWLER (40) , to stealing a book, the property of the Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Limited, after a conviction at Chelmsford on February 3rd, 1900.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Six former convictions were proved against her.— Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. TUDOR Prosecuted.
Martin's Lane—on December 1st I left work at the Duke of York Theatre, and went to the Star and Garter to get a drink; I left by myself, and was going home; I was accosted by a man in St. Martin's Lane 20 or 30 yards from the public-house; three men set upon me, and the prisoner snatched at my watch-chain; I caught hold of his two arms, and then another man gave me a blow on my eye; we fell, and the third man took my watch and chain; I did not let go of the prisoner; a constable came, and I gave him in charge.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. It was you who snatched at my watch-chain.
WALTER HULETT (325 E). I was in St. Martin's Lane at midnight on this Saturday, and saw the prosecutor and prisoner struggling on the ground; the prosecutor was holding the prisoner; he said, "This man and two others stole my watch and chain, and one of them struck me on the eye," and prisoner said, "I have not got it"—the prosecutor had had a glass of drink,"—at the station the prisoner said, "All I can say is, I am unlucky."
Prisoner's defence: I was not sober. The only thing I know is that somebody put their arms round my waist. Whether the other man came by my side I do not know.
GUILTY .—He had been convicted of highway robbery and assaulting the police on May 8th,1899.— Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. YOUNG Prosecuted.
ANNE ALLINSON . I am the wife of Dr. Thomas Richard Allinson, a licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, of Spanish Place, Manchester Square—I have had many letters and post-cards from the prisoner—I know his writing—all these letters and post-cards are in his writing—(These letters were of an abusive and scurrilous description, and the dates covered a period of six years.)
Cross-examined by the prisoner. My husband is a hydro doctor—he has been struck off the rolls, and has "Ex-Doctor Allinson" on his door—I am a Jewess—the Jews think a great deal of family relationship. (The Prisoner persisted in asking the witness questions on irrelevant matters, which the Court would not permit her to answer, and as he continued to do so after several cautions, the witness was ordered to stand down.)
PETER MACINTYRE (Detective Inspector, B). I arrested the prisoner on October 13th at 39, High Street, on a warrant, charging him with publishing a defamatory libel—he said, "That hound, that scoundrel Allinson, has robbed me of ₤30,000; I am glad it has come to this; it is quite true that I wrote it"—he was formally charged at the station, and made no reply.
Cross-examined. You said to me that you had asked for my name and address, that you might call on me, hearing that a warrant was out for you.
By the COURT. He came to the station to give himself up.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "These letters and cards were written by me under very great provocation. When the Court hears of the provocation it will change the aspect of the case. The third libel is
a small matter; if I had known it was criminal I should have acted just the same. It is not only on account of the money I have been robbed of, but the fraud of Mrs. Allinson."
The prisoner, in his defence, stated, on oath, that he was M.D. of the Dental, College, a graduate distingue of Liege, and had a special diploma in Germany, and had been an officer in the Army, and had fought three luels; that he had challenged Mr. Allinson to fight a duel, who was too cowardly to meet him; and that he wrote the letters in a state of distraction bordering on insanity, as the only way of ventilating his wrongs.
GUILTY .—Upon the prisoner stating that he was willing to retract and apologise, he was bound over in his own recognizances to appear for judgment when called upon.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 8th, 1901.
Before Mr. Recorder.
111. HENRY JAMES CAPON (31) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering endorsements to cheques for ₤61 8s. 6d. and ₤94 13s. 1d., also to forging four orders for the transfer of goods, with intent to defraud— Five years' penal servitude. And
(112) ALFRED WILSON (27) , to uttering cheques for ₤125, ₤75, and ₤98, with intent to defraud, having been convicted of felony at Newington on May 13th, 1896.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Three other convictions were proved against him.— Seven years' penal servitude.
MR. BEARD Prosecuted, and MR. MUIR Defended.
No evidence was offered on this and three other indictments.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. LATHAM Prosecuted.
BENJAMIN ARCHER . I am a labourer, of 55, Brenton Street, Limehouse—on December 9th, about 12.20 a.m. I was in Commercial Street—I met the prisoner Nagle—I was sober—she asked me to have connection with her—we went into George Yard, Mile End Road, which is about 12 yards from where I met her—I do not know how far up the yard we went, but before I knew anything I was set upon by the two male prisoners; they caught hold of me and rifled my pockets, and they both seized me by the throat; they threw me to the ground, and I lay there while they were rifling my pockets—I heard one of them say, "Look out, the police," and he gave me a blow on the nose—they gave me a good hiding as well, I have been suffering from it ever since—I lost 4d. out of my pocket, and a handkerchief—I had three half-crowns in my hand, which they could not get, although they tried—the woman assisted them—Crawley was arrested on top of me—the other two ran away—I have no doubt that the woman is the woman who took me down George Yard, and that Cootes is the man who struck me.
Cross-examined by Cootes. I cannot say which way you came up to me—you were on my right—you both caught hold of me before I had time to see you—I first recognised you in the station.
Cross-examined by Nagle. You molested me; I did not molest you—I was sober—you had hold of one of my arms.
ALFRED SAUNDERS (403 H). On December 9th, at 12.20 a.m., I was on duty in Commercial Street, Whitechapel—I saw the prosecutor and Nagle; they turned down George Yard—I went to the corner and watched them—I saw the two male prisoners standing about 40 yardsdown the yard, against the wall—Cootes appeared to strike the prosecutor in the face; Crawley struck him at the same time—the prosecutor was making a gurgling noise, as if being choked—I ran up and caught Crawley on the top of the prosecutor, and I called to another constable, who caught Nagle—Cootes was brought into the station, and I recognised him—I found 3d. in bronze on Crawley and a pawn-ticket—when Cootes was brought to the station he said to the prosecutor, "You will get your f—ear burst over this!"
Cross-examined by Cootes. I first saw you in George Yard—I recognised you there.
Re-examined. I did not know the men before.
ARTHUR PINCHEN (458 H). At 12.20 a.m. on December 9th I saw Archer go to George Yard—I followed him—I heard the prosecutor groan—I saw Crawley lying on the top of him—the last witness arrested him—I saw Nagle and a man walking away very quickly—I went after them—the man had gone too far—I caught Nagle—she said to me, "I have done nothing; what is the matter!"—I said, "You will have to come back and see"—we went back to the prosecutor, who was bleeding from his nose and mouth—he said he had been robbed, and that Nagle had gone down his pockets—Nagle had gone about 30 yards when I caught her—Cootes went down the yard towards Commercial Street, and got away.
Cross-examined by Cootes. I cannot say that I recognised you in George Yard—I saw a man.
Cross-examined by Nagle. You were walking quickly when I saw you.
WILLIAM SIME (263 H). On December 9th, at 12.30 a.m., I was on duty in Commercial Street, in plain clothes—I saw Cootes running towards me, and another man with him—I had seen Cootes with the other two prisoners—I stopped him and asked him what he was doing—he said, "Nothing"—I said, "I am going to take you to the station to see"—he said, "If you do you will have a rough time of it"—he then became very violent, and threw me to the ground several times—he was taken to the station and charged—it took three of us to get him there—I found 4d. in his trousers pocket—there was one new penny—I had seen other two prisoners going to the station before I saw Cootes.
Cross-examined by Cootes. You were about 100 yards up Commercial Street when I stopped you—at the station, before I said anything, the prosecutor said, "That is the man"—when I stopped you you did not say, "I am running up to see if my step-son has gone home."
Crawley, in his defence, said that he was going down George Yard, and
saw the prosecutor and the woman, who asked him to stop the prosecutor from having connection with her; that he was going to struggle with him when the prosecutor knocked him down.
Cootes, in his defence, said that he was going home when the constable stopped him and asked him what he was doing, and that he said he was going home.
Nagle, in her defence, said that she was going home, that she was drunk, that the prosecutor asked her to let him have connection with her, and tried to handle her in an indecent manner; that the coppers found on her had been given her by her boy; that Crawley came to her assistance, and that the prosecutor did not fall.
GUILTY .—They then PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions of felony; Crawley at Clerkenwell on July 6th, 1896; Cootes at this Court on July 20th, 1896; and Nagle at Clerkenwell on July 4th, 1899. Three other convictions were proved against Crawley, five against Cootes, and four against Nagle.
CRAWLEY and COOTES— Five years' penal servitude, and twelve strokes with the cat, each; NAGLE— Four years' penal servitude.
115. JAMES RAY (28), THOMAS FRANTHAM (22), and CAROLINE WILLIAMS (25) , Robbery with violence on Robert Sutherland, and stealing, a watch and chain, handkerchief, and cigarette-holder and 5s. 6d. FRANTHAM PLEADED GUILTY to the simple larceny.
MR. ROBINSON Prosecuted.
ROBERT SUTHERLAND . I live in Commercial Road, and am a labourer—on December 23rd, about 1.30 a.m., I was in Brick Lane—I had had a little drop to drink, but I was sensible enough—as I was going down Fournier Street the female prisoner caught hold of my arm—somebody struck me from behind—I fell down, and did not know anything till I was at the station—I heard somebody come up behind me, but I did not see anybody besides the woman—I lost my watch and chain, my cigarette-holder, 5s. 6d., and a silk muffler—they were produced at Worship Street; their value altogether is about ₤1 6s—I did not know the woman before.
Cross-examined by Ray. I did not see you.
Cross-examined by Williams. You got hold of my arm and tried to pull me back.
WILLIAM SIME (263 H). I was in Brick Lane about 1.30 a.m. on December 23rd with other officers—I was in plain clothes—I saw the three prisoners standing in a corner of Fournier Street—the prosecutor, who was in drink, came towards them—the woman took hold of one of his arms and Frantham hold of the other—they walked to the Synagogue steps, five or six yards distant—Ray struck the prosecutor behind his ear, and knocked him down—I acted drunk, and went and stood near the prisoners—I saw Frantham take a watch and chain from the prosecutor's waistcoat pocket—he took the chain off the watch and handed it to the woman; then Ray went down the prosecutor's pockets—I could not see what he took out—I then blew my whistle, and the other officers came up—I caught hold of Frantham—he threw something away, which I found to be this watch—at the station he said, "I know we had the
watch; why don't you say which of us had it?"—the muffler was found on Ray—he took it off the prosecutor's neck.
Cross-examined by Ray. I did not lay my hands on you—you took something from the man's waistcoat while I was staggering across the road.
Cross-examined by Frantham. I saw you take the watch and chain.
GEORGE CORNISH (377 H). I was in Brick Lane on December 23rd, at 1.30 a.m.—I saw the three prisoners leaning over the prosecutor, who was lying on his back, on some steps—I crossed the road, so that they should not see me, as they know me—the other officers arrested them—I walked up behind them, and saw Frantham throw something away, and I picked up this watch—I saw Williams drop this chain, which I picked up, and also the cigarette-holder.
BENJAMIN LEESON (282 H). I was in Brick Lane with other officers on December 23rd, about 1.30 a.m.—I saw the three prisoners stop the prosecutor—Frantham took hold of one arm, and Williams of the other they went into Fournier Street—Ray followed behind, and struck the prosecutor a violent blow on his head, knocking him down—Frantham felt in his pockets and handed something to Williams—Ray snatched this silk handkerchief from his neck—they then hurried away into Brick Lane—I followed them and took Ray into custody; he threw this handkerchief on to the ground—I took him back to the prosecutor, who was lying on the ground, partly unconscious, and unable to say anything—I took Ray to the station, and the others were also taken there—4s. in silver and 3d. in bronze was found on Ray—in answer to the charge, he said, "I am going to keep quiet; find out what you can; as soon as we say anything it goes down in black and white."
Cross-examined by Ray. I saw you strike the prosecutor.
Cross-examined by Frantham. You appeared to be going through the man's pockets, and handed something to the female.
FRANK HALL (174 H). I was with the other officers in Brick Lane on the morning of December 23rd—I saw the three prisoners standing at the corner—the prosecutor came towards them; they took him across the road to the corner of Fournier Street—I passed by the back of some steps, and saw the prisoners leaning over the prosecutor; they then hurried away—I took the woman into custody; she said, "I do not know the man; I was only holding him up"—Frantham threw something into a doorway, and Williams threw down a chain.
Ray's statement before the Magistrate: "I want to know how it was the prosecutor did not say at the station that he was hit."
Ray, in his defence, said that he was going along the street, and a constable came and asked him to wait a moment, and then said he was going to take him and the other prisoners into custody for highway robbery.
Frantham, in his defence, said that he was going along Brick Lane, and saw a gang of chaps with the prosecutor, who came over to him when they had gone, and said he was going to the Commercial Road; that he (Frantham) said he was going that way, and he took the prosecutor's arm, and also his watch, but not his chain.
Williams, in her defence, said that she was going home when the policeman caught hold of her and took her to the station.
GUILTY of robbery with violence. One previous conviction was proved against FRANTHAM, and two against RAY— Twelve months' hard labour and twelve strokes with the cat each; WILLIAMS— Nine months' hard labour.—The RECORDER awarded ₤1 to Sime for his conduct.
MR. MOORE Prosecuted.
THOMAS HENRY HOWELL . I live at 13, Prospect Road, Ball's Pond—on December 28th I was in the Grasshopper public-house between 8 and 9 p.m.—the prisoner was there; we had a drink together; he was a stranger to me—I went out to meet my wife—I went down the yard adjoining the public-house for convenience—I heard footsteps behind me, turned round, arid immediately I received a blow on my ear by the prisoner—I did not remember any more till I came to, later, when I saw another man, who explained to me that he was a detective—in one pocket I had a purse with two sovereigns and a piece of chalk, and in the other pocket about 7s. 6d.—in my waistcoat pocket I had a watch, with a photo of my little boy in it—my watch-chain was broken in two, it dropped to the ground as I rose up—the prisoner was not there when I rose up—I went to the station, where I identified him—since I received the blow I have been in pain, and it has been very deteriorating to my business.
FRANK BEAVIS (Detective, H). On December 28th I went into the Grasshopper yard, Tom Street, Whitechapel, just before 10 p.m.—I saw a man hurrying away, and then saw the prisoner on top of the prosecutor; he saw me and came towards me, and said, "There is a man laying down there"—I said, "I see there is; what is your game?"—he said, "My game is nothing"—he was going out of the yard—I said, "Wait a minute"—I asked the prosecutor to get up—these two pieces of chain dropped from him—I asked him if he had lost anything—he said he had lost his watch and ₤2 in gold and 7s. 6d. in silver—I took the prisoner and said, "Is your name Terry?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "You are the man I have been making inquiries about"—I said I should take him into custody—he said, "You have worked this up for me"—I handed him over to another officer—I found this piece of chalk just where I took him.
FREDERICK STEVENS (Detective, H). I took the prisoner into custody from Beavis—on the way to the station he said, "I did not hit him; it was the other bloke knocked him down, and I just picked him up as your pal came up."
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had a workshop in the yard, and was just coming from it when he saw the prosecutor on the ground and picked him up.
GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Clerkenwell, on February 2nd, 1897, and three other convictions were proved against him. He was known to the police as a receiver of stolen property.— Five years' penal servitude and twelve strokes with the cat.
MR. PERROTT Prosecuted.
ALFRED DAYS . I live at 48, Sunbury Buildings—on January 3rd, about 12.15 a.m., I was in Austin Street, Shoreditch, going home: I received a violent push from behind—I fell on my face, and injured one of my fingers, and sprained my wrist—James came in front of me and made a grab at my watch-chain and broke it, leaving part of it in my button-hole—he then ran away—I jumped to my feet, and saw two constables come up and catch him—I said, "That man has got my watch and chain, and I will charge him"—I heard something fall from behind him—I picked up my watch-glass—whilst he was being taken to the station he said, "I will give it to you when I come out"—the other prisoner ran away towards Hackney Road—he was brought into the station—one of them lay on my back, while the other was rifling my pockets.
Cross-examined by James. I saw you take my watch—I do not know if you had it when the constable came up.
Cross-examined by Gibbs. I cannot say I saw you interfere with me in any way.
FRANCIS ANDERSON (6 H). On January 3rd, about 12.15 a.m., I was in Austin Street, standing in a doorway—I saw the prosecutor coming down the street—I saw James rush out and knock or push him down—the other prisoner got on top of him, and took his watch away—Gibbs pushed him down—I ran up to James and took bold of him—he dropped a watch—the other man ran off—I called another constable, and he was brought back.
Cross-examined by James. I saw you take the watch.
CORNELIUS HARRINGTON (180 H). On January 3rd, about 12.15, I was in Austin Street—I saw the two prisoners there—Gibbs came up and set on the prosecutor—as I was coming up he ran away—I ran after him and caught him at the corner of Union Street; he said, "What were you chasing me for? I have done nothing"—he became very violent, and I blew my whistle for assistance—on the way to the station he said, "I work hard for my living; I have got a mother to keep; I do not know what you are taking me for."
Cross-examined by James. I saw you push the prosecutor down.
Gibbs' statement before the Magistrate:"I was with my friend James in the Britannia; we crossed towards Austin Street, and we went down a little turning to make water; I saw three lads come behind the prosecutor and push him down; a constable ran after them; seeing them running, I ran, and the constable caught me; I do not know what I ran for."
James, in his defence, said that there was a rush of people in Austin Street, and the constable caught him, and that he knew nothing at all of the job.
Gibbs, in his, defence, said that he saw three lads go up behind the prosecutor and push him down; that the constables came up, and he ran away, but was caught.
GUILTY of robbery without violence.
JAMES then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Worship Street on June 21st, 1897, and five other convictions were proved against him.— Six months hard labour. GIBBS— Discharged on his own recognizances.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 8th, 1901.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. HUGHES, for the defence, submitted that the indictment was bad, as it disclosed no offence, the word "feloniously" having been omitted. (See 24 & 25 Vic., c. 96, s. 3, and Archbold, page 70.) MR. STURGES, for the Prosecution, contended that the omission was only technical, and therefore not material. The COURT upheld the objection and quashed the indictment.
MR. SHERWOOD Prosecuted.
JOHN WILLIAM HOCKLEY . I am a greengrocer, of 6, Crossley Terrace, Islington, and I have a stable at 3, Brooksby Mews, where I had a large number of fowls—I looked after them myself—I came away from there about 10.25 on December 31st, leaving 34 fowls safely locked up there—a policeman fetched me back about 12.30—the lock of the stable had been broken off—I missed 13 fowls—I had called at the police-station with the policeman, and had identified the fowls.
GEORGE SOANE SANDS . I am a grocer, of 2, Brooksby Street, Islington—Brooksby Mews adjoins my premises—on December 31st I was disturbed by the noise of fowls crying—on opening the door I saw the prisoner, with a bag of chickens in his hand, coming down the Mews—I knew they were chickens by the noise—I said, "Halloa! what's up?"—he dropped the bag by the side of the wall and ran off—I ran and caught him—my son came up, and I took the prisoner to the station—I left my son to guard the sack—I came back, and he took it to the station with me—there were four dead and eight live fowls in the sack—going to the station, the prisoner said that a man had given him a shilling to carry them out.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You were carrying the sack, and you dropped them against the wall and ran about 40 yards.
STEPHEN KELF (23 N). I was on duty in Upper Street, Islington' police-station on December 31st about 11.40 p.m.—Sands brought the prisoner in—young Sands was carrying a sack—I opened it, and found seven live and five dead fowls—those were shown to Hockley, and we went to Brooksby Mews—I found No. 3 door had been forced open by some instrument—some fowls were inside, and the floor was strewn with feathers from fowls of the same description—I found this case-opener outside the premises, four or five doors from door No. 3—I saw marks on the door which correspond with this instrument, which I fitted to them—later
on I saw the prisoner at the station and told him the charge—I cautioned him that whatever he might have to say might be used in evidence against him—he said, "I did not have the sack," and after he was charged he said, "I saw the sack under the arch, and picked it up to see what was in it, when the bird halloaed, and I dropped it; I am dumb innocent, but the job is against me."
GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in December, 1899.— Nine months' hard labour.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN and MR. SANDS Defended.
GUILTY on the Second Count. — Three months in the second division.
MR TURNER Prosecuted.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, January 9th and 10th;
and THIRD COURT.—Friday, January 11th, 1901.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. STURGES Prosecuted, and MR. HUGHES Defended.
SIMPSON COOPER . I am a builder, of 75, Favershed Road, Hornsey—I was introduced to the prisoner last July, and asked him if he could get five bills discounted for me—they were drawn by me and accepted by Mr. Holt—he said that he thought he could, and I handed him two bills in July for ₤75 each and one for ₤150—on August 10th I had another interview with him, when he said that he could get a solicitor to advance ₤300 on the bills for ₤500, and he, the prisoner, would advance the rest in building materials—I handed the five bills to him, and he asked me to endorse them, that he might get a cheque that afternoon—these (Produced) are four of the bills—I saw him write this receipt—(Dated August 10th)—I frequently saw him afterwards, but he kept putting it off, he said that the solicitor was away for a holiday—I have never received any money for these bills, but on September 26th, he gave me five cheques amounting to ₤15 15s. 6d—these (Produced) are four of them; they were dishonoured—I have received no building materials.
Cross-examined. I did not know the prisoner as a surveyor—I did not go to him for advice on my building operations; we never mentioned them—I did not on July 18th call at his office and ask him to examine the plans—there was a surveyor engaged on the estate—I showed him the draft building agreement because he was going to a solicitor about it—I did not think there was any difficulty in negotiating these bills—I never received a letter from him stating "I shall be at your office at 2 o'clock; you shall have the bills, of course, if you will hand me the money and pay me for time"—"Avondale" is a house he spoke to me about—I saw it—he
did not take the trouble to find it for me, but he was looking out for a furnished house for himself—I have not received any money—the cheque for ₤3 was dishonoured. I had no banking account—"Falcoln" is another house—I did not take it, but he introduced it to me, and several other houses—the houses he did not take, he passed over to me—I was building on the Oakwood estate—he did not give me ₤55 10s. 6d. in cheques and cash—I deny that he lent me money at any time—I have not tried to recover my money in the ordinary way through the Civil Courts, I have tried to recover the bills—no date is mentioned in the receipt as to the time the bills were to be negotiated—a month afterwards I was still waiting for the money—he negotiated one bill on August 15th without telling me, and put the money in his pocket—I did not apply to the Lord Mayor or to a Magistrate for a warrant or a summons, but I did to the clerk at the Mansion House—he did not tell me that I could not obtain a warrant—when I could not get the money I commenced to try another source—I should have been satisfied if he had given up the bills—I did not owe the prisoner money, but he alleged that there was an account—my assistant wrote and asked what the account was, but there was no account between us.
Re-examined. He has never rendered an account to me—there is no money due to him—this is a letter to him from Gore and Thomas, my solicitors—(Dated October 17 th, asking for the return of the bills by the next post. A letter from the prisoner to Messrs. Gore stated that Mr. Cooper deposited the bills for advances made to him, to which they replied, asking for an account, and a statement whether the advances were made by cheque, bills or cash; and a letter from the prisoner declining to say anything, as the Magistrate had called Cooper a lia✗r)—Wood never suggested that I was in his debt—he said that the solicitor was away for a holiday—when I was unable to obtain the bills I instructed my solicitor to take proceedings, and an action was brought in the Queen's Bench—I did not then know that the prisoner had negotiated this bill for ₤75, but as soon as I discovered that I went to the Mansion House and saw the clerk, and the prisoner was given in charge—I have never received any money from him except cheques which were dishonoured—I knew him as a timber merchant, not as a surveyor.
By the COURT. The bills were drawn on Mr. Holt in the way of business—I was to take them up and find the money when they became due—they were accommodation bills—the bills of July and October 26th were not paid; they could not be presented—the mark on them is not a banker's mark—they were bills to raise money for me to go on with my building operations.
GEORGE ORMONDE SAUNDERS . I am a financial agent, of Tokenhouse Buildings—I met the prisoner in July, 1900, and he handed me these bills for ₤150 and ₤75—I borrowed ₤25 from Mr. Sedgwick on the ₤75 bill, gave Wood ₤20, and kept ₤5—I kept no memorandum, but I have ascertained from the bank that the cheque was drawn on August 15th.
Cross-examined. That ₤20 is the whole amount he has received from me as far as I know—he said that he wanted the bills discounted in connection with building operations—I made inquiries about the acceptor—I did not think them worthless—I know they have not been paid—he
pressed me on many occasions for money on the bills, and told me that he was being pressed by the drawer of them—the ₤150 bill, which I returned, was handed to Mr. Roland, and he asked me if Mr. Roland could be trusted—I believe Mr. Sedgwick destroyed one bill accidentally.
By the COURT. I was not to discount the two bills; I was to get them discounted—I went to Mr. Sedgwick on August 18th, and got a cheque for ₤25—I borrowed the ₤25 on it because he said that he required at least ₤50, and having destroyed one bill, I said, "You must make some advance to enable Wood to go on," and Wood undertook to pay back that ₤20 and per 60 cent, interest when the bill was met—Mr. Holt was to receive the ₤75 bill back—he was not to pretend to pay it; he was to pay it—Mr. Sedgwick failed to discount it, but I got him to give me ₤25 on it, on the understanding that Wood was to pay 60 per cent on the ₤20—Sedgwick was to give me ₤5, which was not to be returned, and Wood was to get ₤20 for the time being at 60 per cent.—Wood did not say, "I want ₤20 for it"; he told me to do what I could—the amount I took was left to my discretion—I thought Wood was connected with Mr. Cooper, and that the money was wanted to go on with the operations—I got what I could—I reported to Mr. Wood before I let the ₤150 bill go out of my hands—the same thing took place about the ₤75 bill—I asked Wood if ₤20 would do; he said, "Yes," and took it.
GEORGE STANLEY SEDGWICK . I often engage in financial operations in the City—I live at 18, Coleherne Road, Earl's Court—Mr. Sanders brought me the ₤75 bill—I gave him ₤25 on account, and endeavoured to discount it, but failed—the prisoner seas indebted to me, and I got ₤45 on it, part of which I kept for my debt and gave Mr. Sanders ₤25—I passed the bill on to Messrs. Foulk & Price.
Cross-examined. I failed to discount another bill in the same name—I do not know that it was worthless, but I did not succeed—an inquiry as to Mr. Holt's financial position was made through the National Provincial Bank, and there was a favourable answer, but I am only talking of hearsay—I lost one cheque, and Foulk and Price handed me a cheque on the same bank—I do not know Wood.
THOMAS DOWSE (City Detective Sergeant). I saw the prisoner at Moor Lane Police-station—he said that he had paid Mr. Cooper ₤80—I searched him, and found this letter among other property; he admitted that it was his writing—(This was dated November 29th, addressed to Mr. Sanders, and stated that Mr. Cooper had got an injunction against him, and some bank had issued a writ, and if they could take the ₤20 advanced on the bill he thought he could get the solicitor to pay it,)—I received him from another officer on the same day as the date of that letter.
S. COOPER (Re-examined). These cheques are drawn in my name—they were not handed to me—I never went to the bank with the prisoner to cash them—I know nothing about them, and have never seen them before—I received this letter from the prisoner—(Dated August 26th, and stating: "I have not heard anything re bills; I do not expect to do so before to-morrow.")
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate:"I never stole ₤75."
MR. HUGHES submitted that there was no evidence that the prisoner stole the bill, only that, he raised money on it, he being a bailee. MR. STUYER
contended that directly he got the money and told lies about it, the offence was complete.—The COURT considered that there was no evidence of stealing, whatever might be thought of the prisoner's conduct.— NOT GUILTY .
MR. PASSMORE Prosecuted.
DAVID HUNTER . I am chief officer of the steamship Mohana—on Friday, January 14th, I was in St. George Street, in the East, about 2.30 p.m., looking for two able seamen—they were strangers whom I was to find—the prisoner came to me and said, "I will find you a couple of men, governor"—I said, "Very well"—he went away—he came back again and said, "I have two men for you"—I followed him to a street I do not know, being a stranger—I had not got far when he made a grab at my watch and chain—he was walking by my side—the watch was in my pocket—he succeeded in taking them and ran away—a man who was with him put his foot out and tripped me up—I had not seen the other man till that moment—as I was getting up, a constable came, who followed the prisoner—I could not see what became of the watch and chain, because I was thrown down on my face—my trousers were torn—the prisoner also struck at me, but did not happen to catch me—I have not seen my watch and chain since—I value them at ₤25—they were gold.
THOMAS DORRELL (331 H). On January 4th, about 2.30 p.m., I saw the prosecutor and prisoner running up St. George Street—when the prisoner saw me he turned round and struck Hunter on his chest and sent him to the ground—I went up, and Hunter said, "You have sneaked my watch"—I chased him for 10 minutes, and took him—he said, "I have not got it, governor; the other bloke has got it"—I took him to the station—there were a lot of people about, and another man ran away at the same time—I was about 100 yards away when Hunter went down—the prisoner ran round a corner, and I lost sight of him for about 10 yards, but when I got round the corner he was still in sight, and I followed him—I am sure the man I followed was the same man who struck Hunter.
Prisoner's defence: I saw something, and went and asked what was the matter. The prosecutor said, "A man has stolen my watch and chain," and when I got up he said, "This is the man." I am innocent.
GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court on February 4th, 1900, in the name of George Drake. Three other convictions were proved against him, and he had only been out of prison three days when he committed this robbery.— Three years' penal servitude.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.
NELLY PAYNE . I am assistant to Mr. Allchurch at the Army & Navy Stores, Victoria Street—about nine weeks ago I saw the prisoner there—I had cause to notice her, and saw her take a pocket book in the book department—I followed her down two flights of stairs and over a bridge which connects two departments—she left by the Auxiliary Stores—I did not stop her, because I was quite new to it and did not see anybody
whom I could communicate with—three weeks afterwards I saw her in the stationery department, and followed her to the mantle department, and saw her examining a muff; she put the ticket inside it—I watched her out and had plenty of opportunity of knowing her—she came back afterwards, and I followed her to Gorringe's, in Buckingham Palace Road—she was not in the department where the pocket-books were the second time—I merely identified her as the same woman—I have never seen her in the book department on any other occasion—I only prove that the actual pocket-book I saw in the department is one of the society's books.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not give you in custody because I did not see anybody in authority.
JOHN ALLCHURCH . I am superintendent of the Army & Navy Stores—in consequence of instructions I gave, the prisoner was arrested on December 20th—Miss Glen, I think, brought her to my department—I said, "Are you a member?"—she said, "No; I came to the Stores to see a lady."
WILLIAM WOMACKA . On December 20th I was at the Army and Navy Stores, and the prisoner was given into my custody—I took her to Rochester Row Station—she was originally charged as being a suspected person—she was taken before a Magistrate and remanded for a week—just previous to her going into Court she was charged with stealing these books—she made no answer.
Thursday, January 10th,1901.
HENRY HORN . I am a assistant to Mr. Chalk, a pawnbroker, of 78, Judd Street—on November 15th a pocket-book and two ash trays were pledged for 2s. 6d.—this is the pawn-ticket found on the prisoner—(Also in the name of Lee).
CHARLES EDWIN NEWMAN . I am stock-keeper in the book department of the Army & Navy Stores—I identify these two new pocket-books of 1901 by our private mark—they are silver-mounted, and worth 7s. 6d. each.
Prisoners defence: These pocket-books were bought and paid for, and I pledged them. GUILTY .—She then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in February, 1895; and two other convictions were proved against her.— Three years' penal servitude.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.
GUILTY .— Two months' hard labour.
126. STANLEY FARRELL (16), GEORGE SKEATES (16), EDWIN MCEWAN , and FRANK CALLAN , Stealing certain fixtures in the house of Jane Brown, Farrell having been previously convicted. FARRELL, SKEATES, and MCEWAN PLEADED GUILTY.
MR. COYLE Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended Callan.
EDWIN MCEWAN (The prisoner). I am 15 years old—I have pleaded guilty to the robbery at Miss Brown's house at Duckett Road on November 27th—I took eight taps and some lead piping out of the kitchen, and some more taps from the bathroom upstairs—we left the letter-box and the knocker, but took the inside handles of the doors, and a large brass plate attached to the letter-box outside—Skeates broke up the letter-box—there were two other boys with me—they went straight to Callan with me—I went because I was sent—a few days before that I and the same boys committed a robbery at some houses at the back of Seeker's at Wood Green—there are three empty houses, but we only went to the middle one—two taps were taken off the bath and two off the side basin, and five or six feet of lead piping—Skeates broke the bath and wrenched off the two taps—the things were taken to Mr. Callan's,, I took them, but I only went once, they went twice—that robbery was about three days before the robbery at Miss Brown's, but we took all the things to Callan's at once—I said to Callan, "I have come from Mr. Hodge's with this brass to sell"; he said, "You have been before, have you not?"—I said, "Yes," but I had not been before—he said, "This is all brass, is it not?"—I said, "Yes"—he gave me 3s. 4d. and a receipt for the goods—I threw the receipt away—I took the things tied up in a handkerchief, and he opened it.
Cross-examined. He did not sign his name on the receipt: this is it: "From Mr. Hodge, Green Lanes, 3s. 4d., 7lb. brass"—I saw him write that—that was the only visit I made there—he asked who my father was—I said, "Mr. Hodge, of Green Lanes, Hornsey Road"—the things I took there were a door-knocker, a letter-box, and 12 and a half brass taps, I think; they were not all battered about, but one tap we could not get all of, and we took half of it—the others were old ones, knocked about a bit—there were about 12 door handles—we unscrewed them with a screw-driver, and there was a ball cock—the knocker and letter-box came from Miss Brown's, seven taps and the door handles came from Duckett Road, and the ball-cock from the back of Settle's—the lead pipe was taken from the kitchen—he gave 3s. 4d. for the whole lot, but some were taken by the other boy.
Re-examined. Before any arrest was made I confessed to Sergeant Tritton—my father is in respectable employment.
JANE BROWN . I live at Somerset Villa, Harrington Bohesbown, Bournemouth—I own 56, Duckett Road—when I last visited the premises about December 14th, some taps had been removed—I had seen them safe in November—I also missed the door plate and knocker and some lead piping and outside door handles, value about ₤1—I did not authorise anyone to take them away.
WILLIAM GEORGE REDMOND . I am the nephew of William Redmond, and live at 31, Stamford Hill—he is the owner of 23 and 25, Courcey Road—I was in Courcey Road about November 23rd—a few days afterwards I missed 16 taps and about 80 ft. of lead piping, one or two door handles, and I found the bath broken by the tap being wrenched off—this
value (Flattened out.)—their cost price is about ₤9 10s.—I did not is one of our taps; some of the others are similar; also this copper ball authorise anyone to take them away.
Cross-examined. The taps and handles had been in the house about six years—the house had been occupied.
ARTHUR TRITTON (Police Sergeant, Y). On December 7th I went with, Sergeant Kendal to a marine store shop, kept by Callan, in River Park Road, Wood Green—I told him we were police officers, and asked him if he had purchased any brass taps, door knockers, or door knobs from a lad during the last three days—he said, "No; I will have a look"—he turned to this old ledger, which appears to have belonged to some office in the City, the last entry in which is in 1877, though on the last page is an entry in 1875, which refers to some office business, but there is nothing relating to the metal business; then he looked at this small memorandum book, in which the last entry is March 27th, and at the end of the page, "January, 1900"—when I had looked at these books I said, "I am going to take you into custody for receiving a quantity of brass taps and other articles from a lad; have you got any about here in your place?"—he said, "Yes, you can come and see what I have got"; then he took us up some stairs to a back room on the first floor, and there, wrapped in a piece of brown paper, I found a brass tap, a portion of a tap, twelve door knobs, a brass knocker, two portions of a ball cock, and a brass door handle attached to a letter-box—these answered the description of articles stolen from Duckett Road—these (Produced) are some of the articles, Kendal has had charge of them ever since—some were found in another parcel in the room—Callan said, "I do not know, but I think I must have got these from Mr. Dorrington or Mr. Double"; then he stopped, as if thinking, and then said, "Oh, I know, I got them from Jack Eaton"—I said, "Have you purchased anything from a lad?"—he replied, "I saw a lad down here from Harringay this week"—that is about a mile or half a mile from the prisoner's premises, and near where McEwan lives—we took possession of the property and took Callan to the station, where he was charged.
Cross-examined. Callan has been in business at least 18 months since I have been in the district—I see now an entry in this ledger in 1878—this card was taken off the file, and refers to things found in the search—we found some receipts.
SIDNEY KENDAL (Police Sergeant, Y). I accompanied Tritton to Callan's place—I heard Tritton ask Callan if he had purchased any brass knobs, knockers or taps, and Callan's answer—(An entry was found in the ledger in August, 1900, of the purchase of zinc, brass, etc.).
Callan, in his defence, on oath, said that McEwan said that he came from his father, and seemed so straightforward that he believed the articles were honestly disposed of, and that he bought 10 lbs. for 3s. 4d.: 4d. a pound being a fair price for old brass, unless there was copper mixed with it; and that he had bought from others at from 4d. to 6d. a pound.
Evidence for Callan's defence.
how much a pound will you give him for brass?"—Callan said, "Who is your father?"—he said, "Mr. Hodge, 39, Harringay Road"—Callan said, "fourpence a pound, tell your father"—the boy went away, and came back in about half an hour with some brass which weighed 10 lb.—Callan gave him 3s. 4d.—the boy asked for a receipt, which Callan gave him—I keep entries on slips of paper, and enter them in the book sometimes—4d. a lb. is a good price for old brass.
Cross-examined. I enter in the small book; the other we keep to tear out pages for memorandums—when we cleaned out we fished it out of the waste paper—this transaction was done in the usual way, and quite open—we thought it was right because the boy did not bring the stuff with him—I am the better scholar, and have to spell everything to Callan.
HENRY WEBBER . I am a plumber, of Ealing—on December 6th I exchanged with Callan a copper ball cock and several brass taps for some solder—they were similar to these produced—this is a special tap—this copper ball is similar but does not show my hammer marks where I beat it flat—4d. to 41/2d. a lb. is the price we usually get for old brass, or less—we do not put old taps in premises, but we sometimes renew defective parts.
CALLAN— NOT GUILTY . FARRELL— Six months' hard labour; SKEATES— Four months' hard labour; MCEWAN— To enter into recognizances to come up for judgment if called upon.
MR. COYLE offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CORSER Prosecuted.
GEORGE NIXON . I am a seaman, of Victoria Street, Gateshead, Newcastle—on December 10th I was in Commercial Street on my way to Leman Street, to get to Aldersgate, and then to Newcastle—I had been paid off that day—the prisoner ran into my chest, then he and two more slewed me round and threw me on my back—the prisoner knelt on my chest and took from my inside breast pocket my money order, discharges, and character, which were in a pocket-book which a policeman took from him—the money order was for ₤14 payable at Newcastle—I had had ₤3 7s. 5d., but had changed and spent some—the prisoner also took ₤2 19s. 6d. from my trousers pocket—my trousers were ripped right down, and I was kicked on my ribs and knee—a doctor examined me in the Police-station—I said to a policeman rushing through the crowd, "That is the man who robbed me"—I remembered him quite well—I was lying on my back, and had just come to—the contents of the pocket-book came back, all except the money.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I had had some drink, but I was not silly drunk—I had had no dispute.
Street about 9.30 p.m.—the prisoner and three others aroused my suspicion by interfering with passers-by—I was on the opposite side of the road—the men approached the prosecutor, who was going towards Whitechapel, and the prisoner caught him by his shoulders, and the others started rifling his pockets—he shouted for help—the prisoner twisted him round and threw him on his back, dropped on him, with his knees in his stomach, and took his pocket-book from his inside jacket pocket, got on his feet again, and kicked him in the ribs—the four men ran away—I chased them through several streets—I caught the prisoner as he was entering a lodging house—I was about two yards behind him the whole time—he called a number of men, who came into the lobby of the lodging-house, and tried to rescue him—he tried to get away—I wrenched 6s. 6d. in silver out of his right hand—the top of my knuckle was knocked off with a piece of iron—I held the prisoner with my arm round his throat—he then received a blow aimed at me, which split his head—there were 20 or more men from the lodging house—I was kicked on both sides—I drew my truncheon and used it freely on the crowd—the prisoner tried to get away again—I struck him across the head with the truncheon—I know the first blow split his head because some of the blood flew in my face—assistance arrived, and we took him back to the prosecutor—he had then recovered from the effects of the fall on the back of his head—he was dazed—I had been away more than 10 minutes—someone handed me the pocket-book—it had not the order for ₤14 in it—I saw the prisoner drop it outside the lodging-house, but some lads picked it up—I passed one of the other men, seeing the prisoner had the pocket-book—the prosecutor, on seeing me bring the prisoner, said immediately, "That man has robbed me"—I took the prisoner to the station—the prosecutor was assisted there by two other constables—the divisional surgeon saw him—the prisoner was charged—I saw a swelling on the prosecutor's knee—he said in the prisoner's presence that he was one of those who robbed him and tore his pants—he signed the charge-sheet—the book with the discharges and the money order were given to the prosecutor by the Magistrate's order—he identified the book—the prisoner made no direct reply to the charge, but he afterwards said that he had to pawn a ring that day, as he was out of work, and that accounted for the money he had in his pocket—he produced a ticket for 1s. 6d.—I was kicked and bruised, my knuckle was knocked off, my arm fell useless, and I almost lost my truncheon—this is not the first time I have suffered injury.
Cross-examined. I took the pocket-book to the station, not the prosecutor—the prosecutor had been drinking, but was able to walk—he was kept in the station because he had no means after being robbed—he did not shout in his cell, the shouting came from a drunken person in a cell close to him—he was charged with being drunk and incapable, and discharged the next morning for his own safety—he had a large swelling on his knee.
GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in April, 1892. Eleven other convictions were proved against him.— Five years' penal servitude, and fifteen strokes with the cat. The COURT and JURY commended the constable's conduct.
MR. MATHEWS, MR. MUIR and MR. JAY Prosecuted.
HENRIETTA ANN ROSS . I am the wife of Andrew Ross, the proprietor of the Royal Victoria Hotel, Brora, Sutherlandshire—on October 29th, about 5 p.m., I received this telegram: "With Savage. Have run short money; send by telegram money order ₤10 immediately, payable at Stratford, and wire advice to Ross, Angel Hotel, Stratford, London"—I immediately forwarded the money by telegram, and advised as instructed: "Sent ₤10 on immediately. Ross."
EDGAR PERCY DAVIS . I am a telegraphist at Gracechurch Street Post-office—I produce the original telegram, handed in over the counter at 4.13 on October 29th—it was sent by tube to the General Post Office.
HERBERT SIDNEY SMITH . I am a telegraphist at Stratford Post-office—on October 29th I received a telegraphic advice from Brora between 7 and 8 p.m., in consequence of which I wrote out a telegraphic order for ₤10, despatched from Brora, to be paid at Stratford—two men came between 7 and 8, and I handed one of them the cash which I had been advised—the advice was addressed to Andrew Ross at the Angel Hotel, returned as a non-delivery, and I saw it handed over the counter by a Mr. Williams to the payee, who applied for it in the name of Ross, and the order was signed "Andrew Ross," and paid, in not more than five minutes—believing it was a genuine signature, I paid the money over—neither of the prisoners was the man. (See next case.)
EDWARD DREW (Police Inspector, E). On November 23rd I saw the prisoner, who was detained at Plaistow Police-station—I told him I was a police officer, and that he was suspected of being concerned with a man named Phillips, (see page 128), who was in custody, in uttering forged telegraphic money orders at Leicester Square on October 26th, and that there was a witness to identify him in another case from Stratford—Jarvis was then called into the charge-room, and said that he was like one of the men who came into the room and asked for the telegram—I found on him the book marked "L",—he wrote slip "M" in my presence to his wife: "I am to be remanded for a week; I will let you know again in the morning"—I examined the contents of the book, and said, "These are your entries"—he said, "Yes."
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting, of 59, Holborn Viaduct—I have had 16 years' experience—I have compared the telegram "J" with "L" and "M"; they are all in pencil—the writing is by the same person, and undisguised.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I have examined it with a letter said to have been written by Phillips; there is no resemblance—it is impossible to be disguised—the capitals have the same peculiarities; "L" is like a capital "D" in "London," "Lavington" and "Life"—"R" in "Ross" on the telegram is like three "R's" in the book, the final stroke being close to the bottom—they are absolutely identical—the
word "Order" on the telegram is the same as on page 5 in the book—the "O" is made in the same way—a very fast writer is able to get up to about 40 words a minute—you might start writing 30, and at the end of half an hour write 13 to 15 per minute—I have tested that on many occasions during the last 15 or 16 years.
ANDREW ROSS . I am the proprietor of the Royal Victoria Hotel, Brora, Sutherlandshire, and husband of the witness, Ann Ross—I came from home on October 26th, and stayed at the George Hotel, Aldgate, till Sunday, October 28th, when I moved to the Three Nuns, Aldgate—I was making inquiries for a Mr. Savage—I distributed some of my trade cards—I saw Gower at both hotels—I, never sent, or authorised to be sent, a wire to my wife for ₤10 to be sent to me at Stratford—the signature "Andrew Ross" on this receipt is not mine, nor is it signed by my authority—the first I heard of it was when I got home.
Cross-examined. I saw you either on the Saturday or the Sunday forenoon in the George, the day before the City Imperial Volunteers came home—I did not say at Marlborough Street, "I thought" I had seen you; I said, "I have seen you"—the George was open on the Sunday, but the bar was closed—I went out—we never spoke to each other, that I remember; you might have been in company when I was speaking—I saw you on the second occasion at the Three Nuns in the smoking-room on the first floor—I believe it was on the Monday or Tuesday—I left the George because I was not comfortable—I went to Leytonstone on the Saturday to find Mr. Savage about 10, and returned to the George the same afternoon about 4.
ARTHUR EDWIN WILLIAMS . I am a telegraphist at the Stratford Post-office—on October 29th, about 7.30 p.m., Phillips came into the Post-office—as the result of a conversation I gave him two telegraph envelopes addressed and containing two telegrams, one an order, and the other the reply to the sender—he left—both envelopes were addressed to Ross, Angel Hotel, Stratford.
GEORGE HENRY RENNIE . I am manager of the Queen's Hotel, Upton Park, West Ham—Mr. Arthur Collinson is the proprietor of that hotel and of the Wetherby Hotel, Chelsea—he goes to the Queen's every Saturday and stays there till the Sunday evening—the rest of his time is spent at the Wetherby—on Friday, October 26th, I received this telegram, purporting to come from my employer and to be handed in at Leicester Square at 2.50 and received at 3.23: "Send me ₤10 by telegram, money order; wire Imperial, Leicester Square.COLLINSON"—believing that to have been sent by my employer, I went to the Upton Park Post-office for the purpose of sending the money—I knew Gower—he lived near the Queen's Hotel, and used to come into the bar when Mr. Collinson was there—walking to the Post-office, I met Gower about 4 p.m.—he told me he had been to Chelsea the same morning—he said he had seen the governor, Mr. Collinson—I asked him what he was doing out there—he said he went to look for employment—we walked towards the Post office, and I left him on the pavement opposite the Post-office—I went in and deposited ₤10 and took a receipt.
Cross-examined. You left me about 50 yards from the Post-office—I did not tell you I was going to the Post-office, nor see whether you had an
umbrella—the time had just turned 3.30—I have said "about 4"—I was about five minutes in the Post-office—I went back to the bar and remained half an hour or an hour—the Queen's is about 300 yards from the Post-office—I went to send the money about 10 minutes after I sent the telegram—I did not see you at 5.30 that evening.
Re-examined. The prisoner joined me about 100 yards from the Post-office.
GEORGE HURRY . I am an undertaker, of 54, Plashett Lane, Upton Park—there is a telephone call office in my shop, which the prisoner uses—a document is kept showing the calls—looking at my return sheet of October 26th, I see Gower telephoned between 3.30 and 4 p.m.—when he came from the box he gave me the number and name, 1642 Gerrard—that is Pauley's Dining Rooms, Rupert Street, London.
GEORGE WILLIAM PAULEY . I am manager of Pauley's Restaurant, 19, Rupert Street, Soho—there is a telephone office with the number and name, 1642 Gerrard—late in October the prisoner and Phillips made inquiries, which I answered, and they left—after they left I had a call from Upton Park, and I asked, "Are you Upton Park?"—the reply was "Are you Walter?" or some such name; I do not quite remember—I said, "Two gentlemen just gone"—the answer came, "Everything all right."
Cross-examined. That was between 3 and 3.30.
THOMAS HARGAN . I am a telegraphist at the Leicester Square Post-office—I produce an original telegram handed in at 2.50: "Send me ₤10," Collinson to Rennie, Queen's Hotel, and signed "Collinson"—that afternoon I received an advice from Upton Park Post-office, and made out a money order for ₤10 and sent it to the address advised, "A. Collinson, the Imperial Hotel, Leicester Square," by messenger—shortly afterwards Phillips came and signed the order wrongly, "W," instead of "A," but a fresh order was made out, and the old one destroyed—I asked him to explain how it was he made the mistake—he said the money was not his, it belonged to his brother—I told him his brother must come for the money—he went out, and some time afterwards he came back with another man, who told me the name of the sender of the money and produced a trade card with Collinson's name on and the address—one of them signed the order correctly, and I paid the 10 sovereigns.
Cross-examined. I do not think you were the second man—the wired advice is timed at Upton Park—that can be produced to-morrow.
FLORENCE BURRIDGE . I am a barmaid at the Imperial Hotel, Leicester Square—on Friday, October 26th, Phillips came into the bar about 1.30 p.m. with three or four others—he called for drink and asked, if a wire came in the name of Collinson, if I would keep it for him—about 5 p.m. a messenger brought a message addressed to Collinson, Imperial Hotel, Leicester Square—Phillips called some time after and asked for the telegram, which I gave him—others were with him—he took it away.
ALFRED SHEPHERD . I was manager of the Wetherby Hotel, King's Road, Chelsea, up to November 13th—Mr Collinson was there from Monday to Friday, and on Saturday and Sunday at the Queen's Hotel, Upton Park—on Saturday, October 27th, the day the CI.V.'s wereexpected, I received this telegram about 2 p.m: "Send me ₤10 by telegraph,
money order, payable at Charing Cross Post-office; address to Griffin Hotel, Villiers Street, Strand. COLLINSON"—Mr. Collinson did not usually go away till 4 p.m. and he had not left—I handed him the telegram.
ALFRED GEORGE GRAY . I am manager of the Griffin Hotel, Villiers Street, Strand—while the prisoners were there on Saturday, October 27th, a telegram came addressed to Collinson—I said, "Collinson; I know nothing about it," and was going to pass it back to the telegraph boy—Phillips, who was behind Gower, said, "Collinson," and immediately snatched the telegram out of my hand—they took up their glasses and pretended to finish their drinks, but sipped and put them back on the counter, saying, "We had better get across"—the telegraph office is about half a minute's walk, and just opposite—the bar was crowded—the following Monday or Tuesday week I went to the Police-station to identify Phillips—I saw Gower—I was told to pick out the man who took the telegram out of my hand.
Cross-examined. I said at the Police-court that you were wearing a red tie—the police came to me several times—on November 6th I was fetched by a detective—my wife came to the station about 8 p.m.; I came about 10 a.m.—I had no conversation with her—I answered the one question put to me by the inspector in the room, if I could identify the man who snatched the telegram—when asked at the Police-court I said that you were there—I was in the Marlborough Street Police-court about three minutes before I was called, I never sat down till I had given my evidence—I was drawing a bottle of Bass when the telegram came, and you both stood in front of the Court door—Phillips drank claret, and you Irish, cold—the telegram came about 4 o'clock—I do not remembers disturbance between a sailor and a woman, and do not believe it occurred.
ALFRED NICHOLLS (Detective Sergeant, B). On October 27th, about 2.30 p.m., Collinson made a communication to me at the Chelsea Police-station, in consequence of which I wrote and despached this telegram to Collinson, Griffin Hotel, Villiers Street, Strand" about 2.40: "Money payable at Charing Cross Post-office as requested"—after that I went to Charing Cross Post-office to keep observation in the office, leaving Mr. Collinson outside—about 5.45 I saw Gower come into the Post-office—he had a pink paper, like a transmitted telegram—he went to the counter, turned and looked at the door by which he had entered, put the paper in his coat pocket, took money from his trousers pocket, and asked for a shilling postal order, with which he was served, and then left—I was scarcely two yards away—on November 6th I arrested him at Plaistow Police-station, and took him to Chelsea Police-station—Gray and other witnesses were called to identify him—in the result, he was liberated.
Cross-examined. The paper you had was not so thick as this (The Sun newspaper)—the Griffin is about 100 yards from the Charing Cross Post-office and Morley's Hotel—the West Strand telegraph office is nearer—I put no question to Gray at Chelsea—I did not hear the conversation
with the station sergeant, who was acting inspector—I was in charge of you—if Gray had picked you out I should have kept you in custody—I had no conversation with him—he was in a great hurry, and jumped into a bus to go home—as you were leaving the station the sergeant said, "Don't go for a minute; I must have your name and address in the Refused charge book"—I have heard since that you went to Collinson, but I did not know it—when I saw you at Upton Park I told you I was going to arrest you on suspicion of being concerned, with a man named Phillips and another man not in custody, in conspiring together on October 27th in sending a forged telegram, and with having obtained ₤10 from Mr. Collinson, of the Wetherby Arms, by fraud, and you said you did not know the man—when the witness Gray came to Chelsea you had a black tie with red stripes, and tied in a sailor's knot—on the day you were arrested you told me the shilling postal order you gave to your wife to pay a small coal bill with—no conversation took place about your paying small debts.
ARTHUR COLLINSON . I keep the Queen's Hotel, Upton Park, West Ham, and the Wetherby Hotel, King's Road, Chelsea—I divide my time between those businesses, being from Monday to Saturday at the London business, and Saturday afternoon and Sunday at West Ham—Gower has been a frequent customer at the Queen's—we have a time-table printed, which we give to customers who ask for it—on Friday, October 6th, I was at the Wether by—Gower came in about 11, with two others, one of whom was Phillips, whom he introduced as his friends—he asked me if I should be at the Queen's to-morrow—I said, "Yes"—they had some refreshment and left—I did not send nor authorise the telegram or advice respecting ₤10, and this is not my receipt—I did not receive the money—on the Saturday I was at the Wetherby till about 2.30, when Shepherd showed me a request for the payment of another sum of ₤10, at the Charing Cross Post-office, and the advice to be sent to the Griffin Hotel, Villiers Street—I did not authorise it—I took it to the police, and saw Nicholls; acting under his advice, I caused a telegram to be sent in answer, and afterwards went with the sergeant and stood outside the Post-office near Charing Cross Station, while the sergeant went in—after a little time he came out, made a communication to me, and we went away.
Cross-examined.7, Eleanor Road belongs to me—I do not remember any conversation about it that day—I asked you what you were doing at Chelsea, and you said you had come on business, and introduced me to your friends—you were there not longer than 10 minutes—I was going to dinner and asked if you were going to stop till I came down, and you said, "No, will you be at Upton Park to-morrow." and I said, "Yes"—that is usual—other customers knew it—you came and told me it was through me you had been locked up—I know Fred. Thorn as a customer at Upton Park—I identified Phillips, and went with Inspector Drew and him to Vine Street.
GERTRUDE SUFFIELD . I am a clerk at the Upton Park Post-office—I remember Renniedesiring, by telegram, ₤10 to be paid to Collinson—I produce the original, and the copy of the telegram, and the advice—the number of the order is 3985, "G. Rennie pays ₤10 to A. Collinson, Imperial Hotel, Leicester Square," is the form of the Post-office—that is my
writing—it was handed in at 3.51 on October 26th—it was sent at 4.1—it is stamped as received in London at 4.21.
The prisoner called the following witnesses.
JOSEPH HURCOMB . I am a greengrocer, of Green Street, Upton Park—on Friday, October 26th, the day of the Old Cambridge race, you were talking to me at my stall, between 2.30 and 4 p.m.—you had the Sun newspaper—the report was not up for the Old Cambridge, but London had won—I saw Rennie cross the road when you spoke to me—you were talking to me five or ten minutes; nearer ten—my stall is nearly opposite the Post-office, on the left, and the Duke of Edinburgh, on the right—I work for my father—after the conversation you crossed the road, to the Post-office side—I called out, "Do you want this Sun?"—you said, "No, I do not"—my father was there with a horse and cart—that was a few minutes afterwards—a quarter of an hour passed altogether—you carry an umbrella, I cannot say whether you had it—I saw you again the same evening after the evening papers came out with the result of the Old Cambridge—as a rule, they come out in the racing season about 5 o'clock: it must have been after 5 p.m., 5 to 5.30—we had more conversation about racing, as we have often done—on the night of November 6th I saw you coming from Batter's with Harry Bland and Jack Langrish—I pushed against you, and you said, "Mind how you knock me about; I have been in Upton Park Police-station"—that was when you had been liberated, and you told us all about it.
Cross-examined. The Sun contained the result of four races—they began at 12 o'clock—all the winners were in, up to the Old Cambridge—the first race was at 12, the second at 12.30, the next 1 o'clock, and the next 1.30; this was up to the 1.30 race—I saw Gower standing at the corner of Plashett Lane, within a quarter of an hour—he was outside the Duke of Edinburgh—it all took place within a quarter of an hour; I do not fix the time precisely.
Re-examined. The paper could not have been bought then at Upton Park.
RICHARD LANGRISH . I am a greengrocer of 99, Green Street, Upton Park—I know there is an Old Cambridge race, but I do not remember when I saw you—I saw you several times in a day—I have been in the habit of lending you a shilling—one night you said you had been detained—the C.I.V.'s were expected on the Saturday, and did not come—we have had drinks together.
WILLIAM KNIGHT . I am a decorator, of 20, Harrow Road, Upton Park—I remember the C.I.V. Monday, but not the date—I used to see you every night—you lent me 10s. one night—one Friday night I was asked to come to your house, when you were at home—you were called to see a gentleman at a coffee-shop about 7 o'clock; I cannot remember the dates.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, said that he knew nothing about any of these charges; that he went to Collinson's about the sale of a house of his; that he backed a horse; and telephoned that all was right, meaning that he had backed the horse "King of Pearls" and that he called up Mr. Hurry between 9 and 10 a.m. on Friday to prove he had telephoned to the gentleman
who was sharing the backing; that he never saw Mr. Ross till he was charged; that he only knew Phillips as Gladstone till November 23rd, and had never seen him, more than on four or six occasions; that the Gray's never identified him, though he had been to their house since; and that he was innocent.
GEORGE HURRY (Re-examined). I was rung up from Fenchurch Street on Friday, October 26th, about 9.30 or 9.45—I said, "Halloa there!"; then came, "Is that you, Hurry?"—I said, "Yes; who is it?"—he said "I am Harry"—I said, "Is that you, Mr. Angus?"—he said, "No, I am Harry, Harry Gower"—that would be the prisoner Gower—I do not know from what office it came—in substance, he said, "I want to be put on where I tried to get through yesterday, but was too late; the gentleman could not wait."
GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Reading, on June 19th,1893.— Four years' penal servitude.
130. WILLIAM PHILLIPS (29) who had PLEADED GUILTY before the RECORDER to forging a receipt for ₤10 in the name of W. Collinson, having been convicted of felony at Marylebone Police-court on March 12th, 1900, in the name of William Geoghegan, was then sentenced to Four years' penal servitude. Two other convictions were proved against him. (See last case)
OLD COURT.—Friday, January 11th, 1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
MR. GRANTHAM Prosecuted, and the evidence was interpreted to the prisoner.
MATTHEW ELLIOTT . I live at Chelsea, and am a stable-helper—on December 12th, about 10.45 p.m., I saw the prisoner with a woman in the first street after you get to the bottom of South Kensington Station—I, did not; know either of them by sight—I heard her say to the prisoner "Go where you please"—he said nothing—she pushed him in his face with her muff—he was on her left and on my right—I was walking towards them—I walked three steps further on, passing them, and turned, and the prisoner had got hold of her by her left arm with his right hand, and I saw him punching her with his left hand—he made several thumps—I could not see whether he had anything in his hand—she staggered up to me and said in English, "I am killed"—the prisoner ran away—I ran after him and called out to a man to stop him—I ran down Thurloe Square, Egerton Gardens, Fulham Road, Brompton Road, and he was stopped in Brompton Road Churchyard—we were all close together, and there was a third man, who was not a constable—a constable came up shortly afterwards—when the prisoner got into the churchyard he squatted down against the railings, and pointed and said, "There he goes up the churchyard"—nobody was running away then.
The Prisoner. I do not remember anything; I was drunk—it was my
intention to run after somebody who had done harm to the woman; if I struck her, I regret it very much, but I know nothing.
IRMA BOILLIEN . I live at 23, Pelham Street—I have lived with the prisoner for five years, but I am not married to him—on the night of December 12th I was at home at 23, Pelham Street—the prisoner was not there; he had not come there for two days—I had put him out because the landlady did not wish him to remain in the house; I do not remember on what day that was—on this Wednesday evening I left the house for a walk; I do not remember the hour—I saw the prisoner in front of the house; he followed me and said, "If you don't give me any money, I shall kill you"—I said that I would not give him any; he said, "My girl, give me the money"—I had no money, because I had given it to the landlady—I was going to Piccadilly—at the corner of Pelham Street and South Kensington he took this knife (Produced) from his sleeve and began giving me cuts with it—I put him back with my muff, and he cut my hand—he stabbed me on my arms, breast, neck, and hand—he said nothing while stabbing me—I ran away—I saw him run away, and I fell—I am certain he is the man.
NORMAN JAMES CASSIER . I am house surgeon at St. George's Hospital—on December 12th, a little before 11 p.m., the prosecutrix was brought in—she was very much frightened and in pain, and somewhat collapsed and pale—I examined her and found two incised wounds over her left breast, and another on her left side, below and behind her left breast; two wounds on her right breast, a cut on her right arm, a cut behind her left ear, and a scratch behind her left ear; the first finger of her right hand was cut; the first joint was open, and the two tendons on the left side of the finger were divided; the left side of her abdomen was very stiff, rigid, and tender, and painful to the touch—that was possibly caused during the struggle—the muscle had been ricked, or from a blow, but no bruise appeared—there were nine wounds in all, but none of them were deep—some of them were in a dangerous place—the deepest was only a few lines, but the finger valve was divided—the deepest wound in the breast did not go much below the skin; it only penetrated into the tissue—the wounds might have been inflicted by such a knife as this—if a right-handed man, a stronger blow might be dealt with the right hand; if done with the left, it would depend upon how much force was used—the wounds on the body might be done by a downward blow—I examined the prosecutrix's clothing; the stabs tally with the wounds on her body—she had an outside jacket, which I did not see—(The clothing was here produced.)—two of the wounds were over her heart, if they had been inflicted with a blade of this size, the heart would have been pierced.
WILLIAM SWINDIN (Policeman). On Thursday, December 14th, I searched in the neighbourhood of Thurloe Square, and found this knife in the enclosure at about 8.40 a.m.; it is similar to what butchers use.
Cross-examined. There is a dark mark on it, and it had been raining heavily in the night; it was wet with rain when I found it nine hours after the case occurred.
and people running after him—I joined, and came up to the prisoner, leaning against some iron railings—two or three of the witnesses were there already—the prisoner said, "There he goes up through the church-yard"—nobody was running in the direction he indicated.
Cross-examined. There are lamps in the churchyard, but they are not lighted of a night sometimes—it had been raining, but not then.
Re-examined. I told him I should take him to the station, and before we got there he said, "Me no knife"—three pence and an empty jewel case were found on him, and several pawn-tickets—the charge was read over to him, and interpreted into French by Mrs. Puzani, and he replied in French—he had this walking-stick with him.
CATHERINE INSANI . I am a confectioner—I am married, and act at the station as interpreter when one is wanted—I was called there on December 13th—the prisoner was there, and would not give his name to the police—I said, "Give your name; it will be less trouble for you"—he said, "Leon Dumont, Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road"—he said that he saw a man and woman fighting in Pelham Street, and did not know what it was about, and then he said, "I was talking to the woman, and the man who did it was round the corner"—he came from Pelham Place—he said that he did not know the woman—her name and address were obtained at the hospital—he took out a piece of paper and said, "This is the name and address of the man who did it; he lives in the country, on the other side of Brixton; I do not know the address; he goes by a red omnibus;" this is the paper—(On this was written "Fenchurch Street, George Stangate Ermor, 33, Pelham Street.")—that was after they had been to the hospital.
WILLIAM HENRY HEAD . I am a carpenter, of Crescent Place, Fulham Road—on this Wednesday night, about 10.30, I was in Thurloe Square, and heard a woman scream—I went in that direction, and saw the prisoner hustling with a woman—I have no doubt whatever that it was the prisoner—I saw him strike a blow with his left hand, but could not see whether there was anything in it—the woman staggered and fell against another man—the prisoner ran away—this was at the corner of Thurloe Square and Pelham Street—the man she fell against shouted to me to run after the prisoner—I shouted out, and asked what he had done—the man shouted back that he had stabbed her—I then started running after him—he was just passing me when I started—I chased him round part of Thurloe Square into Fulham Road and Addison Gardens, and across Brompton Road into Brompton Churchyard, and never lost sight of him—just as I took up the chase he stopped and aimed a blow at me with his left hand—(The prisoner here stated that he does nothing with his left hand.)—another witness was with me when I came up with him—I believe his name is Elliott—a constable arrived directly after.
MARY ANN GROOM . I am the wife of a labourer, and live in Marlborough Road, Chelsea—on December 12th, between a quarter and half-past 10, I saw the prisoner two yards from me in Kepple Street, right opposite Pelham Street and Thurloe Square—he took out a knife and a piece of white paper, and screwed it up in his hand, and put them back in his outside pocket—it was a long knife, very much like the one produced—I was
about two yards from him—he had a brown stick in his hand, like this (Produced) which he hung on his arm as he went across to Pelham Place—Kepple Street is not well lighted—the public-house lamp at the corner was out, but there was a lamp at the corner where I was, and by that light the white paper attracted my attention—when he went from me he went across Fulham Road and down Pelham Street—he went by a coffee-shop in Pelham Street.
Cross-examined. I knew nothing about the affair till I went to see my boy in St. George's Hospital—I there saw Madame Lusano, who said, "I am going to see the young woman who was stabbed"—I said, "I wonder if that is the man whom I saw with the knife on Wednesday night"—I did not recognise you by your photograph, nor did the police tell me how you were dressed.
Re-examined. I picked him out at the Police-court—other men were present—I had described him fully to the police.
GEORGE STANGATE . The prisoner wrote my name on a piece of paper and said, "This is the man who did it; I did not do it, nor did I see the woman stabbed"—I went to 36, Pelham Street, and saw the prisoner there—I passed at 7.30 or 8, but saw nothing of this affair.
Prisoner's defence: I was very drunk, and do not remember anything; if that is the case I regret it enormously; I have done for that woman all she wanted; I sold all the furniture to give pleasure to her, because she wanted to go away from London. In 1885 I earned 8,200 francs for her, and if I had not known her I should not have been here now. I had made her a present on the Monday of a pair of earrings, which she is wearing now, which I paid 28s. for.
GUILTY on the Second Count. Inspector Sexton stated that the prisoner was charged on September 8th, 1900, with threatening to murder the prosecutrix, and sentenced to three months' hard labour for living on her prostitution , and that the sentence had only expired five days when he committed this offence; that he had lived on the prostitution of other women, and had done no honest work for nineyears.— Eight years' penal servitude.
OLD COURT.—Saturday, January 12th, 1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
MR. GRANTHAM Prosecuted.
MARY SKEEFE . I live at 672, Commercial Road, Limehouse, a coffeeshop shop, kept by my uncle and aunt—I help them in the business—the prisoner has been in the habit of coming there, sleeping, there and sometimes having meals there—on Tuesday, January 1st, I went out about 9.30 p.m., and the prisoner met me and asked me to marry him—I said, "No"—he said, "Then I will finish you to-night"—he next asked me to kiss him—I said, "No"—he said, "I will shoot you to-night"—I said, "What do you mean?"—he said, "I have got a revolver"—he caught hold of me, but I got away from him and ran into an oil-shop, but came out in about two minutes, and he again caught hold of me—I truggled with him—two young men were there, they spoke to him, and I
ran into our shop—I saw nothing more of him that night, but he slept at the coffee-house—I told my uncle and aunt that night—on the next night I was sent for, and went downstairs to the shop and saw the prisoner there and a constable and my uncle and aunt, all close to him—the prisoner said to me, "What I did I say last night?"—I said, "You frightened me last night, and said you would kill me"—he said, "You are a liar; I did not," and took out a revolver from his coat pocket—he was wearing a short coat—I did not see in which direction the pistol was pointing—he was taken in custody and taken away—I saw him on the Tuesday night, after he came in to sleep, but I had no conversation with him—he never spoke to me,
JAMES FLOWERY (69 KR). On the evening of January 2nd I went to 672, Commercial Road, at 9.20 p.m. in consequence of a complaint made to me—I saw the prisoner there and Mr. and Mrs. Skeefe—the uncle said, "What have you been threatening my niece about?"—he said, "I have not"—somebody was sent for the girl—she said, "You threatened to shoot me"—he then called her a liar, and at the same time took a revolver out of his right-hand coat pocket and raised the muzzle towards the girl—I seized it, I had gloves on, and as he pulled the trigger my glove got between it and the hammer, and remained there, the trigger having then fallen—I took the revolver from him and handed it to Mr. Skeefe, leaving the glove there, I could not get it out—I took the prisoner in custody—he struggled very violently, and some private persons came in and assisted me—on the way to the station he said, "I am sorry it did not kill her"—I made this note at the station (Reading) "I am sorry I did not do it"—he was charged with attempting to shoot her, and said, "I wish I had killed her"—Mr. Skeefe brought the pistol to the station, and I saw the sergeant take the glove from it, and saw this cartridge, which is slightly indented, in the chamber below the trigger—my glove was woollen, and loose fitting—the pistol strikes true, if you pull it hard it will go off—(The indentation was on one side of the cap.)—it is a five-chambered revolver, and all the chambers were loaded.
By the JURY. The uncle and aunt were close to the girl—it was not directed at the uncle as well as the girl—it did not tear the glove.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I am sure you pulled the trigger—I was in the shop before you came in—you asked the girl if you had been threatening her on the previous night, and you asked Mrs. Skeefe some questions previous to the girl coming forward—I did not see you outside the shop.
ALICE SKEEFE . I am the aunt of the first witness, and live at 672, Commercial Road—on the night of January 1st she made a communication to me—the prisoner had slept in the house that night—on the next night my husband fetched a constable—the prisoner was then in a beer-house next door and they fetched him in from outside, and asked him what he said to my niece; what he threatened her for—he said that he did nothing of the kind, and my husband said—"We will call the girl down"—she came down, and the prisoner said, "What did I say to you last night?" she said, "You threatened to shoot me if I did not marry you"—he said that it was nothing of the kind, and that she was a liar—I stood behind the prisoner, and on his saying that she
was a liar I caught his arm and his wrist, and the constable took a revolver from him—I was behind him, watching him—his hand was in his coat pocket when I caught it—the pistol was almost straight, and he was getting his finger underneath—I took hold of his arm before the pistol was out of his pocket—the girl was standing right in front of him—the policeman's glove caught in the revolver, and he had to draw his glove off, because he could not get it out—my husband took the revolver to the station—the prisoner occupied a room in our house on the night of January 1st—I did not search his room that night, but I did on the Sunday (January 6th), and found this box, containing 45 cartridges, in the cupboard.
Cross-examined. You had the revolver in your right outside pocket; I think you only had one coat on; it was in the large pocket, and you were moving your hand and fixing your fingers in.
DAVID SKEEFE . I keep this coffee-house—on January 2nd I fetched the constable Lowry—I had seen the prisoner that morning, but had not spoken to him—when I came back with the constable my wife and the prisoner were in the shop—I asked him if he had a revolver; he smiled derisively, and said that he had not—I said, "How is it you have been threatening to shoot my niece, it seems alarming?"—the girl was then sent for, and came into the shop almost immediately, and I said to her, "Will you tell this man what happened on that night; in front of the constable?"—she said that he had asked her to marry him, and that if she did not he would shoot her—he called her a liar, and put his hand in his coat pocket, and in the course of a second the revolver was out—my wife caught hold of him, and then the constable; I then saw that the trigger of the revolver had caught the constable's glove—the glove was taken off the constable's hand, and glove and pistol were handed to me—when he took the revolver put of his pocket the girl was standing nearly in front of him—I was on the same side as the girl, and my wife on the other side of the counter she and my niece being the only two women there—I accompanied them to the station and handed the glove and pistol to Sergeant Bond.
Cross-examined. My wife went out and fetched you—I was half a yard from you when you took out the revolver.
By the COURT. He owed me 35s., but he had some money to get from a captain, and I tried not to give him any offence, and kept my niece out of his way, and on the Tuesday night we got into conversation just to keep the thing out of his mind—I kept my niece upstairs a great part of the time.
By the JURY. The pistol was about level with the counter, which is rather high, more like a bar—as he brought it out of his pocket he was bringing it above the counter.
CHARLES HALL . I am a pawnbroker, of 652, Commercial Road—on January 1st, about 8 p.m., I sold this pistol and a box of 50 cartridges to the prisoner for 9s. 6d.—the glove going between the hammer and the cap would prevent it penetrating; it had hit the cap, but not sufficiently to explode it; it only flattened it.
in—David. Skeefe handed me this pistol, with the glove fixed between the hammer and the cartridge—it was loaded in all five chambers, and one cartridge was indented—the prisoner was charged with attempting to shoot Mary Skeefe with a revolver—on my reading the charge he said "I am sorry I did not do it; I wish I had killed her; he," turning to the uncle, "has robbed me of pounds"—he was sober.
Cross-examined. You said that you felt queer—I did not see you sick.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I had been drinking very heavily, and was under the influence of liquor, and do not remember how it occurred. I had known her a very long time."
Prisoner's defence: I had not seen the girl for four years. It is impossible for me to go on. I did buy the revolver; it is a habit of mine to carry one. I did pull out the revolver in the shop, but it was simply to show her that I had one. I leave it in the hands of the Jury.
NOT GUILTY .
The witnesses in the last case were recalled, and stated that their former evidence was correct.
GUILTY .— Three month's in the second division.
134. CHARLES FRANCIS HERITAGE was indicted for , and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the manslaughter of Alfred Clarke Fisher, and WILLIAM EDMUNDSON (34) on the Coroner's Inquisition only with aiding and abetting him.
MR. GRAIN, for the prosecution, offered no evidence against EDMUNDSON.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. CHARLES MATHEWS and MR. HUTTON defended Heritage.
ALBERT ELLIOTT . I am clerk to an auctioneer, and live at 15, Lambs Conduit Street—on December 1st I went into the Prince Albert public-house, West Street, St. Martin's Lane—it was before 9.15—I there saw the deceased, Mr. Fisher, whom I know—Heritage and Edmundson then came in together—I knew Heritage, but not Edmundson—they had some drink—Fisher was sitting down dozing, and Edmundson took him by his shoulders and shook him up and said something about a horse—Fisher said that he would bet Edmundson he was wrong, and called him a liar—there had been a dispute about the amount which a horse had been sold for—Edmundson asked Fisher if he had any money—he said, "Yes, 5s."—he said, "Make it a sovereign and bet," and Fisher put a sovereign by the side of it, which Heritage picked up and put in his pocket, and said that he was a liar: and everybody who was brought before him, he tried to make a liar; he said, "If I was such a b—liar as you are, I would cut my throat"—Heritage then came forward as if to strike him; the deceased stood up, and I put my hands on his shoulders and put him down—Mr. Parker, the landlord, entered the bar, and induced Heritage to go outside—I walked outside, and he was on the door-step; I heard him say, "Send him out, as he is fighting"—his coat was off then, but it was on when he left the public-house—Fisher came out behind me, and turned to the left, towards the urinal, which is flush with the house—he did not go into the road, he only
got half way—Heritage came into the middle of the road and said, "Come on"; Fisher walked into the middle of the road, and was about to take his coat off, when Heritage struck him a blow, I cannot say where, as I was behind him, but he fell backwards—he got up again on his legs, and Heritage knocked him down a second time, and he came in contact with the kerb—Edmundson got on his box and drove away just as the man fell the second time—Gilbert and Ray were there; Gilbert was in a cab, and a constable called him out of it, and got in himself—I went to the hospital—I did not see the deceased fighting.
Cross-examined. I believe the landlord said to Heritage, "If I were you I would go away"—when I got outside I saw Heritage standing right opposite—Fisher came out, and when he got to the middle of the road he took off his coat—I believe he had two coats, and they both came off at the same time, and he threw them towards the bar door—the two men were close to each other, each with his coat off, but they did not close—they got close together, and then a blow was delivered, and Fisher fell—he got up again, and was standing when the second blow was delivered; he was not stumbling—I do not know whether it was a greasy night, but it was wet—the road at that point does not fall in the direction of the kerb, the slant is the other way—the whole thing occurred very quickly.
JOHN GILBERT . I am potman at the Prince Albert, and assist in holding horses and carriages—on December 1st, about 9 p.m., I saw Heritage and Edmundson go into the house, and took charge of Edmundson's brougham—I heard wrangling going on inside, and the landlord came out and advised Heritage to go home to his own house—his wife was looking out at the door, and she sent a servant to bring him over—he took his coat off and gave it to his servant to take it over the way—Edmundson was then standing outside; he took the horse out of my hands and wheeled it over to the other side without paying me—I stood at the door and heard Edmundson say, "If you do not go over and fight him, I will; you are a cur"—Heritage came out and challenged him—he said, "Come out; I will do to you as I have done to others"—Fisher came out, meeting him half way to the urinal—Heritage stopped him, and said, "Fight me now"—Fisher took off his coat, and Heritage struck him, and he went down backwards on the pavement, and got up staggering—after that Fisher lay on the kerb, and I went and picked him up, and called two cabs, and put him in one, and he was taken away—the prisoner was not there at that time.
Cross-examined. Heritage was swearing and taking off his coat when he left the public-house—I said before the Magistrate, "He came out peaceably"; that is true—he was on the public-house side when Fisher came out—I saw the witness Elliott standing outside the public-house door—I suppose he could see as well as me—that was the second time he came over—Fisher only said, "What do you want of me?"—I did not hear him say, "If you want I will fight," and I do not remember saying so before the Coroner—he took off both his coats while he was talking, and threw them on the ground, and then turned and faced Heritage, and he struck him—there is a small hill there; it is always greasy, and horses slip down sometimes, and it would be so with a blow—I told the Magistrate that it was easy to slip down—the whole
thing lasted a minute or a couple of minutes—the men were facing each other when both blows were struck; the first blow was on the pavement, and the second in the road—I do not remember hearing Fisher say, "If you fight, I will fight."
SOLOMON PARKER . I am landlord of the Prince Albert, at the corner of St. Martin's Lane—I was there on December 1st, and about 9 p.m. I was called to the bar, and found the prisoner and Fisher wrangling about the price of a horse, and calling one another liars—I asked Heritage not to make himself a public fool, but go out, which he did—I have known him as a customer ever since I have been there—I followed him to the door, and did not see what happened after he went out—I heard something, and went out and found Fisher lying on the kerbstone.
Cross-examined. Before Heritage left the house he said, "If I was as big a liar as you I would cut my throat"—some little time after he went out Fisher went out, and I saw him on the pavement, pulling his coats off, and then I went back—the outside was rather greasy; there is not much of a slope, but of course it slopes on each side to the gutter; that is, towards the kerb—it is a slippery turning, but it is not awkward till you get to the bottom of the turning—I said before the Magistrate, "It is a slippery, awkward turning"—Heritage has always been a quiet man.
WILLIAM WRAY . I am a labourer—on Saturday, December 1st, about 9.20 p.m., I was outside the Prince Albert public-house—when Edmundson came out they were jangling and Fisher cameout, and they said, "Come and have a fight"—he gave his servant his coat to take to his house; Mr. Parker persuaded him to go away, and then he said, "If you don't go and b—y well pay him, I will," and Heritage struck him on his face and knocked him down, and before he could regain his feet he knocked him down again, and he never spoke any more—I held him while Gilbert fetched a cab—Fisher did not square up to fight.
Cross-examined. Mr. Heritage went across to his coffee-shop after he left the public-house, and three or four minutes after that he called Fisher out of the public-house—he was struck by Heritage when he was on the pavement—I did not see him going towards the middle of the road; he was going towards the urinal—I should say he never left the pavement; both the blows were dealt when he was on the pavement—I did not hear him say, "If you fight, I will fight"—he took off his coat on the pavement, but did not go into the middle of the road; he never had the chance—when he had the second blow his legs were nearly on the asphalte; as he staggered off the kerb he fell and hit the back of his head against the kerb—they were not in the middle of the road—his whole height was in the roadway—he was facing Heritage when each blow was delivered—he was stunned when the first blow was delivered, and was just rising when the second blow was delivered—I was talking to him before it began—I did not see Elliott at all.
EDWARD SCALA (Policeman). I was brought to the scene of the fight about 9.30, and saw a witness pick up the deceased, unconscious, and take him in a cab to the hospital—he was unconscious all the way—I went to Heritage's coffee-house, and charged him with committing a violent assault on Fisher—he was bailed that night—when I took him no custody he said, "It was a fair stand-up fight between ourselves,'
and when the charge was read he said, "No doubt he had a slip, and got the worst of it"—on the Monday he was taken before a Magistrate and remanded.
BENJAMIN GEORGE TIDCAR . I am house surgeon at Charing Cross Hospital—I examined the deceased a quarter of an hour after he was received there; he had two black eyes—he was never conscious; he had a number of fits, and died on December 4th from concussion and injury to the brain, and at the post-mortem I found that his skull was fractured.
EDWARD DREW (Policeman). I went to Heritage's house and told him I was a police officer, that Mr. Fisher had died at Charing Cross Hospital that afternoon, and I should take him in charge—he was about to make a statement; I cautioned him—he said, "It was only an accident; he fell, and I might have done the same thing myself"—he was taken to Bow Street and charged.
Heritage's statement before the Coroner was here put in, in which he said that it was a fair fight, but that the deceased fell on the kerb; that he had known him for 12 years, and they were always on good terms; and that the deceased knew how to use his fists.
Heritage, in his defence, on oath, stated that Fisher had been his lodger for 12 months, and had always been good friends; that Fisher said, "Where is the b—?" and he replied, "I am here," and gave him a shove, not a blow; that Fisher then struck him, and he struck him back, and he fell; that it was a fair fight, and that Fisher was a lighter and shorter man than himself, and 25 years younger.
Evidence for the defence.
ELLICE NAYSMITH . My husband is a salesman in Covent Garden Market—on December 1st, about 9 o'clock, I was in St. Martin's Lane, talking to my brother-in-law—I heard loud talking, looked across, and saw Heritage outside the public-house, and Edmundson pulling the carriage to his own door—Fisher came out of the public-house towards the middle of the road, and took his coat off and threw it towards the bar door—Heritage was then standing with the coachman outside his own door, but he came to the middle of the road, and they fought, and Fisher went down, but got up, and they had another round, and Fisher fell again, with his head on the kerb, on the same side as the public-house—the road was greasy—I have known Heritage long; he is a harmless man.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was standing in St. Martin's Lane, not far from the corner (Pointing out the spot on a plan)—I had the whole of St. Martin's Lane and a considerable portion of West Street between me and the spot where this occurrence was going on—I heard Heritage talking loudly and angrily—I could not hear what he said—that was before I saw any blow—he was then outside the bar door—before that I saw Edmundson drive the brougham round to the coffee-shop—Heritage was there too, and stood on his door-step—I heard no angry language between them then—the halloaing was before they crossed over to the coffee-house—I saw Fisher take his coat off—I could not see what caused him to fall the first time—when I saw Fisher he was in the centre of West Street—Heritage was standing on his door-step at that time, but he went into the centre of the road because Fisher pulled off his coat—I heard no calling about where the b—so-and-so was—I
did not hear Fisher utter a single word—so far as I know, the two men met in the centre of the road from no cause whatever—the first time Fisher fell with his back to St. Martin's Lane, but when he got up and got the second blow he fell towards the urinal, near it and outside it—I saw him picked up—there were not many people there.
Re-examined. I did not stand at the same spot all the time—I have marked where I first stood—when I was at the point I have marked Heritage had not gone across the road—he was calling out something, I cannot tell what—after that the brougham passed to the other side of the road—I moved when they had the second round—I saw them rush into one another, and that resulted in Fisher falling—they sparred round—the second fall was some little way off the spot where he first fell.
ABRAHAM LAZARUS . I live at Shaftesbury Avenue—on December 1st I was talking to my sister-in-law, the last witness, outside Fordham's, which is exactly opposite the Prince Albert, about 9 or a little after; she said, "There is Mr. Heritage having a row"—Heritage, was talking loud, I cannot say who to—several other people were there—I saw the coachman take the brougham to his door, and then I walked to my sister-in-law and said, "It is all right," and while we were in conversation she said, "Oh! they are fighting"—I crossed over, and saw Fisher and Heritage standing up to fight, the same as two boxers, and both their coats off—Fisher rushed at Heritage, and Heritage rushed at him, and Fisher fell and struck the back of his head on the kerb—I did not see what happened before that—when he fell, Heritage stooped to assist him, and the crowd took him and placed him against the wall by the urinal.
Cross-examined. I was 12 or 14 yards from the public-house door—he was talking loud, which is not a usual thing for him to do—I did not see the first blow because, being a cripple, I had to wait for a cab to pass—the round I saw was a fair, square, stand-up fight—there was plenty of room between them, they squared up—I saw the carriage go over, and Heritage standing at his door—I walked away—I did not notice a woman and a girl at Heritage's door—I did not see Heritage take his coat off—I have seen Ray about for a number of years, also Hibbert, who holds horses" heads—I saw Parker, the landlord, come out at his door—I knew Fisher.
ANNIE HEATH . I live at 8, West Street; Mr. Heritage lives at No. 4, and I know him very well—on this night I heard a noise in the street, and went to the window—Heritage was standing on the kerb on his own side of the way—a man came towards him, and they both took off their coats and began to fight, and the deceased fell, and got up, and they fought again, and the deceased fell and struck his head on the kerb—when they began to fight they went round, dodging each other; Fisher fell once on the kerb, and once in the road—one fall was some little distance from the other—it was a very slippery night—after the second fall Fisher could not get up.
Cross-examined. I did not see the brougham at Heritage's door, nor did I see him on his door-step; he was standing beween his shop and another—I saw him on my side of the road before the fight—he had his coat on then, but took it off before he went into the road—I saw a
carriage there—Fisher was then about the middle of the road—they both struck together—I saw Fisher strike Heritage with his fist before Fisher ever fell—the spot where he fell the second time was quite in a different direction from where he was knocked down first.
The prisoner received a good character.
POLICE INSPECTOR WRIGHT From the urinal to where the young woman has made the mark is 15ft.—the carriage way is 18ft. wide—taking the centre of the road to the coffee-house, it is, I think, 3ft. from the north-east corner of the urinal; that makes about 10ft.
GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY.— Two months imprisonment in the second division.
OLD COURT.—Monday, January 14th, 1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
135. MICHELE D'INVERNO (25) , Feloniously wounding Arthur Timms, with intent to murder him. Other Counts: To disable him, and to do him grievous bodily harm. Fourth Count: To prevent the lawful apprehension of Raffaele Napolitani.
MR. MUIR and MR. CAMPBELL Prosecuted; MR. HUTTON Defended.
ARTHUR TIMMS (352 E). On Sunday, December 9th, about 8 p.m., I was on duty with Black, on Eyre Street Hill—there was a large crowd, very disorderly—we dispersed the crowd, and stood at the corner of Somers Street and Eyre Street Hill, and saw Napolitani there, who has been convicted—he struck me on the side of my face, and I was knocked into the middle of the road—he ran down Somers Street, and I caught him at the corner of Baker's Row—he struggled and fell, and while I was holding him on the ground I felt a blow on my back—I was in a stooping position, with one knee on my prisoner—I turned round to see the man who had done it, and caught hold of the knife which was in my back—it hurt me so that I could only hold Napolitani a short time, and he struggled up and ran into the crowd—I spoke to Daniel, and he pulled the knife out of my back; he had some difficulty in doing so—Black then ran up—I was bleeding much, and was taken to a hospital, and was under treatment about an hour—I afterwards became worse, and returned to the hospital—I had not seen the prisoner that evening.
Cross-examined. I did not see the man directly after I was stabbed—I cannot say whether he was in dark clothes, of whether he was wearing a brown coat—I had to leave go almost immediately—Napolitani dragged me 10 or 15 yards through the crowd—I have no doubt it was Napolitani who was under me—I have been on duty in that quarter about two months, but I had a month's night duty—I only knew Napolitani by sight—I may have seen the prisoner before.
ALEXANDER ROBERT TWEEDIE , M.R.C.S. I am house surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital—on December 9th Timms was brought in, in a collapsed condition; he had an incised punctured wound in his back between the shoulder blades—this knife (Produced) was brought to the hospital—a knife like this might have inflicted the wound—I did not think it dangerous, but a small variation in the place might have been dangerous;
it was close to the spine, and if it had struck the spine it would have gone on one side or the other—it was an inch and a-half long in the opening, oblique and downwards—one of my colleagues probed it—it was an inch and a half deep, and penetrated into the chest cavity—I let him go on that Sunday night, but he was brought back ill on the following Tuesday—he was lying on his stomach in the hospital, and gradually developed epileptic fits, which I attributed to the shock of the wound.
Cross-examined. If the knife had penetrated up to the hilt it would have reached the lungs, and that would probably have been death, but the lungs are well guarded there.
JOHN ALEXANDER MILLER . I am Divisional Surgeon of Police, of Percy House, Tottenham Court Road—on December 9th, about 10 p.m., I was called to the hospital about two hours after Timms went there—I found a wound close to his spine downwards, and in the direction of the spine—I have examined this knife and the man's clothes; his overcoat, coat, waistcoat, and the leather of his braces were cut through, and corresponded with the wound—the blow must have been very severe indeed to go through the leather of his braces—I was called to see him on Monday night; he was suffering from great abdominal pain—I gave him an opiate, and advised him to go to the Royal Middlesex Hospital, and he went.
ALBERT ERNEST LAKE . I am surgeon to the Royal Free Hospital—I have not seen Timms since he was sent away from the hospital on December 24th, but when he was admitted again I saw him outside—the physician who attended him is not here—I think he will recover.
WALTER BLACK (318 E). On Sunday, December 9th, about 7.30, I was on duty on Eyre Street Hill, and assisted Timms in dispersing a crowd—I then left Timms, got information, and saw a crowd running down Somers Street—I went to Back Hill, and followed them as far as Baker's Row—I saw a large crowd surrounding the constable, and he was bleeding at the mouth—he was standing up then; he said, "They have stabbed me, and have got away; take me to the hospital as soon as you can," and gave me a knife covered with blood—I took him to the hospital.
Cross-examined. There was a large crowd—I should say that they were Italians—Baker's Row is about 10 yards wide—Timms was standing in Warner Street, which is about 14 yards wide—there is a beer-house on the right side as you come up Baker's Row; that is about 10 yards from where I saw the constable—there is a small lamp at the opposite corner.
ALEXANDER DANIEL . I live at 13, Little Saffron Hill, and sell baked potatoes—on December 9th, about 8 o'clock, I was on Eyre Street Hill, and saw a man come out of the Gun-makers' Arms, and heard the constable say to him, "If you don't go I will take you"—they went into the Gun-makers' Arms, and came out, and as the man walked up to the police the prisoner stood by the policeman, with his right hand in his pocket, and said, "What do you want taking my friend? that man did nothing to you"—I did not know the prisoner before that night, but I took notice of his face because he had his right hand in his pocket, and I thought he had a bad idea—the policeman turned round and turned the crowd away, and
the other man slipped round a potatoe car and struck the policeman on the left side of his head with his left hand—the policeman fell down, and the man ran down the hill—the policeman left his hat on the hill and ran after him; I ran as fast as I could, and the policeman turned three corners, and the man lay on his back—the prisoner was behind the policeman when I saw him—I said, "Look out," and the prisoner took his right hand out of his pocket and gave the policeman an awful blow in the back—the policeman jumped up, and had a knife in his back—the prisoner ran, and the policeman said, "Hi!" and blew his whistle—he made a grab at him, and held him by the collar, but the prisoner dragged him two or three yards up Baker's Row and got away in the crowd—I offered my services to the policeman, and he said, "All right; take it out of me, please"—I was a little nervous, and made three attempts to get the knife out—I got it out, and two policemen came up and took him to the hospital—I next saw the prisoner at the station, and said if I had not seen him for 10 years I should know him just the same—he was with seven or eight others, and I picked him out at once; I had previously given a description of him and the other man to the police.
Cross-examined. I had never seen them before—I had been in that part one month and about five days—I saw the prisoner come out of the Gun-makers' Arms with his friend—the constable spoke to him at the corner before he was stabbed, and had as good opportunity of seeing his face as I had; nothing could convince me that I am mistaken—I said at the Police-court, "There might have been something like 90 persons in the crowd when the constable was hurt"—that is correct—I also said, "They were all Italians but myself; there were a lot of men like D'Inverno there"—that was when the policeman was stabbed, but the prisoner was alongside of him—it was a dark place where it happened, but light enough for me to see—he let the other man go—the prisoner had on the same clothes when he was taken as on that night, a light colour, and a cap; he was not dressed as now; he had not an overcoat on when he came out of the Gun-makers' Arms and stabbed the policeman—I did not see a knife then—he kept his hand in his pocket all the time—I saw it when he raised his hand—the knife went in as far as it could go.
MICHELE SABBATINO . I live at 12, Fleet Row, and sell ice cream—I know Raffaele Napolatini—I went out about 7.30 on the night to get some milk, and was outside my house about 8—I saw Napolatini and the prisoner running down Baker's Row, and a constable after them—Napolatini fell down, and the constable on him—the prisoner had his right hand in his pocket, and took it out and gave the constable a blow in his back, I do not know whether with a knife or his fist—the constable said, "Oh!"—the prisoner ran away down Baker's Row—I went away, and went back again, and saw Daniel take the knife out of the constable's back—he was taken to the hospital—I knew the prisoner by the name of Mike, and had seen him in the neighbourhood before, selling ice cream—I saw him one night in a beer-shop, kept by Antonio, in Back Hill—he was playing at cards—I have seen him eating bread and cheese with a knife like this—there are many knives like it—I had seen him two or three weeks before the night in question—I was taken to the Police-station
on December 14th, and picked out the prisoner from seven or eight others—I said, "Here he is."
Cross-examined. I described him to the police previously—I saw the knife in the constable's back, I ran home and told my brother what had happened, and went out again in five or six minutes—I have known Raffaele Napolatini a long time—we come from the same country—he has a cousin—we call him "Carumclina"—his real name is Napolatini; his nick-name is Papello—I did not see him that night—I was not living with him, or in the same house—I do not know where he is now; I have not seen him since—he is not tall, he has a small black moustache—I did not see anything in the hand of the man who stabbed the constable; it was too dark—I have often been in the beer-house—I have not been refused service, and told to go out—the man who stabbed the constable had not a brown overcoat on.
Re-examined. I knew Papello in Italy—I have seen him on Eyre Street Hill—I saw him three or four weeks before the constable was stabbed—he is not like the prisoner, and is a little bigger than I—there were a lot of people round—I went to the Police-station to give information with Daniel, I think about two days after—I said it was Mike who did it—I told Bissell—the prisoner had a cut on his neck; I cannot say whether it was old or new—(An interpreter was here sworn)—I do not know whether it was the right or left side.
GUISEPPE BIRETTA (Interpreted). I am a carpenter, of 88, Cleveland Street, Fitzroy Square; I lodged with Raffaele Napolatini in the French quarter, and was with him between 5 and 6 on December 9th—I went to the Italian quarter, near Saffron Hill, to get shaved, and then to Miller's beer-house, where I saw Raffaele and the prisoner—we had some drink and left—I knew the prisoner by sight in relation to my trade—we went towards the Italian Church, to the Italian Club, and had some more drink—we then went to a dancing place, and afterwards into the street, where there were a lot of people—I heard a voice, and saw a policeman there, trying to disperse the crowd—I could not understand him—he spoke to Raffaele several times, and he went away to a public-house—he came out and bought a halfpenny-worth of chestnuts—the policeman went after him—D'Inverno was a short distance from him—the policeman pushed Raffaele two or three times, who walked away—D'Inverno then spoke to the policeman in English—I bought some chestnuts—I then saw the policeman's helmet fall—he picked it up, and ran after Raffaele, and the prisoner ran—I followed them down the hill—Raffaele had fallen to the ground when I came up, and the policeman was on the top of him—the prisoner then made a blow at the policeman's back—he got up with a knife in his back—Raffaele and the others ran away—some days after I went to the Police-station, and picked the prisoner out from 10 or a dozen others.
Cross-examined. I did not know when I went to the station that I was going to see D'Inverno—I have known him six or seven months—I knew D'Inverno had been arrested—I lived in the same house with Raffaele for six weeks—I don't know Saverio Napolatini—Raffaele's wife's brother was not present at the stabbing—he wore an overcoat, I do not know whether light or dark—when I came out of the public-house I saw
D'Inverno outside—I was three or four paces off when the policeman was stabbed.
Re-examined. Raffaele Napolatini and Papello are the same—he is now in prison for giving fisticuffs to the policeman who was afterwards stabbed.
JOHN BISSELL (Detective Officer, E). In consequence of information I received on December 9 th I made inquiries in the neighbourhood, and spoke to the prisoner on the 14th in Warner Street, about 2 o'clock—I asked him if he understood English—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I am a police officer, and as you answer the description of a man who stabbed a policeman in Warner Street on Sunday last, I shall take you into custody on suspicion of the same"—he said, "I admit I was there, and I saw someone strike the policeman, but I don't know who done it"—I took him to Gray's Inn Police-station at 9 p.m.—he was placed with seven others of similar appearance and height—he was asked if he was satisfied with the persons who stood up for identification; he said, "Yes"—Sabbatino was brought in and identified him immediately, and then Biretta—the prisoner was then asked if he would like to change his position—he said, "No," he was satisfied—Alexander Daniel then identified him at once—the witnesses were brought in and taken out one by one—the prisoner was then charged, and made no reply—I searched him—he had a short jacket on, with this large knife (Produced) in one of the right-hand pockets—the other knife was found in his left trousers pocket—they are penknives—Sabbatino had given me a description of the prisoner the day before I arrested him—I found a scar on the left side of his throat like a razor cut.
Cross-examined. There was one Italian amongst the men he was placed with—another man was taken to the station on December 9th—he was a dark man, and was seen running away—he had a dark moustache, and was a little stouter than the prisoner.
Re-examined. Daniel, Demio, Marino and Fourier saw him, and said he was not the man who stabbed the constable, and he was released—his name is Stamo; he was brought in for assaulting the constable previously—he was entered in the "Refused Charge Book"—I got this close description of the prisoner from Alexander Daniel the same Sunday night, and it was circulated by wire—I did not know that the accused man had a scar on his neck—I first heard of it the following Thursday from Sabbatino—I did not know Raffaele Napolatini before December 9th—he was first dealt with by the Magistrate at Clerkenwell, for assaulting the same constable, and sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment—I knew the prisoner before this occurrence—he was a witness in November, 1894, at the North London Sessions, when Salvato Evangista was convicted of cutting the prisoner's throat with a razor—the scar is still there—I think the clothes he has on are those in which he was arrested; he had on a check soft cap, like that.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, said that he was an artist's model, and had some men working for him last summer with ice creams; that he saw the affray when the policeman was stabbed by a man who ran away; that he saw the wounded officer taken away between two others; that there was no truth in the suggestion that he stabbed the officer, and the knife was not his; and that he was married, and had three children.
Cross-examined. The prisoner, Biretta, and Raffaele came in on the night in question about 6—they soon left—I have known them as customers—I saw the prisoner later—I have always turned Sabbatino out—I do not supply any food.
CHARLES KING . I am a cab master, of 10, Providence Place, Baker's Row—I was present at the disturbance when a man pushed through the crowd and stabbed the constable—he wore a brown overcoat and grey cap—he was a small darkman, with a moustache—he ran up Baker's Row through Bath Court—I went after him, and he ran down Mount Pleasant through Cold Bath Square—I called a soldier to help me to catch him, but he took no notice—he got away—I went back to Baker's Row—the wounded constable had then been taken away—I knew the prisoner by sight, and was told he was a good accordion player—I am certain he is not the man.
Cross-examined. I am not working at present—I know some Italian boys in the neighbourhood, not men—I told two Italians what I had seen; one was Bassoni, an asphalter—on December 15th I was taken by the prisoner's wife to the solicitors, and told them what I have said here—I did not go to the Police-court—there was a man on the ground under the constable, I do not know what became of him—the constable said he was stabbed, I saw Daniel standing at his side—I know Biretta and Sabbatino—I did not see them there—I saw the face of the man who stabbed the constable when he looked round—I gave the solicitors a description of him, which was taken down.
Re-examined. I was subpoenaed to come here—I am in no way related to the prisoner.
— DEMEO. I am an artist's model, of 7, Cold Bath Square, Clerkenwell—I was outside Miller's beer-shop, watching the row—the constable was telling the crowd to move on—a man punched the constable and ran off through Somers Street—the constable ran after him, and got him on the ground in Baker's Row, when a short man stabbed the constable—he wore an overcoat something like khaki—I am also a barber, and have shaved the prisoner—I swear he is not the man—I had seen the man before—he had a dark moustache, and was shorter than the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I am employed at Holloway as an artist's model—I went to the solicitor in Barbican—Appe, the interpreter, told me where to go—the prisoner had not then been committed for trial—I did not state at the time that I could not identify the man, as it was dark and there was a large crowd—I had not time to tell them that the prisoner was the wrong man.
Re-examined. I am here on subpoena.
ANTONIO MORINO . I am a fishing-rod maker, of 32, Warner Street, Clerkenwell—I saw a man running down Somers Street this night, and a policeman after him—I do not know who he was—I next saw the policeman holding the man down, in Baker's Row and blowing his whistle—a
gentleman then appeared, and plunged a knife into the policeman's back—I do not know him—he had a sharp face and black moustache; not very tall; it was not the prisoner—I went with the constable to the hospital in a cab—I knew the prisoner in the neighbourhood as playing an accordion.
Cross-examined. I know Demeo to speak to—I did not see him at the stabbing—I went to the Police-station, after I left the hospital, with Demeo, who told me he had run behind the cab, and we went to the Police-station the next morning—Bissell asked me for a description of the man who stabbed the constable, and I told him he was a short man, with a sharp face and black moustache—I did not think of going to the station to tell them they had got the wrong man—I was asked to give evidence the next morning—I was asked a week ago to come here.
JOHN FRANCHI . I live at 4, Little Bath Street; am 12 years old, and go to school—I was next the tater stall, when the copper was stabbed, opposite the public-house—I saw the constable holding a man down, when a short man, with a dark moustache and brown overcoat, came along and dug a knife into the policeman's back—he then ran up Baker's Row, and some boys ran after him—I see the blackey pull the knife out of the policeman's back, and I went and called a copper—I have never seen the prisoner before—he is not the man; he was shorter.
Cross-examined. I told Bissell on December 13th what I knew of the matter—I met him in Warner Street—I never said that I did not see the policeman stabbed—the man on the ground was a big man, and had a long, bushy moustache—it was a bit dark—the copper, directly he was stabbed, got up, and the man on the ground ran away, but he caught him again in the middle of Warner Street—after the blackey pulled out the knife he let him go—Appe asked me a fortnight ago if I see it, and I said, "Yes"—he said, "Why don't you go up?" so I came up—I got a piece of paper telling me to come here, dated January 4th.
AUGUSTUS SELENE . I am an Italian, and live at 20, Gough Street, Gray's Inn Road—I am carman to Mr. Bowler—on December 9th, about 8 o'clock, I was on Eyre Street Hill and saw a row—a constable came up and shifted three men, and they came back and hit him on his head—he ran after them to Baker's Row, and struggled with one man on the ground three or four minutes—while he was on the ground a short man came from the crowd and struck the policeman with a knife—I know the prisoner; I have seen him round Back Hill; he is not the man who struck the constable with the knife; it was a short man, with a black moustache; he ran up Baker's Row—I got a piece of paper telling me to come here.
Cross-examined. I knew the prisoner's name—I have known it ever since I have seen him round Baker's Hill—that is five or six weeks—I knew him five or six weeks before December 9th—I only knew one of the three men whom the constable moved on; the prisoner was not one of the three, he was standing outside two yards away, and Mike Levy was standing outside his brother's shop—I do not think Biretta was the third man, I am quite sure he was not there—the man who knocked the policeman's helmet off and struck him had a black moustache, dark hair, a thin face, and a brown coat—he was rather short, not taller than me—Napolitani
ran down Somers Street—the prisoner did not run after him; he stopped there—he never ran with the policemen—I saw him after the row in the Gun-makers' Arms—when I heard that they had the prisoner up for it, an innocent man, I went to the solicitor on the Saturday following and gave him a description of the man who struck the policeman with a knife—I was told to go there by an Englishman who is not here—I had never seen him before—he walked up to me in the street—he knew my name because I knew him—I do not know his name.
Re-examined. A man came round to the colony making inquiries for anybody who was present that night, and I said that I was there—I received a piece of paper—and that brought me here—I went to Barbican on the following Saturday.
LUIGI BOLZONI . I am an Italian, and I live at 2, Fleet Row, Eyre Street Hill—I saw the constable who was stabbed telling the people not to block the hill—they said, "All right, sir," and the constable walked down Eyre Street Hill, and a man who was convicted on Saturday walked down Fleet Row and came back, and as the constable walked along this man followed him up, and when he saw the constable was not looking he struck him in the face from behind and ran down Somers Street, and a constable after him, who caught him at the corner of Baker's Row, and got him down on the ground—a man then rushed out of the crowd and stabbed the constable in the back and then ran up Baker's Row—I did not know the man; he was a short fellow, with black moustache, dark hair, a sharp face, and a pointed nose—I do not know how he was clothed.
Cross-examined. The man who knocked the constable's helmet off was a short fellow, with sharp face, pointed nose, black moustache, and dark hair—the man on the ground under the constable had a white hat and a handkerchief tied round his neck, and a light suit; I saw him run along Baker's Row, and saw a lot of boys and girls run after him.
Re-examined. A boy came and said that I was to come to the Old Bailey on Friday morning; in the mean time I had received a piece of paper telling me to come.
Evidence in reply.
JOHN BISSELL (Re-examined). I saw Napolatini at the Police-court three times—his age is about 23 or 24; five feet six or six-and-a-half high, medium build, with a thinnish face, dark, sallow, very black hair, slight side whiskers black, a very small black moustache and high-cheek bones—he was dressed in a brownish mixture suit, a black silk hat, and a dark blue handkerchief round his neck—I have got here the original description of a man wanted for stabbing Timms—it was taken down by Inspector Daniels at the station—the witness said that he could not identify him—that he could not see his face, as there was a large crowd there, and Morino said that he could not identify him, as he could not see his face; and Francis said that he did not see anything, he ran up afterwards—I made this note of it (Produced)—one note was made on the 13th—the men were all fetched out at the time they were seen.
JOSEPH DANIELS (Police Inspector E). I am stationed at Gray's Inn Road—on the evening of December 9th, Alexander Daniel, a dark man, was at the station, apparently as a witness—he gave a description of the
man who, as he alleged, he saw stab the constable; I took it down; this is it: "A man of 28, 5ft. 8 in.; fair, side whiskers, grey coat, cloth cap, striped broad neck-handkerchief; can be identified;" a man named Lane was brought to the station by two cabmen, as they saw him running, and heard that he had been concerned in stabbing the policeman.
GEORGE BROWN . I am a warder of H. M.'s gaol at Holloway—the prisoner has been in prison ever since he was committed, but part of the time he was in the invalid ward—he has had no opportunity of changing his appearance, or of shaving. I do not think be has shaved since he has been in the place.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, January 9th and 10th; and
NEW COURT.—Friday, Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, January 11th, 12th, 14th, and 15th, 1901.
Before Mr. Recorder.
137. GEORGE SHEAD, For that he, being manager of a public company, did possess himself of ₤23 16s. 1d., moneys of the said company. Wilfully omitting to enter material particulars in the cash-book, and making false entries in the ledger of the said company, with intent to defraud.
MR. AVORY and MR. BIRON Prosecuted, and MR. GILL, Q.C., and
MR. STEPHENSON Defended.
JOHN HENRY KEMP . I am secretary of the Leadenhall Market Cold Storage Company—I was appointed on August 11th, 1899, which is the date when the defendant's dismissal was confirmed by the directors—the Leadenhall Market Company was registered in May, 1887—this agreement, dated December 7th, 1888, appoints the defendant financial and general manager of the Cold Storage Company, and also financial and general manager of the business acquired by them of G. F. Brooke & Co., at a salary of ₤250 a year and 10 per cent, commission on the net profits—Clause 6 says he has full authority to draw cheques—by the endorsement on it the defendant is appointed business manager of Waller & Co., of Smithfield Market, which the Storage Company had also acquired—the endorsement is dated July 10th, 1890—that was a salesman's business, practically the same as Brooke & Co.'s.—his salary was increased to ₤400 a year and an allowance of ₤200 a year for offices and clerks, and 10 per cent, commission as well on the profits of the business of Waller & Co.—Agreement No. 2 is dated January 31st, 1898; by that the business of Brooke & Co. was sold to Mr. W. R. Brooke—the purchase money, ₤6,000, was to be paid by instalments—the agreement is between Henry Chapman, one of the directors, and Washington Russell Brooke—the defendant is a witness to the signature, he is not a party to it—Agreement No. 3 is dated April 6th, 1893, which reduces the defendant's salary to ₤250 and
an allowance of ₤100 for offices—I find in the minute-book a minute of August 11th, 1899, dismissing the defendant from his position as manager of the company—after that resolution had been passed, and I had taken the prisoner's place, I made several applications to him with regard to the books of the Cold Storage Company—I saw him at his office, and told him I wanted the whole of the books, papers, receipts and documents which could possibly be in his possession belonging to the Storage Company—he made excuses that his clerk, who kept the books, was away on his holidays; after that he said his clerks were writing the books up, and he would let me have them shortly—about August 28th I saw him at his office, where the books were being kept—I told him I must have the books—he said I should have them in a few days—the first set of books I got was on September 1st—I wrote to the defendant on September 1st, 1899—(Stating that he had received the ledger, the Storage day-book, the cash-book, the private ledger, and the journal, but not the old pass-books and paying-in books, without which he could not check the cash-book, and asking for them at once)—I did not get an answer to that letter—I wrote again on the same day—I had a letter from him, written on August 31st, but I had already sent mine—this is my second letter—(Ex. 5, asking for the old bank books, paying-in books, and cheque-books and stating that the defendant had not completely written up the cash receipts—also asking for all documents and papers belonging to Waller & Co.)—I got this letter (Ex. 6) from the defendant, dated August 18th, 1899—(Stating that the witness would have to inform customers whether the company would make good the loss to them if there was a breakdown in the machinery, and that although he had hitherto shelved the matter, it would have to be settled sooner or late—I got no answer to my second letter, but about the end of September I got the pass-book and paying-in books which I wanted—on September 5th I got this letter from him—(Asking the witness to let him have the cash-book, and he would endeavour to make it up, although he might have to ask for certain information, as some of the accounts were not in his possession; that his clerks were going through the various papers, and whatever belonged to the company would be sent)—on September 6th I wrote this letter to the defendant—(Stating that he could not dispense with the cash-book)—I did not receive an answer to that letter—on September 28th I got the pass-books and paying-in books of the Cold Storage Company only, none of Brooke's—on October 20th, 1899, I sent one of my clerks up to the defendant's office for the whole of Brooke's books, and also the old ledger and the old private ledgers of the Cold Storage Company—I did not get them—I sent again on the 21st, with the same result—on November 2nd I went and saw Mr. W. Russell Brooke, to whom the business had been sold—he made a communication to me, and in consequence I went and saw the defendant—I told him I had seen Mr. Brooke, and had asked him to produce the books under Clause 8 of the agreement—that he said he could Dot do so, as they had always been kept by his accountant, and he referred me to him—that was the defendant, the prisouer said, "Oh, I will see Mr. Brooke, and hear what he has to say"—I asked him for the books on several occasions during 1900—I still want the old journal and the private ledger of the Storage Company—I have not seen any ledger
prior to June, 1899—the three businesses had three separate banking accounts; the Storage Company at the head office of the City Bank, and the other companies at the same bank, but at different branches—such books as I was able to get were put into the hands of the chartered accountants, Messrs. Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths & Co.; they made a report upon them.
GEORGE TATE . I live at Thames Ditton—on June 5th, 1899, I sent a cheque to the Leadenhall Storage Company for ₤23 16s., which was owing to them—my counterfoil is dated May 5th; it was paid in on June 5th.
Cross-examined. With this one exception, all the accounts were in my favour—I sold them game—this was an account in which they said I had not paid them commission in the previous year on the sale of game; I looked back, and found that was so—in those days I had a large shoot, and I sent the game up to them to store and sell on commission—on June 5th, I received this cheque on Shead's own bank for ₤203 14s. 11d.—I think I have seen him—I had nothing to do with Waller & Co. or Brooke's.
J. H. KEMP(Cross-examined). I understand that before I was appointed, the defendant was the secretary and the financial and general manager—he signed the cheques as secretary—I know he has carried on an independent business as a chartered accountant for a number of years at 18, Laurence Pountney Hill—the Cold Storage Company was a small company, with a small number of shareholders, amongst them Mr. Beale and Mr. Henry Chapman, a civil engineer, of 69, Victoria Street—the business of the company was to keep at their premises game and other things which it was desirable to preserve—I believed Brooke & Co. was the property of the Cold Storage Company; they have been receiving the proceeds of the sale of it—I was not connected with the company when Agreement No. 1 was entered into—the Cold Storage Company kept about a couple of clerks to keep the books, and about 12 storesmen—I cannot say what the turnover would be—Brooke & Co. was a poulterer's business—I cannot say if they had a turnover of ₤80,000 or ₤100,000 a year—I have no connection with them except to receive the proceeds—I only have to do with Waller & Co. as regards the finance—it was similar to Brooke & Co.—I do not know what the turnover is—the manager keeps the accounts, and I concentrate them at my office—I do not know that tie Storage Company was in financial difficulties at the time the defendant went into it—I have heard recently that he guaranteed an overdraft of the company at the bank—I carry on the business of a chartered accountant outside these businesses—I was never at the premises of the Cold Storage Company till my appointment—money from one of the businesses was taken out of one of them to assist the others—the other two were bought to feed the Storage Company, I think.
THOMAS MEARES . I am one of the firm of Beale & Co., solicitors, of Great George Street, Westminster—we have acted as solicitors for the Leadenhall Storage Company since its inception—this (Produced) is report of a meeting of the company held at our offices in 1896, in which the defendant is described as secretary and manager of the company—my firm was instructed in this case in September, 1899—we were in communication with Mr. Kemp, and we knew that he had applied to the
defendant for the books—on September 16th I wrote this letter to the defendant—(Asking the defendant to at once deliver to Mr. Kemp all books and documents belonging to the Storage Company, and an account of all moneys received by him since June 29th, 1899.)—I afterwards heard from Mr. Kemp that some books had been delivered up—hearing that none of the books of Brooke & Co. had been delivered up on November 13th, 1899, I wrote this letter—(Stating that Mr. W. R. Brooke had referred the Storage Company to the defendant as his accountant.)—we got this letter from the defendant, dated November 2nd—(Enclosing 4s. 8d. to the firm)—that was for a copy of the agreement under which the business was sold, with which we supplied him—we also got this letter of September 21st from him (Stating that he believed all the books mentioned had been handed over, but that if there were any which he still had, he would hand them over at once to Mr. Kemp.) and this one of October 28th—(Stating that he knew that Mr. Brooke was of opinion that his purchase of the goodwill carried with it all the books, etc., of the business)—we did not get any books whatever of Brooke and Co., or any answer from him, or any journal of the Storage Company prior to June, 1899—in September or October, 1899, the whole matter was placed in the hands of Messrs. Deloitte & Co. for investigation—on their report to the directors I wrote to the defendant the letter of January 6th, 1900—(Stating that Messrs. Deloitte had reported grave irregularities in the books, that they enclosed eight statements containing particulars of moneys received by the defendant and not accounted for, and of moneys obtained from the company for payments which had not been made by him.)—enclosed in it were the statements of Messrs. Deloitte & Co.—on March 15th, 1900, we wrote this letter to the defendant (Stating that as the defendant's attempted explanations of the grave matters amounted to nothing, they (Beale & Co.) would draw their own conclusions.), and on March 1st we received this one from him—(Stating that the whole matter was a very unpleasant one, but that he had not had the money, and that if his clerks had, he supposed he would have to be responsible for it; that some new books had been founds and would be forwarded, and that he noticed that some books were sold, and asking if they knew the nature of them.)—on April 7th Shead wrote to us—(Saying he would be glad to have a reply to his letter of the 21st ult.)—we wrote this letter to him on April 9th—(Stating that their clients had not sold or authorised anyone to sell any of their books, and that the books and papers he referred to had not been handed over to the Cold Storage Company, which would now take its own course in the matter.)—on April 12th we got this letter from him—(Stating that all the books found up to date had been handed over, and if any more were found in the sorting and arranging, they would be delivered, and that he was not aware of any books having been sold till he saw the entry in the accounts furnished him.)—I reported to Messrs. Deloitte the observations the defendant had made—none of the books of Brooke & Co. were produced at the Police-court by the defendant while I was there—the first I heard of any of them being produced was a few days ago, when an impersonal ledger was handed to us by Mr. Kemp—it was produced by the defendant.
Cross-examined. The matters the defendant was asked to explain are not the subject of the indictment—I do not know who sold Brooke & Co.
—I had nothing to do with it—the Mr. Beale who was a shareholder is the senior partner of my firm—we were the solicitors to Brooke & Co. after it was bought by the Cold Storage Company—I used to come in contact with the defendant—I knew he was carrying on the business of a chartered accountant.
Re-examined. These are the eight schedules enclosed to the defendant—Schedule D purports to be a list of the bad debts written off by the defendant on June 30th, 1898, in which I find the ₤23 16s. paid by Mr. Tate—Schedule E is a list of the cash received by the secretary which is written off as bad—I see here there is the ₤100 received from Mr. Tabor—Schedule M is headed "List of sums in the manager's cash book not accounted for by the secretary from July 1st, 1896, to August 11th, 1899"—on the last page I find ₤20 0s. 10d. paid by Mr. Middleton on August 4th—that is one of the charges in this indictment—I also find here the ₤5 5s. paid by Mr. Appleyard on August 4th, that is contained in the fourth and fifth counts of the indictment—the defendant has never offered any explanation of those matters.
JAMES HAMILTON COOPER . I am a clerk in Martin's Bank—Mr. G. B. Tate had an account there—I produce an extract of it, which shows, on June 5th, 1899, a draft for ₤23 16s. in favour of the Cold Storage Company was paid by us—it came from Parr's Bank.
Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate that on the same date there was a cheque for ₤203 14s. 11d.
CHARLES WILLIAM BAILEY . I am manager to Mr. Appleyard, of Bishop's Road, Bayswater—this (Produced) is a cheque for ₤5 5s., dated July 5th, 1899, which was paid to the Cold Storage Company for an account then owing; I got this receipt—the cheque is endorsed "G Shead," and has been passed through Parr's Bank.
HERBERT JACKSON . I am manager to Middleton & Co., Kennington Lane—on July 26th, 1899, I paid this cheque for ₤20 0s 10d. to the Cold Storage Company; I got this receipt—the cheque is endorsed "Leadenhall Market Cold Storage, G. Shead"—it has been passed through Parr's Bank.
Cross-examined. I sent the cheque by my son, and the receipt was brought back—the cheque is dated July 25th, and the receipt August 4th.
C. W. BAILEY (Re-examined) The only explanation for the cheque for ₤5 5s. being drawn on July 5th, and the receipt not till August 4th, is that my cheques have to be drawn and forwarded to Mr. Appleyard for his signature—probably this cheque did not reach the company's hands till ugust 4th.
Cross-examined. I remember sending this cheque, but I cannot recollect the date.
Re-examined. I cannot say how long we had been owing money to the Cold Storage Company; about six months, I should think—we are poulterers, and this amount was for storage—we had given them no reason for believing this to be a bad debt.
delivered the cheque myself; I should say I did it; is only a few doors from my place—I cannot find the cheque—I got a receipt for it in the next account rendered—the receipt is for ₤300, made up of three amounts—my counterfoil is dated December 2nd, 1895.
Cross-examined. I remember an inquiry was made of me about my cheques, as some contention had arisen; I think it was in 1898—they asked me to produce the cheque—I think it was the manager who asked me, Mr. Kemp or Mr. Russell, not the defendant—I could not find the cheque.
Re-examined. I think it was Mr. Russell who asked me—he was acting for the Storage Company as manager—Mr. Kemp came to me in 1899—I do not think the defendant came to me about it.
GEORGE ROBERT CLARK . I am an accountant at Parr's Bank, Thread-needle Street, where the defendant had an account in his own name—I produce an extract from his account from June 5th, 1899, to August 4th, 1899, which is certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act—among other sums it shows a cheque paid into the credit of the account for ₤23 16s. on June 5th, on Martin's Ban—there is also a cheque for ₤20 0s. 10d., paid in on July 29th, 1899, on the London and South Western Bank, and also one for ₤5 5s., paid in on August 4th, 1899, on the Union Bank, Bays water branch; also an extract showing a cheque, paid in on February 1st, 1898, for ₤250 on the London, City & Midland Bank. (Count 16.)
Cross-examined. The defendant has been a customer of the bank for 20 years—he has been a much respected client of ours all the time—his turn-over was a large one—this is a bundle of his cheques; I do not know if they have been paid for rent, they are not marked—these also (Produced) are cheques paid from his account—this (Produced) is a cheque on our bank for ₤250 for income tax, and is dated February 1st, 1898.
Re-examined. I know the defendant's writing, so far as signatures go—I should think the body of this cheque (The one for ₤250) is in his writing.
THOMAS MEARES (Re-examined by MR. GILL). This letter is to the defendant from us dated May 2rd, 1897—(Stating that they had seen Mr. Holdon, of the London & Midland Bank, and explained the position of G. F. Brooke & Co. to him; that he had said that the amount of overdraft was continually increasing, nd that he must have further security, otherwise he would have to refuse to cash cheques; that they thought a meeting of the directors should be called as soon as possible, and suggested Wednesday afternoon at 4 o'clock, when Mr. Beale could attend)—that is Mr. James Beale,—we were acting for the bank and for the Storage Company—this is a letter to the defendant from Mr. James Beale—(Asking him to press fonvard the negotiations for the sale of G. F. Brooke & Co., as they had another scheme in view if Mr. Brooke did not care to entertain the matter.)—that is written as solicitor of the company, not as director; he never was a director.
By MR. AVORY. I have seen the directors from time to time—I have seen some of them this morning; there is no doubt about their being alive.
the firm of Deloitte, Dever, Griffiths & Co.—in October, 1899, my firm was instructed by the Leadenhall Cold Storage Company to make an investigation of such books as were in their possession—I have, with the assistance of clerks, personally made the investigation—I found that there were many most important books of the Cold Storage Company missing—I found no journal of the company prior to June, 1899; the only one I found commenced after that—during my investigation I had no books of Brooke & Co.—I waited some time to see if they were forthcoming, and on December 5th, 1899, I made my report to the Cold Storage Company—I also sent in a number of schedules, the matters of which, I suggested, required explanation—the letters which the defendant wrote to Messrs. Beale were, shown to me—the defendant has offered no satisfactory explanation of the four charges contained in the indictment—they are Tabor, Tate, Appleyard and Middleton—where there were deficiencies—there were a great number of other items without any explanation—the books were absolutely incomplete—there was no balance-sheet, and no means of proving the accounts to be accurate in any sense—the only proof I had was their inaccuracies in many places—since the adjournment of this case in December last a ledger purporting to be the ledger of Brooke & Co. has been produced, that was on January 3rd, for the first time—it appears to have been all written up at one time—there are 163 folios, but only about 20 of them have been written on—they extend from July 1st, 1896, to January, 1898—there is now no ledger prior to that date—there is an account in the ledger between the defendant and the Cold Storage Company; it is headed "The Leadenhall Market Cold Storage Company, Limited," and in brackets "& G. Shead, Esq."—in that account the defendant from time to time takes credit for his salary and office rent, to which he was entitled, and also for sums paid by him from time to time on account of the company—my attention has been drawn to a bundle of cheques which are said to have been paid by the defendant for rent and other things out of his own banking account, amounting to about ₤7,000—I find that in every instance the defendant has either taken credit for those cheques, or has previously drawn the money out of the Leadenhall Company, and although the amounts are not the same in the total, I find he has drawn out more than is represented by those cheques—I find a number of debts written off as bad, as of June 30th, 1898—they have been put to a suspense account—in Schedule D, sent to the defendant, there is an item of ₤23 16s., a debt due from Mr. G. B. Tate—that ₤23 16s. forms part, of an amount of ₤30 13s. 3d., which all relates to Mr. Tate—he paid the ₤23 16s. in June, 1899—this was written off in June, 1898—there is no entry in the cash-book showing a payment of ₤23 10s. in June, or at any time, or an entry in Mr. Tate's account crediting him with that amount—I found that a number of debts were written off in June, 1899, by carrying them to a suspense account—I selected a number of items from those debts which were written off, and included them in Schedule E, which was sent to the defendant, and in that schedule there is an item which appears in the indictment, Tabor's ₤100, that was paid on December 3rd, 1895, and there is an entry in the cash-book showing the receipt of ₤100 from G. Shead on December 3rd, 1895
to the company—the payment of that ₤100 is carried to the credit of the defendant's account in the ledger—my impression is that the entry "G. Shead" is in the defendant's writing—in his ledger account with the company I find under the same date that amount is credited to him—it succeeds two entries of June 30th, 1896, crediting him with rent and his remuneration—there is no credit given in Mr. Tabor's account for that ₤100—I find no entry in the books at all in 1898 correcting what had been previously entered there, and. in June, 1899, it is carried to suspense account; it is written off, and I should include it in other sums amounting to ₤115 17s. 1d.—I also sent to the defendant the schedule marked "M," headed "List of items in the manager's cash-book not accounted for by the secretary between July 1st, 1896, and August, 1899"—the manager was Mr. Russell—it shows Middleton's ₤20 0s. 10d., dated August 4th, 1899, and Appleyard's ₤5 5s. under the flame date—they both appear as amounts accounted for by the manager and not accounted for by the secretary—in the manager's cash-book I find that Middleton's cheque for ₤20 0s. 10s. and Appleyard's cheque for ₤5 5s. are accounted for to the defendant by Mr. Russell, and I find the defendant's receipt to Russell, dated August 5th, for ₤110 5s. 2d., which includes both those amounts as detailed by the books—there is no entry in the cash book of the receipt ₤20 0s. 10d., or in Middleton's account, giving him credit for the payment—the same applies to Appleyard's ₤5 5s.; there is no entry in Appleyard's account except transferring it to suspense account—Middleton's account was left open; it has been closed since—the suspense account was closed before the defendant was dismissed—closing the suspense account comes to much the same thing as calling the items in it bad debts—I got from the London, City & Midland Bank a copy of the defendant's account from July, 1897—I find in it a number of drawings out of Brooke & Co.'s account, which apparently had gone to the Leadenhall Storage Company—I extracted amounts from July, 1894, to February, 1898, amounting to ₤7, 286 15s. 7d.—that is the amount of cheques drawn payable to the Storage Company—in addition to them I find a cheque for income tax, drawn on February 1st, 1898, for ₤250—yesterday was the first time I had even seen that cheque, when it was produced by the defence—in December, 1900, a heap of cheques reached me, and this cheque was looked for, but was not there—I had the preceding and succeeding numbers—there is no entry debiting the defendant with that ₤250 in his account with the Storage Company—in the new ledger I find it in an account headed "Rent, rates and taxes, etc."—the entry is "1898, February 1st, income tax ₤250"; in pencil below it there ig, "To be adjusted"—it appears to be in the writing of the same clerk who wrote up the whole of the ledger—on the counterfoil there is "In. tax," and no amount filled in—I think the counterfoil is in the defendant's writing—I find by the banking account that a cheque for ₤212 10s. was drawn out of Brooke & Co., payable to Chapman, on February 9th, 1898—1 find that cheque among the cheques which have been produced—Mr. Chapman is a director of the Leadenhall Storage Company—that amount is a half-year's interest payable to Mr. Chapman, on a loan he had made to the company—in the journal of the Storage Company I find, under date of June 30th, 1899, "Henry
Chapman debtor to G. Shead, ₤212 10s., amount paid him on February 9th, 1898"—that is posted in the ledger to his credit—the defendant has taken credit for it as having paid it out of his own pocket—on the top of the counterfoil of the series 56501 I find there is pencilled "G. 8. to 10," which I take means that the defendant used the cheques 56501 to 56510 for himself; except for that, they are all blank—I find that ₤600 was drawn out of Brooke & Co., on February 5th, 1895, by cheque in favour of the Leadenhall Company—turning to the Leadenhall Company's books, I find on February 28th, "G. Shead, ₤600," as if he had paid the ₤600, and that amount is carried to his credit in the ledger—on May 6th, 1896, I find another ₤250 is drawn out of Brooke & Co., and on May 11th ₤200, and by the banking account they appear to be drawn in favour of the Leadenhall Company—in the cash-book of the Leadenhall Company I find on May 11th, "G. Shead, ₤450," which is the amount of those two cheques, as if paid by him personally, and the ₤450 is carried to his credit in the ledger—I should think the entry in the cash-book is in the defendant's writing—the entry in his ledger account with the company is credited to him, and is dated May 6th instead of the 11th, and immediately precedes an entry of December 11th, 1895, which is Tabor's ₤100—on July 8th, 1897, I find ₤100 drawn out of the banking account of Brooke & Co. in favour of the Leadenhall Company—there is no entry in the Leadenhall Company's cash-book of that sum being received by them under that date. A separate banking account was kept for Waller & Co.—(Counts 18, 19, 20)—I have examined their accounts—on July 28th, 1898, I find ₤200 was drawn out by the defendant—I have traced it to the account of the Leadenhall Company, and it should have been entered in their books as a receipt from Waller & Co.; it is entered as received from Brooke & Co.—at that date Brooke & Co. had ceased to belong to the Leadenhall Company, but they still had an account with Mr. Brooke, the purchaser—in the ledger it is entered to the credit of an account called "Bills, etc.," and is entered "By cash," without any other description—I can give no explanation of that account; it is quite incomprehensible to me—altogether ₤2, 458 18s. 9d. is disposed of in that way—it does not appear in the books as a payment out of Waller & Co.—by the bank account, and by this cheque now produced, I find that ₤50 is drawn out of Waller & Co. on August 17th, 1898—in the cash-book of the Leadenhall Company it is entered "Received from Waller & Co."—in the ledger it is passed to the credit of G. F. Brooke & Co.—on January 5th, 1899, I find another sum of ₤200 drawn out of Waller & Co., by cheque (Ex. 9) in favour of the Leadenhall Company—in the cash-book and in the ledger of the Leadenhall Company, it appears as if it had been paid by Brooke & Co.—so far as the books of Waller & Co. are concerned, there is nothing to show why those amounts should have been paid to the Leadenhall Company. The rent of the Leadenhall Company and of Brooke & Co.'s premises were payable to the Imperial Life Assurance Company as landlords—the amount of rent due from the Leadenhall Company in 1897 was ₤1,725, and from Brooke & Co, ₤212 10s. a quarter, which is ₤850 a year—from the books I have prepared an account showing the amount of rent that was due, and the cheques
which were drawn purporting to be in payment of rent from 1894 to 1899—it appears that many cheques were drawn by the defendant on his own banking account, some on the Leadenhall Company, and some on Brooke & Co. accounts—some of them are drawn in the name of Lewis, who was the Insurance Company agent, and some in the name of Bates, who was his clerk, and sometimes in the name of rent—from July 2nd, 1897, to February, 1898, I find cheques drawn in one of those ways amounting to ₤1,675, and among them on July 2nd, 1897, there is one for ₤431 5s., and another on October 11th, 1897, for ₤231 5s.—₤231 5s. is not the amount of a quarter's rent from either business—₤567 10s. too much had been drawn for rent on July 2nd, excluding the ₤431 5s.—Waller's rent was paid quite separately—in October, 1897, if the ₤431 5s. was a genuine payment, then the amount was still overdrawn—up to January, 1899, I find altogether ₤1,392 10s. has been overdrawn in the name of rent—the defendant has taken credit for each amount—a great many of the cheques which were drawn by him, and which ought to have been entered in the books of the Leadenhall Company, were altogether omitted, but the result of giving him credit for all the payments he has made is that in the end he has had all that back, and ₤1,392 besides—by an entry in the cash-book dated May, 12th, 1899, the defendant enters as a payment made by him out of the Storage Company's funds, "By G. B. Tate, ₤203 14s. lid."; so he drew the cash out of the company some weeks before he paid Mr. Tate—among the payments made by the banking account of Brooke and Co., I find two in the name of Gardener, one on October 6th, 1897, ₤250, and another on December 16th, 1897, ₤100—I think Gardener was a clerk of the defendant's, but there is no account of his in the books of the Leadenhall Company, but in the ledger which was given me last Thursday I find those two amounts charged against the Leadenhall Company "or G. Shead, Esq."—there is no entry in the cash-book of the Leadenhall Company of their having received those sums.
Cross-examined. I did not come in contact with this company till October, 1899—I have not had the assistance of any particular director—I should not venture to name any of the directors who had a knowledge of the business—I do not know that steps were taken to avoid its becoming known that the Storage Company and Brooke & Co. were the same—there was no account in the Storage Company's books of any monetary transactions between them and Brooke & Co.—I know Brooke & Co. was in liquidation—it was a very large business—I do not think there would be a large number of books needed in it; I should not think they would need more than 10 or 15 at a time—I should not think that there would have been hundreds of books since 1888—I cannot say how many I received—some of Brooke's books were kept at the market, and some at the defendant's offices—I have not the slightest idea how many counterfoil cheque books there are; there is a considerable number—I have no knowledge of the defendant's gross payments—I ought to find them in the ledger, but they are not there—so far as the evidence of the books informs me, these three businesses were being run apart—I find a cheque of the defendant of June 30th going to Mr. Lewis for rent, and also one for ₤431 5s.—on June 25th there is no entry in Brooke & Co.'s books with
regard to it—this cheque (Produced) is drawn on October 4th to Mr. Lewis for ₤431 5s. with regard to the Leadenhall Company—I do not know if there was any dispute between Brooke & Co. and the Inland Revenue officers—the indictment says the ₤23 16s. from Mr. Tate was carried to a suspense account on June 30th, 1899; as a matter of fact, it should be June 30th, 1898; it was not paid till June, 1899—the books ought to have been written up by August, 1899—(The Third Count of the indictment was amended to "June, 1898,' and the Fourth and Fifth Counts to "August 4th, 1899," instead of July 5th, 1899, by the RECORDER'S directions.)—the ₤20 0s. 10d., which is Middleton's amount, is entered in Mr. Russell's, the managers, book as July 29th; the defendant would have no control over the manager's entries—I did not point out to Mr. Chapman the entries with reference to his ₤212 10s.; it was not my duty—in 99 cases out of 100 the books we examine are examined at the offices of the businesses.
Re-examined. I do not find that the defendant has made any payment to Mr. Chapman for which he has not taken credit in the books, and the ₤212 10s. is a case in which he took credit, although the money came out of Brooke & Co.—the ledger which has been produced of Brooke & Co. contains an account with the Storage Company, and there ought to have been an account in the books of the Leadenhall Company—I find no account corresponding with the account in the new ledger—I find that the ₤600 was paid to the credit of the Leadenhall Company on February 6th, 1895—the cheque drawn out of Brooke & Co. for ₤600 on the same day is missing—if it was produced we might find out whose bank it went into; it is quite clear that two sums of ₤600 were not received by the Storage Company—if they received this one, the other one is not accounted for—I cannot suggest why the ₤23 16s. should have been carried to a suspense account; if it had been applied for a great many times and not received, then it could be—I recognise Mr. Tate as the son of Sir Henry Tate a millionaire—I know now the cheque for income tax went into the defendant's account—it purports to have been paid for income tax—at the time the cheque for ₤431 5s. for rent was drawn there was no such sum due then—the defendant's cheque is dated June 30th, 1897, but the payment is charged as having been made on June 25th—assuming the amount to be correct, it had come out of the coffers of the Leadenhall Company—the 16 cases in the indictment are selected out of a large number of others—I should say there are hundreds of items which require explanation—these are the particular items to which special attention has been directed in the schedules—Nos. D and E contain a number of amounts written off as bad, or put into the suspense account.
GEORGE RUSSELL BROOKE . I am a salesman and market manager in the business of Waller & Co. in the Central Market, Smithfield—I have filled that position since 1896—it is my duty to receive all cheques for poultry and game, and to pay all disbursements, and afterwards to pay the cash balance, if there was one, into the City & Midland Bank—if any cheques were required to be drawn, to pay any accounts which might be outstanding, I should send the accounts on to the defendant—I did not draw cheques myself; they would be posted from his office—I kept a cash-book in which I entered all cheques drawn by the defendant—there was a
cheque drawn from Waller & Co., on July 25th, 1898, for ₤200; I did not know of it at the time—I first heard of it when I sent for the pass-book from the bank; I had it once a week to balance my account—seeing that cheque then, I entered it in my cash-book; there had been no entry of it till then—there was another cheque drawn for ₤50 on August 17th, 1898—the same thing occurred in regard to that—I did not know it had been drawn till I saw it in the pass-book, when I entered it in my cash-book—there is another cheque for ₤200, drawn on January 3rd, 1899—I say the same with regard to that—these cheques were not required for the purpose of Waller & Co.—I do not know why they should be credited to Brooke & Co.
Cross-examined. I had nothing to do with the financial arrangements—I knew Waller & Co. and Brooke & Co. belonged to the Cold Storage Company when I first became manager—the defendant might have written to me and said, "I am going to take ₤200 or ₤300 out of Waller & Co," but I do not remember it—I knew that money was paid into Waller & Co. to finance it—when I went into Waller & Co. there was no business—I do not say I have made it, but it had been closed before—it is well situated in the market.
Re-examined. In January, 1898, I was not aware that Brooke & Co. had been sold—we used to do business together—no such sum as ₤250 was owing to Brooke & Co. in July or August, 1898.
JOHN CROOME FERGUSON . I am income tax collector for part of Leadenhall Market, and my office is in Gracechurch Street—the premises of the Leadenhall Company and of Brooke & Co. are in my district—I did not receive about February 1st, 1898, ₤250, in respect to either of those businesses.
Cross-examined. I know that the premises of Brooke & Co. were assessed—(The witness objected to answer as to the amount, it being a question of privilege. The RECORDER ruled that there was no privilege in a criminal case.)—the amount for 1896 and 1897 was ₤1,500, and 1897 and 1898 ₤2,000; those are the profits of the business—I do not know that the income tax for 1896 and 1897 was not paid, because it was questioned, and was the subject of appeal; the person who would know that would be the surveyor of taxes for that period, but I do not know who he was; there have been several changes—if a man did not pay his taxes I should distrain, and refer to the surveyor to know what was to be done—no income tax was paid by Brooke & Co. in 1897—I think, the first year they paid anything was in 1898—this letter (Produced) purports to be from the secretary of the Board of Surveyors to Brooke & Co., (Stating that ₤34 18s. would be sufficient to satisfy the liability for income tax for 1896 and 1897.)
Re-examined. I never received any income tax from Brooke & Co. till March, 1899—it should be ₤50 for each year; it never amounted to ₤250.
JAMES GEORGE WHITE . I am an assessor and collector of taxes, of 91, Cannon Street—the office of the Leadenhall Company was in my district in 1898—I did not receive ₤250 on or about February 1st, 1898, in respect of taxes of the company.
2, Whitefriars Street—the premises of Waller & Co. were in my district in 1898—I did not receive ₤250 in respect of taxes from them in 1898.
FREDERICK HERBERT NAILER . I am clerk to Mr. Swanson, surveyor of taxes, of Telegraph Street, City—his district includes the office of the Storage Company—I cannot say if any return was made for income tax in 1898, because the offices of the company were not where they are now—Mr. White would have the income tax return form if one was sent in.
J. G. WHITE (Re-examined) I do not think any return was made to me from the Leadenhall Company, so far as I recollect the return was made at a loss—in 1897 or 1898 the surveyor estimated it at a profit of ₤400—they appealed, and the appeal was allowed—in 1897 and 1898 a loss was again returned, and an amount of ₤600 was charged—I cannot say if they appealed again, but I never got a penny from them—in 1898 and 1899 no charge was made, and a loss was returned—the papers then left my hands and went to Mr. Swanson—they would eventually go to Somerset House—if they were found now they would be blank.
By MR. GILL. The income tax appears in Schedule D—I do not know if the Storage Company owned Brooke & Co. or Waller & Co.
F. H. NAILER (Re-examined) We have a statement of account, which is not official—(The witness objected to produce the statement, as under 5 & 6 Vic., chap. 35, sec. 38, Mr. Swanson was under an oath not to disclose anything in the returns. MR. AVORY submitted that that was intended to refer to third parties. The RECORDER ruled that the statement should be produced, as it was those to whom the declaration was made who were now asking for it. This statement showed a loss to the Cold Storage Company in 1890 of ₤999, and to June, 1892, a loss of ₤6,152. A letter from the defendant, dated September 22nd, 1891, was put in, stating that he enclosed a copy of the profit and loss account, arid saying that the loss was ₤2,257; also a letter of September 19th, stating that no accounts had been issued yet, but that the loss was over ₤2,200; a second return showed a loss of ₤3,400 in 1890, and at a date subsequent to 1898, the return not being dated, a loss of ₤6,373).
Cross-examined. The account was opened by Mr. Henry Chapman—I believe it was frequently overdrawn—I know the overdraft was guaranteed—I believe the defendant's name was mentioned among others as one of those who guaranteed it.
FRANCIS THEODORE LEWIS . I live at Whitehall Court—in 1897 and 1898 I received the rents of the Storage Company and Brooke & Co. for the Imperial Assurance Company—in 1897 and 1898 the rent of the Leadenhall Company was ₤1,725 per annum, and of Brooke & Co. ₤850—I never had more rent than was 'due; it was payable quarterly—I believe the payments were sometimes made by a cheque of the defendant's, sometimes by one of the Storage Company, and sometimes by one of Brooke & Co.—on July 2nd, 1897, I received ₤431 5s. rent for the Storage Company—they were generally three months behindhand—that was the Lady-day rent—on October 7th, 1897, I received
₤231 5s., part of the rent for the Storage Company, ₤200 having been paid two days before.
Cross-examined. I have known the defendant for some years, carrying on business as an accountant—these cheques (Produced) all bear my endorsement; they have been received from the defendant for rent—the original rent of the Cold Storage was ₤2,250; when I left it I believe it was ₤1,725.
HENRY CHAPMAN . I am a civil engineer, of 69, Victoria Street, Westminster—I have been one of the directors of the Cold Storage Company since its registration in 1887; I have always been the principal shareholder, and I have increased my holdings; the shares have been held by only a few people—the defendant was appointed financial and general manager and secretary to the company on December 17th, 1888—the minute of December 18th, 1888, which was signed on December 24th, appointed him—a short time after his appointment he introduced the question of the purchase of Brooke & Co., of which he said he was liquidator—ultimately, in my own name, I purchased Brooke & Co., the profits of which were to go to the Storage Company—the company paid the money, but I advanced it—I do not remember when the whole of the amount was paid, but I advanced money from time to time; altogether I advanced between ₤14,000 and ₤15,000—I was credited in the books with the money I advanced—this (Produced) purports to be the cash-book of the Storage Company; I have never seen it before—I see here there is a payment to the liquidator of G. F. Brooke & Co. of ₤2,250 on November 9th, 1889—I have no idea what was paid for Brooke & Co. now—the defendant was paid out of the funds of the Storage Company—the receipts of Brooke & Co. went to the Storage Company; I did not have them—in the autumn of 1889 I became a partner in the firm of Waller & Co., and afterwards I became sole proprietor—by the agreement of July 10th, 1890, the salary of the defendant was increased to ₤400 per annum, and an allowance of ₤200 per annum for offices and clerks, and he was also to manage Waller & Co.—from that date the receipts of Waller & Co. should have gone to the Storage Company—we had board meetings occasionally, generally when we were called by the defendant—speaking generally, the defendant managed the business and affairs of the company—he was the only person who had authority to draw cheques—interest was payable to me on my advance—in 1897 and 1898 the interest payable to me was ₤212 10s. half-yearly—I can remember three occasions on which the defendant paid me that interest with his own cheque—on July 15th, 1890, I received a cheque from him, and this letter with it—(Stating that he enclosed his own cheque for ₤1,500 15s. 6d., so as not to open the eyes of the City Bank.)—that was the repayment of a short loan—I do not think I ever asked him what he meant by "So as not to open the eyes of the bank"—I received this letter from him, dated September 16th, 1897—(Stating that he again enclosed his own cheque for the balance owing, and hoped the figures would be found correct; that he sent his own cheque, as he did not wish the bank, in the present circumstances, to see that the witness was receiving moneys from the concern.)—with those two exceptions, I was not aware that he was paying accounts of the company with his own cheques—I continued to make advances to the company
up to July 10th, 1890, when I advanced ₤1,500—we did not have a balance-sheet every year—I remember calling the defendant's attention to the book debts, and asking him if they were good—this balance-sheet of June 30th, 1896, shows debtors to the company of ₤20,605 7s. 2d.—I called the defendant's attention to it, and he said that they were recoverable debts, and worth 20s. in the pound, and that they were in regard to shipping companies who paid at long credit—I was satisfied with that—we had two auditors, one after the other; the second one's mime was Gordon; I cannot remember the other's name—they were appointed by the shareholders—this balance-sheet was produced by the defendant for the year ending June 30th, 1898—on the liability Ride I find "Less provision for bad and doubtful debts, etc., ₤9,515 0s. 6d."—it is dated February 15th, 1899, for January, 1898—upon seeing that the directors appointed me and another director to look into these accounts, we obtained from the defendant a schedule showing all the debts, and with his assistance we divided them into three categories: good, doubtful, bad—we then instructed the defendant to put certain of the bad debts that we thought might be recoverable, into the hands of some firm. I think we suggested Stubbs, to try and recover them—we could not obtain all the books we required—we asked the defendant; he said either they were wanted for other purposes, or for his office—ultimately we gave him notice, I cannot remember the date; the minute is dated August 11th, 1899—we wrote to the Midland Bank, giving them notice of the termination of the defendant's engagement, and put the matter into the hands of our solicitors and the accountants, for investigation, the result of which was reported to us, and we took legal advice and instituted this prosecution.
Cross-examined. There was other money in the Storage business besides ours—all the shareholders were not friends of ours—I began lending money in 1888—I did not get tired of doing so; I ceased doing so in 1890—I parted with about ₤14,000 in the two years—I cannot say if there were any articles of association—neither Mr. Abbott, Mr. Bsale, nor myself had any practical knowledge of carrying on the business of game dealers—there must have been a secretary before the defendant came, but I cannot remember who he was—there was no committee of directors formed, so all the directors acted as committee—the defendant was to exercise his supervision over the business in the markets—he was to be permitted to carry, on his own business as well as manage ours, if he gave sufficient time to ours—it did not come to my knowledge that there was continual trouble with regard to the overdraft at the bank, because they had our guarantee and probably interest—money was raised on bills of which Mr. Abbott, myself and the defendant were acceptors—this is a bill for ₤1,200, of July 30th, 1892; the defendant's name appears on it, but not as secretary of the company—there were two bills; I do not know if there were any others—I may have been asked to advance more money, and may have said, it was impossible, as my account was overdrawn—this is my letter to the defendant, dated June 21st, 1891—(Stating that having already overdrawn his account at the bank to the full extent of his tether, he was unable to advance any more money for the present.)—I did not know that the defendant was to be a
party to the guarantee of the overdraft of the Storage Company—this is my letter to the defendant, dated November 12th, 1891—(Stating that he was very pleased to hear that Mr. Beale had succeeded in making such a good arrangement with the London & Midland Bank, and that it ought to make the City Bank sit up.)—I suppose the City Bank would not make the same terms, and would lose our business—part of the defendant's duty was to goand see people and try and get them to send goods to the Stores—this is a letter of mine, of February 28th, 1894, to the defendant—(Stating that he did not see how Mr. Thomas could have more interest than the other debenture holders.)—Mr. Thomas had some old debentures at 6 per cent., which were renewed at 5 per cent., but he expected to get 6 per cent.—there was an endeavour at that time to raise money to keep the business going—I said in that letter also, "Unfortunately the heavy calls made in the other companies of which I am a director have entirely crippled my resources, and so I am unable to assist in any way"—I meant to assist in redeeming the debentures that were all run out—I remember the Midland Bank refusing to cash cheques in consequence of the overdraft, unless they had a further guarantee—at that time we were desirous of turning Brooke & Co. into an independent company, of which the public were to have the benefit—that would be about 1897; that was what was contemplated if any profits had been shown—on June 14th, 1897, I wrote this letter to the defendant—(Stating that he had been pressing Mr. Beale to get out a prospectus, and that he, Mr. Beale, was only waiting for some figures and particulars, and asking the defendant to forward them at once, as he was desirous of having matters settled; besides which, the bank was becoming impatient).—that refers to Brooke & Co.—the auditor from 1891 to 1899 was Mr. Gordon; I believe he is alive still; he discontinued because we were not satisfied with the way things went on—before 1897 Mr. Allott was auditor; he had been selected by the directors—I do not remember Mr. Wright—Mr. Harrower succeeded Mr. Gordon; Messrs. Carnaber, Harrober & Co. are the present auditors—I wrote this to the defendant on August 23rd, 1897—(Stating that he had hoped ere this that Brooke & Co. would have been a limited company.)—I think the defendant was away some time from ill-health—I was never aware that he was paying any money from his own private account for the businesses—if any difficulties arose with regard to finance, he ought to have called a meeting of directors—we met very irregularly, in one year we only met once, I think—we generally met at the defendant's office—there was a manager in Leadenhall Market—it was not kept secret that the three businesses were being run by the same people—we did not prepare a statement ourselves; we took the defendant's statement and figures—when I and the other directors went through the accounts we had the schedule drawn up by the defendant and certain of the ledgers—we spent three afternoons at it—until 1898 we never made any provision for bad debts—we had one interview with the auditors, and asked them if they had any remarks to make—we complained that we could not get all the books when we went through the accounts—I remember I received a cheque for ₤212 10s. on February 9th, 1898, and another on February 18th—I wanted an
explanation, and as I could not get it, I passed the second cheque on to the interest of the account—I did not see the defendant about it; I did not see much of him—the information regarding the debts of Brooke & Co., Waller & Co. and the Storage Company would be got from the people immediately conducting the business, but through the defendant—we could always call a meeting of the directors when we wanted one—I do not know if there is a letter to the defendant complaining that we could not get all the books we wanted, but I certainly informed him of it, and Mr. Harro wer complained—when we were examining the books Mr. Weston complained that we could not get all we wanted—I have not got the guarantees given to the banks—I know I advised Mr. Beale to have them cancelled
Re-examined. The first intimation I had that the defendant was paying the accounts of the company with his own cheques was when he paid me—apart from those cheques to me, I never heard until after the commencement of this prosecution that he had been in the habit of doing that, or that he was personally financing the company—he never claimed any interest when the directors ordered my cheques to be drawn for interest—he never suggested that he had a right to something himself—at the meeting of June 30th, 1898, there were 11 shareholders present and three by proxy—at that meeting Mr. Gordon offered himself for re-election, but the shareholders elected the new firm instead—at the meeting of April 20th the directors had all cheques put before them for approval; that had never been done before—I did not know the defendant was paying the company's money into his own account; he had no authority to do so; if it had been known it would have been stopped at once—there was no meeting of directors between August 20th, 1891, and August 25th, 1892—in the cash-book on July 18th, 1898, I find a cheque for,₤212 10s. drawn out of the company in the name of Henry Chapman, and another on July 25th, for the same sum—both those cheques came out of the company's cash—in 1897 we should have turned Brooke & Co.'s business into a limited company, if there had been any profits—we could not get the books to see if there was any profit, but the defendant pretended that there were very large profits—we asked him for facts, but we never could obtain them—I do not remember hearing anything from him about the income tax of Brooke & Co.
By MR. GILL. I should not say that it would be an ordinary thing for the manager of a company to pay the cheque for the dividend into his own account, and then draw separate cheques for the amounts.
By MR. AVORY. I do not know what this cheque for ₤1,136, payable to Beale & Co., of December, 1889, is—when we asked for balance-sheets the defendant made excuses which we accepted—we generally managed to get one every six months—no auditor ever complained to us until the last; that was Harrower—Gordon certainly was a chartered accountant; I do not know if Wright was.
J. H. KEMP(Re-examined) This entry of December 3rd, 1895, of ₤100, is a payment made by the defendant to the company—I believe "G. Shead" is in his writing—I see the ₤450 drawn out by him on May
11th, 1896—I think the words there, "G. Shead," are in his writing; it is an entry crediting him with ₤450.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, stated that time had not been allowed him to make up the books properly; that he had not falsified them; that he had not made one penny out of the mistakes that had occurred; that the moneys he had drawn out of the companies were in repayment of money which had been paid by him; that he had to feed one account with the others; and that he did not keep the books, but a Mr. Walron had done so.
FRANCIS ARTHUR WALRON . I am a wine merchant—I was formerly clerk to the defendant—I left him at the end of October, 1898, and set up in business for myself—while I was in his service I was living in the same house as I am in now; 50, Addison Gardens, W.—the landlords of that) house were a company, of which the defendant was a director—I have paid rent regularly up to the present time—I kept certain of the books at the defendant's office relating to the Cold Storage Company—I see in the cash-book of the company an entry dated December 3rd, 1895, of ₤100 as being paid by G. Shead—there is a difference between that entry and the other entries there—it was filled in afterwards; it is not in my writing; I thought at first that it was—the name of the gentleman who paid the ₤100 was not put into the paying-in book, but a blank was left till it could be filled up—I should not have asked the defendant for the name over and overagain, because I should have filled it up myself—I see under date of May, 1896, an entry of ₤450 paid by the defendant; that is in my writing—the "G. Shead" was entered at a subsequent date to the rest; it is in different ink; the ₤450 has evidently been put in pencil first—I did not post the ledger—the books were generally made up on June 30th in every year—the "G. Shead ₤450" would not be posted till after June 30th in each year—I put in the "G. Shead" probably because I asked him, at that time I was under the impression that he was owed a considerable amount of money, and if he told me to put that ₤450 to him I should do so—I should not have done so without being told to do it—I cannot say why I entered it as one sum and not two sums—the entries in the ledger are in the writing of a man we had in to assist in making up the books—the entry of ₤600 in the cash-book dated February 28th, 1895 is credited to the defendant—it is in my writing—I got it from the paying-in book.
Without hearing the Counsel or Judge, the JURY resolved to retire; and, after consulting together returned a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, January 14th and 15th, 1901.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. SHERWOOD Prosecuted; MR. MUIR appeared for Serafino, MR. HUTTON
for Tomaso, and MR. FORDHAM for Jones.
The evidence, when necessary, was translated to the prisoners.)
other officers—I knocked; the prisoner Jones came to the door; I said, "I want to see Serafino"—she rushed back to the stairs—Serafino came up from the basement—seeing me, he ran back—she said, "You can't go down there; it is my husband"—I said, "I want to speak to him; I am a police officer, as I told you"—I pushed past, and followed him downstairs—I could not find him, but I afterwards found him in a public urinal in Wells Mews—I found this life preserver and whistle on him—I took him back and said, "I am going to search the house, and I want that bicycle which was stolen from the Fulham Road"—he said, "It is down in the kitchen"—Tomaso came in—I arrested him—I found a bicycle in the kitchen, No. 1650—All day is the maker—I sent the two men on to the Police-station—Jones went down with me into the kitchen—I said I should search for other bicycles—she said, "I am not his wife; I am only living with him; you won't find any more bicycles here"—she unlocked a door on the top floor back, upstairs—she had the key in her possession,—I think Serafino threw it to her—I found four other bicycles, one lady's and three gentlemen's; one was Mr. Bell's—Jones said the lady's and one of the gentlemen's belonged to her and her husband, and pointed them out—(another one was identified by Griffiths)—she produced these two receipts, both referring to one bicycle—I took her to the Chelsea Police-station—when charged she said, "I have nothing to do with the stealing of the bicycles, and I am not Serafino's wife"—the bicycle said to be Serafino's has not been claimed by anybody—afterwards she said, "You need not take Tomaso; he is only a servant"—I did not see anyone else in the house—no one has claimed the lady's bicycle—both machines had been, damaged by accident, and were useless—Serafino used the upper part of the house as a lodging-house—in searching we found this bunch of keys and these accessories used by bicyclists—this pouch and a screw-driver have been been identified by a person who identified a machine.
Cross-examined by MR. FORDHAM. I am not sure that I told Jones at first that I was a police officer, but she saw a uniform constable at the door—I should have arrested anyone I found in the house—Tomaso was pointed out to me by an Italian who was present—I have no reason to disbelieve the statement that Tomaso was only a servant.
Re-examined. It is a private house, with a laundry underneath—Serafino took in as lodgers his own countrymen mostly.
WILLIAM MARWOOD CARWITHEN . I am a house agent, of 138, Fulham Road—I left my bicycle on November 26th outside my window—five or ten minutes afterwards it was gone—I next saw it on December 5th at 22, Wells Street—the handle bars and the saddle had been changed; the brake, the mud guard, the pump, and the foot-rests were gone—I saw my own handle and the broke and saddle at 22, Wells Street—the name and number were on the machine, but I did not know the No. 1650—it was a "National"—its value was ₤8 10s.
Cross-examined by MR. MUIR. The name was not a transfer, but was burnt in, and is plainly visible on the front frame—there has been no attempt to file it out.
been in England four and a half months—I am now in a house o₤ recovery—on Monday, November 26th, I was living at a lodging-house in Percy Street, near Piccadilly—I know Serafino and Tomaso, of 22, Wells Street—I have known Serafino about a month and a half before to-day, and about three weeks before November 26th, and Tomaso one month—on November 26th I was with Guio and Guitano, two other Italians, in Fulham Road—we had gone to the City in search of work—we went in the quarter, of Putney—coming back about 5.30 or 6 p.m., Guio was about five paces in front, when we saw a bicycle leaning against the window of an agency—Guio said to Guitano, "Take the bicycle"—Guitano took it into a small lane close by—I went on my way—Guio lit the lamp and went away with the machine—he rode it—he showed it to me the same evening in Soho Square—it had a straight handle bar—he took it to his room—he told me to go with him; I went—then I went to my lodging—I saw Guio take it to Serafino the following day—he told me to wait for him at his house; then he brought down the machine, and told me to meet him in Conduit Street, near the clock—it was the second or third turning along Piccadilly—Guio came to that place without the bicycle—I know 22, Wells Street, because I went there the following Monday with Guio about 8 or 9 p.m.—Tomaso came down with a small hand bag; they exchanged words in my presence; then Guio told Tomaso to carry up the bicycle—Guio asked Tomaso where the bicycle was which he had brought to him on Monday—he said that it was down in the kitchen; then the two went inside the door and shut it for about five minutes, when a tall man came and knocked at the door many times and went away—I waited till Guio came out with the same machine that he had stolen the previous week—Tomaso came and closed the door, and remained inside—Guio lit a paper balloon lamp, and went away on the bicycle—I went home to Conduit Street—I met Guio that night with the bicycle—I saw Guio the next day, Tuesday—Serafino came with his lady and a policeman, and took Guio by the sleeve and took him to the station.
Cross-examined by MR. FORDHAM. Tomaso answered the door, and I knew he was there to sleep and to work.
Re-examined. Tomaso worked there to pay for his bed—I knew that from Tomaso and Guio—I have talked to Tomaso seven or eight times—I was a friend—we became acquainted in Conduit Street—we met for half an hour or so in the street—Guio was also with me—he was in the same position, and did not know where to go—it is a street where there are so many Italians—it runs from Piccadilly to the Palace; I do not know—I went with Guio and Tomaso to a sweet stuff shop—I did not know Tomaso before the bicycle was stolen, but I had seen him pass—I had known Serafino a week or so before, but not to do business with.
FREDERICK WALKER (D 248). On Tuesday, December 4th, Tomaso was charged at Marlborough Street, with Guio Staffo, by the prisoner Serafino, with stealing a bicycle No. 1650, maker Allday, and which has since been claimed by Mr. Carwithen—there was an interpreter—the case was withdrawn after Serafino had given evidence and I had given evidence as to thearrest; by leave of the Magistrate—the bicycle was restored to the prosecutor—Serafino told me he had bought the bicycle, and that it
was his property—Guio is very tall, he looks about 20, but says he is 16—his height is about 5ft. 11 in.
Cross-examined by MR. MUIR. I arrested Guio in Tottenham Court Road on a complaint made to me by Serafino after taking him to his lodgings—Serafino told me the bicycle had been taken from 22, Wells Street—we saw Tomaso outside 15, Stephen Street, where Guio was staying—Guio told me Tomaso had given him the bicycle from Wells Street—I got them to come into the room, and when I could understand them I took Tomaso also to the station and charged him.
Re-examined. I went where Guio was likely to be found, at his sister's place in Leicester Street, near Leicester Square—Serafino told me where to find him—he came with his wife, I mean the prisoner Rebecca Jones.
THOMAS GREGORY (Police Sergeant, D). I went with Richardson on December 5th to 22, Wells Street, between 6 and 7 p.m.—a uniform man knocked at the door—the prisoner Jones opened it—Richardson said, "We are police officers, and we have come to make inquiries about a bicycle"—Serafino then came upstairs, and Jones said something to him—he ran downstairs and got away, and I was left in charge of the house—Richardson went after Serafino—Jones was left in the passage with me and another officer—I said to Jones, "Have you any bicycles?"—he said, "It is downstairs in the kitchen"—we all went downstairs together—I saw bicycle 1650 in the kitchen—Jones said, "My husband gave ₤10 for it; I do not see why we should part with it without the money"—the handle bar did not belong to the prosecutor—the mud guard, foot-rests, and part of the brake had gone—on the top of a small cupboard 3ft. or 4ft. high, and covered with a newspaper, I found these bicycle accessories—I stopped Tomaso in the passage as he was running away without his coat and hat—that was when he went downstairs—he came out of the kitchen—I handed him over to another officer—there are two kitchens—I told Tomaso I should take him into custody—he said, "What for?"—I said, "For being concerned with others in receiving a bicycle that we have found here"—he pretended that he did not understand—Sergeant Richardson came back afterwards—these keys were thrown down in the passage by Serafino when he was brought back, and were handed to Jones by Richardson—I said to Jones, "Have you got any other bicycles, or parts of bicycles, besides the one downstairs?"—she said, "No"—I said, "We are going to search your place"—after a little hesitation she said, "All right"—we went up to the top floor back—Jones said, "I had a machine, and my husband had one, but we met with an accident, and now they are in the Blackfriars Road to be repaired"—I said, "All right, we will see"—she opened the door with one of these keys—in that room I found four machines—pointing to two, she said, "That is my husband's, and that belongs to me; I can produce receipts for these"—one was a man's, and the other a lady's machine—both were broken—I said, "Very well, how about the others?"—she said, "I do not know; I expect my husband has bought those"—I accompanied her downstairs—she said, "I do not see why you want to take me; I am not his wife, but just as good, and I am going to be married at Christmas"—one is a "Portland," the other a "Lightning" or racing
machine—they have been identified by Griffiths and Bell—she produced these two receipts, one for a deposit and the other for the balance—I said, "These refer to one gentleman's machine"—she said, "Yes"—I said, "How do you account for this?"—she said, "I don't know"—on further search I found handle bars, two mud guards, two foot-rests, one pump, one tool bag, two saddles, part of a brake, several files, a batch of 28 or 29 keys on a ring, door keys principally—I found the foot-rests of Carwithen's machine down in the front kitchen—I said to Jones, "You see these things?"—she said, "I believe part of those belong to the first machine in the passage"—referring to the handle bar, she said, "That belongs to the machine upstairs; why don't you get the tall man that stole it?"—we had left Carwithen's machine upstairs, and got the things together for removal—she said, "The little one up there, Tomaso, has nothing to do with it; he is only a bit of a waiter"—when charged at Chelsea Police-station she said, "All right, it is all a lot of lies."
THOMAS DANZY GRIFFITHS . I live at 75, Wanstead Park Road, Il ford—I am a clerk—I went to Chelsea Police-station and identified this bicycle and part of the fittings which had been on it when stolen, but which had been removed, viz, the handle bar and saddle—the machine is green, and the value about £5—it is a "Portland," but the name is nearly rubbed out by my enamelling it—it was stolen from the house on the night of November 21st, 22nd—I missed it from near the front door, and found wheel marks in the garden.
GEORGE DOBSON BELL . I am a shoemaker, of 103, Shakespeare Crescent, East Ham—I have seen my machine at Chelsea Police-station, and see it now—it is a "Lightning," made by Tuffhell, and its value is £10—I lost it about 4 o'clock, between Monday night, November 4th, and the following morning about 9 p.m., from a shed outside the house, which was not locked—the pouch, pump, pump clips, bell and foot-rests have been removed—Richardson has shown me the tool bag and small screwdriver.
Cross-examined by MR. MUIR. The maker's transfer is on two places on the bicycle, and has not been altered—I recovered the machine on December 5th.
JOHN RICHARDSON (Re-examined). I produced these two bicycles to Mr. Griffiths and Mr. Bell, which they identified—they were found in the kitchen of 22, Wells Street, by Gregory and myself—some of the accessories came from the same place—two others were found in the top room.
Cross-examined by MR. MUIR. I have inquired, and cannot find out Serafino's character—he has been in England two years—the last place he lived at was a furnished back room in Blackfriars Road, close to the "Cycledom," which is on the receipts produced, but there is no such address as 86, Dean Street, Stoke Newington, which he has given on the receipts—I am told he had stayed a few nights in Soho when he came to England.
Cross-examined by MR. FORDHAM. I know nothing against Tomaso or Jones—I have traced Jones as living with Serafino for about 12 months in this house in Wells Street and in another.
Serafino, in his defence, on oath, stated that he kept 22, Wells Street as a lodging-house; that he took one bicycle from Guio as security for debt, for
board and lodging, money lent for a journey to Southampton, etc.; and the two other bicycles he bought through Guio for £9 and 3s. for Guio himself, from two of his friends who owned thorn and were going to the Transvaal; that they were altered by Guio to suit him to ride, and the other accessories were collected from time to time in view of setting up a bicycle shop; and that he did not know any of them were stolen.
Evidence for the Defence.
ALBERICO REDENTI . I am an Italian—I have been a lodger at Serafino's house since September 1st—I was in the house when Guio brought in two bicycles about November 10th—he said they belonged to friends, and Serafino offered £9 for the two and some silver for Guio in the presence of another friend, Dominicci—Guio brought the other bicycle from his lodgings with his brother-in-law, as he had to go to a situation, and Serafino promised to take care of it—that was in December—when it was taken away I told Serafino it had gone—I did not know who took it.
Cross-examined. I am still living at 22, Wells Street—I have been employed at the Russell Hotel for eight weeks—I left because the work was too strong for me—I have been in England since February or March last year—I was in Jersey about six months—I had to wait because the hotel had no clerk's work for me—I went once to the Police-court after Guio had sneaked the bicycle from his home—I went down to the kitchen and saw that the bicycle was not there, which had been there before I went out—I said to Serafino, "I have met Guio. He asked me if everybody was at home, and I said, "Yes,"—Serafino went to look for Guio—Tomaso was there listening—we spoke in Italian—Tomaso said he knew nothing about it—that was between 8.30 and 10.30 p.m.—I saw the bicycle three or four days after that—I had slept at the top of the house alone, but came down to the second floor to sleep—I paid 7s. a week at the top, and 3s. 6d. where there were others, when I had no work—Dominicci was another lodger—I know the green bicycle again—I never saw Serafino or Jones ride—I have seen Tomaso ride.
Re-examined. Serafino had had a fall from a bicycle or a tramcar, and broken his leg—I was a waiter at the Promenade Hotel, Jersey, and made out bills to customers—Guio did up the machine after it was brought back—I saw that the handle bar was changed—it did not look the same—at the Police-station it had no handle.
ERNESTO DOMINICCI . I am an Italian—I am a porter—I have now no employment—I have lived at 22, Wells Street about five years—it is a lodging-house for Italians—Serafino took over the business from the previous occupant last year—Guio lived in the house a little time—he brought two bicycles about November 10th—I saw them in the kitchen, and Serafino told me he gave ₤9 for the two, and some silver to Guio for his trouble—about November 14th Guio brought another bicycle, and said he wanted to go to a situation, and asked Serafino to take care of it.
Cross-examined. I was last in employment in the first week in October—I was in regular work six or seven mouths—my cousin had the house before Serafino, and I worked in it for my board and lodging—I slept on the second floor, in the same room as Redenti, till Serafino was taken into custody—I went out in the day, looking for business—I knew Serafino only
a short time before he took the house from my relations—he told me he was going to Italy to open an ice-shop—one bicycle was for security, because Guio stopped in the house two weeks and never paid—I was present when the two bicycles were paid for—Guio came back when I was in the kitchen—Jones was there then.
Serafino received a good character.
Tomaso, in his defence, on oath, said that he was only a servant.
TOMASO and JONES— NOT GUILTY . SERAFINO— Guilty of receiving. The police stated that the people Serajino took the house over from had been indicted for keeping a disorderly house. Nine months' hard labour .
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 15th; Wednesday, January 16th;
Thursday, January 17th; Friday, January 18th; Saturday, January 19th; and Tuesday, January 22nd,1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, MR. SUTTON. MR. AVORY, and MR. BODKIN
Prosecuted; MR. SHEE, Q.C., MR. RICHARDS, Q.C., AND MR. A. GILL Defended.
CHARLES ARROW (Detective Police Inspector). I produce the fiat of the Attorney-General sanctioning the prisoner's prosecution in respect of the trust fund of Mrs. Catherine Jane Else, and the fiat of the Attorney-General sanctioning a prosecution in regard to the St. John George Jefferyes Trust, both under Sec. 80 of the Larceny Act.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger in the Filing Department of the Bankruptcy Court, I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Lake & Lake—the Receiving Order was made on June 27th, last year, on a creditor's petition—the adjudication of Benjamin Greene Lake was on July 14th.
CHARLES EDWARD HARTROPP . I am one of the examiners in the Official Receiver's Department of the High Court of Justice, and have had the examination into the defendant's affairs—I find from the books that £34,788 represented money belonging to estates which the firm were either joint or separate trustees of; of that sum £20,209 belonged to estates of which George Edward Lake alone was trustee or executor, £11,858 belonged to estates of which the prisoner alone was trustee or executor, and £2,720 belonged to estates of which the prisoner and George Lake were jointly trustees or executors—the total liabilities of the firm to unsecured creditors were £205,277, with a deficency of ₤173,722—of the gross liabilities ₤135,717 represents moneys belonging to clients of the firm, of which ₤55,446 belonged to personal clients of the defendant; and in addition there were ₤14,114 belonging to clients, stated to have been retained against costs said to be due—the above facts appear from the statement of affairs, which is sworn to by the prisoner—he had also filed a statement of affairs as to his separate estate, apart from the
partnership, showing total liabilities expected to rank, ₤23,984, and a deficiency of ₤22,245, in which the executors of the Else Estate are returned as creditors for ₤500 and Hopkins Trust as creditors for ₤400, the Else executors also appear as unsecured creditors against the partnership for ₤500, and Hopkins Trust for ₤15,495.
Cross-examined. The prisoner gave me all the information and assistance that he could in investigating his affairs—he also said that he had had nothing to do with the books of the firm since 1875—he never disputed his liability civilly or as a bankrupt for these moneys to the Else and Hopkins Estates—in his statement of affairs he states that his cousin's ruin was caused through speculation in or before 1897 in Kent Coal Field shares his losses on which were estimated at ₤98,000.
Re-examined. The Colthurst Trust are returned as creditors by the prisoner for ₤1,000—the account in the firm's books debits both partners with the losses in Kent Coal shares—between October 27th and December 30th, 1897, there were payments out to brokers of ₤35,614—at the beginning of 1898 there was a debit balance of ₤28,134, which was payment made to brokers down to March 29th, amounting to ₤36,256, which sum by December 31st, 1898, had increased to ₤68,941 3s. 8d., deducting the amount realised, ₤3,100, there was a balance left of ₤65,841 on the debit side of the account—that was brought forward to the 1899 account, and at the end of 1899 the balance on the debit side was ₤97,236 odd.
ANNIE JANE KATE COLTHURST . I live at 47, Hill Street, Berkeley Square, and am the daughter of Lady Colthurst, the sister of the late St. John George Jefferyes, who died on March 12th, 1896, under whose will my mother was entitled to his residuary estate—on June 18th, 1896, my mother executed a deed by which she conveyed that property to me—this deed (Produced) bears my mother's signature, and was prepared by the prisoner, who was the one executor, under Mr. Jefferyes will, who proved it—I received particulars of investments showing sums standing in Consols of ₤10,647 16s. 9d., and also the letters dated July 7th and July 23rd, 1897—about that time ₤1,000 was placed to my credit at Child's Bank—I saw the prisoner from time to time—he told me he was going to invest some of my money in the Burns-Hartropp mortgage, I think about ₤8,000 or ₤9,000—I left the investment of the money entirely to him, as we went abroad—I received interest from him from time to time—I had no knowledge that the defendant sold out the Consols and paid it away, as to ₤3,000 by a cheque of his own, and as to a considerable sum in the name of George Lake in payment of Kent Coal shares—I gave no authority to the defendant to do it, and until the bankruptcy proceedings did not know it had been done.
Cross-examined. There had always been an idea of investing some money in the Burns-Hartropp mortgage—while I was away the prisoner had authority to sell out the Consols and reinvest the proceeds for me—I know Consols were high at that time, and the prisoner got a good price for them—he informed me that he had instructed the brokers to sell out and that he had placed ₤1,000 to my credit at the bank.
Re-examined. If he had not paid it in I should have known by my banking account—I do not remember if he wrote and told me the
Consols were sold out in October, 1897—I was not aware that the money remained uninvested from October, 1897, until January, 1898, and that during that time I had no security for it—I was not told what became of the ₤1,000 after the ₤8,000 was invested—I have not received it or any security for it.
JOHN GORLAND COPE . I am a solicitor, of Great George Street, Westminster, and am now acting for Miss Colthurst—she is mistaken in saying that the deed of gift was prepared by the prisoner—I prepared it—I have seen the list of investments and particulars of the estate, amounting to ₤10,647 in Consols—it is not correct—it should be ₤9,647—since the bankruptcy I have received all the securities belonging 10 Miss Colthurst, and among them the mortgage deed, dated January 5th, 1898, by a Mrs. Burns-Hartropp, and another to Miss Colthurst, to secure the sum of ₤8,000—that is the only security that I have received representing the sum of Consols belonging to the estate; I have received no security for the balance of ₤1,000.
Cross-examined. The ₤4,800 mentioned in the list of securities I understood was part of a contributory mortgage for ₤40,000—the ₤850 on property at Limehouse was of no value at the date of the testator's decease—there was an outstanding claim for duty on an annuity of ₤400 belonging to the deceased; the annuity was charged on the Colthurst Estate in County Cork—there was at the time likely to be costs incurred with regard to the estate.
Re-examined. The duty has not yet been paid—in the bankruptcy, Messrs. Lake have returned themselves as debtors for the ₤1,000.
By the COURT. There might have been costs incurred to the extent of perhaps ₤300, but not more; there has never been any claim for costs; they are only put down in bulk as estimated costs.
HARRY CHATTERTON PRYCE . I am a clerk at Child's Bank—prior to his death, Mr. St. John George Jefferyes had an account at the bank, and after his death it was continued by the defendant as executor, and he alone operated on it—at the time of Mr. Jefferyes' death the bank held ₤12,000 in Consols belonging to him—by the prisoner's direction on June 30th, 1897, we sold ₤2,352 3s. 3d.; on July 19th, ₤700; on July 26th another ₤700—on October 20th, 1897, we received from the prisoner the following letter: "Dear Sirs—St. John Jefferyes, deceased: Will you kindly instruct your brokers to act on power of attorney they hold to sell ₤9,000 Consols, and place the proceeds to the credit of the account of the executors of the above.—BENJAMIN G. LAKE"—acting on that letter, we sold Consols realising ₤9,000, and informed the prisoner that we had done so—on October 30th he instructed us to sell the balance of Consols in our hands, which was done, and they realised a further sum of ₤181 9s. 3d.—the sums realised were placed to the credit of the executor's account—I produce a certified copy of the account—on July 28tb, 1898, ₤1,000 was placed to the credit of Miss Colthurst—on November 10th the prisoner drew on that account a cheque for ₤9,000 in favour of the firm of Lake & Lake, and the proceeds were placed to the credit of that firm at our bank—on the same day five cheques for ₤3,000 each and one of ₤1,000 were drawn on the account of Lake & Lake to various firms—there was also at the bank an account called "Lake & Lake Cavendish
Account," which both the prisoner and George Lake drew upon—on January 28th, 1898, a cheque for ₤9,000 was drawn on the Cavendish account and crossed to the firm's account, to which it was credited on that day; and on January 31st ₤8,000 was paid out to Parr's Bank.
Cross-examined. The ₤12,000 Consols appeared in the account in Mr. Jefferyes' time, and he received the dividends for them—June 26th was the date of the first sale of Consols Certificates, and June 30th the Consols; there had been sales of Consols before November 10th—of the six cheques I have referred to, there is only one signed by the prisoner; the other five are signed by George Lake—on the morning of November 10th, excluding the cheque for ₤9,000 odd, there was a balance to the credit of Lake & Lake at the bank of ₤12.250 2s. 9d.
Re-examined. On November 10th there was not sufficient without the ₤9,000 cheque to meet the cheques for ₤16,000 drawn upon that date to pay for the Kent Coal shares; there would have been a deficit of over ₤4,000.
JOHN COPELAND . I carry on busines with Mr. Barnett, at 28, Threadneedle Street, as stockbrokers—about November 10th I received cheque No. 40, signed by George Lake, for Lake & Lake; it was paid on account of certain Kent Coal shares, bought by George Lake—about the middle of January was the settling day—I am not sure that it was about the 10th.
Cross-examined. My firm had no dealings with the prisoner—I did not know anything about him until after George Lake's death.
Re-examined. We took it that the cheque came from the account of George Lake—we would take anyone's cheque—the shares were bought by George Lake, and on his order, and paid for by a cheque on the firm—that was all I knew of the firm in the transaction—George Lake had rather a large account in Kent Coal shares; I think it was about 1,500 shares—the highest price of the shares was from ₤5 to ₤6.
By MR. SHEE. This bundle of documents (Produced)all appear to have come from our office.
Re-examined. I should say this account (Produced) would have gone in on November 9th, and would be due on the 11th; it is a bimonthly account—there is a balance due on that of ₤5,150 2s.—we were not refusing to carry over without a substantial payment; we were always, paid by a certain time—the account is made out for differences—by the account the value of the shares at that time was ₤3, but they were bought at about ₤6—the shares fell from ₤6 to ₤3 in about three dayd, and then gradually went down, and may now be worth 2s. 6d.; this account would be about the time of the first drop—we lost by Mr. Lake in the Kent Coal shares between ₤250 and ₤500.
JOHN HENRY LEWIS INNES . I am clerk to Messrs. Fitzgerald, stock-brokers, of Old Broad Street—this cheque, No. 39, for ₤3,000 (Produced) was paid to our firm about November 10th, 1897, on account of Kent Coal shares, which was then opened in account with G. E. Lake—it was in part payment for differences that were due on the account.
Cross-examined. The shares were purchased by George Lake—the prisoner was never, to my knowledge a client of ours.
ARTHUR KEEN . I am a clerk to Messrs. Hill, Fawcett & Hill, stock-brokers, of 29, Threadneedle Street—the cheque, No. 41, was received by them on November 11th—it is for ₤3,000, drawn by Lake & Lake, signed by G. E. Lake, and dated November 10th, and was in part payment of shares bought on the instructions of George Lake for that account; it was not for differences—the shares were taken up and carried over in the ordinary way into this account.
Cross-examined. Our contracts were all with George Lake.
GEORGE POYNTER . I am a clerk to Haee & Son, stockbrokers, of Draper's Gardens—the cheque, No. 42, for ₤3,000 was paid to my firm on November 11th, 1897, on account of Kent Coal shares which had been purchased by the prisoner—the account had been opened for some months—I believe there were different purchases from time to time, and the account had been carried over from time to time—this was a payment on account; there was a large balance left over, and money was still owing on this account at the time of the failure—I believe my firm are returned in the bankruptcy as creditors for ₤25,000—so far as I know, the account was for Kent Coal shares only—my firm are returned as secured creditors; their security is a fifth charge on some freehold estates in Devonshire.
Cross-examined. There is an estimated surplus from the securities of ₤3,000; that is the prisoner's estimate.
JOHN HENRY HUGHES . I am a partner in the firm of Lloyd & Ward, stockbrokers, of Throgmorton Avenue—this cheque (Produced), drawn by Lake & Lake, G. E. Lake, was received by my firm on November 11th; it was paid in part payment of certain Kent Coal shares bought on the instructions of George Lake—I do not think they were carried over from a previous account; I think it was in part payment of a fresh purchase.
Cross-examined. It was George Lake with whom we had dealings.
REGINALD CROSS BOND . I am a clerk to Messrs. Crews, Lichtenstadt & Co., of Throgmorton Avenue, stockbrokers—on November 30th, 1897, we received this cheque for ₤1,000, signed by George Lake in the name of the firm; it was a payment on account of Kent Coal shares that had been opened some time.
Cross-examined. Our dealings were with George Lake.
GEORGE WALTER CHAPMAN . I am Official Receiver, and have charge of the prisoner's affairs in bankruptcy—I have examined the books of the firm with reference to the estate of St. John George Jefferyes, deceased; I find on November 10th, 1897, ₤9,000 is entered in the books of Lake & Lake as having been received from the executors of St. John George Jefferyes—the cheques for ₤16,000 which had been produced all appear in the cash-book of the firm on November 10th, and the cash-book shows that but for the receipt of the ₤9,000 there would not have been enough to meet those cheques—there is no trace of any advance on Miss Colthurst's behalf of the money realised by the sale of the Consols until January 28th—there is an account in the firm's ledger in the name of Miss Colthurst—the advance of ₤8,000 to Burns-Hartropp is entered in St. John Jefferyes' executor's account on January 28th, 1898, the balance of ₤1,000 remain, to the credit of the account in the books—I have seen the cheque by which the ₤9,000 was drawn out of the
Cavendish account, it is endorsed "Pay Devon Loan or bearer"—I have traced that cheque into the account of the firm of Lake & Lake—it is entered in the book "January 28th, Cavendish, H.S. H. Received of you to advance to Earl of Devon at 4 per cent., ₤9,000"—it was, in fact, applied as an advance to Burns-Hartropp by Miss Colthurst, but it is entered in the cash-book as drawn out of the Cavendish account for the purpose of an advance to the Earl of Devon, or on account of the Devon mortgage.
Cross-examined. Lake & Lake carried on business at New Square, Lincoln's Inn, and employed probably 30 clerks—I ascertained of the prisoner that he was director of two or three companies, which he said occupied his time two or three days a week, apart from his office—I believe he was Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Incorporated Law Society, and at one time President of that Society—he attributed the deficiency of ₤173,000, and, the consequent failure of the firm, to the three items, ₤98,000 lost in Kent Coal speculation, ₤43,000 the Blythe debt, and ₤28,655 bad debts—there were a large number of books of account—the business had been in existence since the beginning of last century—the prisoner told me his cousin looked after the finances of the firm; he also made a statement to the effect that he did not sign cheques without showing them to George Lake—in his statement the defendant said he had sent out accounts without showing them to George Lake, and that George told him not to do it again—he may have told me that Mr. Beaumont never interfered with the financial part of the business; he also said he limited his drawings by arrangement to ₤1,250 or ₤1,500 a year, and that if he wanted any further sum he had to get Mr. George's leave—he told me that the Kent Coal shares were a speculation, but the greater part of the speculations were by George—he may have said George invited him to go into the speculation, and that he did not know of the extent of George's transactions in them until after George's death—when the crash came in Kent Coal shares he said he discussed the situation with George, who told him that provided the firm could pay' the interest on the debt, George would meet his own liability in time, but the defendant's own liabilities would not cause any loss to the creditors, because they were fully secured—he said he had full confidence in his partner, and never dreamt that money was taken out of the firm to pay his own debts; that the first he knew of the firm being insolvent, was on or about December 14th, 1899—I understood from what his cousin told him in April, 1899, when his son and daughter contemplated marriage, he gathered he was worth ₤10,000—I heard from someone other than defendant that when he was on the point of taking his son into partnership he discovered that the condition of the firm was not satisfactory—he told me on or about December 14th he put down the facts he had ascertained, sealed them up, and deposited the documents with his wife—this was stated in public examination—I understood that after he found the firm was insolvent the partnership with his son stood over—his uncle had an interest in the business to the extent of ₤16,500—he communicated with his uncle, but I do not know when—I never head of any communication with Mr. Reginald Lake.
Re-examined. The purport of what I was told would lead me to
believe that George Lake was responsible for the sums that were taken away—the defendant did not tell me that he drew out the proceeds of the Jefferyes Trust, or that he took a personal loan of ₤500 from the Else Trust—he did not tell me it was he who drew the cheques upon the Cavendish account—he gave me very little information about that—he did not tell me that on the day his cousin died he had taken the deposit receipts and cashed them in the Hopkin's Trust, nor did he tell me how the people whose moneys had been taken could get them back.
ARTHUR HENRY HAIGH . I am a solicitor, and one of the firm of Marsh & Haigh, 1, Suffolk Bridge Road—the affairs of the trust under Mrs. Else's will are now under my management, appointed on behalf of the new trustees—I produce the probate and two codicils of the will of Mrs. Else, under which the prisoner was appointed one of the trustees—it is dated August 8th, 1871, and the codicils at a later date—Mrs. Else died on October 25th, 1876—the prisoner was appointed one of the trustees, and her daughter, Mrs. Moore, the other—Mrs. Moore died on September 30th, 1885, from which time the prisoner was the sole trustee—Mrs. Moore left three daughters, Mrs. Ives, Mrs. Nottingham, and Mrs. Bull, who became entitled to the undistributed portion of the estate—it was divided into six originally—there were six children; three of them received their money, and these three daughters were entitled to the other half of the estate—I became professionally engaged in this matter in April last—I found that the undistributed part of the estate amounted to ₤1,500—I received from the prisoner a mortgage dated October 25th, 1892; it is a mortgage from Captain Baggott Chester to the prisoner for securing the payment of ₤500—that is the only security I have recieved from the prisoner as representing this ₤1,500.
Cross-examined. I was in the prisoner's office for three or four years—I should think the staff was about 40—I acted chiefly for George Lake, but I did work for both—while I was there George Lake attended to the financial matters with which I was connected.
FANNY AGNES BULL . I am one of the daughters of Harriett Jane Moore, who died in September, 1885—Catherine Else was my grandmother—my eldest sister and my brother had their money—my youngest sister did not marry, but there was a trust for her money—my money and that of my other sisters Mrs. Ives and Mrs. Nottingham, remained in the hands of the prisoner as trustee—I received interest from him from time to time—I wrote to him once, I do not know if it was in 1896, asking for particulars of the estate—I received this statement from him (Ex. 16)—I sent it back, asking for further particulars—I got this letter—(Dated November, 1896, saying that the statement of income for amendment had been received, that George Lake was absent from chambers, but that the additional particulars asked for would be sent early next week)—I cannot swear to the prisoner's, writing—on November 30th I received this letter from Lake & Lake, and the statement of income amended as it now is—(The letter stated that they enclosed cheque for₤4 0s. 6d. in payment of one-third share in the half-year's interest, less income tax, on ₤500, at 5 per cent., due on the 25th ult.)—I continued receiving the interest up to February 9th, 1900—I thought the money was invested as
stated in that statement—I was never informed that ₤1,000 remained in the hands of Lake & Lake uninvested, or that ₤500 of it had been used for paying off a sum due to the children of John Lake.
Cross-examined. When I got the letter of November 7th I noticed that it was written in the absence of George Lake.
— IVES. I am the wife of Sidney Edward Ives, and a daughter of the late Harriett Jane Moore, and a grand-daughter of Mrs. Else—I am one of the three persons entitled to a third of the interest in this ₤1,500—I was paid interest by Lake & Lake on my share up to Christmas, 1899—I was never told how the money was invested—I never consented to Lake & Lake using the money for their own purposes—on December 22nd, 1892, I received this letter from George Lake—(Produced).
FLORA BEATRICE NOTTINGHAM . I am the wife of Walter Nottingham, and one of the daughters of the late Mrs. Moore—I was entitled to a share in this ₤1,500—I never received any particulars from Lake & Lake as to the investments of that sum—I was never aware that ₤1,000 of it was lying uninvested in their hands, or that ₤500 of it had been used to pay a liability to some children of John Lake.
Cross-examined. I overdrew my account a little sometimes—I never saw the prisoner myself.
G. W. CHAPMAN (Re-examined). I have examined the books of Lake & Lake with reference to the Else Trust—I find that on October 20th, 1892, there was brought into the credit of the account ₤1,000 through the account of A. J. B. St Leger, and I find that ₤500 appears to have been lent out five days afterwards to Greville Baggott Chester on a mortgage, leaving ₤500 uninvested—I find that ₤500 was paid back and credited to the estate on January 13th, 1893, as a repayment of an advance made to the Lands Trading Company, whatever that was—from 1893 those sums appeared to have remained in the office uninvested, interest being paid by the office down to July 7th, 1898, when I find ₤500 was paid to the children of John Lake, deceased—that having been paid out, I find interest on that sum is charged to the private account of the prisoner—I have found that the ₤500 was a debt of the prisoner to John Lake's children, so it was discharged by the ₤500 out of the Else Trust—it was sent to Mr. Hilder, solicitor, of Gravesend—I find no entry in the books of the firm of ₤500 of the Else funds having been advanced to the executors of Edward Blythe.
By the COURT. I cannot say when the firm became insolvent—there was a very large bad debt in 1882; that is Blythe's debt; it was not ₤40,000 then, as there has been interest since, but that is the sum which was written off last year—the prisoner says the firm was insolvent in 1882, but I cannot say.
WILLIAM GEORGE PENMAN . I am managing clerk to Edward Hilder, solicitor, of Gravesend—he is solicitor to the younger children of John Lake, who lived at Gravesend—they became entitled to some property on the death of their father—Lake & Lake acted as solicitors to the trustees of the will and settlement—there was ₤11,000 payable to the two youngest on their coming of age; the others were of age—in November, 1897, ₤462 was paid to them on account; they were both of age at that time—that
would leave ₤500 payable by Lake & Lake as solicitors for the trustees—we received this letter of November 12th, 1897, signed by George Lake—(Stating that he was sorry he was not able to remit the full ₤962 0s. 9d., the amount invested with the firm for the children, but that he enclosed a cheque for ₤462 0s. 9d., and hoped to forward the ₤500 shortly)—the ₤500 was not received till July 6th, 1898—I applied for it on February 5th, 1898—there were one or two applications for the ₤462—I got this letter, dated July 5th, 1898, signed "George E. Lake"—(Stating that he was pleased to say he had now received repayment of the outstanding security for ₤500, and enclosed a cheque for ₤518 11s. 6d.—arrived at as shown by the accompanying statement)—the statement shows items of interest in repayment of the principal of ₤500, less some deduction for something paid in excess, and 10s. 6d., Lake's charges, making altogether ₤518 11s. 6d—the cheque was payable to Mr. Hilder, drawn by the firm on their account, and signed by George Lake for Lake & Lake.
Cross-examined. This is a letter from Mr. Hilder (Produced)—I do not know if these pencil marks are George Lake's; I have only seen his signature; this is dated December 24th, 1897—(This stated that as Mr. Norman Lake came of age on March 19th, and the trust was therefore at an end, he thought the trust might now be realised, and asking for particulars).
Re-examined. I did not know that the ₤500 was a debt payable by the prisoner—I did not know how the money was secured, excepting from the statement of July 6th, 1898.
G. W. CHAPMAN (Re-examined). In the prisoner's statement of affairs in the Bankruptcy Court he returns himself as a debtor to the Else Trust for ₤500, apart from the firm altogether.
By the JURY. No balance-sheets have ever been made up.
FREDERICK WILLIAM SHEPHERD HART CAVENDISH . I am a lieutenant in the 9th Lancers—in November last I returned from the war in South Africa—Harry Cavendish is my brother; his initials are H. S. H. C.; Lake & Lake have acted as solicitors to our family for years—I came of age on September 11th, 1898—at that time I was with my regiment at Muttra, Bengal—at the end of 1897 or the beginning of 1898 I went to South Africa—I went from South Africa to India, and then back again to South Africa—just before I went away I had a conversation with the prisoner—I knew I should be entitled to ₤15,000 when I came of age—I told the prisoner I would leave things in his hands, as I should be in India when I came of age—I received this letter from him, dated September 29th, 1898—(Stating that a bill for ₤360 was presented to the firm yesterday, but that he could not accept it, because it would not do for them to have bills drawn upon the firm, but that he paid the money, and would charge it against the portion moneys when received; that he (the prisoner) would then recover for him the full amount of his portion, less Government duty, and proposed to discharge the debt here, as he imagined he would wish to have some money paid to his account; that he suggested he should place ₤1,000 to the witness's credit, and that the balance should be invested; that he could make it produce at least 4 per cent, and perhaps a little more; that this would be a convenient addition to his income, and avoid entrenching upon capital; that he hoped the witness would be able to agree to this arrangement, and deal with the income only, and not
with the capital, as he would be sure to require that some day, either on marriage or on retiring from the Service; that he subjoined a list of outstanding bills, and would be glad to know if he was to pay them; that the witness's brother was in South Africa, and his absence had caused a little delay in raising the money required to pay for the witness's portion)—I answered that letter on October 19th, 1898—(Stating that he was very sorry that the bill for ₤360 had been presented on the firm; that he had given instructions that the agents should not do so, but were simply to state that he wished the prisoner to pay it out of the witness's own money when paid to the prisoner; that he would like all debts of honour settled up at once, so as to start fair; that he thought ₤1,000 would cover all his deficiencies; that he should like to know how much he would have a year, and how much could be placed to his credit at Cox's to go on with; that he should be awfully obliged if the prisoner would invest his money safely for as high a rate of interest as he could get; that he wouldleave everything in the prisoner's hands, as he was sure he would do the very best he could, and that he absolutely relied on him in regard to future arrangements)—I then received this letter from him, dated November 5th, 1898—(Stating that, pending receipt of instructions, he had invested the greater part of his money in such a way as to enable it to curry interest, and that he might calculate that his income would not be less than 4 per cent, on the money so invested, and that he was on the look-out for investments which might give him a higher rate of interest than 4 per cent)—I then received this letter from him, dated November 14th, 1898—(Enclosing a statement of Lake & Lake's account, with the vouchers, and showing a balance in hand of ₤652 6s. 1d., which he held for the witness's order, or for investment if he got the opportunity; stating that a considerable part of the money was invested temporarily, as he was looking out for a permanent investment at as high a rate of interest as he could get; that he had paid to his account at Cox & Co.'s ₤500, clearing off an overdraft of ₤93, and leaving the witness in funds to the extent of ₤400)—the statement is in India—I then got this letter of November 30th, 1898, from the prisoner—(Stating that he thought he had arranged to place the whole of the witness's money out at interest at 5 per cent., and had so placed it that he could readily obtain small sums, though if the whole sum was required, the usual six months' notice would be necessary)—after that letter I put away the statement of the temporary investment—I got this letter of December 20th, 1898, from him—(Enclosing two documents for execution by the witness, and asking for their return, one being a release by the witness and Miss Cavendish of the estates on which the proportions were being charged, they having been now paid over to them; the second being a power of attorney to the prisoner and his cousin to execute certain deeds on his behalf)—I then received this letter from the prisoner, dated January 4th, 1899—(Stating that he had given an order to their bank to pay ₤50 to the witness's account on the last day of every month)—I received this letter from him, dated dated January 31st, 1899—(Stating that at the last moment he had been obliged to invest the money at 4 1/2 per cent. instead of 5 per cent., and had had to vary the order to the banker from ₤50 to ₤48 monthly)—on February 2nd, 1899, I wrote this letter to the prisoner—(Thanking him very much for doing so well with his money, and for being so
kind, as he always had been)—I got this letter, dated February 20th, 1899—(Saying that he was very glad to have been able to do no well with his money, and hoped this considerable addition to his income would enable him to live in comfort)—I received ₤48 per month from Messrs. Cox, the bankers, up to June last—I believed that money to be the interest on my invested money—I never authorised the prisoner to employ my money for his own purposes, or for any purposes except for investment—since July last I have had no interest—I know nothing of a Mr. H. R. Cox, or of a payment of ₤1,522 10s. of my money to him, or of ₤500 of my money being paid to my brother on November 15th, 1898—I know of no reason why that sum should have been paid to him—I do not know anything of ₤3,000 being paid to do Mr. H. W. Marley on November 28th, 1898, or of ₤150 paid to him on February 21st, 1899, or of ₤600 paid to Lake & Lake on January 31st, 1899.
Cross-examined. I drew the bill for ₤360 for the day I came of age—I should have liked more than 4 per cent. interest if I could have got it safely—I considered the prisoner's suggestions as honest advice and proper suggestions—I suppose I should have been satisfied with the prisoner's investments for me if he had considered them safe for himself—I did not know how much duty I should have to pay on my money.
Re-examined. I believed the prisoner to be a solvent and an honourable man—I did not know he was speculating in Kent Coal Mines; the first I heard of it was when it was cabled to me in South Africa on June 29th, 1900—I did not know till then that the firm had lost nearly ₤90,000 in Kent Coal.
CHARLES EDWARD SMITH . I am one of the managing clerks to Messrs. Bumpus, Bishop & Co., solicitors, 4, Great Winchester Street—in July last we received instructions to act on behalf of Mr. Frederick Cavendish—we were instructed that he was entitled to ₤15,000—Messrs. Shore, Mackenzie & Co., solicitors, of Victoria Street, put themselves into communication with us; we received from them securities representing a portion of the ₤15,000—I did not know that they were acting for he prisoner—they were his successors—the securities included 10 certificates of the 5 per cent. stock of the Rathkeale Railway, each for ₤100—we were informed the price of them was ₤1, 137 7s. 4d.—we further received a document giving a charge upon No. 1, The Grove, Highgate, for ₤600, at 4 per cent., dated December 22nd, 1898—I take it to be given by the prisoner—I believe the house is now a Mrs. Lacey's—the charge says, "Mrs. Lacey to Lieutenant-Colonel B. G. Lake"; that, I believe, is the prisoner—by arrangement with the trustee in bankruptcy, we are receiving three-quarters per cent. interest, and handing to the trustee one-quarter—it is a charge for ₤800, and we are entitled to ₤600—I found that there was a mortgage for ₤2,350 given by Messrs. Waltham to Mr. Frederick Cavendish—we got into communication with Messrs. Templeton, solicitors; they have declined to hand the mortgage over, but I have received a copy—they claim that it belongs to a client of their own, not Mr. Cavendish—it is in favour of Frederick Cavendish—it is dated January 24th, 1899; it is for ₤2,400 at 4 1/2 per cent.—since I gave evidence at Bow Street I have received a communication from Lake, Shore, Mackenzie & Co., about a further document—I also received this document, which is a copy of a
document purporting to be a mortgage dated April 6th, 1899—they declined to hand over the original—it is from B. G. Lake to F. S. H. Cavendish, and is for ₤12,000—the security is a number of life policies which are set out in the schedule to the mortgage—I made inquiries at various insurance offices—I have received nothing in respect to the security—I did not expect to recover anything at the moment—I found that the offices had not had notice of the mortgage of the policies in favour of one H. R. Cox—the total value as given to me is ₤25,830 10s.—the date of the mortgage to Cox is December 19th, 1899—I believe he was an accountant in the firm of Lake & Lake—I found, on looking at Mr. Frederick Cavendish's account in Lake & Lake's books, that ₤3,000 purports to have been paid to H. W. Marley on November 28th, 1898—on October 15th, 1900, I went to 11, Queen Victoria Street, the offices of the Kent Coal Syndicate, and saw the prisoner—I asked him who Marley was; he said he was secretary to a Mr. Burr; I said, "I see ₤3,000 has been advanced to Mr. Marley"; he seemed rather surprised, and said, "Why, he was not worth 3,000 pence"; I said, "That may be, but it appears in the account that you have lent him ₤3,000"—I asked if Lake & Lake had acted for Marley—I think he said, "No"—by the accounts produced to me I knew there was an entry of "Capital and Finance, ₤1,522 10s. You ₤600"—I think that refers to the Highgate mortgage—I asked the prisoner to explain what it was, and he said he could give me no information—I have searched a great number of companies, but I do not think I have searched the Capital & Finance Co., Ltd.
Cross-examined. Before I spoke to the prisoner about the Marley cheque I told him that I was making inquiries on behalf of the Cavendish affair—he did not lead me to suppose that Marley was a person to whom money ought to be advanced—he did not say whether he had the control of the advance, or if he made it or not—the conversation only lasted about 15 minutes—this (Produced)is apparently a draft, of which this document, which I have produced, is a copy; it is signed "G. Lake; send up under cover to me, charge ₤4 4s. 9d."—I do not know if that is George Lake's writing—we got the letter stating that further security had been found, on December 5th, 1900—no difficulties were thrown in my way by the successors of Lake & Lake till the end of December or early in January.
Re-examined. The firm who are spoken of as Lake's successors consist of the prisoner's son and one or two others—the first I heard of the policy of insurance was on April 6th, 1899, when I had the letter from the successors—I have not seen the prisoner's statement of affairs in bankruptcy—he never mentioned to me that there was this policy—I said, "Are we right in assuming that you hold no other security of Mr.F. H. Cavendish?"—that was on October 8th, and I had mentioned that there was the Rathkeale stock and The Grove, Highgate, and the answer we got was, "We have not any stock other than the two you mention"—I know of no entry in the ledger account of this ₤12,000 on these policies—the books show that there was an advance to the account of the prisoner of ₤12,300 eight or nine months after the date of
the mortgage—in the ledger, under February 22nd, 1900, there is an entry, "B. G. Lake, in repayment of the advance of ₤12,300"—it professes to be a repayment by the prisoner, and purports to clear the account with regard to the ₤12,300 by getting shares in the Lightning Express undertaking—I am told that notice of the mortgage of ₤30,000 to Cox was given to the insurance companies—there is now ₤52,000, notice of which has been given to the companies—the total amount of the policies, even when they become payable, is ₤43,000; the surrender value is ₤25,830—I have not got the deed on the Waltham mortgage, but if it is not handed over by the end of the week there will be a write for its recovery—it is now in the possession of Messrs. Templeton—there is an entry in the books of Lake & Lake on April 7th, 1899, of the transfer of the mortgage for ₤2,300 from the Hopkins' will trust.
HENRY CHATTERTON PRICE . I am a clerk at Child's Bank—we had an account there called "Benjamin Greene Lake, Frederick Cavendish account"—the prisoner was the only person who drew on that account—it was opened on November 3rd, 1898, by a payment of ₤3,208 odd, made by a draft on the other Cavendish account, called "Lake & Lake Cavendish account"—there was another payment in to the Frederick Cavendish account on November 26th, 1898, of ₤3,100—I do not know if that was by a draft on Lake & Lake—the next credit to the Frederick Cavendish account was on December 1st, 1898, of ₤850, by a draft on Lake & Lake; the next on December 9th, 1898, of ₤290 by a draft on Lake & Lake; the next on December 21st, 1898, of ₤2,500 by the draft on Lake & Lake, making a total of ₤9,948 2s. 8d. paid into the credit of the account—by December 22nd, 1898, ₤6,655 18s. 7d. had been drawn out of that account—on November 5th I find that ₤1,522 10s. had been drawn out in favour of H. R. Cox by this cheque (Produced), signed "B. G. Lake," and crossed "Selves"—the word "order" is crossed out, and initialled "B. G. L."—I should say the writing is the prisoner's—the same day the cheque was paid into the account which George Lake and his wife kept at our bank, paid in in consequence of our receiving this letter: "November 4th, 1898. Dear Sirs. Please place the enclosed cheque for ₤1,522 10s. to the credit of G.E.and A. E. Lake.—Yours faithfully, George E. LAKE"—on November 15th, 1898, I find that ₤500 was drawn out of the Frederick Cavendish account by this cheque (Produced), drawn in favour of H. F. H. Cavendish, the brother—it is an "order" cheque, which has been altered to "bearer," which alteration is initialled "B. G. L."—in my opinion the writing is the prisoner's—it was paid into the Cavendish account; it is crossed to our bank—I cannot say whose writing the crossing is in—on November 28th, 1898, I find that ₤3,000 was drawn out of the Frederick Cavendish account by this cheque (Produced)—it is drawn in favour of H.W. Marley, and altered from "order" to "bearer," and initialled "B. G. L."—I should think the initials are in the prisoner's writing—it is crossed "to the credit of Lake & Lake," and was paid in to the credit of the firm—on January 31st, 1899, ₤600 was drawn out of the Frederick Cavendish account by this cheque (Produced), altered in the same way, but not crossed—it was paid in to the account of Lake & Lake—on February 21st, 1899, I find a further sum of ₤150 drawn out of
the Frederich Cavendish account by this cheque (Produced) in favour of H. W. Marley—it came back to us through the North & South Wales Bank at Chester—out of the funds in this account we paid to Messrs. Cox, the Army agents and bankers, ₤50 on January 3rd, 1899, and ₤48 at the commencement of each month, following up to June, 1900, to the credit of Mr. Frederick Cavendish—every month we received a cheque on Lake & Lake for ₤48 for remittance to Cox & Co.—but for those cheques from Lake & Lake, the whole of the funds in the Frederick Cavendish account which had been practically exhausted by the end of March, 1899, there would not have been sufficient to pay the ₤48—I have not got any of the cheques for ₤48—I do not know if the payments to us were by cheque—I find that on November 22nd, 1899, there is a payment of ₤48 from Lake & Lake's account, and going on till May 22nd, 1900—I do not know if that was after the death of George Lake was reported.
Cross-examined. I have not made any endeavour to find out how the ₤2,215 was made up—I am at the ledger at the bank—George Lake sent the cheque to the bank, and signed the letter—I know nothing of Messrs. Lake's books.
GEORGE DON SARGENT . I am a clerk in Somerset House, in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file of the Lightning Express Railway Syndicate, Ltd., incorporated on December 23rd, 1895, and the file of the Capital & Finance Co., Ltd., incorporated on October 6th 1892.
Cross-examined. The Lightning Express Syndicate never did any business—so far as we know, it was an abortive company—I do not know if in 1897 a Bill was introduced into Parliament for the purpose of making a railway between Manchester and Liverpool—I do not know if it was supported by gentlemen of influence in Manchester and Liverpool, or that it was thrown out of Parliament because the brake power was not sufficiently powerful—I do not know if it is going to be introduced again.
By the COURT. The solicitors to the company were Messrs. Lindo & Co.
G. W. CHAPMAN (Re-examined). The ₤15,000 of Mr. Frederick Cavendish was all received out of the moneys of Harry Cavendish—I cannot give the dates, but it was made up by, firstly, the bill for ₤360 which has been mentioned—the next amount was ₤6,000, received from H. S. Cavendish in the Cavendish account on October 8th, 1898—the next is ₤4,300, received on October 19th, paid out of the Harry Cavendish account at Child's Bank, into the account of Lake & Lake—it is brought to the credit of Frederick Cavendish in Lake's books—the next item is on October 27th, ₤1,113 17s. 4d., which represents the purchase money of the Rathkeale stock—the balance of the ₤15,000 is made up by by the ₤3,208 2s. 8d. with which the account at Child's is opened; that was part of Harry Cavendish's account.
Cross-examined.₤5,500 was invested on Octoter 7th—on October 12th ₤4,300 was advanced to Lord Dundonald, and then there is the ₤1,113 17s. 4d., all invested on November 5th—on November 14th the ₤5,500 was still invested, it remained in the firm's books—the Lord Dundonald loan was repaid on November 18th—the Rathkeale stock still
remains—the ₤1,522 cheque does not come into the firm's account till the final balancing—the total amount paid out in debts was ₤888; that does not include the money paid to Cox & Co.—there was altogether something like ₤14,000 invested, I think—the advance of ₤5,500 to Burr is still in existence—Lord Donnington's is all paid off except ₤60—of the ₤4,300, ₤3,950 has been paid off.
Re-examined. I believe the ₤5,500 was advanced in cash—I have seen no security given to Mr. Frederick Cavendish for it—it was transferred on December 16th to Howard's trustees, which was some other estate for which Lake & Lake were solicitors, and for which I think the prisoner was a trustee—I have not the papers in my custody; they are in the custody, of the new firm, and I have not seen them—a new firm was constituted in March last, before the bankruptcy, to whom the papers were assigned—the ledger of the firm shows the transfer charged to Howard's trustees—the ₤4,300 was an advance actually made, and was repaid by three instalments—in the list of temporary advances which have been made, the ₤500 to the Kent Colliery Corporation does not appear—it ought to, because subsequently there is an alleged repayment of the amount—it ought to appear in the Frederick Cavendish ledger, but it does not—the securities which Messrs. Bumpus, Bishop & Co. have received include the Waltham mortgage, representing ₤2,300, and the ₤600 the Highgate charge—there is ₤65 in respect to Lord Donnington's mortgage—there is no security in respect to that; altogether about ₤4,096, which leaves a balance of over ₤10,000 to be accounted for—I have been through Mr. Cavendish's accounts, giving credit for all payments—I find there is still a balance of nearly ₤9,000 unaccounted for.
REV. ALEXANDER HENRY HOPKINS . I am one of the trustees under the will of John Hopkins, who died on July 14th, 1877—there was a deed appointing the trustees on November 20th, 1890—Mr. Routh and George E. Lake and myself were appointed trustees, and Lake & Lake were solicitors to the estate—they have been the family solicitors for about 50 years—I knew George Lake very well; I do not know the prisoner—my father died on April 26th, 1899—I and my sisters were entitled as beneficiaries to trusts under the will—until the time when we discovered that the trust funds were misappropriated we never received from Lake & Lake any account as to how the trusts were invested; we were always put off—we asked for an account on the three occasions when George Lake came down to stay with us—the three times that he came to us were between the death of my father and the alleged death of himself—he sent me ₤200 on account of the moneys coming to me, and after I had applied to him for the account of how the moneys stood—after his death I again applied by letter—I wanted to know if we were going to have anything settled up, and also, as we had not had any money, I wanted another ₤200—in December I got another ₤200 from the prisoner—I do not think I have got any letters sent me after that—I did not know that ₤1,100 had been placed on deposit with the London & County Bank, Knightsbridge, on August 26th, 1899, on account of the deposit of the trust, or that another ₤1,600 had been put on deposit, ear-marked, for the trust funds, on September 1st, 1899, or that those sums had been
drawn out by the prisoner and placed to his account on November 27th, 1899, or that they were used by him—the first I heard of the loss of the trust funds was by this letter from the prisoner to my mother on February 19th, 1900—(This stated that the letter he had to write caused him as much pain as it mould her to read; that when his cousin, George E. Lake, died, his only feelings for him were those of very great grief at the loss of the most intimate friend he had ever had, but that letters to him (George), which the prisoner had to read, soon put him in possession of a wholly unexpected state of things; that just as he was about to sign partnership articles with his son and only just in time to save him, he learnt that the accounts of the firm, which were exclusively under his cousin's control, showed a great deficiency; that the affairs of her and her family were exclusively under his cousin's care, and that he had had great difficulty in finding out how they stood; that he now enclosed a statement, the result being to show that a very large amount of money was in his cousin's hands, and had been misapplied; that the figures were, Marriage Settlement Funds, ₤608 13s.; Mr. John Hopkins Will Funds, ₤3,427 9s. 11d.; Settled Estates, ₤11,472 1s. 1d.; total, ₤15,508 4s.; that for all this he was personally liable, and though he knew nothing of the transactions, he was bound by the acts of his partner; that if he could not make arrangements with his clients and friends he would have to declare himself bankrupt, and show that no moral blame, though very heavy liability, rested upon him; that he hoped that she would feel able, as several clients had done, to give him time and release him from personal liability, as the most likely way to recover part, if not all, of her money.)—in the statement one of the securities for money used under the will, is ₤2,300 advanced on mortgage to Messrs. Waltham at 4 1/2 per cent.—I have got no security whatever for the ₤1,100 and ₤1,600 drawn out from deposit—if the ₤2,300 on the Waltham mortgage belongs to Mr. Cavendish, we shall have that further loss, which will make the loss to the estate of about ₤1,700—I got this letter from the prisoner, dated January 31st, 1900—(Stating that the witness's father by his will appointed in his favour ₤2,000 to be raised out of the funds and property, subject to the trusts of the will of Mr. John Hopkins, his late grandfather; that his share of the ₤9,500 charged upon the settled estates would be ₤2,125; that he could not definitely find out whether his cousin had appropriated any of the investments belonging to the trust, of Lady Clark, or of the witness, but if not he would submit suitable investments for the amounts, and that he would be entitled to receive the income from the date of his father's death.)
Cross-examined. I never got any particulars from the Lake & Lake firm till after George Lake's death; then the prisoner supplied them—George Lake was a friend of ours—I do not think I ever saw the prisoner—I wrote to the prisoner after his cousin's death but before the smash came, and he replied by letter.
JOHN MARTIN ROUTH . I live at Tilehurst Rectory, near Reading, and am one of the trustees under the will of John Hopkins—I was appointed by the will of November, 1890, George Lake being co-trustee—Lake & Lake managed all the affairs of the trust—I did not know that ₤1,100 and ₤1,500 were deposited at the London & County Bank, or of their being paid into the account of the firm at Child's Bank; I never authorised it.
ELLA JANE CLARA HOPKINS . I live at Tidmarsh Rectory, Berkshire, and am one of the beneficiaries under the will of John Hopkins—on October 5th, 1899, I received this letter from George Lake in reference to the trust matters—(This stated that he now sent her a statement of the securities he proposed to allot to her as representing ₤5,000 on account of her shares in the funds, divisible on Mr. Hopkins death; that the total income was ₤205 10s., and if she desired it, 'she could have a quarterly payment; that the interest on the Didcot stock would come direct from the company, and the others would be payable by his firm, and that the cash balance of ₤70 he was paying to her credit at Messrs. Simonds'.)—among the securities I see a mortgage to Messrs. Waltham of ₤2,300 at 4 1/2 per cent.—I received the cash balance of ₤79, and ₤50 was paid by George Lake, which was owed me before my father's death—I knew nothing of the ₤1,600 and ₤1,100 being transferred to Child's Bank—my sister Hilda is in bed.
SIDNEY BOLTON RUSSELL . I am a cashier in the London & County Bank, Knightsbridge—in August, 1899, Lake & Lake had a deposit account there—on August 25th, 1899, we received this letter from them—(Asking for, in exchange for the enclosed cheque for ₤4,600, deposit noes, one for ₤1,100, ear-marked John Hopkins' Will Trust, and one for ₤3,500, not ear-marked)—I should say that letter is signed by George Lake—we accordingly sent them a deposit note for ₤1,100, marked "John Hopkins' Will Trust"—we next received a letter dated August 31st, 1899—(Read):"Dear Sir,"—In exchange for the enclosed cheque for ₤l,600 please send us deposit note for that amount, ear-marked 'Hopkins.'—Yours fathfully, LAKE & LAKE")—we sent in reply the deposit note, ear-marked "Hopkins" (Produced)—on November 26th we received this letter from Lake & Lake—(Enclosing three deposit notes for ₤1,100, ₤1,600 and ₤5,000; the first two ear-marked "Hopkins" and asking the bank to place the proceeds to their account with Messrs. Child & Co.)—that is signed by the prisoner; the notes were endorsed by the prisoner—we transferred the total of ₤7,700 to the credit of the account of Lake & Lake at Child's Bank, with the interest.
H. C. PRICE (Re-examined). I produce a copy of the account of Lake & Lake at Child's Bank, under the Bankers' Evidence Act, from November, 1899, to December 31st, 1899—I find that on November 28th we received to their credit ₤1,108 2s., ₤1,611 5s. 2d., and ₤5,004 6s. 3d.—we got those from the London & County Bank, Knightsbridge—I find on November 29th Lake & Lake drew a cheque for ₤9,421 11s. 2d.; but for the sums paid in on the 28th, there would not have been sufficient money to Lake & Lake's account to clear that cheque—I have seen the prisoner at the bank from time to time.
Cross-examined. Ours is the bank where Lake & Lake had their account.
WILLIAM ALEXANDER CLARKE . I am a solicitor, now living in Shropshire—in November, 1899, Lake & Lake were acting as solicitors for me and the co-trustee, Mr. Maitland, under the will of Sir Charles Mansfield Clarke—they received as solicitors about ₤40,000—I wrote to them on November 22nd, 1899, and received this letter from them in reply, dated November 23rd—(This stated that the sale of Worlingham was completed
on November 13th, when the amounts received by them were: Balance of purchase money, ₤30,150; timber, ₤10,800; fixtures, 160, 1s.; total, ₤41,1 10 1s.; that the transfer of the Bell mortgage was effected an October 25th, on which date ₤2,830 was placed on deposit; that ₤36,000 of the purchase money of Worlingham was deposited immediately after completion; that the whole of the purchase money was not deposited because it was desired to have a certain sum available as soon as the appointment of new trustees was completed.)—this (Produced) is a cheque drawn by the prisoner for ₤9,421 on Child & Co., and crossed to the London & County Bank, Knights-bridge—I do not know if that is part of the portion money which I was requiring to be transferred; it does not show to whose account it was paid, but it never came to our hands—I asked that it should be placed on deposit, but I did not know that it had been—I got a deposit receipt from them for the total sum, which I was calling on them to account for.
Cross-examined. I had had a great deal of correspondence with George Lake since the preceding April; I did not see the prisoner till afterwards—we got all the money due to us, except my expenses.
G. W. CHAPMAN (Re-examined). In the statement of affairs furnished by the bankruptcy Court the prisoner returns the trustees of the will of John Hopkins as unsecured creditors to the amount of ₤3,587 15s.—I have examined the ledger in the Hopkins case—Lake's ledger shows the receipt of the ₤1,600 and the ₤1,100 to the trust fund of John Hopkins' will.
The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that, by the advice of his Counsel, he would reserve his defence, as he knew the case would have to go for trial, when he would have an opportunity of giving his own version of the transactions and of the financial position of the firm.
H. C. PRICE (Re-examined). We got an order from the prisoner directing us to pay ₤50 a month to Messrs. Cox for Mr. F. S. H. Cavendish—I cannot find the order—this is the letter from the prisoner requesting us to pay ₤48 instead of ₤50—on May 8th, 1900, we got this letter from the prisoner, asking us to pay ₤48 a month to his account re F. S. H. Cavendish, and charge the amount to the account of B. G. Lake, Cavendish—that is the other Cavendish account—the result of that was that the F. S. H. Cavendish account was being put in funds by a transfer of moneys from the account of H. Cavendish—on the same day the prisoner drew a cheque on the H. Cavendish account for F. S. H. Cavendish, or bearer, for ₤48.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, said that he had nothing to do with the financial part of the firm of Lake & Lake; that his cousin managed the whole of the money affairs; that he did not know how the accounts of the firm stood, and never saw the books; that he always believed the trust funds were properly invested; that he never had any intention to defraud; and that he never made a penny out of the affair.
Evidence for the Defence.
WALTER HATHAWAY . I live at 26, Oxford Road, Richmond, and am the brother-in-law of the late George Lake—in November, 1899, I received a telegram from Germany; I believe it was on November 13th—next day I went to Berlin alone—when I got there I found my sister, Mrs. George Lake and Mr. Page Cooke—I did not see Mr. George Lake
alive—I saw him, after he was dead, at 31 and 32, Eanken Strasse, Berlin—that was a private nursing-home, kept by Madame Vorwerk—two doctors had been in attendance, Dr. Goldscheidet, of 9, Corbiere Strasse, Berlin, and Dr. Gattel, of 48, Korningin Augusta Strasse Berlin—I made the arrangements to bring the body back to England, and attended the funeral.
FRANCIS JOHN LAKE . I am a solicitor, and a son of the prisoner—I was articled to his firm—I know the mortgage of April 6th—the signature to the attestation clause is mine, but I have no recollection of signing it—on April 6th, the day on which the deed was executed, I was engaged in the afternoon with my father in going through a number of tenants' accounts and agreements relating to Mrs. Cavendish's estate, as he and I were going over a portion of the estate in Buckinghamshire—I first heard of the existence of the deed on December 4th or 5th—Mr. Cox brought it to me in the afternoon, in an envelope containing the mortgage, the draft, and the notices affecting the policies—the notices were drawn, but not signed; they were all in duplicate—in November, 1899, my father discussed the question of my going into the partnership; that was shortly after the death of George Lake—my father drew the articles, and gave them to me to read over and see if I could make any suggestions—I made some alterations and additions, and gave them back to him—I believed he was going to submit them to the third partner—the date of signing the articles was December 12th; on that day my father postponed the appointment; he did not give me any reason until the evening.
Cross-examined. Mr. Cox found the mortgage—I do not know if he is in Court; I do not see him—the notices and mortgage were all together—I do not know if the notices were to have been signed in the name of the firm—I had not read them—they are endorsed "Solicitors to the said Frederick Shepheard Hart Cavendish"—George Lake could have undoubtedly signed them as well as my father, if they were signed by the firm—the envelope in which the documents were was addressed "G. E. Lake," and marked "Private"—Mr. Cox told me they were found behind a box, but I do not know if they were.
Re-examined. This envelope is that in which the documents came back from the person who had engrossed them—when the deed was brought to me I saw my father that evening, and I told him I thought notice ought to be given to Mr Cavendish's solicitors, Messrs. Bumpus, and he said, "I quite agree," and I gave notice next morning.
CHARLES PHILLIPS . I am manager to Messrs. Walton & Lee, estate agents, Mount Street, Grosvenor Square—on December 16th I received this letter (Produced) from Mr. B. G. Lake instructing us to sell a place at Orpington—on February 10th we received a further letter instructing us to sell other property.
Cross-examined. We did not sell, in fact—the places were offered for sale by auction under Lake's instructions, and did not sell, and it was offered under the instructions of the mortgagees, and was sold—it realised ₤4,800—I do not know what were the incumbrances on it—parts of the Devonshire property were sold under the directions of the mortgagees.
Re-examined. To get the best price, you want to choose your time for selling property.
GUILTY of fraudently appropriating money belonging to the Colthurst Trust, the Cavendish Trust, and the Hopkins Trust.—NOT GUILTY as to the Else Trust — Seven years' penal servitude on the Counts relating to the Cavendish and Hopkins Trusts , and five years' penal servitude to those relating to the Colthurst Trust, to run consecutively.
OLD COURT.—Friday, January 25th, 1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
140. JULIAN TREGENNA BIDDULPH ARNOLD PLEADED GUILTY to that he, being a trustee of ₤6,246 6s. 3d. under the will of John Domville Taylor, did convert and appropriate ₤1,000 of that money to his own use and benefit; also that, being a trustee of ₤933 4s. 11d. under the will of William Hartopp Swain, did convert it to his own use and benefit; and, THOMAS BOULTON SISMEY to conspiring with Arnold and other persons to cheat and defraud Jane Clarke of ₤14,000.— ARNOLD— Seven years' penal servitude in respect to the Taylor case, and three years' penal servitude in respect to the Swain case, to run consecutively. SISMEY— Fifteen months' hard labour. And
(141) JOHN GREENFIELD to being an attorney, entrusted with ₤960 8s. 3d. conerting the same to his own use and benefit.— [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] He received a good character— Twelve months in the second division.
OLD COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, January 28th and 29th, 1901.
Before Mr. Justice Wills.
MR. C. MATHEWS, MR. MUIR, and MR. STEPHENSON Prosecuted; and
MR. BIRON, Defended.
FRANK GEORGE WAYLETT .(76 K). I prepared these plans of 23 and 25, Venour Road—this shows the scullery and the pavement and coal cellar of No. 23, and this of No. 24 shows the pavement, the kitchen behind, the passage leading from the back, and the door from the back yard—at the extreme back of the yard there is a dust-pan, and entering from the yard is the W.C.—on the same plan I have shown a wall which can be approached from Forrester's Road; it would be possible for anybody to get from there to the dust-bin, and so on into the yard—the second plan shows Forresters Road and 25 and 23 Venour Road, and the road along which persons come from No. 25 to No. 23.
SAMPSON SMITH . I did live at 23, Venour Road—I now live at 24, Canal Road—the deceased was my wife; her name was Lucy—the prisoner was her first cousin—he came to live at 23, Venour Road, last April, when I was occupying the house with my wife and my little daughter Minnie, and there was occasionally there a child cousin,
named Billings—when the prisoner first came we had lodgers on the first floor, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett; they only stayed a short time after the prisoner came—they were succeeded on the first floor by Mr. and Mrs. Baker—the prisoner came in May, I believe—the arrangement was for him to live there, he was not in work then, but he got work after that, but not continuously—he went away in September, I believe, to Tanbury North, to seek work—my relations with him were of a very friendly character—my wife and I and the little girl slept in one room on the ground floor, and the prisoner slept on the same floor—behind the kitchen ran the yard, and there were two or three steps leading to the prisoner's bedroom—you get to his bedroom by a passage, at one end of which is the front door, and the yard door at the other—my wife's relations with the prisoner were affectionate and friendly, and mine also—there was no quarrel of any kind—the prisoner drank lemonade, and, as far as I know, up to September he did not take any alcohol, and I never saw any sign of it—this letter is in my wife's writing, and is addressed to the prisoner (Dated October 11th, 1900, stating that she was glad that he had arrived safely, but sorry he had not obtained work, and that they were quite willing that he should come back, and requested him to let them know when to expect him—Signed. "Your loving cousin, Lucy Smith")—that represents our feeling towards him—he returned after that, and took up his residence—I think he was in work till November with the exception of two or three days—we never took any notice if he did not meet his payments—things went on so down to Monday, December 10th. Up to that morning there was the utmost affection and confidence between my wife and him—I went out to work on that day as usual, and came back about dinner time, about noon—as I entered I saw the prisoner coming downstairs, as though from the Bakers' room—he looked so strange that I said, "What does this mean?"—I cannot remember his answer, but he called me a miserable old b—; I had gone into the kitchen, and he took up a knife and held it over my head, and said that he would take one of our lives—he said that more than once—he gave no reason—he did not say that I had taken a cup of tea to Mrs. Burdett when she was a lodger in the house, but I have done so—he did not draw any inference from that—he did not mention anybody's name, that I am aware of—there was nothing in the smallest degree improper in my relations with Mrs. Burdett—he said to me, "I want a cup of tea"—I said, "I will make it for you"—he said, "Lucy shall make it," and called up to my wife to come downstairs—she was in Mrs. Baker's room—she came down at once, and put some water on the fire—I think I went out then, leaving them alone; I went back in two or three minutes, and she told him that if he did not leave off talking she would not make it—a short time afterwards she left the kitchen and went up to the Bakers' room, and the prisoner and I were left in the kitchen—he commenced making words again, but I do not remember what he said—he pushed me by the arm with his hands, and gave me a slap in the face, but said nothing—he took a knife again and lifted it up over my head, and said that he would have one of our lives—that second scene lasted up to dinner-time—he did not have no dinner—there was no dinner through the upset—I did not go back to my work; I kept at home for my wife's protection—it struck me that he was very strange, and I
thought he had been drinking whisky, because I saw some on the drawers in his bedroom when I first went into the house at 4 o'clock, and it was in a half-pint bottle—it was about half full when I went into the house about noon—Mr. Baker came in about 1 o'clock; he went upstairs first and then came into the kitchen, where his boots were, and the prisoner wanted to fight him, and slapped his face with his open hand, and my face also—after that had gone on some time, I said that I should not stand it any longer; I should turn him out—he could hear that—he might have been a little better with regard to drink in the afternoon, I am not sure—Mr. Baker went in search of a constable, and one came—I spoke to him, and the result of that was that he went away—I think the prisoner had gone outside at that time—this was just in front of the house—I believe he walked away from the gate; he was away about half an hour; he then, returned, and let himself in with his latch-key—Mr. Baker and I both put our hands on his shoulders and turned him out—we did that on both occasions—he demanded a week's board; that would be 13s.—I gave him the whole of it, and he gave me up his latch-key and went away—there was a conversation about a week's notice about the middle of the passage, and he volunteered to give me the latch-key—that was about 4 or 7 p.m.—on the 10th I was again in the wash-house—when I heard something like the rippling of falling stones in the back yard—I went into the kitchen—I heard a noise in the back yard—I went to the back to see what it was—I saw the prisoner on the wall just above the water-closet—if I remember rightly, I said, "What are you doing here?"—I do not remember what answer he made, but he jumped off the wall—some old barbed wire fencing runs along the top of the wall—I went back into the house by the back door—the prisoner followed me into the passage—he said he was going to sleep in the house; that he would sleep in the cellar, and he went down to the cellar—his manner was the same as usual—I called Mr. Baker and whispered to him, and in the result we sent a second time for a constable, with whom we had some conversation—the constable left, and we went into the cellar—I told the prisoner he could lie as quietly in his own bed, meaning in his own room—he left the cellar and went upstairs to his room—he said that I could lock him in—at noon I had called his attention to a bottle of whisky—I said. "What does this mean?" pointing to the bottle with the spirit in it—I turned the key upon the outside of the door—I believe I took it out—he remained there that night, and was quiet—on the 11th I rose about 5.15 a.m.—as I passed his room door he asked for a drink of water—I took him some, unlocking the door—he wanted to know where Lucy was—I said that she was not in—as a fact, she did not stop there that night. She went to sleep at a cousin's in the Canal Road—that had been arranged after the prisoner had come back to the house—the prisoner only said he felt bad—I left him and went back to the room about 7 a.m.—I think I asked him if he would like a cup of tea, and he said, "Yes"—I fetched him a cup and gave it to him—then he said, "You had better bring Lucy round," or something to that effect, "and let us have it out, and bring all the witnesses you like"—I told him I did not want any witnesses—I said, "I will go and fetch her," and I went, to Canal Road, made some communication to her, and we returned to Venour Road—she followed me into
the kitchen—Salmon was there, and asked her how she was, or something of that kind, and I think she said, "Pretty well," but I cannot remember—he kept on talking and bringing up things, as if he was trying to annoy us—we took no notice of it—I think he threatened my wife, myself, and my little daughter Minnie—he said he would have one of our lives—that kind of talk lasted about an hour—I went into the back yard; my wife remained in the kitchen—he left about 11 o'clock—he appeared sorry—he was crying—I think he said he was sorry, but I am not sure—he said good-bye to my wife—he seemed to be sober—on Wednesday, the 12th, I went to my work and came back to dinner, as usual—about 12.45 the prisoner knocked at the front door—he said he had passed the night on a barge—he asked for a change of clothes and something to drink—I got him some lemonade and left him on the pavement outside—I told him he should not come into that house any more to sleep—my wife was with me—then he said he would have one of our lives—he then said good-bye to both of us, I believe—then he asked if he could kiss Lucy—I said, "Yes," and he kissed her—he showed some tears, and went away—after he had left I went to my work—going along Harford Street, I overtook him and walked by his side—I asked him not to come the house again—I told him he should go to the powder mills, and try to get work there—they are at Waltham—I knew he had been employed there a short time before I left him—I said, "Don't come again, on account of the children"—he said, "No, no"—I referred to Minnie and a little child we were taking care of—about 9 p.m. on Thursday, I received a letter which my wife read to me, and then threw it into the fire—it came from the prisoner, and bore the Waltham postmark on the envelope—the writer said he would let us know how he got on; it ended, "I do not know how to sign myself"—on the Saturday I left for my work as usual—from the Wednesday to the Saturday, another cousin of my wife, named Herbert, had occupied the prisoner's bedroom for three nights—I returned home to breakfast about 8 a.m.—I opened the door with a latch-key, and walked towards the kitchen—as I reached the steps leading to the room the prisoner had occupied, he came towards me and said, "Fetch a policeman, Sam"—as I looked through the kitchen door I saw my wife lying flat upon the floor, on her back, in what seemed to be a pool of blood—I said, "What have you done it for?"—he said, "It is all through you"—I left the house, and returned with a constable—I took him into the kitchen—the prisoner was sitting on a chair, near where my wife was still lying—a second constable was said to be requisite, and I went out for him—a doctor came soon afterwards, and I was told that my wife was dead—this is one of my knives which my wife would lay on the table—I do not know the clasp one.
Cross-examined. I believe my wife and the prisoner had known each other as children—they had grown up together—they were cousins—I had never had reason to complain of his conduct before December 10th—I had never before noticed anything strange in his manner—he was wild in appearance on the 10th—I cannot explain his condition—his talk was incoherent, and I have described it as "going on"—he was friendly with the little girl Minnie—Mrs. Burdett was a lodger—he complained to me of my taking her a cup of tea—he said, "I want a cup
of tea"—I had taken knives from him, I think three times, in the afternoon—he was violent towards Mr. Baker, and went on in an extraordinary way, and I had to turn him out on two occasions—when he came back in the evening I thought it best to humour him—he was violent, and then suddenly said he was sorry, and then again became violent—I believe he had been out of work after the August Bank Holiday, when he was with Pearce's, or a week after he came back from the country—with the exception of two weeks, he had not been able to pay for his lodging regularly, and for what we supplied him—he was very anxious to get work in October, and tried to get work on October 11th, and before that he was strange in his manner—one Sunday morning in October my wife told me she took a razor from him, as she thought he was going to cut his throat—I saw him afterwards quietly lying on the bed—a little time afterwards my wife told me he asked for the razor, and smashed it up before her—she told me that a member of the family, Thomas Salmon, died in a lunatic asylum.
Re-examined. The prisoner came to us in April—he worked at Pearce's Chemical Works, at Bow Common, as a labourer, I believe—he left home for work, and returned about the same hour—occasionally I came home to dinner in the middle of the day; he was there—he was regular in coming home in the evening and remained at home—I saw nothing to suggest that he was of unsound mind—he seemed perfectly rational before December 10th; then I thought he was drunk—I saw the half-pint whisky bottle in his hand, similar to this bottle—there was a little in it on the Tuesday, but less than on the Monday—I saw the empty bottle on the shelf in the cellar when I went down with the inspector—upon the Wednesday I saw nothing to lead me to believe he had been drinking—he was employed in the same gang with me for the Vestry in November—he left because he said the money, 25s. a week, was not sufficient—my wife's sister, Alice Parker, was a visitor at our house—she was there two or three times while the prisoner was living with us.
ELIZA BAKER . I am the wife of Herbert Baker, of 23, Venour Road—we went to live there about May last—the prisoner was living in the house—on Monday, December 10th, between 10 and 10.30 a.m., I heard the prisoner call the deceased a foul name—she came upstairs—I called to her to come to my room—she was crying—the prisoner followed her—he sat down—soon after he had been in the kitchen he got up and smacked her face three or four times—she was mad drunk; he said if he had a revolver he would shoot the pair of us—I asked him what he smacked Mrs. Smith's face for—he said that if I interfered he would serve me the same—I tried to get him to go to bed, but he would not—he said the first man who came into the house he would black his eyes—Mrs. Smith asked what her husband had done that he was going to do that for—he said he would show him when he came in—he took a bottle of whisky out of his pocket, pulled the cork out, and threw the contents in Mrs. Smith's eyes—the bottle was like this one (Produced)—it was full—she cried, and asked him what he did it for—he put it back in his pocket; then he smacked her face with his open hand—he asked me for a knife—I told him I had not got one—I went clown to answer a knock at the door; Mrs. Smith followed me—the
prisoner still sac on the box in the kitchen—he called to us to come up, and we did so—I paid someone who called for the rent, and went upstairs again—the prisoner was still sitting where I left him—Mrs. Smith noticed a table-knife on the table, with a piece of brown paper over it—she called my attention to it—it was not there when we went downstairs—it was kept in the dresser-drawer—Mr. Smith came in to dinner about 12 o'clock—we had been with the prisoner from about 10.30 to 12 o'clock—he rushed downstairs—he said he was going to black Mr. Smith's eyes—Mr. Smith and the prisoner went into Mr. Smith's kitchen—I stopped upstairs with Mrs. Smith—then Mr. Baker came into his dinner—Mrs. Smith spoke to him, and he went downstairs—I could hear them expostulating—I saw the prisoner strike Mr. Smith in the passage; my husband saw it—a constable was fetched, and the prisoner was put out—I think I saw Mr. Smith give him half a sovereign—he came back and asked for another four shillings—on Saturday, December 15th, Mr. Baker went to work about 6 a.m—I did not get up—I heard Mrs. Smith scream about 7.40; just a scream—I did not feel well—I listened—I was too ill to go out of the room, but I got out of bed—hearing nothing more, I dressed and went outside my room, about 7.55—shortly afterwards Mr. Smith came in; I heard him say, "What are you here for?"—next I heard Mr. Smith rush out of the house; eventually the police came—I have heard the prisoner call Mrs. Smith a b—y wh—e.
Cross-examined. With this exception, I always found the prisoner to respect Mrs. Smith—he seemed an inoffensive man always—his condition at this time appeared to be due to something besides the actual consequences of drink; that is why I used the expression" mad drunk"—I had never seen anybody even under the influence of drink in such a state before—he apologised for assaulting my husband, and said he was sorry, in the passage—he seemed sorry, and then violent again.
HERBERT BAKER . I am a barge builder—I live on the first floor at 23, Venour Road—on December 10th, when I came home to dinner, my wife and Mrs. Lucy Smith were in the kitchen; the prisoner was downstairs, the worse for drink; Mrs. Smith said something to me, and I went downstairs—the prisoner came in from the back yard; he had an ordinary table-knife in his hand—I asked him what he was going to do with it—he made no reply, but went into the kitchen: I followed him; he then asked me what I meant by asking him about the knife—I told him I thought it was rather dangerous for him to have one in his possession—we tried to persuade him to go into the bedroom; after a while he went in there—he remained there not very long—I went upstairs—when he came out Mrs. Smith came down; then I heard Mr. Smith call out for me—I went downstairs, and saw him strike Mr. and Mrs. Smith with his open hand—he called Mrs. Smith names, and threatened to do for them—he went again into his bedroom—he came out, and the same thing was renewed; then he struck me—it appeared to be intenational; then he said he was sorry for what he had done, and asked me to shake hands—I shook hands—he again went into the bedroom, and we got Mrs. Smith out of the house—he came out of the bedroom; then Mr. Smith asked me to lend him 10s.; I did so—he
gave it to the prisoner—afterwards he gave the prisoner another 3s.—I turned the prisoner out, Smith, I, and a constable being present—I saw a bottle of whisky in the kitchen—the prisoner took that into the bedroom with him—he returned, letting himself in with a latch-key, about 3.30 or 3.45—we went for a constable about 5.30—he was turned out about 3.45—he got over the back way about 5.30, when we again sent for a constable—the prisoner was then down in the cellar—I remember Mr. Smith persuading him to go to his bedroom, and locking him in—I next saw the prisoner on Saturday, December 15th—that morning I left home about 6.5 and returned about 8 a.m., and found the door wide open—in the kitchen my wife told me something—I met Smith coming in with a policeman, and I followed into the back room—I saw the woman lying on her back, in a pool of blood—the constable asked Mr. Smith in the prisoner's hearing who had done it—Mr. Smith replied, "That man did it," pointing to the prisoner, who was sitting on a chair in the kitchen, within 2ft. or 3ft. of the dead woman—the prisoner did not appear agitated; he said, "I did it, and I will swing for it"—he was quite calm—I thought him quite sober—I thought it was done out of spite.
Cross-examined. I went to protect Smith—I remained in the kitchen, but not a couple of hours—I was in and out, and saw the prisoner's behaviour and his condition—he appeared to be mad drunk—I do not think I said before the Coroner, "He was like a madman"—his condition was unusual; he was very violent—I cannot say I have ever seen any man under the influence of drink behave so—(Read: "Nothing has come to my knowledge which would suggest a motive for such an act")—I used words to that effect before the Coroner.
HERBERT SMITH . I live with my father and mother at 22, Canal Road, Mile End—I am a cousin of Sampson Smith—on Monday night, December 10th, Mrs. Lucy Smith slept at my father's house—on Wednesday and Friday, December 12th and 14th, I slept, by Mrs. Smith's request, at 23, Venour Road, in the room which had been occupied by the prisoner—on Saturday, December 13th, I got up about 7 a.m. and went down to the kitchen—I answered the postman's knock, and gave a letter, which was pushed under the door, to Mrs. Smith in the kitchen—she put it on the mantelpiece—she was cleaning, the grate—there was an ash-pan on the left side of the fireplace, and the fender had been moved from its position—I looked at my watch; the time was 7.40—the table was laid for breakfast—two white-handled knifes were on the table, similar to these produced—I left by the front door at 7.40—I slammed it, and saw that it was closed—I left Mrs. Smith cleaning the grate—a candle was alight on the table, and the blind was drawn down.
Cross-examined. I slept there two nights—I did not notice any other knife like the knife produced—there was no black-handled knife there—I used the two white-handled knives myself, the other I did not see.
JOHN BRNSTED (618 K). About 8 a.m. on December 15th I was called to 23, Venour Road—I went into the back kitchen—I saw the deceased, Lucy Smith, lying on her back on the floor—there was a lot of blood there—the prisoner was sitting on a chair by her side—his manner was calm and quiet—I was in uniform—I examined the body and said, "Who did this?"—the prisoner replied, "I did it, and I will swing for
it"—I told him I should take him into custody for wilful murder—I stood by his side—he did not move—I sent to the station for the divisional inspector, who at once arrived, and we conveyed the prisoner to the station in a cab—the prisoner was formally charged with wilful murder—he made no reply—he appeared sober—on looking round the room I saw the fender was on the left of the fireplace, and the ash-pan was empty—there was no sign of a struggle.
Cross-examined. He rolled his eyes round at me at the time I entered—his manner was unnaturally calm—I saw his hands were covered with blood—these two knives were lying on the floor by the deceased, also covered with blood.
WILLIAM ANDREWS (Police Inspector, K). About 8.40 on December 15th I saw the deceased at 23, Venour Road, lying in the kitchen—there was blood on the floor—the prisoner was sitting in a chair opposite the kitchen door, and on the right of the fireplace—he was calm—his hands were covered with blood—I told Bensted in the prisoner's presence to bring him in the passage just outside the kitchen door, when the prisoner said to me, "Do you want me to show you the way I came in? I shan't never come in again"—he was then looking towards the back yard—"I got up on that wall in Forrester's Road, and came along that wall"—I said, "This can be given in evidence against you"—he said, "I do not care; I am going to tell you; I got down into the yard, stood in the closet till she opened the door, then I came in after her"—he was then taken to the Police-station—the fire-irons and the fender were between the fireplace and the window—the deceased's clothes were not disarranged—on the corner of the table-cloth nearest the door near which she was lying there were finger-marks of blood apparently, and there was a small white-handled table-knife lying near those marks—I produce a knife with one spot of blood on the handle, that was on the table in the corner—an empty ash-pan was in the passage—the prisoner was searched in my presence—on him were found this postcard, addressed to Mrs. Smith, 23, Venour Road, Burdett Road, Bow, E.: "My dear friends—I told you I would let you know where I was. I am at Waltham—I remain, very sorry, S.S.," and these two envelopes—(Read:) "My dear cousin, Alice Parker, If I am able to do what I have on my mind the cause is through your brother-in-law, Sam Smith. He shall never rest any more. Good-bye, Alice; pray for me, dear. Do not think me so bad in what I am to do. I remain your cousin, S.S. Give my love to all, for I cannot help what I have to do"—on the other side was, "I am out of my mind. My plan has been made out since last Wednesday, and all through Mrs. Burdett's fancy man, and that man is Mr. Smith, for he has been there. He was thought to be a true man to his wife, and that is your sister Loo, a good woman. I cannot stand it longer; I hope that I shall be dead when you get this. Good night, Alice"—then "W. Pearce & Sons, Limited, Chemical Works, Bow Common"—that was found on him—I also found a certificate of discharge from the Army—he appears to have been a private in the Royal Marines—it is
dated December 5th, 1900—this is a copy—there was also this good character from Mr. Andrews, the foreman at Pearce's, a letter from the deceased to him, of October 4th, and 12s. in money found on him—when charged at the station he made no reply.
ARTHUR WILLIAM ANDREWS . I am foreman to Pearce's Chemical Works—the prisoner was employed by us from April 4th to August 31st last in the manufacture of nitric acid—he was absent several days, and when he came back we had put another man in his place; he was not wanted on another plant, so he left through slackness of work—I gave him his character, "Steady, sober, and industrious," and that is what we found him.
Cross-examined. He was a quiet, inoffensive man.
RICHARD JOHN WHEELER . I am a Licentiate of the Royal College of Surgeons, and a medical practitioner, at 560, Mile End Road—on December 15th I was called to 23, Venour Road—I arrived about 8.5 a.m.—I saw the deceased lying on her back in the kitchen, fully dressed—her clothes were not displaced—she had a large severe gash in the throat, almost from ear to ear—she was quite dead—there was a pool of blood on her left, and another on her right, which had come from the wound—in the neck all the tissues of the vessels were divided right down to the spinal column, and there were three or four indentations in one of the vertebra—two knives were lying on the floor, with blood on both of them—I am certain they were not used in inflicting the wound—one was covered, and the other only bespattered with blood—I should say this other knife was used—I should think she had been dead half an hour—a man I did not know was sitting in a chair, and in getting near enough to view the body I said to him, "Who did this I"—he said, "I did it,"—he was quite calm—there was nothing to suggest a struggle—I made a post-mortem examination—the cause of death was injury to the neck.
Cross-examined. Extraordinary violence was used—I thought the person must have tried to sever the head from the body—very much less violence would have caused death.
Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner in the dock at Bow Road Police-station between 11 and 12—I examined him—he was morose, quiet and dejected; he did not speak—on the 21st I gave evidence before the Coroner—I said, "I examined the accused in the dock; he seemed strange and dejected; he did not appear to realise the gravity of his position"—that is correct.
Re-examined. I was called by the inspector to examine a scratch on the prisoner's left cheek.
Evidence for the Defence.
GEORGE SALMON . I am 64 years of age—I am the prisoner's father; he s✗ one of eight—two of the eight children were born deaf and dumb—the prisoner lived at home with me till he was 18 years of age; then he went into the Marines—I was then about 45—I used to drinkat times—my son very seldom drank along with me—he drank sometimes—I have seen him excitable sometimes—I remember my father, Thomas, and worked
for him—he was affected in mind when he was about 40 years old—I took him to work with me—he was removed from Bishop's Stortford to an asylum—we did barge work—he came out of the asylum and tried to work again, but he got worse, and had to go back again—I remember my father's brother, William, very well—he had two sons, Thomas and Joseph—I recollect Joseph having a son—I do not know that he died of brain disease—I knew Thomas very well—he died in an asylum from insanity—I saw the accused last about September, on one of my days out from the workhouse—we are allowed one day out after being an inmate a month, and two days after two months—I might have, seen him a year before that—I have been in the Union two years last November.
Cross-examined. None of the eight children were insane, that I know.
LUCY THICKENS . Before I was again married I was the widow of Thomas Salmon, the son of William Salmon—I was married 22 years ago—I had 10 children—three died of paralysis in infancy, and six were born dead—my husband was sober and kind till a change came over him, and for three years he got worse and worse, and it was found necessary to remove him to an asylum—he was fond of his child, Lucy Elizabeth, until he was afflicted—when that child was about 10 months old, and was lying in its cot, my husband was standing over it with a table-knife—I had it out of his hand before he had time to do anything—he looked silly—I thought he was going to kill the child, but I did not give him the opportunity—he had always got his pocket-knife open, and he took it to bed with him—he was always rubbing up knives—he remained in the asylum from June 13th, 1895, till August 30th, 1897; then he was allowed to come home again; then he got worse and became quite ill, and was taken back to the asylum on February 22nd, 1900.
Cross-examined. My husband had three sisters and three brothers—they were all right, as far as I know—one brother was Joseph—he is here.
JOSEPH SALMON . I am the brother of Thomas Salmon, whose widow has just given evidence—I had a son Joseph—at 12 years old he was mischievous and troublesome—he was sent to a reformatory—he died in Hereford Infirmary after a fall—it was then discovered that he had brain disease—this is the certificate—(This certified death from tuberculosis of the brain).
WILLIAM EDWARD HODSON . I live at Bishop's Stortford—I remember attending Thomas Salmon, the cousin of the prisoner's father, of New Town, Bishop's Stortford, for eight years—he suffered from epileptic fits, which were followed by paralysis, which affected his brain—he was taken to the asylum; he was let out for about four years, but was taken back again—I heard that he died there—I do not know if he died raving mad—Dr. Morris, the parish doctor, signed the certificate.
JOHN EDWARD MORRIS . I have been parish doctor at Bishop's Stortford for the last 30 years—I certified Thomas Salmon as insane on June 12th, 1895; I had attended him privately previously—he was suffering from constitutional syphilis—I had attended him for some years for the secondary stages of that disease—it very often causes insanity; it did in
this case—it is more likely to do so if it is neglected—if a person suffered from that disease, and neglected it, drink would make it worse.
Evidence in Reply.
EUSTACE HENRY LIPSCOMBE . I am a medical practitioner, of St. Albans, and am a Bachelor of Medicine, of Cambridge—I visited the prisoner about once a week, from May, 1897, to June, 1898—I did not observe anything to raise any suspicion as to his insanity.
Cross-examined. I had no particular reason for inquiring into his insanity.
HENRY CHARLTON BASTIAN , M.D. & F.R.C.P. I am senior physician to the Hospital for Paralysis and Epilepsy—I was asked by the Director of Public Prosecutions, to report what my opinion was of the state of the prisoner's sanity—I made myself acquainted with the history of the case; I also conferred with Dr. Scott, the medical officer of Holloway Gaol—I saw the prisoner on January 4th and 7th—I discovered no evidence what ever of insanity; he seemed to be suffering from no delusion; there was no history of epilepsy—my opinion was that his mind on December 15th was perverted from the effects of drink after a long abstinence and trouble combined—I think he would know the quality of any acts that he did—I saw nothing to make me think that he would not know that the act he had committed was wrong.
Cross-examined. The first time I saw him was about three weeks after the crime—the only direct evidence I can give is from what I saw of him on January 4th and 7th—I looked out for any possibilities indicating insanity, not especially for delusions—I talked to him about his act—if there are any delusions they generally come out—I should say the act was the act of a man whose mind was perverted by insanity or by drink and trouble combined—I know the prisoner was accusing the husband of having improper relations with a Mrs. Burdett—I have seen the letter from the prisoner; I consider it unreasonable to a certain extent—I see that it does not make sense, but that bears out my supposition that his mind was confused by drink—I think he was under the influence of drink when the act was done to a certain extent—I do not mean he was drunk in the ordinary sense of the word, but that his mind had been altered and warped by the effects of drink; I think that, looking at his history and his mental condition, on the 15th his mind was not in its normal condition—there is insanity, quite apart from any delusions at all, which may take a homicidal course—it may come on and go off very suddenly—I do not know Dr. Luff's book on Medical Jurisprudence—I agree that changes take place—I do not understand what he means by "The first alteration is the change of temperament"—I agree that emotions change, and persons may acquire a dislike or hatred for persons they were formerly attached to, especially when the insanity comes on slowly—impulsive insanity is implied in cases where the patent is driven to acts of violence, he being for the time overpowered—the characteristic feature of that form of insanity is an uncontrollable impulse to take life, and the impulse is frequently directed to those who are dearest, but they do the act through some delusions; there must be insanity in the minds of persons doing acts like that, but I think there must be
delusions at the back of it, and there must be a motive—if a person has a bad disposition, that must be taken into consideration, and it was so by me—I think that the majority of cases in which the persons give themselves up and confess to the crime are cases in which the act has been committed by an insane person—syphilis may be the cause of insanity if it affects the brain—I know the prisoner has been complaining of pains in his head, and I know he was discharged from the Marines suffering from syphilis, which had not been cured—syphilis was apparently the cause of the insanity of his uncle—if a man with a tendency to insanity in his family leads a sober and quite life, he may get through life without it developing—there have been cases in which people undoubtedly insane have committed crimes, although no trace of delusions has been found—I remember the case of Dr. Powell—I saw him at Broadmoor—no trace of insanity was found in him—I know Dr. Savage's book—I agree that in impulsive insanity there is oftentimes very little to be found wrong with the patient before or after a crime has been committed, but I believe careful investigation would always show that there was a change.
Re-examined. I have made a special study of insanity for something like 35 years, three years at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, where I was assistant medical superintendent—I always make an absolutely impartial inquiry—I should be unwilling to accept an act as an insane act in which no trace of insanity could be found either before or after.
JAMES SCOTT . I am medical officer at Holloway Gaol—I have had considerable experience in questions of insanity—I have been at Holloway for five years, and for 20 years in the prison service—the prisoner was received into Holloway Gaol on December 15th, eight or nine hours after the crime—I saw him almost immediately; I knew what he was charged with; I have seen him daily since then—I have not been able to detect insanity in him.
Cross-examined. I said in my report, "His impulsive nature"—I meant that he has a strong and violent temper—I have heard what sort of life he has led and of his family history; that would all tend to his impulsiveness—I have heard Dr. Bastian's evidence—I agree that an attack of insanity may come on and go without leaving any marked symptoms—I agree in the main with Dr. Bastian—I do not think that impulsive insanity has frequently a homicidal tendency—I should expect to find the prisoner with a bad family history—unusual violence in a crime like this would lead me to look very carefully for insanity; the presumption would be in favour of it, and assuming that there is an absence of motive, it would raise a similar presumption.
By the COURT. In forming my opinion I have taken into consideration all the familiar matters known to those acquainted with medical jurisprudence.
GUILTY .— DEATH.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. HODGSON Prosecuted and MR. BURNIE Defended.
WILLIAM RUSSELL . I am a fishmonger, of 1, Point Pleasant, Wandsworth—I have known the prisoners for some time—on November 15th, between 4 and 5 p.m., I was in High Street, Wandsworth—I saw the prisoners, and spoke to them—we went in to the Spread Eagle public-house—I had some drink with them; I stood them drinks; I had ₤6 or ₤7 in my pocket—when I paid for the drinks I pulled some gold and silver mixed out of my pocket—the prisoners were standing alongside me then—I was sober—we stayed there till two or three minutes to five—I know a man named Vicars; he was in there too—my brother came in—we had an altercation about some horse-dealing affairs—the landlady refused to serve us with any more drink, and the prisoner, my brother, Vicars and myself all went outside—Battershell said, "I will see you home, Bill"—he got hold of my arm, and the other prisoner the other arm, and we wont through the High Street—I have had an accident to my leg, and cannot walk properly—we went to the Prince Alfred—me and Battershell went in; Maloney stayed outside—we were not served—we went out; both the prisoners got hold of my arms again, and we went to North Place—I felt Battershell's hands in my pockets; I fell on the back of my head, on a door-step—Maloney stood in the road; nobody was about—it is a very dark street—we got there just before six—I became insensible, and when I came to, I found my pockets were empty.
Cross-examined. I had not been into any public-houses that day before the Spread Eagle; we were in there about half an hour—I was sober when I left—I did not say before the Magistrate, "I left the Spread Eagle after 5 o'clock; I was in drink"—I signed my depositions—I said, "All I was drinking was port wine"—the prisoners were sober, and so was Vicars—the landlord of the Prince Alfred knew I had been laid up for some time, and he said to me, "If I were you, Bill, I would get home"—he is here to-day—he did not come to the door to see me off—Maloney had not gone away then—Battershell did not leave me before I was robbed.
WILLIAM VICARS . I was in the Spread Eagle on November 15th—I know the prosecutor and the prisoners well—I am a plumber, and live at 36, Ironmills Place, Wandsworth—the prisoners were in my company; we went into the Spread Eagle soon after 4 o'clock—they and the prosecutor were ordered to leave by the landlady—the prosecutor was quarrelling with his brother.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor and the prisoners had been drinking; they had had more than was good for them.
Re-examined. The prosecutor paid for the prisoners' drinks; I paid for myself.
noise outside the door—I went to the door, which was burst open, and saw a man lying on top of another—I did not see anybody else there—I shut the door, and locked it—I do not know either of the men—as I went to the door I heard someone say, "Get up, Bill."
EDWARD GEORGE KIRK . I am a fishmonger, and live at the same house as the prosecutor—on November 15th I was called to 26, North Place—I found the prosecutor lying on his back, with his head on a step—me and his sister picked him up; he was insensible; when we got him into the light we found his pockets were hanging out—we took him home.
JOSEPH GOUGH (Police Sergeant, V). I received information of this assault and robbery from the prosecutor on November 16th—on the 17th I went to 35, Ironmill Road, with Dectective Heard—I saw the prisoners, and told them they would be charged together with assaulting and robbing William Russell in North Place, and stealing from him several pounds—Maloney said, "I was not there"—Battershell made no reply—I took them to the station; they were charged, and made no reply,
By the COURT. This case was not disposed of sooner because the prosecutor was too ill with his leg.
Cross-examined. I told them that 6 o'clock was the time the robbery took place—Maloney said, "I was at home at that time."
WILLIAM HEARD (Detective, V). On November 17th I went with Sergeant Gough to arrest the prisoners—I took charge of Maloney—outside the door Maloney's wife called across to Mrs. Barley, who lives opposite "What time did my husband come home on Thursday night?"—she said "About seven, to the best of my memory"—then Mrs. Maloney drew her attention to the fact that he was at home about five—at the Police Court Mrs. Barley said it was 5 o'clock.
Cross-examined. When Maloney was told the charge he said, "I had a drink with his brother Jim in the Spread Eagle"—he did not say what time he got home—I signed my deposition, which says in it, "I was at home at 5 o'clock"—I know there is an order issued by the Commissioner that police officers should make a note of what prisoners say—I did not comply with that order.
Maloney, in his defence, on oath, said that he was in the Spread Eagle with the prosecutors brother, Battershell and Vicars; that they had all had too much drink; that he came out of the public-house, having the prosecutor inside, and went home, where he arrived about 4.50; and that he knew nothing about the assault and robbery.
Battershell, in his defence, on oath, said that he was in the public-house with the prosecutor, who was very drunk; that they came out, when Maloney went home; that he and the prosecutor went into the Ram public-house, and from there to the Prince Alfred; that the landlord would not serve them, and asked him to take the prosecutor outside; that he took him about 20 yards down the street, but, as he kept stumbling, he left him lying on the ground 40 or 50 yards from North Place; that he did not go to North Place with the prosecutor, or rob him.
Evidence for the Defence.
Wandsworth—I know the prisoners and the prosecutor—on November 15th the prosecutor and Battershell came into my bar about 6.30—I refused to serve them, because they were intoxicated—the prosecutor tried to go to sleep on a seat—I asked Battershell to see him home—I assisted Battershell to get the prosecutor outside—I went outside the door—I did not see Maloney there—Battershell and the prosecutor went along together.
Cross-examined. Battershell and the prosecutor went in the direction of Wharf Road—I was first asked anything about this case on the Saturday night following—I knew the prosecutor had bad an accident to his leg—he was not lame when he came into my place—he was more intoxicated than Battershell.
Re-examined. There was no other man with them when they left my place.
ALICE JOHNSON . I am the wife of George Johnson, a general dealer, of 2, Wardell Street, Wandsworth—I know Maloney—I heard of his arrest on the Monday following November 15th—on November 15th I was out with my husband; we met Maloney about 4.30, opposite the paper mills—we went into the Horse and Groom with him, and had a glass of bitter each—I think Maloney paid—he said he had some grapes to clean, so he was going home—I think he had had enough to drink—my husband is not here; he has fractured his ribs.
Cross-examined. Maloney was with us about a quarter of an hour on November 15th—he did not go in the direction of the Spread Eagle when we parted—I did not hear Mrs. Barley give her evidence at the Police-court.
Re-examined. When we parted we went in the direction of the Spread Eagle, and Maloney went the other way—I did not go into the Spread Eagle.
ANNIE MALONEY . I am Maloney's wife—on the day he was taken into custody I was at home—he came home about 5 o'clock; he did not go out again—when the police came I did not call out to Mrs. Barley about what time my husband came home on the previous Thursday; I asked her what time I brought my baby to her; she said it was between 6 and 7 o'clock.
Cross-examined. I did not hear any of the evidence given at the Police-court; I could not get in.
ELLEN BARLEY . I am married, and live at 38, Wardell Street, opposite Maloney's—on the Thursday before Maloney was arrested he came home at 4.50—I saw him coming up the street, as I was looking out at my door for my little girl, who was coming from school—she leaves school at, 4.30—Maloney was the worse for drink—he went indoors—on the day he was taken into custody Mrs. Maloney called across to me and asked me what time my little girl could have her baby—she never said anything about her husband coming home.
Cross-examined. I was at the Police-court—I did not hear Heard say that Mrs. Maloney asked me what time her husband had come home on the Thursday evening—I cannot remember whether I was in Court when he gave his evidence or not—I did not know anything had occurred until after the prisoner had been taken.
MALONEY— NOT GUILTY; BATTERSHELL— GUILTY of robbery without violence. He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony on September 26th, 1893; and another conviction was proved against him.— Twelve months hard labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
144. SAMUEL MITCHELL (57) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining from Henry John Broad brook a gold watch and chain, and to having obtained credit by false pretences; having been convicted of felony at Winchester on June 22nd, 1895.— Seven other convictions were proved against him, and that he had two and a-half years to serve of a former sentence.
Five years' penal servitude.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4TH,1901.