CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 13TH, 1902.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE.
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the King'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 13th, 1902, and following days,
Before the Right Hon. SIR JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Knt., M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Rt. Hon. LORD ALVERSTONE, G.C.M.G., Lord Chief Justice of England; the Hon. Sir ARTHUR RICHARD JELF , one other 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., K.C., Recorder of the said City; JOHN POUND , Esq.; FREDERICK PRATT ALLISTON, Esq.; and THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, Esq., M.D.; other of the Aldermen of the said City; ALBERT FREDERICK BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and LUMLEY SMITH , Esq., K.C., Judge of the City of London Court, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
DIMSDALE, MAYOR. SECOND 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 13th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
105. WALTER HEATH (82), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing £13, the money of George Whitehead, his master, also to stealing £19 4s., the money of Henry John Manning, his master, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on November 6th, 1900. Eighteen months' hard labour.
(106) THOMAS GEORGE WAKEFIELD , to forging and uttering an undertaking for the payment of 10s. 6d. with intent to defraud; also an undertaking for £1 1s. with intent to defraud. Six months' in the Second Division. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(107) FREDERICK JOHN RIDGWELL (29) , to stealing, while employed under the Post Office, a post-letter containing a Postal Order for 10s. 6d., the property of the Postmaster-General. Nine months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(109) JOSEPH EDWARD MOULTON (34) , to stealing, while employed under the Post Office, a post-letter containing two Postal Orders for 4s. and 10s., the property of the Postmaster-General. Nine months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(110) JOHN WILKINSON , to embezzling £23 9s. 6d., £18 5s. 9d., £9 7s. 2d. and £4 15s., the moneys of John Taylor Graham, his master; also, to forging and uttering the endorsement on an order for the payment of £4 15s, with intent to defraud. The prisoner's total defalcations were£216 11s. Twelve months' hard labour. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(111) ARTHUR CORNISH , to stealing a bicycle, the property of Cornelius Edward Porter, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on November 5th, 1898. Two other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
NEW COURT—Monday, January 13th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
ANNIE JORNS . I assist in a confectioner's shop at 5, The Mall, Ealing—one evening in December the prisoner came in for some chocolate and almonds, price 4d., and gave me a bad florin—I bent it in the till tester and it bent nearly in half, so much that anybody could see it was bad afterwards—I said, "Did you know this was bad?"—he made no answer—I gave it back to him, and he gave me a good sixpence without my asking him—he took that from his right-hand pocket, but he had the bad coin in his hand—I gave him 1s. 2d. change, but that was 2d. too much; I made a mistake—he left, and I next saw him with others at the police court and pointed him out.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I bent it considerably.
LILIAN JACKMAN . I am 13 years old, and live with my aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards, at 1, Spring Bridge, Ealing—they keep a tobacconist's shop and I help—on December 17th, about 7 p.m., the prisoner came in and asked for a twopenny cigar and a packet of Christmas fancies—he gave me a florin—I called my aunt and gave it to her—she gave him change and he left,—I squeezed my aunt's hand to keep the coin, and went out and saw the prisoner standing still, speaking to another man by St. George's Church—I asked him to come back to Mrs. Edwards—he went back with me, and I saw him bring out more money—my uncle and aunt were there.
ADA EDWARDS . My husband is a tobacconist of 1, Spring Bridge, Ealing—on December 19th, my niece called me into the shop and gave me a florin—I gave the man 1s. 9d. change and he left—I then tried the coin—it was not at all bent, but I bent it—when the prisoner came back with my niece I said, "This is a bad coin, did you know it?"—he said "No"—I asked him if he knew where he had it—he said "Yes," and he would take it back, and gave me a good half-crown—I gave the coin to my husband—this is the bad coin.
Cross-examined. You asked if you might have the florin back—my husband said that he would keep it, and I know he had it afterwards.
FRANCIS ALBERT ELWARDS . I am the husband of the last witness—on the evening of December 19th, I went into the shop and found the prisoner there—my wife handed me a coin, I believe this is it—I asked him where he got it—he said in his wages—I said that I must detain it—he said "I cannot afford to lose it"—I said "I cannot afford to lose the other money, and must take you to the station"—I asked his name—he said "George Williams, 16, Thomas Street, Shepherd's Bush"—he left, and I went after him, and went to the police station—as I came back with a policeman we saw the prisoner crossing the road and coming towards us—he was on the same side with us, but it was very dark—I followed him and he was stopped—I gave the coin to the inspector at the station.
THOMAS PARSONS (Police Sergeant, 11 X.) Mr. Edwards called me from the police station—I went out with him and saw the prisoner walking towards us on the same side of the road, but as soon as he saw us he
crossed the road—he was about forty yards from us—I went over and told him I was a police officer, as I was in plain clothes, and should take him to the station on a charge of uttering counterfeit coin—he said, "All right"—I searched him at the station and found three shillings, one sixpence, tenpence in bronze, three cigars, one cigarette, and two packets of sweets (Produced)—there is a description of the articles on one of the-bags—he was asked his name and address, he said, "No home"—I have made inquiries and there is no such street as Thomas Street, Shepherd's Bush—the inspector produced the counterfeit florin.
Prisoner's Defence. If I had known it was bad I could have got into a car which passes every few minutes. I did my best to rectify my mistake—I came back to the same spot and was arrested there.
Five previous convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted, and the evidence was interpreted to the Prisoner.
LEONARD HAMILTON . I am booking clerk at Shadwell Railway Station—on December 13 at 7.30 p.m. the prisoner came and asked in English for a return ticket for Highbury—the price is eightpence—he tendered a five-shilling piece—I told him it was a bad colour and bent it in the tester and told him it was bad—he said, "I know where I got it; I will take it back"—I straightened it and gave it back to him, and he left'.
Cross-examined. "When I was testing it you said, If it is a bad coin break it."
JOHN ELLIS . I am fourteen years old, and help my father, who keeps the Railway Arms opposite the Shadwell Railway Station—on December 13th about 7.30 I was in the bar, and the prisoner walked by twice and looked in at the window each time, and then came in and called for a glass of ale, price Id.—he put down this 5s. piece (Produced) very lightly, I did not hear any sound—I tried it with acid, and said, "This is bad"—he said, "What! bad money," and looked a bit surprised—I called my father and gave it to him.
SAMUEL BUTCHER (103 H.) I was called on December 13th, and spoke to the prisoner in English—he said, "I did not know it was bad"—I took him to the station—I only found a halfpenny on him—on the way to the station he said, "The girl I am living with changed a sovereign in Petticoat Lane, and received two five-shilling pieces with other money in
change"—he was charged with passing it and said, "If I had wanted to pass it I could have got rid of it," and that he took it to the railway station, and the clerk refused to take it—I sent for the booking clerk, and the prisoner then said in English that he took it at the station.
Prisoner's defence. I asked a girl where I went to learn English to give me some money, as I had to be at the Polytechnic at 7.30.; she told me to go to the box and take some—I saw a half-crown and a five-shilling piece. I took the five-shilling piece, went to the railway station and asked for a return ticket, and the clerk said, "This coin has a bad colour."I said, "If it has that does not mean that it is a false coin." I went out and being too late for my lesson, I went into the shop and said to myself, "I will try and hear what they say," and was locked up— GUILTY .— One month hard labour.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
MARY PERRY . I am barmaid at the Ship Hotel, Falcon Court, City—one day in December the prisoner came in for a pint of ale and tendered a shilling—I told him it was bad, and took it to the manageress, who bent it and gave it to me—I gave it back to the prisoner, and he gave me a good one—on January 1st, the prisoner came again—I recognised him the moment he came in—he asked for a half-pint of ale, and tendered a shilling—I took it to the same manageress—she said, "This is the same man"—the prisoner was walking out—a policeman had been sent for, and he was made to come back—he did not ask for his change.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I do not know what day it was, but it was rather more than a fortnight before January 1st—the coin was returned to you with a caution, because I thought you were an honest man.
MARY LUXTON . I am manageress of the Ship Hotel—some time before January 1st, the prisoner came in between 4.30 and 4.35—business was slack—I saw him again on January 1st, and recognised him as the same man.
ROBERT CHASTON (773, City). I was called—the manager said that the prisoner had passed a bad shilling, and had done so a fortnight before—the prisoner did not dispute it—I searched him at the station and found a sixpence and 1 1/2 d.—he said, "My name is Arthur Wellesby Peters; I will not give any address or any account of myself."
Prisoner's defence. "A few weeks before" is a long time to remember a person who has a glass of ale, and I ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I passed the shilling innocently on January 1st. I do not know where I got it.
GUILTY .— Six months' hard labour.
OLD COURT—Tuesday, January 14th, 1902.
Before Mr. Commissioner L. Smith, K.C.
MR. BOYD for the prosecution offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
117. CHAS. GLEADOWE (25) , Unlawfully obtaining from Wheeler &Co. 3 vests, 3 pairs of pants and other goods, by false pretences. Another Count, unlawfully incurring a debt and liability with Sarah Edwards.
MR. WALSH Prosecuted.
FRANK LENTON PICKERING . I am salesman to Wheeler & Co., Ltd., of Poultry and Queen Victoria Street—I was in the Queen Victoria Street department on November 29th, about mid-day—the prisoner came in and said that he had not an account with us, but he wanted to order some goods—he wrote his name on a piece of paper, as he said he had not got a card with him—I have not that piece of paper now—I have searched for it, but it cannot be found—in the ordinary course it would be sent up to be booked in the order books—the prisoner wrote "S. Wechsler, 1, Kensington Gardens Square, and The Yost Typewriter Co., Ltd., Holborn Viaduct"—he also wrote some references on the piece of paper—one was Oetzman, Ltd., Hampstead Road, and the other, the Birkbeck Bank—I took his order; this is a list of the things he bought—they are vests, pants, ties, an umbrella, an overcoat, a hat, and other things—I did not sell him the last three items on the bill—the total amount is. £19 17s., and they were all delivered by our man, on December 4th—the bill was made out to S. Weehsler—before December 4th we made an inquiry at Oetzman's, and received this letter from them (This stated that if their inquiry referred to Mr. S. Wechsler of the Yost Co., they considered the credit mentioned would be justified.)—I have seen some of the goods since, they were produced to me by Inspector Holmes—I have identified them.
Cross-examined by the prisoner—If I had thought; that you were not Mr. Wechsler I should not have served you—I did not make a mistake in copying the name—I am not an expert in handwriting—I did not write "r" instead of "a," making "Wechsler" instead of "Wechslea."
JAMES DALE . I am in the tailoring department of Messrs. Wheeler, at Queen Victoria Street—the prisoner came in on November 29th—I did not know him before that—he gave the name of S. Wechsler—I took an order from him for a Raglan overcoat, a morning coat and vest, and a fancy vest—they are the last three items on this bill—they came to £9 6s.—I got his address from Mr. Pickering and wrote it in our book—this is the Raglan overcoat—the prisoner is wearing the other clothes now.
Cross-examined. The last witness did not give me your name when he gave me your address, because I had your name then—you gave me the name "S. Wechsler" yourself—I did not make a mistake in the name—I do not know if any account has been sent to you, or if any demand for payment has been made.
Cross-examined. I did not deliver an account at the same time.
SARAH EDWARDS . I am single, and live at 1, Kensington Gardens Square—the prisoner came to live at my house as a boarder on November 27th—he said his name was Mr. S. Wechsler, and that he had a type-writing business in the city—he stayed a week and a day—I believed his statement as to his position—I gave him credit for the week—his bill came to 28s.—I gave it to him on December 4th—some parcels came for him on December 4th—he left on December 5th—he did not give me notice that he was leaving, and did not pay his bill—he only stayed one night after the parcels arrived—he did not say that anything was wrong with his bill.
Cross-examined. You wrote "S. Wechsler" on a piece of paper—I am sure I did not make a mistake about the name—I gave you a key to the house—I had no objection to your carrying it about with you—you told me I could have references when you came, bat you only gave me the name of one.
SAMUEL WECHSLER . I am manager to the Yost Typewriting Co., Ltd., Holborn—I did not go at any time in November to Wheeler & Co. to order any goods, nor did I authorise the prisoner to do so—I employed him as shorthand writer from May last year to the end of August—I discharged him on suspicion of stealing postal orders—I knew him as Wechslea Ellerton—he would get to know something of my private affairs—I moved from my house, and Messrs. Oetzman did some of the moving for me—the prisoner would know that—I had business transacttions with the Birkbeck Bank while he was in my employ—I did not know anything of his going to the lodging house in Kensington Gardens Square.
Cross-examined. I am never called Wechslea—my initial is "S," not "A"—when I heard somebody had been to Wheeler to get the goods, I only suspected you; you were living in the same boarding house as one of my travellers, and that helped in your arrest—I gave the police information, and I told them that if you were the person, I was in a position to hand you over to the police because one of my travellers had mentioned to me that morning that you had come to stay in that boarding house—for all I know, you may have done business with the two references—you could only have used my name to defraud.
RICHARD YOUNG . I am manager to Mr. Chester, pawnbroker, of Stanhope Street, Strand—on December 9th, the prisoner brought a waistcoat, some pants, and a singlet to pawn—he gave the name of Arthur Ellerton—I let him have 4s. on them.
F. L. PICKERING (He-examined). These goods (Produced) are the ones I sold; they came from our shop.
----MASLIN. I am a clerk to Messrs. Oetzman, of Hampstead Road—I do not know Mr. Wechsler personally—I know him as a man of business, and can give reference to his credit—I know nothing of the prisoner, and cannot give any reference to his credit.
Cross-examined. I do not know that you had any dealings with us in September, or October, under the name of A. Ellerton Wechslea—we have a salesman named Stewart, he could have served you without my knowledge—I did not write this letter from our firm, our manager wrote it.
—HOLMES (Detective Inspector, City.) I went to a boarding house at 15, Bedford Place, Russell Square, on December 19th—I saw the prisoner there, he had been there for six days—I said, to him "I am a police officer, and am going to charge you with stealing the goods, mentioned in this list by means of a trick"—he said, "Not me"—I produced it—I said, "What good for you to talk like that; you are wearing the clothes now"—he said, "Can't it be settled?"—I said, "Undoubtedly it will be settled later; show me the way to your bedroom"—in the room I found an overcoat, an umbrella, and a hat, all part of the property, lying on the bed—I said, "Where is the bag?"—he said, "At the railway station"—I said, "What railway station?"—he said "The Museum Station, Electric Railway"—I said, "Where is the ticket?"—he produced it—I took him into custody, and on the way to the City I called at the railway station and obtained the bag, which I have got here; it had been left there that afternoon—it had a lot of the property inside it, and I recovered some more from pawnbrokers, who gave it up when I went for it—I took the prisoner to the City and told him he would be charged with stealing it—he said, "I do not see how you can do so"—I said, "You have done so, and you will be detained here."
Cross-examined. I believe you have been known as Wechslea Ellerton nearly all the time you have been in London—I know a Mr. Anstell—I do not know if he is a personal friend of Mr. Wechsler—I believe he is a traveller for the Yost Typewriter Co.—I do not think it strange that you should have stayed on at Bedford Place because you obtained the goods as S. Wechsler—I have had two letters handed to me addressed to you—I opened them—I had no authority to do so—one of them was in reply to an application for some money.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he obtained the goods on a bona fide order; that no trick was used; that he gave a name, address, and a reference at the shop; that the name he gave was Wechslea, not Wechsler; and that it was Pickering's fault if the name was taken down wrong; that he had done business with Oetzmans and had drawn cheques over the counter at the Birkbeck Bank; that no account had been sent in, and that if one had been, payment would have been made within twenty-four hours.
GUILTY .—He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of forgery at Warwick On December 7th, 1898, when he was sentenced to seven, years' penal servitude, two previous convictions being proved against him then. One month on the first charge, and three years' penal servitude on the second, to run concurrently.
MR. INMAN Prosecuted.
HENRY LEVER . I carry on business as Lever Brothers, electricians, of 101, Daws Road, Fulham—the prisoner was my traveller—he had no authority to sign or endorse cheques—on December 3rd, Mr. Heatley brought me this cheque (Produced)—it is endorsed "Messrs. Lever Brothers," in the prisoner's writing—I did not authorise him to sign
that—he was on my premises the day before, and he should, in the ordinary course of his duty, have come on December 13th, but he never came back.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I had nothing out of the cheque—I believe the police have it now—I have given you authority to endorse postal orders under my supervision, which you brought to me when my hands were dirty—I had to complain several times of your being under the influence of drink—there were not two weeks' wages due to you; you overdrew your account 10s. the previous morning—you have lost me a good many customers.
By the COURT. He delivered some goods and got this cheque, and never paid it to me—he stayed away three days. '
SAMUEL EATLY . I am manager of the Lord Clyde, Escourt Road, Fulham—on December 12th, the prisoner came and asked if I was going to the bank—I said "Yes"—he asked me if I would run this cheque in for him, and he gave me 2s.—I gave him a pen and ink, and he signed it in my presence—it was returned by my bank—I went to Mr. Lever, and some time afterwards I spoke to the prisoner about it.
Cross-examined. You came back and were in my house for some time—I told you I had seen Mr. Lever, and advised you to go and see him.
ISAAC HUMPHREY (Detective, B.) I arrested the prisoner on December 12th, at 12.45 a.m.—I told him that the charge was forging and uttering the cheque, and obtaining the money by fraud—he said, "Yes, Mr. Lever owes me money and I have a right to do so."
Cross-examined. I did not take some money out of your pocket at the station—you had about 11s. on you.
The Prisoner's defence. My expenses were about 10s. a week, but I only drew on one occasion, and at the end of the week we used to square up, but sometimes it went for three weeks, and on this occasion there were two weeks due to me. I worked very hard for Mr. Lever, and we were very great friends—I have been in business 42 years, and have never had anything against me before—if I wanted to commit a fraud I should not have done it on a paltry sum of 18s., when I had the opportunity of taking much larger amounts—I did this on the supposition that it was equivalent to signing postal orders—I had no criminal intention.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. COOPER Prosecuted.
JAMES ARMSTRONG RAWLINGS . I am a merchant of 71, East Street—on December 3Oth about 5.30 p.m. I was in Great Tower Street on my way to Mark Lane Station, and the prisoner rushed across the road rather the reverse way, but he turned sharp round and snatched my chain, but left my watch—I struck at him with my umbrella, but do not know whether I hit him—there was a hue and cry after him, but I lost sight of him—he crossed the road and went down St. Dunstan's Hill, and was taken 100 yards away—my chain was worth about £10.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I had a good look at you, and am certain you are the man.
NORMAN PRENTICE . I am a clerk at 9 and 10, Great Tower Street—on December 30th, at 5.30,1 came out of the office and saw Mr. Rawlings on the opposite side of the road—the prisoner crossed the road and did something with his hand and went down St. Dunstan's Hill—I have no doubt the prisoner is the man—he tried to thwart me—Mr. Rawlings had his umbrella up, and called "Stop, thief"—I never lost sight of him—nobody else was running away.
HENRY KING (757, City). I took the prisoner on St. Dunstan's Hill—he said, "I am not the one; I have nothing on me"—nothing was found on him—I took him about 100 yards from the spot—he had been stopped by a man and handed over to Mr. Rawlings—I searched for the chain, but it could not be found.
GUILTY .—He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court on June 26th, 1899, and two other convictions were proved against him.— Twelve months hard labour, having to complete his former sentence.
MR. JOHNSON Prosecuted.
AUGUSTA HOFT . I am the wife of Rudolph Hoft, and we occupy two rooms on the ground floor at 36, Great Titchfield Street—on December 16th we went out together between 11 and 12 p.m.—we returned at 12.30 a.m., and I found the kitchen window broken, and some diamond earrings, an overcoat, some watches, an umbrella, 4 gold rings, 4 silk handkerchiefs, and 4 yards of silk had been stolen, value £25—I had left my black poodle dog at home; when I got back he was ill and could not get up; he smelted deeply—these (Produced) are my goods.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. My husband sent a German fellow to you the night before you were apprehended—you told my husband that if he waited two days you would bring him the pawn tickets for some ear-rings and a brush, and my husband was to give you £5.
GEORGE KIMMEL . I am a porter of 4, Gouse street—on December 17th, the prisoner came in in the afternoon—he had an overcoat and a watch—he said he had no use for them—I bought them—Detective Fox came afterwards and I gave them up—I did not see the prisoner any more till he was arrested—on the 16th he came in and put an umbrella under the mattress of our bed, and on the 17th, when he came he asked my wife if, she had found her Christmas present—she said "No," and he said "Well, "here it is," and pulled it out from under the mattress—these are the over-coat, the watch, and the umbrella (Produced).
Cross-examined. You did not tell me to pawn the things—I pawned them in the name of Smith, because I was short of money—you did not let me have the things back as there was a bit of a bother about them.
ANNIE KIMMEL . I live at 4, Gouse street—I remember the prisoner coming on December 17th—he said, "Did you find your present? I gave you a present last night, I bring it home to you"—I said, "No, I did not find it"—he said, "Here is a present for you," and he picked the umbrella out of the bed—then he said, "I have got some nice ear-rings for you; I can do nothing with them"—he went away then—at night he came again and said the detectives were after him—I said I wanted to see a constable—one of the fellows with the prisoner went out for a constable—instead of bringing one back he came in and threw me down—they tried to get the ear-rings back—my little child called out "Mamma, mamma, Uncle Charlie wants to kill you"—that is the prisoner.
Cross-examined. You did not say you would get into trouble for having the property—I do not keep an immoral house.
WALTER GOSS (384 D.) I arrested the prisoner about 6 p.m. on December 31st, in the Cambridge public house—I was on duty there in plain clothes—I said that I was a police officer and should arrest him for burglary on December 16th—he said, "You have made a mistake, I am not the man, there is a man very much like me"—I said, "You are the man I want"—he said, "I suppose it will be an identification job"—I took him to Tottenham Court Road Police Station.
JAMES BUXTON (Police Sergeant.) I examined the premises at 36, Great Titchfield Street—an entry had been effected by getting over the area railings and forcing the kitchen window; the catch had been broken—I first saw the prisoner at 7 p.m. on December 31st—I said, "I am a police officer; you will be charged with committing a burglary at 36, Great Titch-field Street, and stealing a quantity of articles—he replied, "Yes, I heard about this, I had a coat, a watch, and an umbrella, I got them from a little German at Finch's in Mortimer Street about 10.30—I took them round to George's"; that is Kimmel's, "J gave him the coat, the watch was not much good, and I pawned it"—I produced the umbrella—I said, "This is the umbrella which was left behind '—he said, "Yes, that is the one I left there"—I said, "There are some diamonds that you gave to Mrs. Kimmel, and whom you assaulted when you obtained possession of them again"—he said, "I know nothing about them, I was drunk at the time."
Cross-examined. You told me you had given George two articles.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am guilty of receiving the watch, umbrella, and coat, but know nothing of the robbery.'
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he got the goods from a German in Finch's public house; that he was not guilty of the robbery; that he gave the things away; that he went to try and get them again; and that he was guilty of receiving the property.
GUILTY on the second Count. — Twelve months' hard labour.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 15th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Jelf.
MR. HARRISON for the, prosecution offered no evidence.— NOT GUILTY .
MR. PURCELL Prosecuted, and MR. BARRETT Defended.
ANNIE WALKLETT . I am the wife of George Henry Walklett, a shunter in the service of the Railway Company at Reading—I made the acquaintance of the prisoner at Reading at the beginning of September—he had just returned from South Africa—I became on very intimate terms with him—on October 13th I left my husband and went to a Mrs. Clifford's at 146, Caversham Road, Reading—I stayed there about five days, and during that time the prisoner came there—he once slept there on a sofa—on October 23rd I left with him, and went to lodgings at 21, Lower Richmond Road, Mortlake, where we occupied one room—he had some money from his Army pay—I had no money—while at Mortlake I made the acquaintance of Mr. Egan, of the Mulberry Tree at Twickenham—I wished to learn the business of a barmaid—I mentioned it to Mr. Egan, and he arranged that I should go the the Mulberry Tree to learn the business—for the first week I went there in the morning and left in the evening—I was still living with the prisoner, who got a situation as billiard marker at the Crown at Twickenham—he used to come to the Mulberry Tree and take me home every evening—after the first week I slept at the Mulberry Tree—I went to live there about three weeks before December 10th—the prisoner came there nearly every day—we were on very good terms then—on December 9th I received a letter from him—it has been destroyed since—I cannot remember what was in it—on December 10th I saw the prisoner in the bar about 9 a.m.—he asked me to leave with him on the Friday, and that if I did not go with him he would shoot me—he left the bar then, and I next saw him between 7 and S p.m. the same day—I was in the bar when he came—he asked me if I had thought any more about what he had said to me in the morning—I said I had not—he said I should know the consequences if I did not, and that if I did not leave with him, or go and see him alone on Friday, he would shoot me over the bar—I did not say anything—he stayed in the bar a little time—nothing passed between us—I next saw him in the bar parlour—the governor called me in there, and the prisoner asked me to receive £5 from him on the Friday, when he would receive some money—I said I did not want any money—I had not time to say any more because he fired at me—he was then about two yards from me, and I bent down to escape to the bar—looking at this plan, the prisoner was standing at "A,"I was standing at "B," and Mr. Egan at "C"—while I was going into the bar the prisoner fired at me again.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was deeply in love with me, and I was always very fond of him—I am fond of him now—I have nothing to say against him—he treated me very kindly while I lived with him—he was very liberal with his money towards me—I sent a Christmas card to his solicitor for him on January 1st or 2nd—it is signed, "Queenie," that is myself—I do not think he intended to murder me on December 10th—he appeared to be troubled and excited on the evening of December 10th—I did not regard what he said on the 9th as serious, or I should have protected myself—he did not draw his revolver on that occasion—I did not call to anybody then—I burnt his letter almost before I had finished reading it. It was a very kind letter—I desired to see him while he was on remand—I did not see him—I do not think he said in the letter, "By your forsaking me you are driving me mad"—he implored me to go back to him—I do not remember his saying that he was much worried by my being away from him; there was no threat in it—it was a pathetic letter—he first met me in Reading on September 7th—when we first met I do not think he knew I was married—Miss Leather was in the bar with me on the morning of the 10th—she did not say that the prisoner had asked her to tell me that he wished me to act differently, as I was driving him clean off his head—when the prisoner offered me £5 in the bar parlour I declined it, and said I should like 15s. to pay a bill with—up to that time I was perfectly friendly with him—he did not threaten me on the morning of the 10th—when he asked me then to go back and live with him, I did not say, "No, I do not want anything more to do with you—I do not want to see you any more"—I did not lead him to suppose that I had abandoned him—I did not notice that he was very much excited—I had not time to see in which direction the pistol was pointed in the parlour—I cannot say if he fired at me or if he fired at random, or if it was an accident—when the second shot was fired I was fleeing from the room—he had not been drinking heavily in my presence—I know he was invalided home from South Africa suffering from enteric fever—I know he had two enteric attacks out there—he frequently said he had pains—he was generally in a poor state of health.
Re-examined. Miss Leather only told me that the prisoner wanted to speak to me—I never had any wish to leave him—I did not tell him that my husband had seen me or threatened me—when the prisoner asked me to go and live with him I refused, while my husband was living—I told him I had got a good place, and that he had one too, and I thought it would be best for us to work together until something happened to my husband—I do not remember what he said.
By MR. BARRETT. That conversation took place about December 7th or 8th—it was before I received the affectionate letter of the 10th—we were living as man and wife at Lower Richmond Road.
CHARLES VINCENT MORGAN . I live at 12, Garfield Road, Lavender Hill—in August last I was in South Africa—I met the prisoner there—I saw him again in England on December 9th—he said, "Have you still got your revolver which you had out at the front?"—I said, "Yes, I have it upstairs somewhere"—he said, "Well, somebody came in and wanted to buy a revolver; I knew you had one, and I told them I would inquire
about it;" "Do you care to sell yours?"—I said, "Yes, if you can get anything for it, certainly; I do not want it"—I went upstairs and found it and brought it down, and showed it to him—he said, "Well, I dare say I can get rid of it"—I said, "You had better put it into your pocket, and show it to your friend"—he said, "I will; have you got any cartridges for it?"—I said, "Yes, I have some, but I will keep them separate"—I thought the revolver and the cartridges apart were perfectly safe.
Cross-examined. He was in the same hospital as I was in South Africa—I know he had been very bad—I was not in his regiment—he bore a good character in the hospital—if a man was going to procure a revolver to commit suicide I do not think he would say so.
MARY SMITH . I keep a gunsmith's shop at 9, London Road, Twickenham—the prisoner came in between 5 and 6 p.m. on December 9 th—he asked if I had any cartridges to fit a Wembly revolver—I said I did not know the size of a Wembly revolver, but that if he could show me the bore I should know if I could fit it—he said he wanted the cartridges for practice, as he was going to South Africa—he fitted some cartridges into the revolver before he left.
DAISY LEATHER . I am a barmaid at the Mulberry Tree—the prisoner used to come there every morning for about a week, before December 10th—on December 10th he said he wished to see the prosecutrix—I said the governor was about, and I did not think he would like her to go out—he said he should shoot her over the bar if she did not go out to him—she was in the bar parlour then—I do not know if she could hear what he said—I said I should speak to Mr. Egan—the prisoner said he should turn the revolver upon Mr. Egan if he interfered—he moved his coat, and I thought he had a revolver—it was not sticking out of his coat—it was simply a lump of something—he generally called her"Annie"—he said he should like to see her on the Friday—I do not remember him saying anything else.
Cross-examined. The prosecutrix was known as "Queenie" by the customers—I have heard her addressed as Mrs. Manning—she was engaged there under the came of Mrs. Manning—I had not heard the prisoner threaten her except that once—I told Mr. Egan that he had done so—I went into the kitchen to fetch something—I was not afraid—I regarded it as an idle boast—I can not swear that the prisoner had a revolver in his pocket—I have taken several messages to the prosecutrix from him—they were only to ask her to speak to him—they were not threatening messages in any way—he did not ask me on one occasion to tell her that she was driving him off his head, and that he was very troubled—he never created any disturbance.
Re-examined. When I gave her his message that he wanted to see her, she said that she did not want to go out—I conveyed the message that he wanted to see her once or twice.
December 10th, in the evening, I was in the saloon bar—the prisoner came in about 7 or 7.30 p.m.—he asked me if he could speak to Queenie privately, and I said "No"—that was in consequence of information that had come to my knowledge—he asked again for a private interview—I asked what for—he said he wanted to make her an offer of a fiver out of his money that was coming to him—I said, "Speak to her over the bar"—he said he would sooner speak to her privately in the little room—he took up his position in the little room—I said "Certainly it is very nice of you to offer her a fiver if she will accept it"—the prosecutrix was in the bar—I told her a man wanted to speak to her—she came into the room—I was standing by the prisoner's side when she came in—he asked her if she would accept a fiver—she said, "I do not want anything to do----," and before she could say any more the revolver went off—I saw him take it out of his pocket and hold it straight in front of him, pointing at her chest—I caught hold of him by his wrist with one hand, and by his throat with the other—that would probably throw his hand up a couple of feet, and to one side—he was on my right, and I pulled his hand nearer to me—the prosecutrix twisted round, and ran or fell out—another shot went off—the prisoner and I both fell across a chair and I kept him there—somebody came in, and this revolver was found on the floor—I handed it to the police.
Cross-examined. I heard the prosecutrix say to the prisoner: "I do not want any money of you, or anything to do with you"—it seemed as if she was going to abandon him—she is still in my employ—I first knew that she was not married to the prisoner about three days before the shooting—I thought at first she was his wife—no threat was uttered in the bar parlour—the whole thing only took about a minute—I could see more than the prisoner could because I was standing beside him—the pistol was not pointed higher than at the heart—I am not sure if his hand was 3 feet or 5 feet from the ground when I caught it—I have shown no animosity against the prisoner; I should let him out if I had my will, it would make no difference to me: it would have been a serious matter if it had come off—I gave him in charge—the bullet struck the wall about 3 ft. 9 in. from the ground—the second shot was fired as we were falling.
Re-examined. I was standing by the side of the prisoner in consequence of information that had been given to me.
ANDREW CURCHER (748 T.) On December 10th, about 8.25 p.m., I was passing the Mulberry Tree; I saw a crowd, and the prisoner being ejected from the public house—the potman had hold of him—I arrested him—I told him I should take him into custody for shooting the barmaid at the Mulberry Tree with intent to murder her—I was in plain clothes—he said, "I am glad you came as I intended shooting her"—on the way to the station he said, "I hope she is dead, as I will swing for her"—the revolver Mr. Egan handed to me, it had then one undischarged cartridge in it—Mr. Egan gave me three cartridges.
Cross-examined. Someone in the crowd gave me information as I was passing the house—it was not Mr. Egan—I did not arrest the prisoner before I saw Mr. Egan—I went inside and told Mr. Egan I was a police
officer—the prisoner was standing in the roadway then—he made no attempt to escape—he was quite cool and in no way excited—he did not seem as if he had been drinking—he did not say anything to me as to the woman having thrown him over—I did not speak to him on the way to the station—he did not seem to be in such a mental condition that he did not know what he was saying or doing.
Re-examined. When I told Mr. Egan I was a constable he told me something.
HARRISON HILLMAN . I live at Cedar Villas, Twickenham—on December 10th I was in the Mulberry Tree—I heard two reports of fire arms and went into the bar parlour—I saw Mr. Egan holding the prisoner down in a chair behind the door—he said, "Find the revolver"—I found it on the floor and gave it to him.
Cross-examined. The bar parlour is close to the bar—the parlour door was open—if a row had been going on I should not have heard it because I was sitting about 20 yards off—I went into the parlour after it was all over.
WILLIAM LEE (Police Inspector T.) At 9 p.m. on Dec. 10th I found the prisoner detained at the station, and from what I was told I went to the Mulberry Tree and made inquiries—I returned to the station and said to the prisoner, "You will be charged with shooting at Annie Walklett with intent to murder her"—he said, "It is all right Sir, I did it"—he was then formally charged, and the charge read over to him—he made no reply—about 2 a.m. he said he wished to make a statement—I cautioned him and he made this statement which I took down—I read it over to him and he signed it—(Read) "I, William. Manning, after being duly cautioned that what I now say will be taken down and used in evidence against me, wish to make the following statement. I first met Mrs. Walklett on or about September 7th last at Reading. I was in her company every day, and stayed with her' ill late at night, and have on one or two occasions stayed with her till 4 or 5 a.m., when her husband, who was employed as shunter on the railway, was on night duty. On October 18th her husband kissed her and said "Good-by sand b----you, and, if you are hereto-night I will turn you out."This was about 12 a.m. I saw her about an hour later, and she told me of the incident, and what he had said, and she said she would drown herself. I gave her £5 in gold, and persuaded her not to do so. She packed up her things and sent them to Mrs. Clifford, 146, Caversham Road, Reading, she stayed there five days, during that time I stayed at the same house at night, I slept on a sofa, on October 23rd we left there and came to Mortlake together. We took lodgings there at 21, Lower Richmond Road, we occupied one room, I was at that time out of employment, during the time we lived there we formed the acquaintance of Mr. Parker, of the Jolly Gardiners Arms, Mortlake. At this house Annie Walklett made the acquaintance of Mr. Cornelius Egan, of tie Mulberry Tree, Twickenham. I was present when she first met him. My money was then getting short, and she having previously suggested that she should like to learn the bar business the matter was mentioned to Mr. Egan, and he arranged that she should go to the Mulberry Tree to learn the
business; she went there, and during the first week she was there, I used to go and take her home at night, after that she slept at the house, and I got a situation as a billiard marker at the Crown public house, Twickenham. I visited her there nightly during the past fortnight. I noticed a change in her manner towards me and asked her the reason, she said her husband had been to see her and had threatened to kill her with a table-knife which she used to use at home, and had also threatened to kill me if he met me; she suggested we should go to America together, but we had no money. I still visited her, and she would not give me an answer as to what she was going to do, and she treated me with in difference; I was annoyed at her treatment, and, in consequence, I did drink to excess. On Monday last I went to a friend at Lavender Hill, and obtained from him a revolver; and the same evening I purchased six cartridges at a shop in Twickenham. The same evening I saw her at the Mulberry Tree, and was in conversation with her for about ten minutes, we parted on friendly terms; I also saw heron Friday morning, the 10th, in the bar, and about mid-day I sent here letter by post, asking her to think over what she was going to do, and let me know at once. Last evening about 6.15 p.m. I went to the Mulberry Tree and again asked her to give me an answer, she told me to wait till Friday. I was afterwards told by the landlord that she was leaving there; I was annoyed because she had not told me so. I asked her to speak to me alone, and she refused to do so; I left the house and afterwards went back and asked Mr. Egan to let me see her, he invited me in, and we, Mr. Egan and I, went to the back parlour, and he then called Walkett in; I asked her to accept £5 from me when I drew my pension, she said, "No, what I want is 15s. to pay a bill at Mortlake, and my mother's ring, which you have always worn"; and with that I fired the revolver and was put out of the house."
Cross-examined"When the prisoner made that statement he was perfectly cool—he was excited when he came to the station—he had been in the cell about 4 1/2 hours when he made that statement—he looked as if he had been drinking heavily—I should say he was in weak health—he was not in such a state as not to know what he was doing or saying—he had a gratuity from the Army.
Cross-examined. The prisoner had Leen at the station about 1 1/2 hours when I first saw him—when he made the statement he was somewhat cool for a person charged as he was—I should not think that he had been drinking heavily—he appeared to be in good health.
The prisoner received a good character.
GUILTY .—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the provocation and his having been led into it. Four years' penal servitude.
THIRD COURT—Wednesday, January 15th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. BIRON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM GEORGE LAMB . I am a private in the 3rd Battalion of Cold-stream Guards at Chelsea Barracks—on August 21st I was in the military hospital at Rochester Row—the prisoner is a private in the same battalion as Johnson and I—on August 21st I expected to receive my Post Office Savings Bank book—I wanted to withdraw £34 1s. 3d., the amount in the book, to enable me to buy my discharge—this is my bank book—the signature on this notice of withdrawal "W. G. Lamb" is not mine, nor written by my authority—I say the same of the receipt for £35 as. 8d. which includes the interest due—there is no truth in the prisoner's statement when arrested "I do not see how I can be charged with forgery, as Lamb asked me to get the money for him"—the prisoner came to the hospital on August 21st—the doctor was in the room—the prisoner had a parcel which was handed to me on my bed, and he gave me a letter, but no bank book—he was with me about five minutes—I had no conversation with him about my money.
FRANK JOHNSON . I am a private in the 3rd Battalion of Coldstream Guards—I know Private Lamb—on August 21st a parcel and a book like this, came in a big envelope to him at the barracks—on the way to the hospital to take them to Lamb I met the prisoner—he asked to come with me—when we got to the hospital he took the parcel and the letter and envelope to Lamb as only one "person was allowed to go upstairs to see him—the orderly-sergeant suggested that Meredith should go up—I saw him when he came down about a quarter of an hour afterwards—he said that Private Lamb had told him to withdraw the money—I believed that—I went with him to the Charing Cross Post Office—I stood on one side when he filled up the form an official gave him—he posted it outside—I next went with him on August 23rd to the Post Office to withdraw the money—I saw him at the desk, but did not see what was going on—he showed me the money he had withdrawn, and said he was going to take it to Lamb on the Saturday—he said it was about £34—I did not see him after 9 that evening—he was not about in the regiment doing his duties after that day—I next saw him about a fortnight before Christmas—he was away some months.
ALBERT EDWARD FITNESS . I am a clerk in the Charing Cross Post Office—on August 21st the prisoner with Johnson asked for a withdrawal form—I handed this form to him—then he said he did not know how to fill it in, so I filled it up for him and explained about the signature, and he signed it in my presence—he had this book with him—he said he wanted to close the account and take the interest as he was going away on Saturday—he came again on August 23rd with Johnson—the money was ready—I lent him my pencil and saw him sign this warrant—I handed him the total amount and he went away—the signature does not exactly agree, but on the whole it seems the same style of writing as that in the book—the "L" in Lamb is slightly different, but the "W G" has just the
same slant on the warrant, enough to be mistaken by anybody who had not notice of anything wrong.
WALTER HURST (Post Office Constable.) I arrested the prisoner on January 2nd at the Military Hospital, Rochester Bow, Westminster, on a warrant, which I read to him, which charges him with feloniously forging a receipt and a warrant for the payment of money—he made no reply—I took him to the station—on the way he said, "I do not see how I can be charged with forgery as Lamb asked me to get the money for him."
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath repeated this statement, and added that he yielded to the temptation to keep the money and desert.
GUILTY .— Nine months' hard labour.
MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted, MR. HUTTON Defended Treadwell.
WALTER GURNET . I am a plumber of 210, Kensington Park Road—on December 27th about 9.45 p.m., Treadwell came into my shop and asked for 1/2 oz. of tobacco—he placed this shilling on the counter—I said I thought it was bad—he said he did not think so, and I gave him 10d. change—he was with a soldier outside—I saw them through the window—I next saw him come out of 5, Blenheim Crescent, Mrs. Chiltenden's shop, with the soldier—I went across the road to him and told him he had given me a bad shilling—he said he was sorry, and gave me two sixpences in its place—I identify the shilling by the mark the policeman put on it in front of him in the shop.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. The two shops are about 100 yards apart—I did not test the shilling, I went by the colour and weight.
PHCEBE CHILTENDEN . I keep a tobacco shop at 5, Blenheim Crescent, W.—on December 27th, about 10 p.m., I served the prisoners with a two penny smoke and 1/2 oz. of shag—Treadwell asked for it—they gave me this shilling—I put it in the till which I had just emptied—there were no other shillings in it—the prisoners went away together—Gurney came into the shop afterwards—I gave the policeman Potter the shilling—I did not examine it—the value of the tobacco was 4d.—I gave them 6d. and 2d. change.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Walters said to Treadwell, "Will you have a cigar"—then I got it—Walters paid for the two—I said before the Magistrate: "Walters said to Treadwell, 'What will you have?,' he said, 'A cigar'; Walters said he would have some shag and pay for both"—that is right.
THOMAS POTTER (22 F. R.) About 10 p.m. on December 27th Gurney made a statement to me, in consequence of which I arrested Treadwell—he said "I did not know it was bad and I gave you [Gurney] two sixpences for it"—I told Treadwell that the witness had said he had said that he had been into the shop and tendered a bad shilling for 1/2 oz. of tobacco—this is the shilling, I identify it by my initials and the crown on the Queen's head—I asked Gurney where the shilling was in both
prisoners' presence—Treadwell said, "Here it is," and handed it to me—he cook it out of his pocket—Gurney said the prisoners had been into 5, Bhenheim Crescent and changed a bad shilling there, and I took them back to the shop—I subsequently found on Treadwell three good sixpences and 3s. 3 1/2 d. in coppers, a piece of solder, three cigars, and a knife, and on Walters, 7 good sixpences, 2s. 8 1/2 d. in bronze, and a common public-house beer glass.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hutton. Treadwell is a plumber—the prisoners had had a glass or two—they were not drunk—I could smell beer.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to His Majesty's Mint—these coins are counterfeit—they are of different moulds—this is a piece of ordinary plumber's solder—the constable handed them to me.
Treadwell, in his defence, on oath, said that he had borrowed five separate shillings from Walters, and gone "busking" or singing for money, and that was why he, had so many coppers, but he did not know that the money was bad.—He received a good character.
Walters, in his defence, said that hs did not know the money was bad Thomas Potter (Re-examined.) Gurney found me in about a minute's walk from his shop—I was standing at the corner of Portobello Road when the prisoners passed me, and I stopped them when they returned from a turning where there was no outlet.
WALTER GURNEY (Re-examined). I found the policeman within a minute after the prisoners came out of Chiltenden's shop—I went into the shop and saw the shilling and came out—in consequence of what Chiltenden said I went for a policeman—only two minutes elapsed.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Thursday, January 16th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
125. ISABEL SPENCE (29), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 12 diaries and 7 boxes of cards and other articles, value £4 10s., the property of the Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Limited. She received a good character.— Judgment Respited.
MR. ARNOLD Prosecuted.
JAMES THOMPSON . I live at 25 Redmead Lane, Wapping, and am a watchman, employed by the Free Trade Wharf Company—on November 21st, between nine and ten p.m., I was at the wharf gate—the prisoners wanted to come out at my gate—and I would not let them—I knew them before—they are stevedores—they had no business to come that way—they started knocking me about with their fists—I was knocked down, and Sullivan struck me on my head with this bolt (Produced). One of them kicked me on my ribs—I became insensible, and remembered nothing more till I found myself in the London Hospital a fortnight later
—I was there six weeks altogether—I lost my watch and purse and handkerchief—they were in my pockets when the prisoners assaulted me—twopence or threepence was in my purse—I don't know who took my things—bolts like this were lying about near—I have not got my watch and chain back—this (Produced) is my purse—it was given to me by the police—I knew the prisoners' names as well as their faces.
Cross-examined by Ford. You had on some dusty boots, moleskin trousers, and a short coat.
JAMES HERBERT SAUNDERS . I am a surgeon at the London Hospital—I saw the prosecutor there on November 21st—he was in a semi-dazed state—he had two wounds over the left side of his forehead, about two inches long—a small wound over his right temple—and another one close to it going down to the bone and about 1 inch long—I think they could have been caused by this bolt—I do not think he was in danger—he is about 62 years old.
By the COURT. The wounds supperated—there was no erysipelas—he was in the hospital over a month, and he is still an out-patient—he will never be the same man again.
HENRY RUTTER (Detective II.) On January 4th I saw Sullivan at 1 p.m. at Broad Street, Ratley—I told him I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for robbery on James Thompson, a night watchman of Free Trade Wharf, on November 21st—he said, "All right, I will go with you, I know nothing about it"—at the station he was put with six other men, and the prosecutor identified him—he was charged—he said, "Not me, sir, I was in bed at 10 o'clock that night, Mr. Thompson knows me"—the prosecutor had mentioned the prisoners' names, and given a description.
Cross-examined by Ford. The names in the warrant are Sullivan and Donovan.
By the COURT. I did not know Ford before I saw him at the station—I did not arrest him—when I saw him at the station I said, "Are you known as Seattle Donovan?"—he said, "No"—that name was given by the prosecutor—he said, "I am not known as Seattle Donovan, my name is Ford."
RALPH COURT ' (338 11.) I arrested Ford on January 7th—I had no warrant—I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with another man in custody for assaulting a watchman at Free Trade Wharf—he said, "It is true, then, I heard I was wanted!"—I knew him before—I only knew him as Ford, but I was told he was Ford alias Donovan—a description was given, and from it I came to the conclusion that the man described as Donovan was Ford—I did not tell him what name he was charged under.
Cross-examined by Ford. No one pointed you out to me—I was not with the prosecutor that night—I was with him in the morning—I have known you as Ford for 6 or 8 months—I never knew you as Seattle Donovan—you did not tell me that you had turned out at 5.30 to go to work on a Liverpool boat—I heard at the station that you had left your name at the Free Trade Wharf on the Monday.
JOHN DAMSELL (329 H.) On November 21st I found the prosecutor unconscious and bleeding from several wounds on his head—I got a cab and took him to the London Hospital—I went back and searched the place at the Free Trade Wharf—I found this iron bar 30 or 40 yards from where I had found the prosecutor—I found an empty purse, a cap and a handkerchief, all identified by the prosecutor—I found blood on the bar; it is there now.
Cross-examined by Ford. I do not know you by any name except Ford, I did not know you before you were arrested.
JAMES THOMPSON (Re-examined). I am 66 years old—before I was assaulted on November 21st my sight was much better than it is now—I could then see to go about quietly—the difficulty I now have in seeing is the result of the accident—I am quite sure these are the two men who assaulted me, I saw their faces before the assault took place—Ford's nick-name is Scattie Donovan—I do not know him by any other name, the men who worked with him all call him Scattie Donovan—this is my cap (Produced)—I was wearing it on this night.
JOHN' MUSGROVE . I am a gatekeeper at the Free Trade Wharf—I have known the prosecutor about 11 years, and the prisoners 10 or 11 years—I only know Ford as Ford—Sullivan knew the prosecutor—I do not know if Ford did—4 or 5 weeks previous to the assault I heard Sullivan say to Thompson that he would flatten him, and he used disgusting language at the same time—he did not say what for.
By the COURT. There are three gates leading to the wharf—I am at the main gate—Thompson is at what is called the Bristol gate—the manager says no one, after the vans are in, is to be allowed to go in or out of that gate, but are to go in and out of the main gate—they have no right to go out of this gate after hours.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. There is no right of way to the Bristol gate, a little farther on there is—I do not know anyone at the wharf called or known as Donovan or Scattie Donovan.
Ford, in his defence, on oath, said that he was in doors from, 5 p.m. on November 21st till 5.30 next morning, with his wife who was being confined; that he had never been known by any name except Ford, and did not know a man named Scattie Donovan, but that he was told he (Ford) answered Donovan's description, but that Donovan did not work at the wharf, and that he had never seen him; that he was not with Sullivan on November 21st; that they belonged to the same society, but that he did not otherwise know him.
JAMES THOMPSON (Re-examined.) When I first made my statement in the hospital, I said I did not know the names of the men who had assaulted me, and I afterwards said that I knew them as Sullivan and Donovan—I said that at first because my head was so bad; I had not got my senses about me—I am quite sure nobody suggested the names to me.
Evidence for Ford.
MARY FORD . I am the wife of the prisoner Ford—I was confined on November 9th—on November 22nd my husband told me that Thompson had been assaulted—I did not know him—on November 21st my husband came home early and stayed in till we went to bed—he was at home every night after November 9th.
Cross-examined. My husband told me that the prosecutor had been assaulted and robbed—I do not know Sullivan.
ELLEN SHAW . Last November I was waiting on Mrs. Ford as nurse in her confinement—she was confined on November 9th, and about 12 days afterwards, Mr. Ford asked me if I had heard of the old watchman being robbed and assaulted—on November 21st I went home between 9.30 and 10 p.m.—I live in the same house—the prisoner Ford had been home all the evening.
Cross-examined. I swear that Ford was at home on November 21st.
THOMAS DIVAL . (Re-examined by the COURT.) I sent an officer to take Thompson's statement—I do not know under what circumstances his information before Mr. Dickinson was taken—it purports to be taken on January 4th—there are two informations, each in different writing and at different times—it is not correct to say that it was all taken at the same time—the first information is some weeks before the other—there is no description in the first, and only the names of the men in the second—when he made the first information he told the officer that his mind was not clear; first he said he was, then he said he was not—in the first information he said he did not know the names of the men who assaulted him, then afterwards he gave the names of Sullivan and Donovan.
J. H. SAUNDERS (Re-examined.) The prosecutor was an in-patient from November 21st to December 27th—there is no reason to say that he had not his senses when he became an out-patient.
NOT GUILTY .—The Jury added that they did not consider the evidence of identity against Sullivan sufficient, and, as regarded Ford, he left the Court without a stain upon his character.
NEW COURT—Thursday, January, 16th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. OLIVER Prosecuted.
WILLIAM HERBERT CHAMBERLAIN . I am a clerk to Mr. Chapple, a solicitor, of 76, Gresham Street—acting on his instructions I procured a postal order for 10s., and gave it to him—I saw him write on it, "Mrs. Daisy Willis" and put it in this envelope with this letter, addressed to Mrs. Willis, 3, Burton Place, Burton Crescent, Euston Road, and commencing "I send enclosed 10s. to relieve your present necessity"—I posted the letter in Gresham Street.
PERCY ALFRED BROWN . I am a clerk in the General Post Office—I produce a postal order for 10s. L27 468892, issued on December 21st at Aldermanbury, and made payable to Mrs. Daisy Willis—it is receipted "Daisy Willis"—it was paid in Marchmont Street, W.C., on December 21st.
there—I took in a letter on December 21st addressed to her—I did not know the name, and I gave it to Barbara Wade, my servant—Daisy Willis afterwards said something, in consequence of which I sent for the prisoner—I said, "Where is the letter you told me came from Cardiff"—I asked her what she had done with it, and to show it to me—she said she could not, as she had destroyed it—I asked her why—she said she could destroy her own letters, as she did not keep letters—a knock came to the door, and I asked her to retire—she left the house immediately afterwards—I did not see her again.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I wanted you to wait till I was disengaged.
BARBARA WADE . I am in service at 3, Burton Place, Burton Crescent—on the Saturday before Christmas I took in a letter addressed to Daisy Willis—I gave it to the deputy, Mrs. Freeman, who sent me down stairs with it—I took it into the kitchen where there were several lodgers—I said "Is there anyone of the name of Willis here?"—the prisoner answered, "It is for me, my name is Willis"—I said, "Is your name Willis?"—she said "Yes, it is from my husband"—I gave her the letter—she left the kitchen—I did not see her with the letter afterwards—Daisy Willis asked about the letter, and the deputy asked the prisoner where it came from—the prisoner said from Cardiff—the deputy said, "No, there is only a London postmark on it, so it cannot come from Cardiff"—the prisoner said, "Oh no, it came from the City"—Daisy Willis said, "Well, my letter came from the City"—the prisoner said, "So does this"—a knock came to the door, and the deputy said, "Just wait a minute in the room"—the prisoner went downstairs, and directly afterwards disappeared—I never saw her again—I asked the prisoner whether she was sure—she said, "Yes, it is my letter"—I said before the Magistrate: "She opened it, and cried over it, and said something about the death of her husband"—that was not in my presence, I heard it from the lodgers; I was not in the kitchen—I did not know the prisoner's name—I had only been there a few nights.
DAISY WILLIS . I am the wife of George Willis—I live at 3, Burton Place, Burton Crescent—I expected a letter on my birthday, on Christmas Eve—I came home about 6.15. p.m. on December 21st—I asked if there was a letter for Mrs. Willis—the prisoner was called upstairs—Mrs. Freeman said, "I believe the letter delivered to you as belonging to you belongs to this lady"—the prisoner said, "Oh no, it is not your letter, I have been expecting a letter from my husband from Cardiff"—Freeman said, "Oh no, I looked at the address and it came from the City, it does not come from Cardiff at all"—a knock came tot he door for Mrs. Freeman, and the prisoner ran away—she did not say that the letter was from her father, but from her husband from Cardiff, and that she had two children—I said I knew Cardiff well—I did not sign this order—this letter is addressed to me—I have not received the money for the order.
The prisoner, in her defence, said that she found she had in mistake opened another person's letter, and was advised to fly and ran away; that she had been drinking, but had no intention to defraud.
GUILTY . Discharged on recognisances.
128. GEORGE LENOX BROOKS (21), and ERNEST FRANCIS (otherwise RAYCOTT) (27) , Conspiring to obtain from Emily Jane Idenden, £500, and obtaining from her £200 and a cheque for £100, and Brooks obtaining credit by false pretences, and with intend to defraud, and Francis aiding and abetting him. Brooks
PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. MATHEWS and MR. BODKIN, Prosecuted, and MR. H. AVORY, K.C.,
EMILY JANE IDENDEN . I live at 5, Wellington Road, Peckham—I formerly lived at St. Donot's Road, Brockley—I was Mrs. Bullock, and became a widow in 1899—I have since married and again become a widow—I have a daughter named Emily Maud Bullock—in 1899 I was possessed of some leasehold property at Greenwich and Brockley—Emily Maud assisted me in collecting the rents—in the early summer of 1899 Miss Amy Candy lived with us and occasionally went with my daughter to collect the rents—through Miss Candy I was introduced to the prisoner Francis, as Mr. Raycott—I understood that he was engaged to Miss Candy, that he was a comedian without an engagement, and that Brooks was a gentleman of independent means—Brooks paid attentions to my daughter—he said he was living at home with his mother at Cold harbour Lane, Brixton—that he had an allowance of £7 a month from her—that his uncle, a Mr. Davis, who had lived at Finchley Road, St. John's Wood, had lately died, and had left him a fortune of £14,000 to £16,000; that £3,000 was in houses, and the rest in money and plate in the Bank of England—he said that he should be 21 years of age on February 14th, 1900, and that he would then receive the property; that it was to be sold, and that Mr. Harding, a solicitor, of Chancery Lane, was arranging the uncle's affairs; and that he wanted £200 to pay for the probate of his uncle's will—Francis said that he had lent Brooks £500 for the same purpose—I said it was inconvenient for me to lend it, and suggested that his mother should advance it—Brooks said that be could not ask her as she was very much opposed to the will as she thought it ought to have been left to her instead of to him—I said I would think about it—a few days later I again saw the prisoners—I had turned the matter over in my mind—I agreed to lend £100—Francis said several times that he had lent Brooks £300 without security, because he had seen the papers relating to his uncle's will—he also said that he had Alhambra Music Hall shares which he could not sell as he would be the loser by it—I understood him to say that he had £800 worth of them—I entirely believed what the prisoners said—for the purpose of raising the money I deposited some of my leases with Messrs. Mumford—I handed £100 to Brooks on June 17th—he thanked me, and said he hoped I would let him have the other £100 in a fortnight—I agreed to that—I asked him for an I. O. U, which he brought in the evening and gave to my daughter—the signature upon it was Raycott—I put it in my box—later on I moved to other lodgings, after Miss Candy had married in August 30th, 1899—I could not find the I. O U.—on July 6th I got another £100 from Messrs. Mumford, a further loan of 25 per cent, on the leases, by this cheque which I handed to my daughter—I afterwards saw Brooks, who said he had received it all right,
and thanked me—he said he had taken it to Mr. Harding—in July, Brooks said his mother had turned him out, and that he was living at the Kennington Social Club—Raycott was present, and said that Brooks wanted £50 for living expenses and to pay off his debts; that he had lent him 335 sovereigns, and could not let him have any more, as he was going to get married—I said that it was inconvenient to advance any more, but I thought the matter over and advanced £43 by this cheque of August 16th, obtained from Messrs. Mumford—after Francis married Miss Candy at the end of August I saw no more of them till, I think, June, 1900, but Brooks continued to call between August, 1899 and February, 1900—Brooks had about £200 more in sums of £2, £4, and sometimes more, for his living expenses—he said he had no money to go about on until he came of age—on February 14th, Brooks said he was celebrating his birthday, which was afterwards, and that there would be a trial at the Law Courts on March 19th as his mother had disputed the will, and that Sir George Lewis represented Brooks' mother's side—in consequence of that statement I went to the Law Courts, had some conversation with an usher there, and then went to Somerset House—I went to Mr. Harding's "office," and found it was a tailor's shop—I found out nothing about the trial, or the probate suit—I spoke to Brooks about it—I had to sell and realise my property—I consulted Mr. Devonshire, a solicitor, and at one interview Brooks was present when this acknowledgment (Produced) of August 15th, that his debt to me amounted to £500 was drawn up, and signed by him—I got back £3 in small sums—in January, 1901, Francis and his wife called upon me—Mrs. Francis had called about 6 months before and recognised her debt of £10, which I had lent her—on January 7th, 1901, they asked me to lend them £30—they said they commiserated my position, and that it would benefit me, as they would allow me £1 a week—I had not any to lend, and did not advance any—I never got the £10 back which I had lent Miss Candy—in February, 1901, I accidentally met Brooks in the street—he showed me two papers, one signed by Raycott, and he said that he had had some of my money—I noticed my name on it "Mrs. Emily Jane Idenden "and" £50—one paper was stamped—I did not notice the other, I could not read it—he said it was the same—after I left Brooks I went straight to Francis' house for my £10—I saw Mr. and Mrs. Francis—I repeated what Brooks had said to me, that I had seen the documents, and that he, Francis, had had some of my money—I said they were for £250—Francis said if I had seen them they were forgeries—that was the last time I saw Francis—except £3 I have not had any part of my money back.
Cross-examined. Francis was introduced to me in his professional name of Raycott, a comedian—I heard afterwards that he had been performing at Manchester in the pantomime, but I did not know of his doing anything-1 heard he was a whistler, but not that he had given up whistling through ill health—I heard his name was Francis—he said nothing about it—when the first £100 was advanced if Miss Candy was not living with me she was coming to and from the house as a friend of my daughter—I cannot remember dates—Brooks was pretending to pay attention to my daughter—I was married in August, 189S—my husband died in May—he had been dead three years—I cannot say more without
the certificate—T conversed with Brooks mostly about his debts and his position—the Magistrate at Greenwich Police Court would not grant me a warrant—I cannot remember about it—I said before the Magistrate at Bow Street that I went with Mrs. Francis to the Camberwell Varieties Music Hall after January, 1901—it was in January, I believe—I will not try to give dates, because I do not remember, why should I?—Brooks stopped coming when I was sold up—I did not ask him to come—I found out that he was with other people and did not want him; that he was "carrying on" with some other woman, and that he was a liar—when I found that he had no money I told him I would lock him up—I imagined he had no money before I went to Mr. Devonshire—I told Brooks that he and Francis had had my money between them—Francis took the £10 I lent my daughter—she gave it to him—I was told that by my daughter—it was not a loan to Miss Candy—I spoke to Francis about Brooks only when they were together—as far as I remember Francis said my money was as safe as the Bank of England.
Re-examined. Raycott showed me the documents in February, 1901—I went the same day to Brooks, and afterwards to Greenwich Police Court—the prisoners said they would pay me, but they never came near, and Mrs. Raycott said she would write, but she never did, about the £10—after waiting I went to the Police Court—I always knew Francis as Raycott.
EMILY MAUD BULLOCK . I live with Mrs. Idenden, my mother—I work at Messrs. Peek Frean & Co.'s—in 1899 I used to know Miss Candy, who occasionally went with me to collect my mother's rents—she introduced me to the prisoners; to Francis as Raycott—they visited my mother's house a few weeks after I was introduced—I understood that Raycott and Miss Candy were engaged to be married—after a time Brooks paid attention to me—Raycott and I were present when Brooks told my mother that he was independent, that he had £7 a month from his mother for pocket money, that he was coming into between £14,000 and £16,000 from his uncle, Mr. Davis, who was dead, but who had left him £3,000 worth of houses, and the rest of his property in plate and money in the Bank of England—Francis said he had lent Brooks £300, and would lend him £1,000 if he had it, to pay probate on his uncle's will, and that he had signed a document relating to that will—Brooks said that he should be 21 on February 14th, 1900, when he would come into his fortune—prior to that conversation Brooks knew what my mother's property was; I had been talking to him—Francis said he had shares in the Alhambra Music Hall worth about £800, but they were paying so well that he could not sell out—Brooks first asked my mother to advance £200—she said it was inconvenient, but she would consider the matter—having considered it she agreed to advance £100—it was paid over in coin—then Brooks asked for the other £100—my mother said she would make the advance—it was paid by cheque, which she handed to Brooks, having deposited securities with Messrs. Mumford—Raycott was present—Brooks gave me an I.O.U. for the first advance, I believe the same evening—he signed, and Raycott witnessed it—I put it in my mother's box where I kept papers—I have seen it there since—we have lately removed—I missed it after Miss Candy left—later on Brooks sail that his mother
had turned him out on account of his coming into the property—he had been living in Cold harbour Lane, but; he had gone to the Kermington Social Club—he said he had become indebted £5 14s. for four days, and he proposed another advance of £50—Raycott was present—mother said she would consider it—she did so, and agreed and deposited security at Mumford's, and got the cheque which I changed at the London and County Bank—I handed the proceeds to Brooks—Miss Candy came to live with us between June and July, 1899, for 6 or 7 weeks—she remained till shortly before her marriage—she was in the house when the second £100 was advanced—she was living there on July 6th and 13th—shortly after the third sum had been paid I overheard Brooks say to Hiss Candy, "You owe £20"—that she had had £20 commission—Raycott was there—Brooks said she was asking for £2 10s. more—Miss Candy was asking for more money, and Brooks said, "You have had £20, I shan't give you any more"—I was then keeping company with Brooks—I lent him £60 more. £30 being my mother's money—on February 14th Brooks said his mother was contesting the will, and that he could not settle; that the matter was to be tried on March 14th, and Sir George Lewis was engaged for Mrs. Brooks—my mother and sister made inquiries, and they told me the result—my mother told Brooks—hs said he could not settle then, but he had plenty to pay her—mother said that she had been to the Law Courts and found that there was no trial—she asked him about the money—he said, "Do not lock me up, I shall have sufficient to pay you, I have £30,000"—the acquaintance continued till I heard about Brooks and some other lady; then the engagement was broken off—after Miss Candy's marriage she did not visit us—my mother saw them first—I saw them 12 months afterwards.
Cross-examined. My mother advanced money to Brooks till February—the engagement between me and Brooks was broken off between May and June—he visited occasionally till June—when Brooks was introduced to my mother he had been walking out with me 5 or 6 weeks—I knew him in March—Francis was present when Brooks was introduced—Miss Candy was not living there then—Miss Candy introduced me to Brooks—Brooks and Francis were always together—the conversation about the £2 10s. took place in the dining-room at 68, Penrailton Road, in 1899, my mother's house—Miss Candy, Brooks, Francis, and Mr. Glassing were present—Glassing represented himself as a friend of Raycott's—I was going into the room and heard a bother and stopped outside the door and listened till they all came out and said Mr. Brooks would not pay her—I was given to understand that Mr. and Mrs. Francis lived in Vassal Road, but I went there and found no such name—my mother told me she saw them in 1901—she said she had been to a music hall with Mrs. Francis—I cannot recollect dates.
Re-examined. I first knew Raycott's name was Francis when they came to mother's house about May 1899 before the marriage—I was still engaged to Brooks.
ARTHUR GRIFFITH . I am secretary to Sir George Lewis, of the firm of Lewis & Lewis—we have no connection in any way with the prisoner Francis, or Brooks, or any will of Mr. Davis, nor in any probate suit in regard to them.
DUDLEY JOHN GAYFORD . I live at 22, Alfred Place, West—I am accountant for the Alhambra Music Hall Co., Ltd.—from 1875 to the present time no Ernest Francis nor George Raycott has been a share-holder in that Company.
CHARLES STEADMAN . I am cashier at the Church Street Greenwich branch of the London and County Bank—this cheque of July 6th was cashed on July 7th by £30 in gold, and £70 in 14 £5 bank notes, Nos. 81558 to 81571.
JOHN BALDERSON . I am manager of the Southwark branch of the London and South Western Bank—the prisoner, Ernest Francis, opened an account on August 17th, 1899, in the name of George Raycott, by a payment in of £50, £20 in coin, and £30 in 6 £5 notes—four of them were numbered 81564-5-6-7 and one 85570—the signature on this receipt, "George Raycott," is that of Francis, to the best of my belief.
Cross-examined. I knew him before he opened the account, and that his real name was Francis, and Raycott his professional name, and that he had been employed in pantomime and on the stage, in the name of Raycott—I have known him since he was 6 years of age, and was satisfied to open the account without any reference.
SUSANNAH NELSON . I live at 28, Tunstall Road, Brixton—at the end of August. 1900, Brooks took a room of me—he left in February last year—he left this black bag, which I handed to Detective Wilson in December.
JAMES WILSON (Detective, C.) I received this black bag from Mrs. Nelson on December 13th—I opened it and found this certificate, dated August 17th, 1899, signed "George Raycott": "This is to certify that I Ernest Francis, otherwise known as George Raycott, have received of you the sum of £118 10s., being half the amount of £237 lent us by Mrs. Idenden, of 68, Penrailton Road, Brockley."
ARTHUR CLARK (Police Sergeant, C.) On December 11th I took Francis in custody on a warrant—I was with another officer—I told him we were police officers, and read the warrant to him—it charged him with obtaining money from Mrs. Idenden, and conspiracy and false pretences—he said, "I have never had any of the money from Mrs. Bullock, and I can prove it"—I had previously arrested Brooks.
Cross-examined. I cannot swear to the two certificates signed Raycott—they appear to be in different writing, one is a finer writing than the other.
EMILY MAUD BULLOCK (Re-examined by MR. AVORY.) The music hall my mother went to was called "The Camberwell Palace of Varieties"—I believe it was first called "The Orient"—Francis never talked about it nor about himself, or his father, nor as to having shares in it.
Francis, in his defence, on oath, denied that he had ever stated that he had lent Brooks £800, or that he had £800 worth of Alhambra shares, but stated that he had shares in the Oriental Palace at Camberwell, and had borrowed money from Brooks and signed the acknowledgement produced, but never had money from Mrs. Bullock, nor assisted to deceive her, but that he borrowed the money from Brooks, and denied that he had conspired with Brooks to obtain it from the prosecutrix by fraud; or that he knew that Brooks was obtaining the money by fraud from her; or that he knowingly signed the I. O. T. for the joint repayment to the prosecutrix; that Brooks gave him to understand that he, Brooks, would repay the same to the prosecutrix when he came into his money on his coming of age.
GUILTY .—FRANCIS— Nine months' hard labour ;
BROOKS— Six months hard labour.
FOURTH COURT, Friday and Saturday, January 17th and 18th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
129. LOUIS GILBERT (47), and LEON BURTON (33) , Conspiring together to forge certain bonds. Second Count, conspiring to alter the said bonds with intent to defraud. Other Counts, for uttering the said bonds and inciting one Gustave Hume to commit a felony.
MR. A. GILL and MR. CAMPBELL Prosecuted. Lord Coleridge K.C., and Mr. Randolph appeared for. Gilbert, and Mr. Hutton for Burton
GUSTAVE HUME (Interpreted.) I am a printer, of 46, Lexington Street, Soho—I have done work for the prisoner Burton for two years—he came to my shop on November 18th and brought some coupons from French bonds: Chemin de Fer de Midi, Chemin de Fer de L'Ouest and Chemin de Fer de Algerien—he asked me to alter the figures on them, and said if I succeeded he would bring me some bonds to alter also, and that he wanted them altered so that he could sell them in America, as they could not be negotiated in England as they had been stopped, that there were about 100 bonds to be altered, and that I should receive 12s. 6d. for each—I saw him again three days after, and he then showed me an article in the Daily Telegraph stating that the man who had given him the bonds had been arrested—I had previously communicated with the Credit Lyonnais—and on November 23rd I went with Inspector Sexton and Sergeant Carlin to 67, Oakley Square, and saw Burton there—I returned the coupons to him and said T would have nothing more to do with the matter—he then tore the coupons up and threw the pieces down, and the officers gathered them together again.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. The business I did with him previous to this was perfectly honest and straightforward—he did not ask me to look and see whether the numbers had been altered—he told me to turn 3 into 5 and 0 into 9—I first knew of Gilbert's arrest when Burton showed me the newspaper.
Re-examined. Thursday was the second occasion when Burton came to me, and I had communicated with the Police on the day before.
CORNELIUS SEXTON (Police Inspector.) I saw Burton at Seymour Street, adjoining his house, on November 23rd—I sent for him to come into the public street—he did so, and I then saw him tearing up some paper—Carlin gathered up the pieces, and I then said—"I am a police officer; these are French coupon, how do you account for the possession of them"—he said, pointing to Hume, "That man gave them to me"—I said, "These coupons have been detached from bonds, now in the possession of the police, being found on the premises of Louis Gilbert Low under remand"—he said, "Yes, I got 'them' four from Gilbert in the bar of a public house; I do not know where the house is: he asked me to see if they were good, and make money on them, so I took them to the printer. Gilbert is now locked up, so that is why I tore them up"—he was then taken to the police station and charged.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. We made a thorough search of his house, but found nothing relating to this charge—he lives with his wife, who is a most respectable woman, and, so far as I know, he is not known to the police in any way.
FRANCIS CARLIN (Detective Sergeant.) I went to Seymour Street with the last two witnesses, and saw Burton tear something up—it was pieced together, and these are the pieces (Produced)—at the station he said, "Is this very serious for me?"—I said, "I do not know"—he said, "This is very hard, I am a respectable man and not like other Frenchmen; a Frenchman named La Bombe or Louis Gilbert, who keeps bad houses and bad women in South Kensington gave me the coupons; I have done some business with him, and have known him for over a year; he was going to give me some bonds later on—he said, 'do what you can with the coupons '—I took them to the printer to see if they were all right—I am not a man like La Bombe: I am carrying on business now with an English partner"—I searched him and found some blank cheques on the London City and Midland Bank; a French Oriental Railway Bond and some Confederate State Notes, frequently used by "confidence trick" men—at his house I found a French Tramway Bond which he said he bought two years ago at the Paris Stock Exchange.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Nothing was found either on him or at his house, except the coupons, connecting him with Gilbert.
ARTHUR CLARKE (Police Sergeant C.) On November 19th, I went with other officers to Gilbert's address, 2, Alfred Place, South Kensington—in a room on the third floor I found this portmanteau (Produced) containing 82 French bonds, which I produce—on the same day, after being released from another charge, Gilbert was brought there, and inspector Hayter said to him, "We are police officers, and we want you to explain how those bonds, which were upstairs, came into your possession"—he said, 'I lent a man £30 on them, and he gave me them as security"—Hayter said, "Who is the man?"—he said, "I do not know, but he lives in a large house in Leicester Square with a lift to it, which took me to a suite of apartments occupied by a gentleman"—Hayter said, "Is he living there now?"—he said, "No, he went to the Transvaal about a fortnight ago"—he was subsequently charged at Waltham Street
Police Station, and on the charge being read over to him, he said, "I can prove where I got them from to-morrow or next day"—this is a receipt he showed Hayter, which he said was for the coupons.
Cross-examined by Lord Coleridge. I took that conversation down in writing, and it is the substance of what I said at the Police Court—he said he received the bonds as security for a loan—he spoke in fairly good English, with a French accent—this (Produced) is a receipt for silk which he put forward as a receipt for the coupons.
Re-examined. He said he had papers to prove that he had bought the bonds, but that was the only paper he produced.
HENRY HAYTER (Detective Inspector B). I was present on. November 19th when Gilbert's house was searched—I made a list of the bonds found there—among them were the bonds which have been read out, viz: Chemin de Per de L'Ouest, 262398; Chemin de. Fer de Midi, 337518, and Chemin de Fer de Algerien, 150211.
Cross-examined by Lord Coleridge. A document was found on Gilbert's premises, dated 13th August, 1897, which set out that money was owing by a man named Garfunkel to Gilbert—it bears the French Consul's stamp, and is put in as an Exhibit—we came upon evidence showing that; Gilbert was in communication with French lawyers as to prosecuting a claim against the estate of Garfunkel for money owing to him by Garfunkel.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hutton. I have made inquiries both here and abroad about Burton, but nothing is known against him by the police in any way.
MARIE JOSEPHINE GALEBRAM (Interpreted). I live at 33, Rue de Constantinople, Paris—in August, 1900, I was at Besier—the house at which I was staying was broken into and bonds belonging to me, valued at 100,000 francs stolen, these are them before me—I made opposition and they were stopped.
CHARLOTTE MIGNON (Interpreted). I live at 8, Rue de Millhouse, Paris, which was broken into on February 9th, 1901, and bonds valued at 6,000 francs stolen—this is a list of them (Produced), amongst them is one called Obligation du Nord 1508496 found at Gilbert's house—I made opposition and they were stopped—I identify that bond as my property.
----CURRY (Detective Officer). I made the translations of the documents which have been put in, and they are correct.
Gilbert, in his defence, stated on oath, that a man named Garfunkel, with his mother, sister and younger brother, came to stay at his house, Thurloe Cottage, in January, 1897, and he learnt that he had large expectations; that he, Gilbert, advanced him money from time to time for eight months, and that finally, on August 18th, in that year, he, Garfunkel, acknowledged himself before the French Consul, in the presence of two witnesses, to be indebted to him, Gilbert, to the amount of 100,000 francs, and up to September, 1901-, nothing had been paid off; that he had in the mean time communicated with French lawyers for the purpose of recovering the amount; that he next saw Garfunkel in September, 1901, and advanced him another £80 and received from him a valise containing papers, and a promise to pay everything when he came of age, and that Garfunkel handed him 30,000 francs worth of bonds as security, and those bonds were in the
avlise when it was given to him, and were those found by the police at his house, and if he had known they were stolen he would not have accepted them; that he did not know how Burton came possessed of some of the coupons; that he did not give them to him, and had known Burton only a year, and the coupons were cashed 18 months ago; that the correspondence found by the police was also handed to him by Garfunkel, and he had never read it; and that he did not write the letter signed La Bombe which was found on his premises referring to a burglary and some bonds stolen over 20 years ago, and for which he received six months' imprisonment in Paris, although he did not touch the bonds; he denied that it referred to the bonds which were the subject of the present charge.
Witnesses for Gilbert.
CORNEILLE DARSON (Interpreted). I have lived at Thuiloe Cottage and 2, Alfred Place, South Kensington, for the past 6 years—in 1897, a young man, named George Garfunkel, came there with his mother, sister, and brother—they all had their meals there every day from February to September—they did not sleep there—they lived in good style, going out for drives and so on almost every day—I saw, many times, his coming to borrow money from Monsieur Gilbert—I never saw Garfunkel write, and should not recognise his writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Campbell. Gilbert lived there all the time: I lived there as Gilbert's lodger—I never saw Garfunkel again after 1897 when he left for good—I knew nothing about his business except that he was a jewel merchant—I kept the key of his safe where his jewellery was, but I ignored absolutely what it contained—I also had the key of the attic where the bonds were found—I kept a joint banking account with Gilbert—he never told me that he had received certain bonds as security for the debt owing to him by Garfunkel—the lease of 2, Alfred Place was not assigned to me: I bought the furniture in November, 1901—I have no occupation—I have friends who keep me.
Re-examined. I had nothing whatever to do with Gilbert's business—I first resided with him at Thurlow Cottage, 17, Thurloe Place—I cannot say accurately when we removed to Alfred Place.
By the COURT. I had great confidence in him, and as it is rather risky for a lonely woman top'ace money, it is for that reason that I had a joint banking account with him.
PAULINE, WIDOW DELMOTT (Interpreted). I live at 21, Rue St. Honore, Paris—I was employed as servant at Thurloe Cottage by Monsieur Gilbert from 1896 to 1897, when I left—I remember George Garfunkel coming there in January or February 1897 and leaving in September—he came with his mother, sister, and brother, and I knew they all lived at Gilbert's expense—Madame Darson was there as a lodger from the time I entered, and continued when I left.
Cross-examined by MR. CAMPBELL. I left for Paris at the end of September 1857—M. Garfunkel was lodging in the house on the ground floor at Thurloe Place—I was sleeping upstairs and went to bed early, so that I did not know when he entered—I never saw Garfunkel nor Madame Darson after 1897—Madame Darson sent me word that I had to come over on Monday last to testify that I had been a servant in the
house of Monsieur Gilbert—I knew Garfunkel spent much money, but I did not know any particulars—Gilbert had no other lodgers besides Madame Darson.
JULES TORNIER . I am a photographer, of 80, Shaftesbury Avenue—in September last year I was in the Cafe de L'Europe, Leicester Square, where I saw Gilbert with a young man, short, dark, whom I saw give Gilbert some papers—I did not hear any conversation, but saw Gilbert give the young man bank notes and gold—after, I do not remember whether in the presence of Gilbert or not, the young man told me that he owed much money to Gilbert, and hoped he should soon be able to return it to him—I do not know who the young man was, nor do I know his name.
Cross-examined by MR. CAMPBELL. I never, knew the young man before—he told me this because he had given the papers to Gilbert in my presence—I have never seen him since.
Cross-examined by MR. CAMPBELL. I have been in Court since I gave my evidence.
Burton, in his defence, stated on oath that he became acquainted with Gilbert about 18 months ago, and that the coupons he tore up he received from Gilbert about 9 or 10 days before he was arrested; that Gilbert told him to take them to a printer to see if the numbers on them had been altered, and, to ask the printer if he could make alterations on them; that he afterwards saw in a newspaper that Gilbert was arrested, and pointed it out to the printer, and told him not to do anything with the coupons as he feared they belonged to the bonds that were found in Gilbert's house by the police; that the coupons were subsequently handed back to him, and he was arrested while he was tearing them up; that he never knew or saw Garfunkel, neither was he to receive any remnneration for getting the numbers on the coupons altered, nor did he tell the printer that he would be paid 12s. 6d. for altering them, nor did he know that they had been stolen until he saw the account of Gilbert's arrest. (Burton received a good character).
GUILTY .—Burton was strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury— Four months' imprisonment—Previous convictions were proved against Gilbert, who was known to be a receiver of stolen property , and an associate of prostitutes and brothel keepers in the WestEnd.— Two years' imprisonment.
NEW COURT.—Saturday, January 18th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Jelf.
MR. HUTTON for the prosecution offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
JOSEPH WILLIAM TOPLISS . I am a lithograhic printer—the prisoner is my wife—I have had two children by her, the oldest is 5 years old—one child was born on November 11th, last year and died in January, this year it was a small child, it was fed at the breast for the first day or two and then by the bottle—she was able to go out 14 days after her confinement—before and after her confinement I allowed her half-a-crown at the least for the house—I paid the rent—I used to go out at 8 a.m., and return at 7 or 7.30—she was generally out when I came home, and the child with her; but once the child was left lying on the bed with nobody in the place to look after it—she was not always the worse for drink when I returned, but she was generally—on December 18th I was at home when she came home at 8.30 or 8.45—I was sitting in my room and heard bang bang on the stairs, and the boy cried—I went out and found my wife lying at the bottom of the stairs and the baby under her—she was the worse for drink, but I did not know it at the time—I went across for a doctor to see if the child was hurt, but it was not, she must have held it in some way so that it was preserved from injury—on December 27th I returned and found the child alone and ray wife out—it was on the bed with its clothes on—it was dirty, and looked very queer—I saw the bottle; the milk was sour and the bottle dirty; I cleaned it and got some fresh milk and gave to it—I went out and found my wife in the Haberdasher's Arms—on December 31st I saw her out with Mrs. Pope and the two children, getting on for 9 o'clock, and took the child from Mrs. Pope, and my wife and I went home together—when I went home on January 2nd my wife was lying on the little boy's bed—she had been drinking—the bed was against the wall—the baby was lying down and appeared to be in a dying condition—I took it to Dr. James and brought it back, and asked my wife to get up and look after it, but she did not do so—Dr. James had told me to come back in an hour—I did so, and when I got back I found that the baby was dead—my wife on some occasions suffered from fits, but on the occasion I have spoken of I should say that she was in drink—she was very nice on Christmas Day—before the child was born I saw her the worse for drink about two days a week, and after it was born she was wore.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I am sure I gave you half-a-crown a day, and more if you wished it—you were a sober woman when I married you so far as I know—I did not teach you to drink—you went out with your shopmates—you delivered yourself; it was a seven months' child, and it took me by surprise—you had Dr. Galloway after the child was born—I objected to your going to your mother's because you were always out when I came home—once, about two years ago I came home the worse for drink, but not at other times—I struck you about 12 months ago when we lived in Herbert Street, because you aggravated me—I cannot say that you were very kind to the elder child, and you did not take much notice of the baby, you always left it lying on the bed—you refused to feed it at your breast—you gave it Robb's biscuits—Dr. Galloway said that it was a very tiny baby, and you had done wonders with it.
Re-examined. Dr. Galloway came on the day of its birth, and again about two days afterwards, and once when she was in a fit—what he said about her having a one wonders with the child was on the day of its birth.
LEAH GOLDRING . I am the wife of James Goldring, of 56, Pitfield Street, Hoxton—the prisoner and her husband lived in my house for eight months—I saw the baby a few days after it was born—it was a very poor thing—when she was able to go out she took it with her—I saw her drunk the week before it died, and on the Saturday before, the 31st—I remember seeing her at the door of my house, and two women with her—she had the baby with her and I took it from her as I was afraid of her taking it upstairs—I saw the baby's bottle that day—it was dirty—I have spoken to her about what I have seen.
Cross-examined. My business took me out till about 2 o'clock—I once heard a noise and went out and saw water running downstairs—I called you—you gave me no answer, and I ran upstairs and knocked at your door, and you said you had had an accident—you looked the worse for drink—I have never seen you in a fit.
The prisoner. I have had to lie down to save myself from falling on the floor.
Re-examined. When I saw the pail she did not fall down insensible but she did not seem firm on her feet—she did not froth at her mouth—I did not notice her speech.
ERNEST WILLIAM JAMES . I am a fully qualified medical practitioner, of 16, Pilfield Street, Hoxton—I first saw this child on December 18th, when I was fetched by the father between 8 and 9 p.m.—the prisoner was sitting at a desk, drunk—I cannot possibly describe her condition as being in an epileptic fit—she was not capable of attending to the child properly—I saw it—it was wet and dirty—it was in its out-door clothes—I examined it—it had received no injury—it appeared thin—I saw no reason at all why it should not take its food—on January 2nd the father brought it to my surgery; it was dying, and was exceedingly dirty, and the clothing was soaked with urine—about 10 o'clock the same night the father called me—I went to the house and saw the prisoner in bed, drunk—there was no mistake about her condition; it was not the after effect; of a fit—the child was dead—I examined it next day—the clothing was dirty and verminy, and the child was in the same condition—it was 19 inches long and weighed 4 lbs. I oz.-the normal weight of a child that length is 8 lbs.—the body was very dirty, the skin was dry and full of dirt—the penis was swollen and inflamed, and there was an ulcerating sore about the size of a sixpence, and another on the buttock, which appeared to be uncared for—those sores were caused by dirt and neglect—I opened the body—there was no trace of fat under the skin or on the abdominal organs, and no trace of food in the stomach or intestines which there should have been—the stomach could digest food—the other organs were healthy, there was no sign of any disease—it died of starvation—the neglect must have gone on for several weeks—on the night of the death I saw the bottle; it was nearly full of milk, but it was curdled and horribly offensive—the bottle was dirty—if the child took milk in that condition it would have no nourishing property—the treatment must have caused
the child pain and suffering, which could have been avoided by care—it is not proper to take a young infant out late at night.
Cross-examined. I saw no Mellins' food.
By the, Jury. I never saw the prisoner in a fit, but I was informed by her husband that she had fits, and I treated her about a year ago as an epileptic patient—I gave her bromide of potass—there was nothing to tell me that what I heard was correct—there is nothing in favour of a seven months' child—if properly cared for it can be properly reared.
GEORGE LOWDER . I am an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—I went to the house on the morning after the child died—I found a bottle of food which the prisoner said she had bought the previous night—I agree with the doctor about the dirty vermined state of the child.
Prisoner's defence. I left it all to the nurse for the first fortnight, and I attended to it for the next three weeks.
Evidence for the Defence.
SARAH HOWARD . I am the prisoner's sister, and the wife of Robert Howard—she has been brought up respectably, but she married into a family which drank—she and I were Sunday school teachers together—she has been subject to very bad fits ever since she was 14—she and I were in hospital together with scarlet fever—she was then 14 and I was 17—it left her with fits, and me with other things—she has been married over 8 years—I have seen her several times since she has been married—I live a quarter of an hour from her, in Haverstock Street, but I did not see her often, and I never saw the deceased child—she is now 33—I have seen her in fits dozens and dozens of times since she married—I do not know whether drink makes them come on—the elder boy was very clean, and nicely dressed—I was not with her at his birth, but I was very soon after—she took very good care of him—I have children of my own—I never visited at her house but what it was always clean to my knowledge, and she was a very good mother—I did not go to see her when she had her last baby because I was very ill, and my mother was nursing me.
Cross-examined. The little boy was here yesterday, but the mother was in prison—the father has been in the same situation four years—I have not been at my sister's house for two years—I have heard the doctor say that the child was verminous—I should not say that that is cleanliness—I never saw my sister after it was born, and cannot say whether she was drinking.
J. W. TOPLISS (Re-examined). In the earlier time I handed over to my wife 28s. or 30s. a week and she paid the rent out of that up to March last; after that I gave her the money and she ran it and I gave her more, and then I used to give her so much at a time, and on Saturdays and Sundays I used to get things myself and pay for them, and paid the rent—she got my dinner and paid what was necessary for the children with the half-crown a day, and whenever she asked me I gave her more—we had our dinner together—I might put 6s. or 7s. a week more into her hands—there was no week when I did not give her half-a-crown a day.
By the JURY. She treated the other child roughly when she was out of temper, but well as to his clothes, food, and cleanliness.
SARAH—I am the prisoner's mother—my husband is an ironmonger—I saw the baby on the day of its birth and about five times after—I saw it about eight days before its death—she brought it to me—I said, "Give the baby the breast," she said, "I am not suckling it now"—I said, "You are"—she said, "I am not"—that was at my house—she had a very bad nurse and she knew better than the nurse—the husband said that the nurse was very dirty—she, prisoner, was always true, and faithful, and clean and sober, till she knew her husband—I have seen them both the worse for drink.
Cross-examined. I am on good terms with the husband, but he did not like my coming here—the nurse left three weeks after the baby was born—I think the prisoner was led away to drink by Mrs. Pope, and her neglect of the child might be caused by that—I heard that it had no food in its stomach—I saw it eight days before its death and it had on a nice little white dress—I did not see it undressed.
J. W. TOPLISS (Re-examined). I told the last witness that the nurse was very dirty and that she had left vermin—she kept on calling against my will—Mrs. Pope was the nurse—when she called she used to take the baby out.
MARY MITCHELL . I am a widow—I have known, the prisoner from a child—she bears a very good character—she was an envelope stamper with me—we were together 12 years, and she still went on in business after her marriage for a few months, and then she had epileptic fits—I always thought her intellect weak through the fits—she treated the eldest child well all along.
Cross-examined. I do not say that she was altogether irresponsible between the fits—I have not been inside the house for the last 12 months.
The prisoner produced a written defence stating that she fed the child with cow's milk and Mellins' Food and rusks; that it had a mother's love, and she did all she could for it; that her husband only gave her from Is. td 2s. a day; but that he gave her black eyes 'then she had been 7 months with child.
J. W. TOPLISS. (Re-examined.) Once when she refused to give the child milk I hit her with my open hand, and Mrs. Pope came in and said, "She wants to take that poor little baby out on a night like this!"—I struck her once five months before the baby was born and once afterwards—she called me a pig.
GUILTY . The police stated that she had been a total abstainer, but had been of very drunken habits for the last four years— One month, in the second division.
CONNOR, SMITH, and LEWIS PLEADED GUILTY .
FREDERICK COX . I am a watchmaker of 54, Clerkenwell Road—I am 71 years old—on October 3rd my premises were undergoing repairs, and my shop on the ground floor was dismantled—a considerable number of watches and things of considerable value were stowed in a safe—the shop has two doors, both leading into a passage—the one next to the front door was locked, and the further one was fastened inside by a bolt—I had the Keys of the safe and of the nearest door on me, and the key of the front door—I had made the front floor into a temporary shop during the repairs—I had put up a temporary counter and a glass containing watches—there was a. workmen's bench immediately in front of the window, and workmen were employed on it that day—on October 3rd, four workmen were engaged in that room—Gorman left about 6.30 leaving Ellis, Craggs and Nicholls there—they could see out at the window across the road—each workman has a lamp at the table—they work sitting down, looking towards the window—they usually knock off at 7.30—they put the watches they are employed on in a little box and I collect them and take them down to the safe for the week—that arrangement was only for a week—on Thursday, October 3rd, at 7.30, the men got up to begin to go, and put their watches in their little drawers—the lights were left—Ellis had left, and Craggs and Nicholls were preparing to go, when Smith came in they remained two minutes, and then I was left alone with him—he was a stranger—he asked me to sign something about some watch movements, and while doing so I heard shouting at the front door and the two taller prisoners came in with crepe on their faces—they were sworn to at the Police Court as Connor and Lewis—I could not see their faces, but I saw that Lewis had a very long nose—they said that they had not come to kill me, only to rob me, and if I kept quiet they would not hurt in—the three men surrounded me and forced a handkerchief into my mouth and tied another round my arms—this is it (Produced)—there is blood on it—they then tied me with these ropes and straps (Produced) which they brought with them—I succeeded in getting my teeth out, and they engaged me—they laid me on the floor and I was blindfolded and could not see what they were doing—there was property in the room value £200, and they took it all—they asked me for the keys of the safe, and took my watch and chain, and a ring off my finger—Connor remained with me while the others went down stairs—he said that they could not succeed in unlocking the shop door and I had better tell them what to do—I said, "You cannot expect me to help you, but if you are accustomed to this sort of thing you are able to get through a thin partition"—the partition ran up the whole distance, but there was some glass and they could easily break through—Connor did not leave me; he kept his hand on me till the other two returned—they were away about a quarter of an hour—they said,—"We must hold him tightly"; and they put me inside the house so that I could not communicate with any one, and bound me to the ballusters—I was still blindfolded—I begged them to leave me the keys of the safe—one of them said, "I will go down and fetch them for you," but never returned—I did not hear them leave the house, but I quickly liberated myself and found they had gone—I got down in two or three minutes—they had made an entrance into the shop through the back door—the safe had been opened and the contents removed and about
£150 worth of goods from the shop—I communicated with the police the same evening, and made out a list of the things I had lost—the prisoner Nicholls came to work next morning—he had been in my employment four or five weeks at 28s. a week—nothing passed, but he must have known that the place had been broken open as conversation was going on about it—he remained in my service, I think, a fortnight afterwards, but it may have been a month—I told the Magistrate chat he left about November 16th—he said nothing as to his seeing or knowing any of these people—I had told him before the robbery that he would have to look out for another situation—two printers were employed in the basement—one is about 70 and the other a slight-built man between 30 and 40—on the night of the 3rd I said, "The printers might return at any moment, you had better be quick" and Connor replied," We are not afraid of them"—they generally left about 8 o'clock, but they left an hour earlier that night—I did not see them go—one of them generally turned out the gas in the basement.
Cross-examined by Nicholls. A small paraffin lamp was the only light—you were not always there—you cannot shut the door gently—you must slam it—on the night of the robbery Mr. Craggs did not ask me if he should stay with me till the customer had gone, but he asked me if he could go—I thought I was safe with a customer—he looked a respectable man—before the robbery it was usual for you to take your work down in separate boxes for me to put into the safe, but while the work was being done upstairs I always took the boxes down.
Re-examined. There was no arrangement as to who left last; they put their watches into the boxes at 7:30.
EDWIN CHAGGS . I am a watchmaker of 115, Cunningham Road, Shepherd's Bush—I have been employed by Mr. Cox at 34, Clerkenwell Road, for three years—on October 3rd, about 7 p.m., my fellow workman left leaving the prisoner Nicholls, Mr. Cox, and myself in the shop—a stranger came in and asked Mr. Cox to show him something—I left them and went home—the next morning I heard of the robbery—on December 17th, I recognised the prisoner Smith as the man who came into the shop about 7.2u—I had previously seen Nicholls with Lewis—perhaps during the whole time Nicholls was in our employ quite six months previously, and up to the time of the robbery, but not since—I know Connor's face, but I cannot say where I have seen it.
THOMAS ELLIS . I live at 5, Bramah Road, Brixton—I am an assistant to Mr. Cox—on October 3rd, about 7.30 p.m., I went down stairs and waited outside the premises for Nicholls to go and have refreshments at my suggestion, which he accepted—Craggs came out, and afterwards Nicholls, who shut the door in the usual manner, by slamming it—he joined me, and we went to the Criterion Hotel and had refreshment—I stayed about three minutes and left him 30 or 40 yards from Cox's house—the next morning I saw him in Cox's workshop—I remarked that this burglary must have taken place at the time we reached the hotel—he said, "It must have done"—I asked him how long he waited there; he replied, about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, and knowing that it was usual for him to pass that way, I suggested that he must have
passed the shop on his way home, and said, "Did you notice anything unusual?"—he said that he passed the shop on the opposite side of the road without noticing anything unusual—two months before the robbery I had seen the prisoner Lewis in Nicholls' company outside the place of business—I was with them about a quarter of an hour—I left them together—about a fortnight before the robbery Nicholls asked me for the loan of a half-crown—I lent it, and he repaid it—after the robbery I noticed that Nicholls was wearing a different suit; and a nice new hat.
GAIUS SHRIMPTON . I am a porter when in work—I live at 57, South Island Place, Brixton—I know Connor—I was in work up to November 9th as a porter with Messrs. Duncan—I have seen Smith, Lewis, Nicholls and my father together about three weeks or under a month before I left my situation—I went with my father to the Rifle public house, Kennington Park Road, where I met Nicholls—we went along the Kennington Park Road, and met Lewis and Smith—they shook hands and walked back to the Mansion House public house, Kennington Park Road, where the five of us had drink, and they called each other by their Christian names—then we went back to the Rifle, had more liquid and then a parting drink at The Horns, and came out and wished one another good-bye and shook hands—Nicholls walked towards Westminster Bridge with Smith and Lewis, and my father and I went home.
Cross-examined by Nicholls. I have only seen you that once—it was on a Sunday.
ALICE DRIVER . I am the wife of Walter Driver, a warehouseman at 57, South Island Place, Brixton—about the end of October Lewis introduced Connor as Shrimpton, and Connor took a front room furnished on the first floor, at 6s. a week—he did not go out late, but he said he might be late as he was a drill sergeant, and would be sent to different parts—Lewis came to see him frequently—I saw Nicholls outside the house once with Connor and another man between, 7 and 7.30 p.m., about December 1st or 2nd.
FREDERICK COX (Re-examined). The front door was usually left open—I closed it on the finish of business—there is a strong clasp—my idea is the men concealed themselves in the basement—the last man closed the door after that—I put my watches away—I had an idea that something like this might happen, and I had a heavy clock weight placed on the temporary counter, which I intended to throw through the window to make an alarm if I was attacked—that had been there two or three days—I found on the morning of the 4th that it had been removed to another part of the room—I do not recollect seeing it on the 3rd—I told the men in the shop the object of its being there—I put the watches in the safe before I close the front door on most occasions—if the printers had left people might come in at the front door and slam it—there was a glass case in which were nine gold watches, but which looked empty—that had been removed from the back where I had put it—the printers had left earlier than usual that night—there was no light—a light in the basement could be seen from outside—the front door could not be closed without being slammed.
HENRY MKENNA (Police Sergeant G). About 9 a.m. on October 4th I was at Mr. Cox's making inquiries into the robberies the night before—I told Nicholls I was making inquiries and asked him if he could give a description of the man that he had seen the previous evening—he said that his age was about 35, height about 5 feet 7 inches, dark moustache, of Jewish appearance, and wearing a long dark coat, and a broad-brimmed hat—I asked if he should know the man again—he said, "I do not think I would"—I continued my inquiries—I saw Nicholls several times in October—he made no statement with regard to Lewis, Smith, or Connor—when arrested on December 10th I found on him £2 in gold, 6s. in silver, and 9 1/2 d. in bronze—I was with two other officers—we stopped him in the York Road—I said, "You know me, Nicholls?"—he said, "Yes"—I told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with Connor, Lewis, and Smith in robbing Mr. Cox in the Clerkenwell Road on the 3rd—he said, "I do not know Connor, I have known Lewis for the past 10 years; he is a watchmaker"—I took him to the City Road Police Station, where he said, "What did you say you were going to charge me with? does Mr. Cox say I robbed him?"—I said, "No, you will be charged with being concerned with Connor, otherwise Shrimpton"—he said, "I have known Lewis about six years, he introduced me to Shrimpton and a short dark man in the Criterion public house the night before the robbery; I have seen them all since the robbery, but I am not going to say anything to convict myself"—I said, "I saw you with Lewis in Cierkenwell Road on the Friday after the robbery;" that would be the 14th—he said, "Yes, I have often met him since"—he was then charged—he made no reply.,
WILLIAM BROGDEN (Detective H). On December 7th I arrested Lewis—I found on him three ladies' watches and one gentlemen's, a black-handled bag was in the room—I found in it 72 watch movements, eight watch cases, and sundries—I showed them to Mr. Cox, who identified them—I also found this jemmy and centre bit.
THOMAS DIVALL (Police Inspector II). I arrested Connor on December 7th—I found on him three keys—I saw a box in the front room on the top floor of the house he was living in—I unlocked it with one of the keys and found, amongst other things in it, these handkerchiefs—this box containing diamond seals, and other articles (Produced) and which Mr. Cox identified as having been taken from his shop on October 3rd—there were the proceeds of other burglaries, including acids.
Nicholls, in his defence, said that he had only seen the other prisoners occasionally, and they must have planned the robbery, but he had no hand in it.
NICHOLLS.— GUILTY — Two years' imprisonment ;
LEWIS and SMITH also PLEADED GUILTY to rubbery without violence, and CONNOR, to robbery with violence, on the said Frederick Cox, Lewis having been convicted of felony at Southwark Police Court on December 20th, 1898— Ten years penal serviude ; CONNOR, against whom three convictions are proved, Twelve years' penal servitude ; SMITH, against whom two convictions were proved, Ten years' penal servitude.
OLD COURT.—Friday and Saturday, January 17th and 18th, 1902.
Before the Lord Chief Justice.
JOHN DOUGLAS FORSTER . I am a member of the English Bar, and a Justice of the Peace for Johannesburg—in 1880 I was practising in Kimberley in South Africa—in July, 1895, shortly before the Jameson Raid, I went to practice in Johannesburg, as Consulting Counsel and Jurist—I was never admitted as a member of the South African Republic Bar—after the Jameson Raid I took a part in South African politics—I belonged to the South African League, and was elected the president in July, 1899—previous to that I had been one of the Vice-presidents—the main object of the League was the upholding of the British supremacy in South Africa—Dr. Krause was practising at Johannesburg in 1895 when I went there—he had preceded me by about two years—he afterwards became Public Prosecutor for the Transvaal Government the South African League was opposed to the abuses of the Government, that was its object—Broeksma was third Public Prosecutor, I think—I do not know whether he was a jurist also—in July, August, and September, 1899, there was a great deal of political agitation in Johannesburg—on September 29th, I left there to avoid arrest by the Republican Government—I went through Natal to Cape Town, where I was placed in command of the civil branch of the Intelligence Department—I remained in Cape Town in that capacity till May 14th, 1900, when I joined the Intelligence Department of the head-quarters staff of Lord Roberts in the field—I joined the head-quarters column at Kroonstad, and was on the inarch to Johannesburg—on May 30th, with Major Davies and Mr. Sam Evans, and an orderly, I went into Johannesburg, with a white flag to demand the surrender of the town—I found Dr. Krause was acting commandant—he was in charge of the town—Major Davies requested him to go out to see Lord Roberts, and he accompanied us out—when Lord Roberts took possession of Johannesburg, I was appointed legal adviser to the military governor—two courts were established, the military tribunal and the court of the chief Magistrate—Dr. Krause was at first permitted to practice before the magistrate—he appeared in one case—I gave certain advice to the military governor, after which no advocate was permitted to practice who had not taken the oath of allegiance—Dr. Krause declined to take the oath, and he ceased to practice—on July 24th, 1900, I ceased to be the legal adviser to the military governor, and I left to come home, I think, in August, 1901—I had been acting as correspondent to the Pall Mall Gazette, and after I ceased to be legal adviser, I acted as correspondent to the Pall Mall Gazette in Johannesburg—while so acting I saw a letter in The Times of February 25th, 1901, signed "A. B. Markham," which embodied a letter
signed "F. Krause," in which Krause spoke of me as a very doubtful character" (Read) "London, December 7th, 1900.—Dear Sir,—In reply to your inquiry, I have to inform you that it is quite true that Major F. Davies who was sent to Johannesburg, by Lord Roberts, on May 30th, 1900, to demand the surrender of the town, was accompanied by Messrs. G. Douglas Forster and Sam Evans. Forster was a man of very doubtful character, well known to Kimberley men, and just before the war he was selected chairman of the South African League, an organization justly hated by all true Africanders, by reason of its malicious agitation. Sara Evans was connected with the Eckstein group, and a man not very much admired by Africanders and by moderate and progressive Uitlanders. In my interview with Lord Roberts arranging terms of surrender of the town, I protested against the fact of these men accompanying an English officer on such an occasion. Lord Roberts expressed his regret and stated these men were sent because he was told that they were acquainted with the town and local officials Immediately after the British occupation both these men obtained temporary billets under British rule. With kind regards, yours sincerely, F. E. T. Krause." (Mr. Markham's letter to The Times, published on February 25th, 1901, was then put in and read.)—I commenced an action against The Times and Mr. Markham for libel—the paper apologized at once and the action against them ceased—the action against Mr. Markham is still proceeding—Exhibit 73A is a letter to "Brooks" dated June 14th, 1901, and signed "F"—the second paragraph says, "Douglas Forster (you know him) has instituted an action for libel against Markham on a letter written by me and published by M. in The Times in which I say that 'he is a man of a doubtful character'"—I have read that letter, and I say that the Douglas Forster referred to there is myself—(The letter also stated that "F." had from about 1883 to 1884 deserted his wife and treated her in a shameful way, and openly lived in adultery with a Madam Piermain; that he travelled about with her in a theatrical company under the name of Adolphus Ellis; that the writer wished for definite information with dates and places; that he believed the woman died from drink at Johannesburg; that he believed an hotel keeper named Bex knew all about it, and that he had distributed the "medicines")—Exhibit 74A. is a letter from Broeksma to Dr. Krause, dated from Johannesburg on July 10th, 1901, beginning "Amice"—(This stated that he could not write all information about "F." by this mail as people lived some distance from each other; that they were very strict on him (the writer) so he could not go to Pretoria, but he had a reliable person who would get everything out of Rex; that when Mrs. Voet returned from Europe in 1885 Mrs. F. had already left her husband; that there was no doubt that she was a generally respected lady in K—, that he believed she left for England; that, a Jack Hodgkins also lived with Madame Peirmain, and that if he could be found everything would come out; that Adolphus Ellis had with her again in 1885 and played in her company; that when Ellis wanted to resume his practice at K—his colleagues refused to have anything to do with him, and that the writer did not think Krause would have any difficulty in proving that Adolphus "is a man of very doubtful character"; that his conduct was open talk in Kimberley, and that he must ask Krause to keep
on worrying L—at Brussels for pecuniary support.)—I say the statements there about F. refer undoubtedly to myself—I deny the whole of that letter—Exhibit 51A is a letter from Broeksma to Krause, dated "Johannesburg, 2/8/01," and begins, "Best Friend "-(This stated that when F. resolved to let the lady with whom he lived at Doornfontein as his wife go to Cape Town, she travelled as Mrs. F.; and that F.'s furniture, which had been in the Standard Buildings, was moved to the house of this woman.)—that letter being read in connection with the others, I say that it refers to me—Exhibit 60A is a letter to Broeksma and signed "F.," dated August 6th, 1901—"Amice, your letter of July 10th, 1901, to hand to-day. Hearty thanks for the information re F. I have already, the previous week, under address W. D. G., written to you about him, and I hope that you have received that letter, and that you will also give effect to the therein contained order, and that in some legal manner. This man must be got out of the way, cost what it may. His influence is very damaging. The other letters to hand, also one from v. T. Everything forwarded with the necessary remarks, particularly concerning money for you. I also sent excerpts to Charles B. the previous week under address W. D. G., as well as to "W.D.G personally, with the remark to give them to Charles B. I hope that he has received everything. No further news. I write to day to Charles B. Compliments to your wife, &c, F."—I think the "F." there mentioned refers to myself—Exhibit 61A of August 6th, 1901, is to "Charles Brooks, Box 3517, Johannesburg, Transvaal," and signed "F." (Read.) "Amice. Hearty thanks for the letters the Doctor. I shall endeavour to have published the greater portion thereof, as was done with the other things. Excerpts I have always sent to you, either under the address of friend W.D.G., or direct to him, with a request to hand them to you. All the other letters, etc., etc., I have despatched with the necessary remarks, particularly concerning money. Everything is going on here in the same old way, much and great progress has not been made, and I firmly believe that the opposition is too weak to exert any influence for good. The lies which are published here with design is unbelievable, and the person "F." of whom I wrote is greatly the cause of this, and therefore I also wrote to you the previous week that our people should be made aware of this, so that he can be shot dead in some lawful way, or otherwise put out of the way. This is absolutely necessary, and the sooner the better for our cause. Up to the present I have only sent you excerpts, but to-morrow I will make arrangements to send you weekly the Daily News. This paper is the most influential on our side. You must write to me immediately whether the newspapers have come through, and also what has happened to 'F'. I go to Scotland day after to-morrow with my sister. Will see what I can do there, otherwise all well here, F."—July, 1900, was the first letter I wrote from Johannesburg to the Pall Mall Gazette—between then and August, 1901,1 wrote every week—Exhibit 62A is from "H.F.," dated 20/8/01 to "Charles Brooks, Esq, Box 3517, Johannesburg," "My friend. Your letter (or rather both letters) of July 16th to hand, viz. letter for our Ou Baas, and another epistle—everything forwarded. I am fairly well. I am at present in Scotland. The feeling here is very divided, and I must admit that there is more against us than for us, that is speaking generally. The newspapers here have done their work
excellently, and it will take a long time before the lies are eradicated root and branch. We must begin with the liars themselves, and that is why I have advised that our people must be informed with regard to F., so that be, at any rate, may be got out of the way. News, I can unfortunately not give you, and I was somewhat disappointed that I could not hear anything of importance from you this week. As you will have seen from my letters of the previous week, I have urged all influential persons to send you on money, and I hope that this has at last been done. Greetings to all friends.—H.F."—I say the "F" there clearly refers to myself—Exhibit 63A is dated from the "Highland Railway Company's Station, Hotel, Inverness, August 30th, 1901, 'and is signed H. F., to Broeksma, Esq., Box 2277, Johannesburg—(This thanked the Broehsma for the information regarding "F." and the woman at Doornfontein, but saying that the writer would he glad of the name of the woman, and also how long the cohabitation lasted; and that" of course I only wish to know this if the other matters concerning F. have, not yet reached their consummation, I would, of course, prefer the latter.")—the "F" there refers to me—I left Johannesburg, I think, on August 19th, or, at any rate, before the arrest of Broeksma—I was there continuously from July, 1900, to August 1901—my object in coming home was to prosecute my action against Mr. Markham—it is absolutely untrue that I deserted my wife or treated her badly—we separated in 1887 by mutual consent—it was brought about by anonymous letters written by interested persons—I settled upon her the whole of my property, which is now bringing in about £3,000 a year.
Cross-examined. I began to practice in Johannesburg in 1895, and continued to do so till I left in September, 1899, in consequence of the state of political feeling—during that time I only had professional relations with Dr. Krause—he did not mix in the circle which I associated with—he was not a member of my club, and I saw him, I may say, not at all—I knew him best on board ship in 1893, when we were fellow passengers—politically we were at the extreme end of the poles—our policy was to expose the Transvaal (government, and he was one of the officers of the Government—from 1895 till I left Johannesburg in September, 1899, I took a most active part in political agitation—the petitions to Her late Majesty originated in me, and I drafted them both—one of them was sent over in March, 1899, the other was refused by Sir William Butler—the Bloemfontein Conference resulted from them—I was not a combatant in the war—I was head of the Civil Intelligence Department in Cape Town—I did not take part in any military operations from May, 1900, to August, 1901, except on one occasion—it was a condition of residence that all British subjects should be enrolled in the Rand Rifles—it was purely a volunteer force—we had no uniform except on parades; we had weapons—we were ready to fight if necessary—we were called out on one occasion, but we did not see the enemy; they had gone—when I went to Johannesburg with Lord Roberts in May, 1900, that was the first time I had seen Dr. Krause since he was after me with a warrant—I say he was after me with a warrant because I knew he had the issuing of warrants, and I know he had issued it because I had the information from his office—I was telegraphed for in May, 1900, by the Director of Military
Intelligence, to join the head-quarters staff with my own staff—I joined on May 16th, 1900—I think we marched from Kroonstad on the 20th I was not in uniform, I was in mufti all the time—I was for some six weeks legal adviser to Colonel Mackenzie, the Military Governor—from July, 1899, to August, 1901, I was acting as correspondent to the Pall Mall Gazette—I was supplying them with a weekly letter—I wrote against the Boers as strongly as ever I could—I took a view which I hope was justified by my opinion—the articles were not signed—they are headed "From our own correspondent,"I had a proper appointment from the paper—I think it was pretty well known that I was acting as correspondent for the Pall Mall Gazette—I wrote an article for the paper, published on July 17th, 1901—it is a long one, and deals with various matters; the Press censorship, which was very vigorous, was one of them—in one passage I said, "In two words, if this war is to be ended once and for all, all the Boers now in the field must be treated as robbers and bandits, and not as belligerents"—that is quite right, my view on June 14th, when I wrote that, is my view to-day—I think they should be shot or hanged as British subjects in rebellion, that is the view I have advocated throughout: the strongest possible measures should be taken—under the heading of Vlakfontein, I made a reference to the shooting of some gunners—I got that information from wounded officers who were present at the fight—I did not know that Lord Kitchener had contradicted it, and I was very much surprised when I heard he had—I wrote, "Not trusting to their own capabilities, they ordered the few artillerymen still alive—an officer and one or two men were all that were left; to train and fire them." (The guns). Naturally the order was met with a point blank refusal, whereupon, without more ado, these brave gunners were instantly shot down"—when I wrote that I did not know that, according to Lord Kitchener, it was inaccurate—the contradiction was made on June 6th, but we got very little news in Johannesburg—I knew a Mrs. Piermain—she was an actress—I acted with her—I also engaged in a theatrical speculation with her—the company I was financing was travelling, and I frequently went down to several places and played with them—I should think knew her for about 2 1/2 years—during that time my wife was in England, she had left at the end of 1884, and did not return till 1887—then these anonymous letters made things unpleasant, and we separated—I was only absolutely with the company from about the middle of 1887 to the end of 1887; then the season came to an end at Durban—I left for England and never saw Mrs. Piermain again—I was financing the company in 1886, but I did not act so regularly—I acted at various times with her from 1885 to 1886—after that I acted regularly with her at Durban and Kimberley—I was practising at Kimberley—I gave up my practice to go to Johannesburg in 1887—that was the first time the company went there—I acted at Johannesburg and at Pretoria—my wife did not come out to South Africa in consequence of my acting with Mrs. Piermain or of what was rumoured or spoken about me—it was in consequence of her being flooded with anonymous letters in reference to Madame Piermain—I presume the letters were about my conduct with Madame Piermain—my wife saw me about it, and we agreed to separate—I was married in 1872—my wife had lived in South Africa for some time—she was well known there—we went out in 1876—scandal was
caused by these letters in Kiruberley—I cannot say if it was thought that what had led to the separation was what was said to have taken place between Mrs. Piermain and myself—there was a class of persons who took an interest in my private affairs and who did talk—I cannot say that I regret that there has been an opportunity for me to say that these scandals are untrue—I regret that they have been started—I cannot say that it is ever nice to go into an action for libel—I brought an action against Mr. Markham—the defence of that action is a payment into Court and an—apology.
Re-examined. The scandal was in 1887.
FRANCIS JOHN DA VIES . I am a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Grenadier Guards—my town address is the Guards' Club, Pall Mall—on May 30th, 1900, I was with the British forces with Lord Roberts outside Johannesburg, serving with the Intelligence 'Department—I was sent into the town with a white flag, accompanied by Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. Forster—I went to the office of the Commandant and met Dr. Krause there—he accompanied me to Lord Roberts' headquarters at Elatsfontein, o, about seven miles away—on May 31st the town was surrendered and occupied by Lord Roberts—I was appointed Military Commissioner of Police—in April or May, 1901, a civil government was established, and I continued to carry on the same duties under the title of Acting Commissioner of Police—I held that office till November 9th, 1901, when I left for England—un till June 9th Dr. Krause was a prisoner of war—he surrendered himself with the town I presume—on June 9th he was required to sign this written parole—it is in my writing—it is signed "F. E. T. Krause"—I know his writing—to the best of my belief that is his signature—the witness to it is a person Dr. Krause obtained—about the end of July he left Johannesburg on leave of absence—I do not know if a fresh parole was taken, I had not to deal with that matter—after he left Johannesburg I had no more to do with' him—in August, 1901, I gave directions to Captain Barnett for the arrest of a man named Cornelis Broeksma—the arrest was made on August 24th, about 1 p.m.—after that a number of documents were handed over to me by Captain Barnett, a great number of which I brought over to England and handed to the Treasury—I should say that the letter of August 6th, beginning "Amice, your letter of the 10th July, 1901, to hand to-day," is in the writing of Dr. Krause—Exhibit 61A of August 6th, Exhibit 62A of August 20th, Exhibit 63 of August 30th, Exhibit 72A of June 10th, Exhibit 73A of June 14th, Exhibit 75A of July 12th, Exhibit 68A of March 22nd, Exhibit 71A of May 16th, and Exhibit 78 of July 25th, I believe are all in Dr. Krause's writing—(MR. ISAACS objected to the letter from "F. K" of March 22nd, 1901, being read, was it was irrevelant and would lead to an inquiry into the very thing that was not charged, and would be most prejudicial to the prisoner. THE SOLICITOR GENERA said that he submitted it in evidence to show the relations between Krause and Broeksma, and that, because it might support another charge that would not make it irrevelant THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that he should admit any
letters which referred to material matters such as "medicine" or"F, but not those which had no bearing upon those parts, and for the present he would not admit the contents of the letter of March 22nd. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said that as the letter of May 16th was not very material, he would not press it. MR. ISAACS then submitted that the letter of June 10th, which dealt with the point as to "medicines" had nothing to do with the case, and would not throw any light on the question as to whether the letters of July 28th and August 6th were criminal offences. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ruled that the letter of June 10th was admissible., and said that it was quite clear to his mind that "medicines" meant information from England to Africa, or from Africa to England; that he could not shut it out and that the same applied to the letter of July 12th, which was then read. This was signed "F," and commenced "Dear Brooks "; it stated that the writer had sent the medicines to Williamson, Mrs. R., and was T.; that all arrived safely without the destruction of a single bottle, and without being opened, and that it was difficult to send the advertisements of the prescription for the medicine as all publications took up so much room, but that he would endeavour to do what he could. The letter of July 25th, commencing "Amice" and signed "F", stated that the medicines had worked well, and that the patients appeared to be somewhat better, but that the writer could discover no general improvement, and it appeared to him that it was not to much individual persons (doctors), who should be blamed as the system persued by them)—on each of the envelopes of Exhibits 60 and 61 one word appears to be in the prisoner's writing, that word is "Transvaal"—I think I had better not express any opinion about the other words.
Cross-examined. There appears to be no disguise in the writing of the prisoner, which I have identified—the mail leaves Southampton on Saturday afternoons—if a letter goes by a good whip it would arrive at Johannesburg about 6 p.m. on the Friday fortnight, it takes not quite three weeks, it would be delivered the next morning so it is almost exactly three weeks—Broeksma a was arrested on August 24th, I believe about 1 p.m.—I received the letters dated August 6th on August 31st—these letters came into my hands from the press censor—all letters received in Johannesburg would go through his hands, but he could not possibly read them all—I expect he would open only such letters as would arouse his suspicion, but he was not under me, so I do not know the rules—this letter of September 4th, 1901, is in the prisoner's writing, and is addressed to Broeksma at Box, 2277, Johannesburg—it is written from Holloway Prison—(THE SOLICITOR GENERAL objected to this letter being read as it was written after the prisoner's arrest, and he submitted that the prisoner could not make evidence for himself. MR. ISAACS contended that it was evidence, as it showed the relations between the parties, and should be admitted on the same point as the letter of March 22nd. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said he would withdraw his objection if MR. ISAACS thought the letter would benefit the prisoner—this was directed to C. Broeksma, Box 2277, Johannesburg, and was signed F. E. T. Krause, and stated that the prisoner was arrested, and was in Hollway on a charge of High Treason, supposed to have been committed in the Transvaal Colony; that when and in what nature was a mystery to him and everyone else; that it
was alleged that had given information of great importance to the enemy but that as he had only corresponded with neutral friends and surrender burglars, he did know how he could have given information to the "enemy;" that he was quite content to suffer if necessary, but that he: did not see how all the: legal acumen of Great Britain could justify the charge, and that he had never in It his like done or asked anybody to do an illegal or wrong act.) That letter was sent to me by Captain Fergusson, the press censor—A proclamation dated May 28th, 1900, by F. E. T. Krause, was also put in and read.) I have seen this letter from Lord Roberts to the prisoner, dated June 2nd, 1900 (This expressed Lord Roberts' thanks for the valuable assistance afforded by the prisoner when Lord Roberts entered Johannesburg, and also contained his personal thanks for the prisoners courtesy—A letter from the prisoner, dated July 9th, 1900, to the Military Governor at Johannesburg, asking for permission, to absent him self from South Africa, and to proceed to England on account of his health, was also read, as well as one from Sir R. H Knox to the prisoner, slating that his hare of absence as well as that of Dr. Schultz was extended until further orders, as long as they did not return to South Africa where no extension of their parole could be guaranteed, and that they could not in any case be permitted to return to Johannesburg till the cassation of hostilities)—as far as I know, Dr. Krause never took the oath of allegiance or of neutrality—there were four charges against Broeksma, high treason, treachery, breaking the oath of neutrality, and inciting to breaking the oath of neutrality; he was found guilty on all four charges—he was sentenced to death, and was shot—the treachery was in sending information to the enemy while living within our lines—the country round Johannesburg was unsettled in June, 1901, you could not ride far out without an escort—there were no commandoes about, but you were very likely to be murdered by a man shooting from his house—there were small bodies of Boers about—they attacked ray post on July 30th—that was 9 miles from Florida and 6 miles from Roudpourt.
Re-examined. When I received the letter of September 6th I still had Krause's letter, which had been intercepted—(Portions of a letter from the prisoner to Dr. Leyds were also read.)—usually letters addressed to the American Consul at Johannesburg would not be opened by the censor.
VICTOR FKRGUSSON . I am a captain in the South Wales Borderers—from April 30th, to November 9th, 1901, I acted as press censor at Johannes burg—on August 24th I received instructions from Colonel Davies, in conse quence of which I stopped all letters addressed to "Broeksma," "Brooks," or"Green," and to post office boxes 3517 and 2277—it was part of my duty to find out to whom those boxes belonged—number 2277 belonged to Broeksma, and 3517 to a man named Draper, who, I believe, was arrested with Broeksma—I receded these two letters, Exhibits 60 and 61 of August 6th—I think I sent them unopened to Colonel Davies—I think I opened Exhibit 62, dated August 28th—I think I opened Exhibit 63—I made no private mark on them—the post boxes were placed at the back of the post office—the post office officials put the letters into the boxes through a door on one side—the customers have their own key?, and take them out by a door on the other side, he can take them out at any time—the mail usually takes 20 days to get out—Mr. Gordan, the American Consul's letters were usually sent straight to him—I would rather not say if they were opened by the censor or not.
Cross-examined. Newspapers also would come within my jurisdiction as press censor—I do not know of my own knowledge whether Brooks or Broekma received a number of newspapers.
ALEXANDER BARNETT . I am a captain in the North Staffordshire Regiment, at present residing at St. Ennui's Hotel, Westminster—in August, 1901, I was Deputy of Police at Johannesburg, and on August 24th I went to 11, Leyds street, Johannesburg, and arrested a man named Cornelis Broeksma—among his letters I found a press copy letter book—I also found letters numbers 68 to 78B—78A was in pieces in the waste paper basket in his sitting room—no other family occupied the house—that letter is dated July 25th, 1901, and the London post mark is July 25th—it arrived in Johannesburg on August 17th, but there is nothing on the envelope which enables me to identify it—I arrested Broeksma about 1.5 p.m. on August 24th.
By the COURT. The mail of August 17th was the last one before the one of the 24th—I cannot remember if I found any other letters to Broeksma by that same mail—I found a lot of envelopes.
WILLIAM JAMES MAY . I am a postman attached to the South Western Post Office, Westminster. On August 7th, 1901, I was engaged in sorting and stamping letters—I say that between 11 and 1130 a.m. on that day I stamped this envelope, Exhibit 61.
ALFRED OLIVER . I am an overseer at the South Western District Post Office, Westminster—on August 7th, between 11 and 11.30 a.m., a man named Mann was sorting letters there; he is now dead—looking at this envelope 01 I can say that Mann stamped it between those hours on that day.
ALFRED SUTTON . I am a clerk to Messrs. Maple & Co., Ltd., at their depository at 48, Camden Street, Camden Town—we received this letter signed "F. E. T. Krause." and dated August 6th, 1901—and we collected some luggage from 17, Lupus Street, Pimlico, on August 15th—this (produced) is our receipt for the six packages—on September 2nd, 1901, Inspector Sweeney called with this receipt—it was after the arrest of the prisoner—I handed over to the Inspector the prisoner's luggage.
HENRY WOODMAN TURNER . I am a clerk at the Standard Bank of South Africa, 10, Clements Dine—the prisoner opened an account there on September 10th, 1900—he had letters addressed there from time to time—I forwarded any letters for him to the addresses with which he furnished us—certain letters in the possession of the bank were handed over to Inspector Sweeney.
Cross-examined. Sometimes letters would lie at the bank for the prisoner for a long time, and then he would write for them to be sent on—I do not remember his ever calling personally—I should send his Letters on according to his instructions.
JOHN SWEENEY Police Inspector.) On September 2nd I arrested the prisoner on a provisional warrant at St. Ermins Hotel, Westminster—the warrant, charged him with high treason, committed in the Transvaal—I said to him, "I am a police officer, and I have a warrant for your arrest"—he said, "I am a legal man, I know the law, show it to me, give it to me,—I said "I will not, give it to you, but I will read it to you"—I read it to him, and in reply he said, "The charge is absurd; if I make an voluntary statement now I know it will be used against me
in evidence"—I took him to New Scotland Yard, and subsequently to Bow Street—the provisional warrant was issued there upon information sworn by me, the basis of my information being that a warrant had been issued at Pretoria—I subsequently we to Maple's depository at Camden Town, and took possession of some luggage there, and all the papers that were there—afterwards, at the request of the prisoner's counsel, the boxes and the contents were handed over to him—one of the documents I found was the letter of November 5th, acknowledging the receipt, of Dr. Krause's letter of August 30th—I also found among his luggage the letter of August 2nd, from Broeksma to Krause—T obtained a number of letters from she Standard Bank addressed to the prisoner, amongst them the letter of August 9th—after I had read it I sent it to the prisoner for his perusal.
Cross-examined. When I went to the bank I asked for letters addressed to Dr. Krause, in the care of the bark.
JAMES KEITH TROTTER I am a Colonel, and Assistant Quartermaster General at the War Office—T am acquainted with the language spoken by the Dutch—it is called "Taal"—it is a form of the Dutch language which I am also acquainted with—Exhibit 57 contains a list of all the Dutch Exhibits, and also a corresponding list of the translations, which are correct.
Cross-examined."Taal" has a good many words in it which differ from Dutch—the letter of August, 6th, 1901, is in Dutch, not in "Taal"—all the letters are in Dutch—"Taal" has nothing to do with this case—"legal" in the letter of August 6th is "wettelijk"—I should say the correct translation is, "and that in some legal manner"—"wettelijk" cannot be translated as "well"—it is not used for emphasis—in Exhibit 61A of August 6th the translation is, "so that he can be shot dead in some lawful way, or otherwise put out of the way"—that is a literal translation.
J. D. FORSTER (Re-examined). I do not know what business Broeksma was doing during 1901.
MR. ISAACS submitted that as to the Counts framed under Vic. 24 and 25, Section 4 there was no evidence that Broeksma ever received the letters soliciting him, and, therefore, the could be no statutory offence, because the Statute pre-sujpos-s that the mind of a person who in said to have been in cited is reached—that "solicit," "encourage," and "persuade:," meant having invited or induced someone to do a certain thing, to take. a certain, view, or to bring argument to bear; he allowed that his difficulty was in the words," endeavour to persuade"—the Statute made it an offence to "endeavour to persuade,' but a man might endeavour, but not succeed. He referred to Reg v. Fox (19 W.R., 109), which was a decision of the Irish Courts before ten Judges, six of whom had the same view as he did, as the Prisoner in that case was charged with soliciting one Hoey to murder one kennedy, but owing to a mistake the better was mis-delivered and reached Foley, who handed it to a Magistrate. MR. ISAACS further submitted that his point covered the letters of July 28th and August 6th, as there wan no evidence that Broeksma received the letter
of July 28th before his arrest, or that, the letter of August 6th even went by the mail of August 17th, and that it could not be left, to the Jury to persume that Broeksma received it. The same arguments applied to July 28th, and there wax no evidence under any Count which could support an indictment founded on June 28th, but Reg. v. Fox applied also to the letter of August 6th. He also referred to Reg. v. Rainsford (13 Cox's Criminal Cases, 9), where the mind was not reached, the letter not being read although it was received. He also referred to Reg. v. Most (L. R. 7 Q. B. D.), winch presupposed that the mind had been reached THE SOLICITOR GENERAL contended that it teas not proved that the letter on July 28th had not reached Broeksma; if it had gone by a mail which arrived after August 24th it would have bean intercepted by the authorities, but letters arriving before that would be presumed to have reached their destinations, but that question was for the Jury, and with regard to the letter of August 6th the Statute applied to persons agreeing" to murder another, but not to one person only, and 'that the solicitation did not necessitate the actual reaching of the mind, as if he asked a man to shoot another going out of the Court now, and if th: man was stone deaf that could still be a solicitation; or in the case of a letter put into a mans pocket but never received, or a letter written to himself in German which he did not understand, would there not still be solicitation or endeavour to persuade; that "to persuade" did not mean to successfully persuade, but it meant "to use persuasion to."In Reg. v. Rainsford Judges said that they did not express an opinion as to whether the prisoner had incited, but he was convicted of the attempt. In Reg v. Most, there was no evidence that anybody had read the paper, but the prisoner wax convicted of endeavouring to persuade: it was for the Jury to say whether the prisoner wrote the letter, whether it incited to murder, and whether he did all in his power to have—it delivered, a ml that it was not material whether it affected the mind of the person to whom it came. MR. ISAACS replied that the Solicitor General had quoted no authority for presuming that the mind of the person was reached; all that wan proved was that the week before August 6th the prisoner wrote a letter to Broeksma, which was not sufficient evidence to go to the Jury; that when an intention is coupled with an overt act there is an offence, although the actual crime intended to be committed is not completed, and directly there is an act but not a full crime there is only a common law misdemeanour.
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE . "I hare very carefully considered this point, and in my opinion the point raised by Mr. Isaacs with regard to the Counts founded upon the Statute is a good objection and must prevail. As the case must go to the Jury with regard to the other Count* I shall say but little now, as I can, if necessary, express my reasons more fully. I think the words endeavour to persuade-" in the Statute are descriptive of the character of the offence which is bring attributed to the person charged under it in, relation to the persons whom it is endeavoured to persuade, and that they have the same meaning with reference to such persons as the words encourage, "solicit," "persuade," and "propose to," and therefore I think there must be some communication to a person in order to constitute the statutory offence. I will only say, with reference to the argument used, that. I in no way accede to the suggestion that, if this view is right, the communication, in, a foreign language, or to a deaf man or woman, could not be an office. In my opinion it is not necessary to show that the mind of the person or persons to whom the communication—is made
has been influenced, such a view would be contrary to the Judgments in Reg. v. Most, but I hold that there must be some evidence of some communication to another person. I had considerable doubt as to the Counts based on the letter of July 28th. I have no doubt, if I may say so, that if there had been sufficient evidence of the receipt of an earlier letter by Broeksma, the case would be different, but the only reference to the earlier letter is in the letter of August 6th, and on the evidence before me, I cannot put the letter of July 28th on a higher position than the letters of August 6th. I am of opinion that the Counts alleging an offence under the Statute must be withdrawn from the Jury. No question of law arises as to the Counts alleging the attempt, and they must go before the Jury."
COLONEL DAVIES (Re-examined by Mr. ISAACS). "When I opened one of the letters to Broeksma I found a photograph of Dr. Krause with his name on it—I do not know if the warrant for Dr. Krause was dated August 31st—I did not issue it—it was for high treason—I came over to this country to give evidence in this matter.
( MR. ISAACS wished to call Mr. Robert Inchbold, the Secretary of the "Daily News," for him to produce the file of the paper for April 10th, 1901, as the paper was referred to in the letter of June 10th. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL objected to the production of the—paper, and the LORD CHIEF JUSTISE ruled that 'the evidence was not admissible. MR. ISAACS then submitted that he was entitled to put in the file on the "Daily News" of June 12th as the paper was referred to in the letter of July 10th. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ruled that it was not admissible.)
GUILTY of the attempt.—Two years'. imprisonment.
THIRD COURT.—Friday and Saturday, January 15th, 17th and 18th, and
OLD COURT—Monday and Tuesday, January 20th and 21st, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. MUIR and MR. STEVENSON' Prosecuted. MR. MARSHALL HALL, K.C., and MR. BRANDON Defended.
HELEN DOMINQUEZ .—I am the wife of percent Joseph Dominquez, the Secretary of the Argentine Legation, and live at 7, Tilney Street, Park Lane—on November 17th, 1899 about 6.30, I opened a jewel box on the dressing table in my bedroom and found it empty—the articles in it were safe about 3.30—I saw a man, named Cope, twice that morning in my house—the first time I saw him he came to mend a chimney—this list of what I lost is in my writing—there was a long rope pearl necklace of 430 small pearls, two large pear-shaped pearls at each end, each pearl being separated with a white sapphire; each pearl cost £8 and the four large ones £100 each—they were not sapphires, they were emeralds, and there was a tiny white sapphire—I cannot tell the value of that—I did not buy them; they were given to me; but I arrived at the value by
going to the jeweller—there was also a brooch set with ten large diamonds mounted in gold—I did not buy that, but I asked the value of that too—it is £160—there was also a portion of a tiara set with ten large diamonds and two emeralds, value £600, and a Marquise ring set with rubies surrounded with diamonds, value £80, and a pair of gentleman's gold sleeve links and 20 loose pearls, value £150—I gave evidence at the Police Court against Cope, and he pleaded guilty—I also gave evidence against Brook, another man.
Cross-examined. I am an American—I produced some pearls at the police court which were left in a drawer; they were the portion of a pearl rope—the pearls were about this size (A pearl necklace produced), the odd ones were taken—the rope was given to me a long time ago; it was bought abroad—these did not form a portion of the pearls on the rope, but originally they were all in the rope—there are about &0 here; they are very evenly matched, and this is a fair sample of the whole necklace—the brooch was worth about £160—I had it valued for insurance, but I was not insured—the Marquise ring cost £80 a long time ago—the little pearls were valued at £8 each by a west-end jeweller—70 of them at £8 would represent £750.
MR. CROW. I am chief clerk at Marylebone—in November, 1901, I was second clerk at Marlborough Street, acting as chief clerk—I took the deposition of Victor Albert Hobinstock in the case of Rex v. Brook on June 24th, 1901, that is the prisoner—he was sworn on the Old Testament, and I took down his deposition, and read it to him, and he signed it as correct—it was transmitted with the other depositions to this Court.
Cross-examined. I do not take it down in shorthand, I put down the effect of the questions and answers—he; used the words, "I produce my bought book"—a series of questions were asked.
ALFRED COPE (In custody.) On April 26th, I was arrested and charged with committing a robbery—I was afterwards identified by a number of people in connection with other robberies—I pleaded guilty at the North London Sessions on May 21st, and was sentenced on July 3rd to four years' penal servitude—I am now undergoing that—I got into houses under pretence of doing work, and found out where the jewels were kept and took them—I was then living in the country, and came to town sometimes two and sometimes three days before committing a robbery, and generally went back to the country next day—I disposed of the jewellery on, and since, January 20th, 1899, through George Brook; that was Mrs. Skeefe's case—I remember going to 6, Park Road—(MR. HALL objected to this evidence, as the Act applied to articles stolen within 12 months, and, therefore did not include any thing stolen outside the 12 months. MR. MUIR contended that the Act applied to articles stolen, but not to this indictment, which was against the receiver. (See Reg. v. Dunn, 1st Moody 146, and Reg. v. Oddy.) The Recorder admitted the evidence, and would consider the matter further if it became necessary.)
LADY ISABELLA ALBINIA ARBUTHXOT . I am the wife of Sir George Gough Arbuthnot—on June 13th, 1900, I was living at 6, Wilton Crescent, and at 10 a.m. I saw a man examining the electric light fittings in my drawing room, as there was something wrong with them—he was
pointed out afterwards as Cope—I saw him later on on the same day—next day, June 14th, about 8 p.m., I went to my jewel case in my bedroom and the jewellery was gone; the key had been taken and the drawer unlocked—I had seen them safe early on the morning of the 12th, when I took them off after midnight and put them away—this is a list of them—there were three pearl necklaces and bracelets set with precious stones, and gold rings set with precious stones—they had been valued for insurance by Messrs. Lambert with other articles—the value of what I lost is between £1,200 and £1,300—I had not insured them—one pearl necklace was worth about £400—I saw that the same day—I afterwards saw a necklace in the possession of Messrs. Creighton, of Bond Street, and I feel quite convinced that the pearls in that necklace are mine; they consist of one row out of four rows—I have recovered two rows out of the four—I was a witness on the prosecution of Cope—he pleaded guilty to this theft of my jewellery—I was also a witness against Brook—he pleaded guilty to receiving my jewels, and an order of restitution was made.
Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate, "I cannot swear to the pearls, but they are very like mine"—the necklace, value £400, was not a rope, it was just long enough to go round my neck—there were about 40 or 50 pearls on it—the next necklace was a two-row one, value £200—these pearls (Produced) are about the size of my small ones; there was a peculiar shaped pear and if I could see it again I could swear to it—these pearls are different shapes—my pearls were bigger than these—they came from Devonshire—(The witness was directed to send both the necklaces to-morrow.)
LOUISA SKEAFE . I am the wife of Thomas Arthur Skeafe, of 6, Park Street, Albert Gate—on January 27th, 1899, between 10 and 11 a.m., I met a man named Cope coming up my stairs—he said he had come to do some work—I saw him later on the drawing, room floor, and about 4 or 5 p.m. that day I missed from my bedroom a quantity of jewellery, which I had seen safe at 12 o'clock—this is a list of it with the values I give—I bought the pair of diamond gipsy ear-rings from Percy Edwards, of 70, Piccadilly, for £50—there are five rings and other articles of jewellery, total about £180—I did not buy the diamond brooch.
Cross-examined. £30 was given for it—I have the jeweler's receipt—the ear-rings were large, and appeared to go right through the ear—they were little tiny diamonds—I have got none of the jewellery back.
CHARLOTTE HENRIETTE HARRISON . I am a widow—in May, 1899, I was living at 26, Lower Belgrave Street—on May 11th I saw my jewel case under the dressing table about 1 o'clock in the day—it was not' broken open then, and about 2 o'clock I found it broken open and the jewellery gone—there were two diamond brooches, a pendant, necklace a bracelet, and other articles, value £200—I have never seen them again.
AUDREY CECILIA HERIOT . I am the wife of Walter James Heriot, of 53, Hans Place—on the evening of June 21st, 1899, I saw my jewellery safe in a jewel case in a cupboard in my bed-room—I missed it on January 22nd about 1.45—there was a diamond necklace, a turquoise
necklace, a diamond shell, a gold locket, and so on—I have recovered nothing.
ELIZABETH MIEVILLE . I live at 16, Park Street—on October 31st, 1900, about 5 p.m., I mis-ed some jewelery from my house which I had seen safe the same morning—this is a list of it, which my daughter made—there were three diamond stars, two diamond knots, a pendant, brooches, Dangles, ear-rings, and other articles, value between.£1,200 and 1,300—there was a three-stone diamond ring, a diamond watch bracelet, a heart and ribbon brooch, and a gold bracelet set with rubies and diamonds.
ALFRED COPE (Continued). I stole some jewelery from Mrs. Sharpe on January 27th, at 6, Park Road—I think two or three gold bracelets, and there were rings—the most valuable thing was a pair of ear-rings—one was mounted all round with diamonds—it was a little larger than a shilling—the same night I sent a letter to Brook making an appointment to meet him—he has been giving evidence in this case—I met him the next morning outside the Prudential Insurance Company, Holborn Viaduct, and handed the jewelery over to him as I had taken it—I had not altered it, I barely looked at it—he crossed the way, and went down Furnival Street with it—he was away about half an hour, perhaps a little longer—when he came back he gave me either £20 or £30—I believe it was in gold—I committed a robbery at 26, Lower Belgrave Street—I got in there in the same way—it was shortly after the robbery of Mrs. Skeafe—I stole nothing very striking, mostly small rings, a necklace, an amethyst bracelet, four or five rings, about the same number of bracelets, and a pendant or brooch mounted in diamonds—the next day I met him by appointment at the fame place, and handed the jewelery to him—he took them down the street, and I followed him to see where he went—he went in at a doorway in Furnival Street with "Victor Lidden" on a plate on the door—I went back and waited for him—he came back and handed me a small sum, £20 I think, and I gave him £5 back—on three or four occasions we went to a bank in Holborn, opposite Gray's Inn Road, to get some money—I saw no cheque—this was after he had deposited the jewelery—I remember committing a robbery at 53, Hans Place—I got in the same way as before; it was in the London season—I stole some jewelery there, a diamond necklace, a turquoise and diamond necklace, a diamond pendant, a half-hoop diamond ring, a diamond, and a very large ruby and diamond ring with two diamonds—I made an appointment with Brook, met him next day at the same place, and handed all the jewelery to him except the diamond and ruby, in the same condition as it was when I stole it—he took it away—I met him later in the day and asked him £150, but he gave me, I think it was, £120 in notes and gold—I kept the diamond and ruby ring about two months as I had an idea of disposing of it myself, but I eventually made an appointment with Brook, and went with him and waited outside the door, and he brought me out £25 or £30, I think it was in gold—at the latter end of 1599 I committed a
robbery at 7, Tilney Street—I obtained entrance in the same way—I stole a loose pear-shaped pear, 20 or 30 small pearls, a portion of a diamond and emerald tiara, and a diamond brooch in the form of the Prince of Wales' feathers—I made an appointment with Brook, met him next day at the usual place, and gave him a rope of: pearls, a diamond brooch, and the Marquise ring—the pearls were still in the same condition as when I stole them—he took them away and came back and gave me £12 as the price of the Prince of Wales' brooch, and I met him later in the day at Spiers and Pond's restaurant, he having detained the pearls, and he gave me £2,0 in bank notes for the rope of pearls and the Marquise ring—I gave him back.£20, all in notes I believe—when he gave me the £12 I gave him nothing back, I asked him for that as I wanted money at once—I kept the tiara till, I think, after Christmas, and then broke it up—it consisted of diamonds and two emeralds; there was one very large diamond and a dozen other diamonds and two other emeralds—I handed him about ten of these large pearls to be made into a crescent brooch, and the others into a half-hoop ring and the large single stones to be made into a ring—I also gave him two emeralds out of the tiara, but not on that occasion—he took them away and they were made up—afterwards I got them back, Brook handed them to me at a place in Chancery Lane—nobody was present—I did not pay for them, but we adjusted the money for the other things—I had to give him £3 for making them, which he deducted out of the money he paid me—he said that that was the price of the metal—he did not charge for making them up—I handed him some loose diamonds and two emeralds after, I will not say whether on the same occasion—he took them away and brought me £20 for the diamonds and £10 for the emeralds, and said that there was some doubt' about the emeralds being genuine, but if they were there would be more money to come—he afterwards brought them back and said that they were imitations, and I had to give him £10 back—I kept the large stone out of the tiara and gave it to him to get it mounted into a ring—I kept the crescent brooch and half-hoop ring some time and re-sold them to Brook—he could not get the price I wanted, and we went somewhere else—in June, 1900, I committed a robbery at 6, Wilton Crescent, by obtaining admission in the same way—I stole some jewels there, one pearl necklace was on a chest of drawers, and the rest in a jewel case, of which I found the key on a writing table—the jewels were three pearl necklaces and a cross composed entirely of rubies, a diamond and emerald ring, a diamond and ruby ring, and a diamond star or pendant, and several other articles—I handed them to Brook next day in the same condition—he took them away and camp back and gave me £200, all in gold—T asked if he could not turn it into notes for me, and we went to the Bank of England—he went in and got notes in exchange for some of the gold—I waited in the Strand, and gave him £20 out of the £200—at the end of the same year I committed a robbery at 16, Park Street, by obtaining entrance in the same way—I stole three diamond stars, a small pearl necklace, a three-stone diamond ring, a watch race let set with diamonds, and several other articles—I kept them two or three days I think—I then took them where I had been two or three times before, and saw Mr. Iidden, and then the prisoner
came in—I produced the jewelery, all except the diamond three—stone ring and the watch bracelet—I asked £150 for them—he said that he could not do that; they would have to be broken up—he did not ask where I got them—he said something had happened to them, and I said "Yes"—I then produced the watch bracelet from my pocket, and said, "Make it £150 with that"—he agreed, and wrote a cheque and signed it and gave it to Mr. Lidden, who went to the bank—I do not know in whose favour it was drawn—Lidden came back with the money—they wanted to bring all gold, but I asked for bank notes—he brought £100 in notes and £50 in gold—the prisoner said, "Are you going to leave anything for Brook out of this?" and I left £10—I do not know where Brook was then—I kept the three-stone diamond ring some time, and afterwards sold it to Mr. Lidden for £12—when Lidden went to the bank the prisoner started breaking up the jewelery, knocking the stones out of the setting—I lived at Leicester in 1900 in the name of George Clayton, with a woman who passed as Annie Clayton—she did not remain there after I left—I handed her notes sometimes—I was living with her and not with my wife—these receipts (Produced) relate to furniture I bought of the Worcestershire Furnishing Company—Annie Clayton went with me to Broadwater, near Worthing, and we lived there from the spring of 1900 till I was arrested in April, 1901—I spent the notes I got from Brook in the neighbourhood where I was living—I endorsed them with any name I thought of; George Martin was one—I never used the name of John, but I have been known as Johnson—Lucy Belcher is Annie Clayton.
MR. CHAPMAN. I am a cashier in the issue department of the Bank of England—I produce two £5 notes of September, 1898, Nos. 33413 and 23418, the first bears the name of G Howard, 16, Wardour street, and the other G. Clayton, 4, Bell Green Road, Tunbridge Wells, also a £5 note of December 19th, 1898, 75789, endorsed "George Martin, 16, Rupert Street"; a £10 note, 28314, January 11th, 1899, endorsed "Alice Howard, 21, Tennison Street," stamped "Worcester Furnishing Company," and the Leicester post office mark showing that it passed through the post office and was paid to their bank; also four'£10 notes, 96600 to 96613 inclusive, August 22nd, 1898, endorsed with the stamp of the Worcestershire Furnishing Company, and of Lloyd's Bank, Leicester; a £5 note, 32416, March 22nd, 1900, endorsed N. L. Crane, 4, Newman Street, W.; five £5 notes, of February, 28th, 1900, 95940, endorsed "George Clayton, Kimberley Road," 95945, endorsed "B Caley, 6, Prebend Street," 95946, endorsed "George Johnson, 16, Errington Road," 95947, "H. Baker, 16, Little Preston Street," bearing the Brighton post office stamp, 95943, endorsed "Howard, 6, Hampton. Place," with the Brighton post office stamp; four £5 notes, of August 23rd, 1900, endorsed "Mrs. Howard, Lloyds Bank, Leicester," 42534, "Mrs. Clayton, Hampton Terrace,"London and County Bank; seven with the bank stamp and eight endorsed "H. Marshall, London and County Bank, Worthing"—on June 14th, 1900, a man presented a ticket to me at the bank, signed G. H. Brook, 298, Ivydale Road, Nunhead—I saw him at the Police Court, but could not swear to him—he had paid in £200 in gold in the same department, and I handed him £200 in notes—there were five £20
notes, which were all returned to the bank and cashed eventually, except No. 18650—one of each series of notes bears the signature "G. Howard, 24, Tennison Street, Leicester."
Cross-examined. It is not true that anybody bringing gold into the bank to be exchanged for notes would have to go into a private room; you have to go through a little partition and receive a ticket, and the gold is weighed—I also produce a £10 note, No. 96598, dated August 22nd, 1895, and endorsed "G. Clayton, 2, Camberwell Road"—it bears the Leicester post mark of December, 1899.
ALFRED COPE (Continued). I should like to correct a mistake I made yesterday—I said that Brook gave me £200 at Spiers and Pond's Restaurant, Ludgate Hill—it was the Bodega, Ludgate Hill, where he paid me the money—I wrote the endorsement "J. Howard, 16, Wardour Street," on the £5 note 23413, of September 14th, 1898, and "George Clayton, 4, Belring Road, Tunbridge Wells. "on the £5 note 23418, of the same date—I lived at the latter address—I never lived at Wardour Street—this is my writing on the £5 note of December 1898, 57589, "George Martin, 16, Rupert Street"—the endorsement on the £10 note 28314, of January 11th, 1899, with the Leicester post mark and the stamp of the Leicestershire Banking Company, of "Alice Howard, 24, Tennison Street," is that of Alice Cope, my wife—she lived there—I gave her the note—the writing on the £10 note 96598, of August 22nd, 1898, bearing the Leicester postmark and the stamp of the Leicestershire Banking Company, of August 21st, 1899, "G. Clayton, 2, Kimberley Road," is mine—I lived there—I had two wives—I purchased furniture of the Worcestershire Furnishing Company, to the amount of about £80—this is the receipted bill; I left it in my house at Broadwater, near Worthing, before I was arrested—I saw it safe two days before—I had been there 12 months—looking at the £5 note, No. 32416, of March 22nd, 1900, I know nothing of the endorsement "H. L. Crane, 4, Newman Street, W."—the endorsement partly erased, "Ciayton, Camberwell Road," on the £5-note 95940, of February 28th, 1900, is mine—"G. Caley, 6, Prebend Street, Bedford," on the £5 note 95945 is not my writing: it is one of my fancy names—"George Johnson, 16, Evington Road," on No. 95946 is my writing—I was not living there—"H. Barker, 16, Little Preston Street," on No. 95947, which bears the Brighton post mark of June 28th, 1900, is my writing, I passed it through the Brighton post office—"Howard, 6, Hampton Place," on the £5 note 95953, bearing the stamp of the Brighton post office, August 14th, 1900, is my writing—"J Howard, 24, Tennison Street," on the two £20 notes, 18648 and 18802, of March 14th, 1899, are my endorsements—"Mrs. Howard," on the £5 note, 42533, of August 23rd, 1900, bearing the stamp of Lloyd's Bank, is Alice Cope, my wife's writing—"Mrs. Clayton, 3, Hampton Terrace," on 42534 the £5 note of August 23rd, 1900, bearing the stamp of the London and County Banking Company, Brighton, is the writing of Fanny Belcher, the woman I was living with—I believe we stayed in apartments there—"J. Howard, 16, Ventnor Villas," on 42537 the £5 note of August 23rd, 1900, stamped in the same way, is my writing—the endorsement "H. Marshall," on 42538 the £5 note of the same date and with the same stamp is the name of a tradesman at
Worthing—I had dealings with him—those are some of the notes I received from Brook—I first met Hobinstook in May, 1897, at Hatton Garden, when I was waiting for Brook—I did not know him—I saw him come out of some premises—he was showing some jewelery I had handed to Brook to a gentleman in the street—I was introduced to Hobinstock by Brook shortly after the robbery at Madame Dominqnez's, on November 7th, 1899, at Spier's and Pond's Restaurant, Ludgate Hill Station—I recognised him as the same man I had seen in 1897—I had not seen him in the mean time—Brook simply said, "This is my friend I was telling you about"—I showed him some diamonds which I wanted to have set, the portion of an emerald tiara—no business took place—the next time I saw him was when I took the things about two days after the Park Street robbery, October 1900—it was at his office—I paid him another visit, but cannot call to memory when—I did not see him—by trade I was an electric bell fitter—I mean I have sufficient knowledge to do something to them without having learnt the trade—I only know the value of precious stones from what I can judge by looking in the shop windows.
Cross-examined. I have nothing else to correct—my memory is not so good after all this trouble, and I may make a few blunders—I have not been seen by the police since I gave my evidence yesterday—I have made no statement to anybody, I have seen nobody but the prison warder—the mistake I made struck me when I was removed from the Old Bailey last night before I left—I have received money from Brook at the Bodega, Chancery Lane—if I said in my evidence against Brook that I received £200 for the necklace there that is a mistake; not a lie—I know it was at one of the Bodegas, I paid so many visits to the three places that it is difficult to decide—the first time I made a public statement against Brook was when called as a witness on June 4th, 1901—I was in Court, but I do not think I was called on every occasion—I ceased honest employment about eight years ago—I attended race meetings—I had been canvassing in the book trade—I was employed at Woodhouse and Rawson's, Electrical Engineers, about 12 years ago—the words at the Police Court, "I first embarked in crime 12 years ago," were put into my mouth; I had no intention of saying that—I do not think I said that I left Ralph and Rawson's 15 years ago—I did not say, "Since then, on and off, my life has been devoted to crime"; someone took it down in mistake: they are Counsel's words—I have told of all my robberies—I told Drew—he never said on finding out some robbery, "If you are not careful it will be brought up against you"—my first robbery was at Theodora Brinckman's, in St. James' Street, in 1897—Brook had the proceeds through another person—every pennyworth of jewelery I have stolen has gone through Brook's hands and the prisoner's, except what, I have stated otherwise—I stole from Brinckman's a gold watch and chain, two scarf pins and couplings, they were gentlemen's jewelery—J lived at Leicester on and off several times—I think I went there about 12 years ago—Winter holder is a jeweller of Leicester—I had one or two transactions with him before I knew Brook; he introduced me to Brook—I knew that Brook sold to Wasserborg—Winter holder knew that the property was stolen—I did not tell him so in words—he told me a man named Brook was coming to buy
—I had not known him 15 years, about 5 or 6, not more than 7 years—I was introduced to Brook at the Bodega in Glasshouse Street, Regent's Street, shortly after the robbery at Drayton Gardens, and a few weeks after the St. James' robbery—I got £10 in gold from Winter holder, hardly enough to pay for coming from Leicester and back—I mentioned the name of the builder to get into the houses—I inferred that there was a contract for electric bells—I have not had a list of jewelery read to me—I spoke about some jewelery and said "and other articles"—from the first I stated that I stole £150 in bank notes—I had no object in telling a lie—I asked £100 for one portion of the jewelery, £200 for another, and £250 for another—I guessed the value—I think I got £650 or £700 for the jewelery, in addition to £150 in notes—I said before the Magistrate: "I cannot say whether I received £350 or £450,"I meant on that day—the next robbery was 18 months after Drayton Gardens, at Park Row, in 1899—I have never said that I had got my knife into Victor and meant to make him pay for it, nor that I should like to see him put away—I had no grudge against him—I have never said, "I do not know the endorsement Thomas Marshall'"—I said that Marshall was a man I paid money to—I did not finish selling the Drayton Gardens' proceeds till about three months after the robbery—I saw nothing of Brook for 15 months—I was living at Brighton principally, and committed no robberies until Park Row—I came to London on January 7th, 1899, from Brighton—I had not seen Winter holder between 1897 and 1899—I have been to Leicester frequently—I was married 16 years ago—I Lave married since—both ladies are alive—I have not been tried for bigamy, I want the case settled—I have not written to the Home Office—I have told Brook nothing—I have been in solitary confinement—I was at Marl-borough Street on three or four occasions with Brook—this is my first conviction—I have never been charged nor arrested before—I never heard a policeman say at the police court that I was the luckiest man they had been after for a great many years—on April 26th I cut the wires of a district messenger box and the bell rang, and I was arrested—I did not cut the wire, I pulled the box down to make believe I was doing something, and a servant had suspicion through robberies before that, and a messenger came to see what was wanted—in 1899 and 1900 I had committed about four robberies—I never saw the police inspector till he came to Holloway—Brook may have been a man of unblemished character for 20 years—I made no inquiries when at Holloway—I said I wanted to make a statement—it is impossible for me to remember dates—I saw the police twice before I pleaded guilty at the Middlesex Sessions—my first statement was taken on May 15th, 1901, by Inspector Hayter of the H Division—the interview was short—I only made two—the interview on May 31st was two or three hours—the police refused to give me any information—I gave names and some dates—the officers had to leave at—6 o'clock—every shilling was handed to Brook for the ear-rings—I broke up the diamond tiara; a portion was gold, one stone was missing; except that, I handed Brook everything exactly as I stole it—the metal of the tiara was soft, and I got the stones out with my fingers—if I had had the proper price I should not have been here—I have had £100 where I should
have had £1,000—I used to fellow Brook to see where he went—I always kept him in view—I thought it safer to keep the jewelery—I did not care whether I was caught or not, I did not take any precautions—the four pearls were about the size of my little finger, the fourth was loose—the rope had been broken—I gave Brook about £20 out of the pearls—I handed him the rope of pearls—it would reach to the waist—there were discs in between, like wafers, to prevent the pearls scraping one another—I kept the fourth big pearl with other loose pearls—I want to say that though I swore I gave the pear-shaped pearl to Brook I have discovered my mistake, I sold it to the prisoner—I intended to mention that before—if I said I gave the prisoner all the pearls and that he gave me £10, that is a mistake; I said I gave the seven loose pearls to Brook, not to the prisoner—that is a mistake—the large diamond out of the tiara was mounted by a man I know, Joseph Goodman—I do not know his address, I know where to find him—I could not remember his surname before the Magistrate—the £1,500 of jewelery stolen from Cadogan Square I sold to Winterholder—it eventually went to the prisoner—I received about £100 for that—the money came through Winterholder—the whole of the property I have ever stolen was sold through Brook or Winterholder with one exception, and they went through his hands to someone in Piccadilly—those are the three items afterwards sold to Wilson Barrett, jewellers in Piccadilly—Brook went in and brought the money out—I returned him £10—Brook is 40 years old—I sold the big pear-shaped pearl to Victor about a month after the Dominquez robbery, at his office—he was alone—he paid me in gold—I have not seen a pearl so large—I only know a pearl by putting it in my mouth to see if I can smash it—I have given Brook some imitations and asked £100 for them—he brought them back when they were shown to be imitations—I have not been supplied with a copy of my depositions or any document since I first gave my evidence before the Magistrate in Brook's case; nor have I had an interview with the police since I saw them in Holloway before my sentence, which I have been serving in Exeter—I asked the prisoner's partner to give me an introduction to a wholesale firm, and he gave me a card, but he afterwards took it away, and I said I had better not go with a card—I bought a teapot—I have been three times to the prisoner's office.
Re-examined. Those are my three statements bearing ray signature, and dated May 15th, 16th, and 31st—the first was made just before the prisoners were locked up in their cells, and is incomplete, as the officer had to leave, it being 6 o'clock—he came the next day and completed it—I saw the prisoner about the mounting of the pear-shaped pearl I sold him, and the crescent brooch.
WINSHIP. I am hospital warder at His Majesty's Prison, Holloway—I knew the prisoner as George Howard—he was in prison on June 12th—on that day I received this letter from him to post to the Commissioners of Police.
Cross-examined. He was in my charge for two or three weeks—he had several to visit him, and visits from the police twice.
THOMAS HENRY GUERREN . I am a professional expert in handwriting, and have had 17 years' experience in giving evidence of writing—on November 27th I visited the Bank of England and examined a number of bank notes produced to me by Chapman—I had then received the letter written by Cope—all the endorsements on the notes, of which these are the numbers, are in the same writing as the letter.
ALICE COPE . I live at 50, Edwin Street, Leicester, and am the wife of Cope—I separated from him eight years ago—until recently he sent me an allowance through the post in postal orders and bank notes—this £10 note, No. 28314, dated January 11th, 1899, bearing the Leicester post mark, bears my endorsement, "Alice Howard"—I was living under the name of "Howard," which I assumed after leaving him—this £5 note has also my endorsement, No. 42533, dated August 23rd, 1900—it bears the stamp of Lloyd's Bank, Leicester—they were both sent by my husband.
Cross-examined. I was married in the name of Cope—I was not living with my husband when the notes were sent me—I took the name of "Howard "by his wish—he allowed me 30s. a week—I did not know he had married again—he was an electrician.
STANLEY GREGORY . I am a cashier at the "Worcestershire Furnishing Company, Market Street, Leicester—amongst chese documents there are receipts for furniture bought from us by George Clayton, which was paid for either by Bank of England notes or Bank of England notes and gold—these four £10 notes, Nos. 96600 to 96603, dated August 22nd, 1898, have our stamp on their backs.
WILLIAM CECIL HORNE . I am a clerk at Lloyd's Bank, Leicester—The Worcestershire Furnishing Company banks with us—I produce a certified copy of entries from the waste book—it shows payments in to the account of the Company of the four notes spoken of by the last witness, and stamped "Remitted from Lloyd's Bank, Leicester."
HARRY LANCELOT CRANE . I am a traveller, of 115, Ivydale Road, Nunhead—I know G. H. Brook; he lived in the same road—the endorsement on this £5 note, No. 32416, dated March 22nd, 1900, is not mine—I cashed a £5 note for Brook previously to July 7th, 1900, at Slater's Restaurant, one of my customers—the endorsement "H. L. Crane, 4, Newman Street, W.," was written by a young woman at Slater's, in my presence—I was then employed in Newman Street.
Cross-examined. I said at Marlborough Street, "I am not sure of the date I cashed the note: I cashed it either at Heath's or Slater's Restaurant; looking at the name at the back I am able to say it was Salter's"—I have known Brook five years, living in Ivydale Road—he was a respectable man as far as I knew—he was not living in a flash fashion.
FANNY BELCHER . I am single, and live at 3, Graling Street, Derby—I went through the form of marriage with Cope, whom I knew as George Clayton—I understood he was a bachelor, and that I was legally married to him—I lived with him at Leicester, Tunbridge Wells, and other places, including Brighton and Worthing, where he was arrested—he gave me this £5 note, No. 4253, dated August 23rd, 1900, bearing the stamp of the London and County Banking Company, Limited, Brighton—it is
endorsed by me, "Mrs. Clayton, 3, Hampton Terrace"—he got a dress for me at Marshall's, Worthing.
THOMAS HENRY MARSHALL . I am a milliner at Worthing—I knew Cope as Clayton and Miss Belcher as Mrs. Clayton—she was a customer—on December 16th, 1900, she owed me £4 17s. 6d., which I believe was paid on that date—this bank note, 42538, is endorsed by me, "Thomas H. Marshall"—on December 17th, 1900, I see we paid in a £5 note with various cheques—this appears to be the note.
AGATHA ARTHUR WOODWARD . I am chief clerk at the London and County Bank, Worthing—the last witness had an account with us—I produce an extract from the waste book of this bank, which shows that Mr. Marshall paid in on December 17th, 1900, a £5 note, 42538, dated August 23rd, 1900.
GEORGE STEPHEN G. ROOD . I am salesman to Percy Edwards & Co., jewellers, of 71, Piccadilly—I find from my day book, that on December 23rd, 1898, I sold a pair of diamond gipsy ear-rings for £50—it was a ready money sale, and it does not show to whom sold.
Cross-examined. We keep a stock book—it might show the sizes of the stones—it depends on whether we made them or bought them ready made—these are, roughly, just over 4 carats—they would cost us about £8 10s. a carat, making about £39 then there is the setting, about £5—the value per carat varies with size—these are about 1/10 th—a 1/64 th would be very expensive—they are London made.
FREDERICK WILLIAM HARTLEY . I am salesman to Carrington & Co., jewellers, of 130, Regent Street—I find an entry in the day book on April 12th, 1899, of a diamond and ruby ring for £185, less 10% discount, £160, sold to W. J. Herriott—this is the bill for it—the ruby weighed 2 1/8 carats and the two diamonds 2 1/16—the diamonds were worth £17 6s. per carat, £35 13s., and the ruby £50 per carat, £106 10s, without setting—on May 2nd. 1899, we sold to Mr. Herriot a second-hand turquoise and diamond necklace and pendant for £55—this is the bill for it—we should get about 10 per cent, profit—you can run a West End jeweller's business at 10 per cent, profit if you have a sufficiently large turnover—the ruby came out of a parcel of rubies that we bought—it is a difficult stone to define as to colour and value—I think a Burmah ruby of 2 1/2 carats can be found without flaw, as I think this was—we are exceedingly careful as to where we buy them—the turquoise is very perishable—it has a tendency to go green on some skins, while others do not affect it.
FREDERICK ALFRED LONGMAN . I am assistant to Messrs. Dodds & Son, 146, Leadenhall Street—I was present on February 14th, 1899, when we sold to Mr. Herriot a diamond collarette necklace for £235—this is the receipt for it—it runs 20 3/8 carats, of a wholesale value of £10 per carat.
Cross-examined. MR. DODD does the buying and I the selling—the necklace consisted of 40 large and 40 small, in two settings of gold and silver—the setting would cost £13 or £14, including the silver and gold—£10 per carat for the stones is the market value—diamonds go up in value in geometrical progression, according to size—there would be £18 profit on the £235 transaction, or 9 per cent—there is a great deal of competition in the trade.
jewellers, at 22, Old Bond Street—on July 18th, 1900, Brook brought us a hank of pearls, weighing 701 3/4 grains, which he offered for sale—I did not know him—we did not then buy them—he returned the next day, and I made an offer which was £359, or 10s. 3d. a grain, and sealed them up—he came the next day with the prisoner as the owner, when the offer was accepted and terms as to payment—this is the invoice and this is the receipt (Produced)—the terms were a three months' bill and cash £50—the pearls were made up into three necklaces, two of which we sold to customers, the names of whom we afterwards gave to Lady Arbuthnot, and the third necklace we gave up in pursuance of his Lordship's order.
Cross-examined. We are experts in jewellery and old silver—the value of pearls depends a great deal on minute circumstances—for a necklace they should be perfect, a sort of lustrious white—there are hundreds of grades between the perfect article and the worst—it is the most difficult jewel to judge the value of, and is an education of itself—we form by our own technical knowledge a base of its value, which we multiply by the square of the weight of the pearl—and assuming that pearls were wanted for a necklace that would be the first thing to consider, and then we look to see whether they are quite round or uniform in shape—these are fairly round but a little yellow—a good base would be 8s., which at 2 1/2 grains, at 18s. a grain, would be 45s. per pearl—if we had to go and buy them there would be an extra profit again to be found—they are rising in value almost every day—I knew Brook as a broker trying to sell goods for wholesale houses, and so far as I knew he was an honest man—he said on the first day that he came from Victor and Hidden—he asked 11s. per grain—we offered him a seal, which means we put the pearls in an envelope and seal them with our private seal, and so long as that seal is unbroken we are bound to give him the 10s. 3d. per grain we offered—it is to prevent offers being made by the trade to our prejudice, and is the common practice—I consider 10s. 3d. a fair price for those pearls—we divided them into three necklaces, one of 76 pearls, 220 1/2 grains, which is the one we returned to Lady Arbuthnot; the next one 87 pearls, 240 grains, we sold for £195; the third necklace, 90 pearls, 240 1/2 grains, we sold for £100—that £295 includes diamond snaps, which we had to make—the one we returned to Lady Arbuthnot we should sell for £200—we should not be able to live on 9 per cent, profit, we keep three hands in one house and five in the other—Brook said he had refused 10s. elsewhere and that is why I offered 10s. 3d.—a few pearls have been added since I had the necklace—we had no suspicion of anything being wrong when we bought them.
Re-examined. The three necklaces exhausted all the pearls—we bought 253—they are fairly matched—the rondels between hide certain imperfections—they are not difficult to match as the size is so ordinary—evenness in a pearl necklace adds to its value.
JOHN VANDER . I am a jeweller at 26, New Bond Street—I have a subpoena to produce a necklace—it is said to be the property of Lady Arbuthnot—I cannot produce it—I bought a necklace from a Mr. Curtis whether the particular one I am not prepared to say, in the ordinary course of business—it was sold twelve months ago by one of my assistants
to a customer I prefer not to name, but I shall be pleased to give the name privately—I cannot give you the number of pearls.
Cross-examined. I am a pearl dealer—these Madame Dominquez') are fairly good pearls, with roundels in between, and about 2 1/2 or 1 1/3 grains at 8s. a grain, at 40s. brings the value to £144.
L. A CREIGHTON (Re-examined.) I have had a opportunity at looking at Madame Dominquez's pearls in daylight and estimate their value at a slight increase; they appear to be a better colour—they are worth to buy at 10s. base at 22s. 6d. to 24s. a grain, £2 5s. to £2 10s. a pearl to replace.
Cross-examined. The increase upon the price about 12 months or two years ago is about 20 per cent.—it is a question of demand—£8 per pearl is a luxurious figure.
ARTHUR LEONARD HALL . I am a clerk to Messrs. Lambert and Company, jewellers, of 12, Coventry Street—Walter John Harman was employed as salesman and to make valuations—this is the certificate of his death—he lived at 5, Dartmouth Park Avenue, N.W.—I last saw him the day before his death, on October 30th, at business: he died suddenly—I have seen him write—our firm value jewellery for insurance, we hold a licence for it—I made this copy of his entry in our valuation book—I produce our day book kept by Mr. Harman—I find an entry of a sale in 1892 in Harman's writing of a second-hand ruby cross to "J. Arbuthnot, Esq.," for £84.
FREDERICK JAMES BRITTEN . I am a salesman to Hancock & Co., jewellers, 152, New Bond Street—we sold to Mrs. Mieville in 1884 a 3-stone diamond ring for £60—diamonds are 50 per cent, dearer now than they were in 1864, owing to the war—£80 would be a fair price now—I remember 2 bracelets—one I sold to Mr. Mieville in 1890 for 19 guineas—it was flexible, one with sapphires and diamonds—later, in 1896,1 sold him a plain curb bracelet for £6 15s.
Cross-examined. Mr. Mieville was an old gentleman, and has since died—the ring I sold him for £60 cost me £45—the private mark on the £6 16s. bracelet—"B. D.," means £4 15s.—the 18-guinea bracelet cost me £13 10s., about 33 1/2 per cent, profit on the diamond ring, but we took off 10 per cent, discount, so that only £54 was paid—Mr. Mieville always paid cash—the usual discount is 5 per cent.
TOM GROVE HULL . I am one of the firm of Leroy and Sons, jewelers, 57, New Bond Street—I sold to Mr. Mieville, of 16, Park Street, a diamond watch bracelet in September, 1892, for £85—he was then living at Lancaster Gate—in December, 1896, I sold him a ruby and diamond flexible bracelet for £50, and a small brooch for about £15—that was sold with another brooch—the increased price now is about 50 per cent.—this Dominquez necklace is very good and worth at a 10s. base at from 2 1/2 grains to 3 grains; if 2 1/2 grains, 25s. a grain, if 3 grains 30s., and that would make £4 10s., but I do not think they are quite that; at 25s. they are quite worth about £3 2s. 6d. a pearl—I have paid £3 a pearl for pearls not better—in Lady Arbuxthnot's necklace the pearls vary—this is worth something like £250—the pearls are unset—the great pearls are very good, but not so good as the smaller ones—the large necklace is quite worth £200 in the trade, and the small one £100 to £120—old pearls obtain a lustre you do not obtain from new pearls.
Cross-examined. If pearls deteriorate it is in early life—they dull in colour—by weight the trade get a better judgment—these are a very good colour—there has been an appreciation in the price.
ALBERT FREDERICK LIDDEN . I used to live at 6, Duncan Terrace—I now live at 46 Orford Park—I am the father of Alfred Frederick Lidden, the prisoner's partner—they were wholesale jewelers, of 30, Furnival Street—this is my signature, "A. F. Lidden," to this receipt of the Finsbury and City of London Savings Bank for £80, part of the money due upon my account, and dated 8th November, 1899—I withdrew it because my son asked me for some money, as he said ho had good business, or a good deal, and I let him have it—I ought to have given seven days' notice, but they agreed to dispense with it—this other receipt of the same date for £40 is signed by my wife, Malinda Lidden, and witnessed by me—the £120 was withdrawn for the same purpose.
Cross-examined. I have just been subpoenaed—my son is in partnership with Victor, or Hobinstock—he has been out to the Pearl Fisheries in the South Sea Islands—he then went into partnership in the pearl business and other things—I am employed by diamond merchants as foreman of a workshop—I was repaid my money with a profit—I was paying off mortgages, and a cheque was drawn for £259 through solicitors—it was a speculation—Lidden told me he wanted to buy something, but had not enough money—I have known Victor about 11 years, since he was 25 years of age—he is highly thought of—he kept his father and his four brothers and sisters—he worked hard in Waserburg's employ—Brook is known as an upright man and a good dealer.
MALINDA LIDDEN . I am the wife of the last witness—I had an account at the City of London Savings Bank in November, 1899—this is my signature to the withdrawal of £40—my husband asked me for the money—I knew he wanted it for a business purpose—I withdrew all except 1s. 1d.
THOMAS WILLIAM BEST . I am a cashier at the City and Finsbury Bank—Mr. and Mrs. Lidden had an account there in November, 1899—on November 8th £40 was paid out to Mr. Lidden and £80 to Mrs. Lidden—I filled in the body of these receipts—the money was paid in 12 £10 notes, Nos. 96593 to 96604—the balance left was slight.
LOUIS SCHMIDT . I am a dealer in precious stones at 44, Hatton Garden—I knew the prisoner as Victor, one of the firm of Victor and Lidden—I have had many dealings with him, but only two purchases—this is my cheque of November 10th, 1899, for £277 17s. on the London and County Banking Company, Holborn Branch; also this cheque of November 10th, 1899, for £529, and this is Victor's receipt of that date in respect of loose drilled pearls in a parcel—I sold them in three different lots to customers at six months' credit—on January 9th, 1900, I bought two strings of pearls of similar size and quality, 4103/4 Of grains at 10s. 6d., for £217 15s. 6d., 1 per cent commission being allowed to him and a month's credit—I paid by cheque of that date for £141 8s. as he bought diamonds, and that was the balance of account—I sold the pearls five months after at a profit of 20 per cent.—there were 204 pearls in the first lot and about 160 in the
second—several months afterwards he brought me two other strings of pearls, about 400 grains, which I did not buy—he took a receipt for what I sold him.
Cross-examined. I am a pearl merchant—I deal in diamonds and other stuff—Victor and Lidden appeared to have a good and legitimate business—the seller would not usually have commission, but he was selling for someone else—as a rule we give receipts in cash transactions, but not always—I would not draw an inference against a man from his not taking a receipt—I had known Victor 7 or 8 years at least as an honest and respectable man—these pearls [Madame Dominqnez'] are slightly better than what I bought—we buy from importers of Indian consignments—these would not have been worth more than a 6s. base to me in 1899 or 15s. at the present price—I bought on a 4s. base in 1879—I sold at a profit of 33 1/3 per cent, at various times, and gave six months' credit—valuation of precious stones is a matter of knowledge, training, judgment and even guess work—I have hardly ever seen a Burmah ruby without flaw, and absolutely clear.
HERBERT STANLEY TAPLEY . I am a clerk in the Holborn branch of the London and County Bank, where Victor and Lidden, of Furnival Street, had an account—I produce a copy, certified under the Bankers' Evidence Act, of that account, and a certified extract of their account containing particulars from our waste-book—both are correct—on January 28th, 1899, I see a payment to Brook of £47, £12 in coin and £35 in £5 notes, Nos. 23413 to 19, dated September 14th, 1898—on May 12th, 1899, I find a cheque to Brook of £36, which was paid £16 in coin and £20 in four £5 notes, Nos. 75786 to 9, dated December 19th, 1898; on June 23rd, 1899, a cheque to Brook for £80 paid in coin, on July 21, 1899, a cheque to "self" for £30, paid in coin; on November 8th, 1899, two cheques, one to Brook for £16 and one to Victor for £60; and on November 10th a cheque to Brook for £50; £10 was paid in coin and £40 in four £10 notes, Nos. 28312 to 15, dated January 11TH, 1899; on November 13th a cheque, dated 11th November, to Brook for £20, which was paid out to the City and Midland Bank; on November 15th a cheque to Brook for £30, which was paid in coin—on the other side is a payment in to Victor and Lidden's account on November 10th, 1899 of cash £277 17s.—that is Schmidt's cheque—it is a book entry of a transfer from one account to another—on February 9th, 1900, there is a payment in of cash of £151 14s. 11d.—this cheque forms part of that—on June 14th, 1900, I find two cheques to Brook for £120 and £150, both were paid in coin; on June 18th a cheque to Brook for £16 5s. 6d., which was paid by £1 5s. 6d. in coin and £15 in three £5 notes, Nos. 13215 to 17, dated March 22nd, 1900: on November 1st a cheque to "self" £150, which was paid by £100 in coin and £50 in notes, Nos. 42533 to 42, dated August 23rd; and on November 3rd a cheque to Brook for £15, as to which I have no particulars. The endorsed cheques were produced.
GEORGE HENRY BROOK . I am now undergoing a sentence of penal servitude for receiving stolen jewelery from Cope—he was known to me as Johnson—I first met him in 1897—after that date I received jewelery from him and sold it for him, receiving money for doing so—I sold most
of it to Victor and Lidden—I was formerly a member of the firm of Barrett And Brook, wholesale jewelers, of 49, Holborn Viaduct—they ceased to carry on business in 1892—they failed and compromised by paying 10s. in the pound—I acted on my own behalf from 1892 to 1896 as a wholesale jeweler—my place of business was at 22 Thavies Inn, Holborn Circus—from 1896 I dealt with jewelery on commission only, I had no place of business—I lived then at 222, Lvydalle Road, Nunhead—my rent was £30 a year—I occupied the whole house—I had no banking account of my own then; my wife had an account after 1899, but not up till then—I entered the service of Victor and Lidden on November 1st, 1900, as a traveller, at a salary of £4 a week and expenses, and with a commission to be decided at the end of the financial year—Victor and Lidden manufactured rings and bracelets, and sold them to shopkeepers—my duty was to travel with those goods—I have not drawn any commission yet—I was introduced to Cope by a Leicester shopkeeper named Winterholder, in 1897—I received some jewelery from Cope in January, 1899—I can only remember one of the articles, a pair of diamond earrings of a peculiar shape, they were about the size of the circle of a shilling—Cope wrote to my private address, I do not know where he got it from, and asked me if I could dispose of some jewelery for him—I met him by appointment outside the Prudential Insurance Office, Holborn—when I got the jewelery from him I took it to Victor and Lidden to see if they would buy it—I saw both partners—it was not a valuable parcel—Cope had asked £50 for it—I asked Victor and Lidden that price for it—I believe I got £47 10s. for it—I was paid by a cheque made out to me—I never sold jewelery to Lidden as apart from Victor—the cheques were generally made out to me—I took this one to the Bank, endorsed it there and got the money for it—it was an open cheque on the London and County Bank—I handed the money to Cope—I do not remember if it was notes or gold—he gave me something out of it, I do not now remember what; it generally averaged about 10 percent.—on that occasion I sold the jewelery to Victor and Lidden exactly as I received it—it was in the form of articles of jewelery, not as stones—I received some jewelery from Cope in May 1899 in the same way—I disposed of it to Victor & Lidden—I did not know where it came from—I took it at the time because I thought Cope was a respectable dealer—I do not remember what I got for it—I handed the proceeds of the cheque to Cope, getting my 10 per cent as before—In June 1899, I remember receiving some jewelery from Cope and selling it to Victor and Lidden—I believe there were some pearls among them—I think I got about £200 for that parcel—I got it by cheque, the proceeds of which I handed to Cope—in July 1899 I received a diamond and ruby ring—I sold it to Victor and Lidden for £40—I got a cheque from them for that amount, £35 of which I handed to Cope, and £5 I kept by arrangement with him—In November 1899 I had a parcel of some sort from him, I do not remember what it was—I received some pearls from him on two occasions, whether that was in July or November I cannot say—on one occasion he handed me some pearls and some other jewelery as well, which I disposed of for him to Victor and Lidden—I sold the pearls in two lots, one lot for £150 and the other for £280 I think—I cannot remember any particular
article amongst the jewelery—on one of the days I sold Victor and Lidden some pearls—I also sold them a gold and diamond brooch shaped like the Prince of Wales' feathers—I believe the pearls were given to me loose in an envelope—I got £16 for the brooch—I offered it for sale about 10 am.—I was paid for it at the same time by cheque; I was always paid by cheque—I remember this cheque dated November 8th, 1899, made payable to G. H. Brook, and endorsed in the same name—directly I gave Cope the money out of that cheque he gave me the pearls—I left them at Victor and Lidden's for them to examine them, and to see if they could sell them—in the afternoon the money was waiting for me—I cannot say the actual sum I got on that afternoon—I cannot say what this cheque (Exhibit 24) was for—it is endorsed by me—I received it on November 10th—This one (Exhibit 25) was paid to me on November 11th by Victor and Lidden for my own commission on the pearls, and was passed through my wife's account—on that occasion Victor and Lidden and Cope paid me commission, as I resold them for Victor and Lidden to Creighton Brothers of Bond Street—I had some jewelery made up for Cope at Victor and Lidden's—I had some loose diamonds made Up into a half-hoop ring and a half moon brooch—I introduced Cope to Victor once at the restaurant bar at Spiers and Pond's, on Ludgate Hill; we simply talked about these diamonds which Cope wanted made up—in November 1899 I sold some loose diamonds for Cope to Victor and lidden,. also two emeralds, but they returned the emeralds to me saying they were not real stones—I think I got £50 for the diamonds, but I cannot remember the weight or number of them—when I got the pearls in June 1900 I handed them to Victor and Lidden in a paper parcel just as I received them—I had several articles of jewelery at the same time—I do not remember any other articles of jewelery, I have got a very bad memory—I got about £20 a for the whole lot—I think about £150 was allocated to the pearls—on the last occasion I drew the money from the bank all in gold—I gave it to Cope, but he thought it was too bulky, so I changed £200 of it in notes at the Bank of England—this is my endorsement on this blue slip (Produced); it is a pay ticket—I was present when the sale of the pearls to Creighton Brothers was concluded, but I do not know if I was present when the signing of the bill took place and the signing of the cheque; Victor was present and the representative of Messrs. Creighton—I think £359 was paid for them—on November 1st, 1900, I left Victor and Lidden's office at 9.30 a.m. and returned about 5 p.m.—Mr. Lidden told me something—on Saturday, November 3rd, Victor paid me £15—he said £10 of it was for commission left by a customer of mine who had called on the Thursday; he did not say his name—he told me he was my"Leicester customer"—Victor said it was commission on £150—the other £5 was for commission from themselves on the £150—he said "£10 is the commission from your Leicester customer, the other £5 is from us"—I have a friend named H. L. Crane, I do not know his full name—he lives at Ivydale Road, Nunhead—his business is at Newman Street, Oxford Street—he is a stationer's traveller—I lent him a £5 note once—I was paid the £15 by cheque—I got the notes from the bank—this is the note I lent to Crane, No. 32416, March 22nd, 1900—while I was in custody I corresponded
with Victor and Lidden—I was arrested on May 20th—I did not know Cope had been arrested till after I was arrested—I read of a case of Howard, but I did not know it was Cope—I pleaded guilty to an indictment at this Court on July 29th—I was put back until the following: sessions, and then a sentence of five years' penal servitude was passed on me—while I was in custody, and after I had pleaded guilty, I wrote on August 21st from Holloway to Victor and Lidden. I said in the letter, "I am extremely obliged to you for the favours at home, and trust you are both well, "they had been very kind to my wife—I did not see them while I was in custody—I saw their solicitor once before I pleaded guilty.
Cross-examined. I did not know that the value of the jewels I received was £1,250—my personal appearance has very much changed since I was convicted—I think I was respected by everyone in the trade—I called on well known jewelers, and was trusted by them with goods on approbation—I was in the habit of attending sale rooms where jewelery was sold by auction—a large business is done by buying goods at the auction rooms and then selling them again; it is a question of backing your judgment against that of the other dealers in the room—that was part of my business since 1896, but I am no judge of expensive jeweler—I was originally an assistant to Packers, in Regent Street, then I went into partnership with a man named Barrett—I put £1,100 into the business, he put in £500—we made bad debts, and it was suggested that I should ask my father-in-law for more money—I declined to do so, and I paid 10s. in the pound—I had, however, £6,000 advanced to me from him, and I started with a clean slate—in 1896 Host money on the Stock Exchange, and had about £3,000 bad debts—I made an assignment to Messrs. Allen, Edwards & Co., the accountants, of Birmingham—I have repaid most of the money to my father-in-law—I am 40 years old now, and have been connected with the trade since I was 16—Winter bottom gave Cope an excellent character—I had a transaction for Cope with a man named Wasserberg—I did not know that the stuff in that transaction was stolen—I did not know that Cope was stealing the jewelery at the time—when I went to Wasserborg I met Victor, who was a clerk there—he did not do any buying—I heard that Victor had started for himself in 1898—I do not think Cope has handed me jewelery worth £9,000 or £10,000—on one or two occasions I tried to sell the goods else-where, but could not get such a good price for them—Cope seemed to have a fair idea of the value of the things; he fixed his prices—the Prince of Wales' feather brooch was a sort of fleur-de-lys—I should think there would be 20 or 24 small stones in it—it was not a brooch with ten large stones in it—I thought £16 was cheap for it—I did not buy it myself because I had not got the money—I never told Victor and Lidden that the stones were stolen—I did not tell the Court I knew they were stolen—I did not plead guilty to that indictment—I never really knew that they were stolen—I pleaded guilty because I was advised to—I asked Cope where he got the goods from—he said he bought them of a member of the Eccentric Club, a man well known in the West End; he did not give me the name—a good deal of jewelery is made up and given away as presents to ladies and others—a good deal of that from a certain class of ladies finds its way to the pawn shops and other places—
the original price and the price it subsequently realises are very widely apart there are sales of jewelery nearly every day: they fetch a fair price—for a long time I did not think that there was anything strange in Cope having this jewelery to sell—I did not break it up and then sell it—I have sold loose stones for Cope to Victor and Lidden—I did not tell Cope that I had seen a bill of stolen property which tallied with the property he had given me, and he did not then tell me they were stolen—I have seen Inspector Drew twice since I have been in custody, both occasions in August, after I pleaded guilty—I did not receive a message from Cope saying the information he was going to give was false—I hope efforts will be made to get my sentence reduced—I have not asked Drew to assist me—I did not hear that there was someone stealing large quantities of jewelery in the West End—the jewelery from Drayton Gardens I took to several places to try to sell—there was no concealment about it—I did not take it to be stolen property—Cope told me he had got it from people on the race course who were betting—it was one of the most valuable parcels I had—I got £450 for it—I only got about £30 out of it—if I had questioned him and shown I did not believe him when he brought me the jewelery I should not have got any more business from him—the settings of the diamond ear-rings were not of much value, they were mostly silver—I should have got £18 or £20 for the ear-rings alone—£27 or £29 I thought was a fair price for the rest of the articles—I thought £47 was a fair price for the lot—Cope had fixed £50. I tried other places, I went to Attenborough's, the pawnbroker's at the bottom of Chancery Lane—a man known as well as I was and with the character I then bore, would have had no difficulty in selling things like these without inquiry—I have sold articles value £500 or £600 without inquiry—except the ear-rings there was nothing of very great value on the first occasion in 1899—I believe there was a turquoise necklace among the things I sold on May 11th or 12th for £36—it was a small parcel—I do not think Cope gave me on that occasion two diamond brooches, six gold ear-rings, or an emerald locket—I will not swear he did not, because I cannot recognise any of the articles—he told me he had pawned goods—I do not know that you can get good prices by disposing of things in that way; it is done—I have dealt in pawn-tickets myself—a pawnbroker would not take in a parcel like this without inquiry—you would break it up into small parcels—I remember selling some jewelery for Cope in June, for £132 10s.—there was a diamond necklace among it—with the exception of that necklace there was nothing in the parcel of any great value—I think it was all paid for by cheque—Cope gave me a turquoise necklet—I have never seen the gold scent bottle—I did not know the parcel was worth £486—I sold them for the price Cope asked for them I had a diamond and ruby ring—the stones were taken out, I do not know if they were put back—on November 8th I had a fleur-de-lys brooch—there were no large stones in it—it was sold for £16—it was not broken up—a jeweller would take the stones out by cutting the little claws, when the stone would come out—the brooch which I sold for £16 you could buy new for £30 or £40, it is absurd to value it at £160—the fleur-de-lys brooch I took to Victor and Lidden's answered the description of Madame Dominquez'
except the value—it did not contain large stones—I never had more than one fleur-de-lys brooch—when I took back £16 to Cope for the diamond brooch he handed me some loose pearls in an envelope—I went and saw Victor and Lidden and asked them a price for them, I cannot remember how much—I left them with Victor and Lidden to try and sell for Cope—they were to give me an answer in the afternoon—I am not know that they never bought those pearls for themselves—I do not know that they got some money from Victor's father and mother—I got the whole of the money at one time on that day, I can't remember how much—on one occasion I received £280—I cannot say if that was the occasion—I do not know if £280 was a fair price—I am no judge of pearls—I do not know that Victor and Lidden sold them to Schmidt—these are cheques on November 10th for £50, on the 11th one for £20, and on the 15th one for £30—the whole of the money for the pearls was waiting for me at the office in cash when I went back in the afternoon—I cannot account for those three cheques at all; one of them is to myself and has nothing to do with Cope at all, two of them were paid to him—I sold some diamonds to Victor and Lidden on November 10th—I got about £30 for them—I should think this cheque of November 10th would be for those diamonds—I do not remember selling some more loose diamonds on the 13th—I understood Cope got this second parcel from the member of the Eccentric Club also—Victor and Lidden bought them without asking me where I got them—the prisoner has not gone to sale rooms with me and bought things entirely on my judgment—he has bought things with me—I have only been to sale rooms on two occasions with him—when I took goods to him he did not ask me if I thought they were worth the money or not—I did not advise him to buy them—I am not doing everything I can to shield myself and to put the blame off myself—I complained very bitterly when sentence was passed upon me—I did not sell the diamonds and other things to Victor on November 1st, 1900—we did not have a conversation, and Victor did not say, "I had better make out the cheque as you are now in my employment"—it was not after Creighton's three months' bill became due that I got the £15 commission—Cope told me he had sold an emerald to a man named North in Leicester and got £5 for it—I did not test the emeralds he threw over the bridge at Westminster—you test emeralds with a file—you can make imitations of glass or of doublet—glass is not so good as doublet—Cope asked me to sell a single-stone diamond ring, a half-hoop diamond ring, and a crescent brooch—we went to several places—we went to Attenborough's—I went in—Cope insisted upon having £100 for them—Attenborough offered to exchange them for other stones—they knew me—we also went to Wilson Barrett's—they knew me there too—I asked them for £110 for the three things—I came down £10, and they gave me a cheque for £100—I asked Cope if I should accept the £100, because he said he would give me anything over £100—he was waiting outside—he said he would take £100 for them—I cashed the cheque at the bank—Cope gave me £5—I told my solicitor, Mr. Ayres, that I thought Cope was an excellent judge of stones, and had a good knowledge of weights, colour, and quality—that is what I think now—it is nut true that I told Cope that when I went to the Bank of England to
change the gold into notes I had been taken into the private room, and that I wished I had never done it—when I got £132 for the necklace the stones were taken out and weighed—I think they weighed 19 1/2 carats—I do met remember whether I sold some of the diamonds which came out of the gipsy rings, I may have—I sold 20 pearls which I bought of Cope to Barrett for £30—that was about 30s. a pearl—they were the same size as those which were afterwards sold to Smith—no white saphires were given in with the pearls—I know Lelong—he is in the jewelery, plate, and general dealer business—after November I bought from Victor a diamond star for £80 and a diamond ring for £92 10s.—I bought £130 worth from Messrs. Wright—they continued my weekly salary to my wife when I was taken in custody till my conviction—I have not seen a copy of my depositions.
Re-examined. Mr. P. Ayres, the solicitor, defended me—I do not think he defended Cope—I knew Mr. Ayres as a neighbour 12 or 15 years ago—I did not give him authority to communicate these matters to the prisoner—my father-in-law, my wife, and an old school-fellow provided the money for my defence—I did not know that the prisoner was in communication with Mr. Ayres; they never told me—when I took these things to Victor I did not ask for a receipt for the money paid and no invoice was made out—I do not think he ever asked where I got the goods, but I told him I got them from a Leicester customer—when I gold goods to Barrett an invoice was always made out, and I gave a receipt, and my name and Mr. Barrett's name appeared on it and the description of the goods—nothing of that kind was done at Victor and Lidden's—it was said that I bought a big pear-shaped pearl, but I never did—the pearls sold to me in November were in an envelope—I did not examine them—I saw them in Lidden's possession—I cannot say whether there was a big drop pearl among them—I never said to Cope that I had seen a police list of the jewels—I saw one once when I bought jewels from Winter holders in 1894 or 195S—when I was dealing with Victor in 1897 he was manager—when I sold the goods I got from Cope—I dealt only with Mr. Wasserborg, but Victor was present—he wrote the cheque and Mr. Wasserborg signed it—I remember selling Mrs. Heriot's diamond and ruby ring—Victor took the stones out of it—I did not take it away afterwards—I introduced Johnson to Victor as a dealer in jewelery.
EDWARD DREW (Police Inspector, C). I have had charge of this series of cases from the time of the arrest—the prisoner was arrested on April 26th, and made a statement to me on May 15th or 16th, in consequence of which I arrested Brook on May 20th—on May 28th I went with Inspector Haytler to 30, Furnival Street—the prisoner was out, but we waited till he returned—I told him we were police officers, and that Brook had been arrested—he said, "I know all about it, Brook's solicitor called on me before 1 o'clock, after leaving the Court, and I have just returned from the solicitor's office"—that was about 4 o'clock—I told him I had come to see him respecting his connection with Brook and a man named Howard, who was also in custody for stealing a large quantity of jewelery and that he was charged with receiving it and need not answer any questions, but if he did I should make use of them
—he said, "I am quite willing to give you all particulars of my dealings with Brook; as far as Mr. Howard is concerned I know nothing about him"—I showed him a photograph of Howard—he said he recognised it as a man named Johnson, and that he met him at Brook's; and he had mounted a half-hoop, a single-stone ring, a half-moon ring, and a brooch for him—before that he said, "Brook brought the things back to me as the single-stone was a little off colour; I did not bay them"—I said, "Howard says he gave you two emeralds which were given back; do you remember that?"—he said that he did remember something about it—speaking of Johnson, he said, "If it is the man that I mean, I met him twice; once I had lunch with him at Spiers and Pond's, Ludgate Hill"—I asked if he kept books of persons who he bought jewelery of, he said, "Yes"—I asked him if he would let me look at them; he produced his bought book, and said that all the entries were in his own writing—I asked him to turn up the purchases for November 1st, 1900, which he did, and told me that there was an entry there of a purchase from Brook of some brilliants, 20 carats at £6 a carat—I asked him how the payment of £150 was made, he said, "By cheque"—I asked if he could show me the cancelled cheque, he said that he thought he could, and went to a drawer, and produced a large bundle of cancelled cheques—he examined them, and found this cheque on the London and County bank, Holborn branch, dated November, 1900: pay self £150, Victor Lidden, and endorsed Victor Lidden—I said, "Why is the cheque not made payable to Lidden?" he said that he could not explain it—I asked if he had had other dealings with Brook, he said yes—I asked him how they were paid, he said "By cheque"—I asked him to examine the cheques he had, he did so, and picked out some for large amounts payable to Brook and endorsed by him; I asked him to explain why this one was not, he said he could not—I told him that Howard said that he bought a quantity of jewelery from him on November 8th, 1899, and asked him to turn to his bank book of that date; he did so, and showed me a purchase from Brook of brilliants for £286, and then called my attention to the fact that that information about the £286 could not be correct, there being no entry to that effect in his book—I called him "Johnson "and "Howard," I did not know his name was Cope—I asked if he would furnish me with a fuller list of his dealings with Brook, he said that he would, and called out twenty-five entries from September 21st, 1898, to November 21st, 1900 (Read)—the entries of November, 1899, relate to brilliants exclusively—this book is not in the same condition; it was very old, and the cover was torn, and the leaves partly torn out—it had been re-bound when he produced it again, but I should say that it is the same book—I have a list of jewel robberies which have been reported to the police, eleven of which correspond with sales to him the next day according to his book—there are 25 dealings with Brook—he appeared very much excited, and said that it was very curious—I asked how long he had known Brook; he said, "Some years"—I asked if Brook ever told him where he got the jewelery from—he said that he understood he bought it about the country as a dealer, that he had engaged Brook as his traveller from November 7th, and he was not to work for anybody else—I asked how it was that Brook's name appeared
as a dealer when he was in the service of the firm; he said he could not explain it—I asked for his pass book, he said that it was at the bank, but he would let me see it next morning if I would call—I said that I should like to see Mr. Lidden—he said that he was expecting him every minute, and he would be sure to be there about 7 o'clock—I waited, and Lidden came shortly after 6—I repeated the same questions and asked him if he knew Johnson, whose photograph I showed him—he said, "Yes" and it was arranged that we should call next morning, May 22nd, to see the pass book—we did so shortly after 10 o'clock—I noticed that the amounts in the pass book did not agree with those in the bought book, and called his attention to June 14th, a payment of £286 9s. 6d. the bought book of that date gave the purchase from Brook, whereas one cheque was not paid till June 18th by the pass book—I asked how he reconciled that—he said that he could not explain it—I then called his attention to the entries of November 8th, 1900; the bought book shows £16, and I asked him why that did not agree with the pass book—he said that sometimes Brook asked for cash, and the remainder in that way, and he gave it to him—I saw an entry of £60 in the pay-book, and asked what it meant—he said that he had drawn that out for his mother's funeral—that was in 1899—he gave me extracts from the sales book, which I took down—there is no entry of any sales to Louis Schmidt in connection with this transaction—I told him that £5,000 worth of valuable pearls had been stolen on the 7th—he said, "I know nothing about them"—he searched his books to prove his statement—I had a copy of Cope's statement with me, where it is alleged that a sale took place to him of pearls for about £200—he said, "I deny that any such transaction ever took place," and emphasised the fact that he kept the books himself, and it would be impossible for him to make such a purchase without the entry appearing in the books, and I agreed with him—he said, "You will see that Johnson is telling a lot of lies"—I made inquiries and found out that Lidden withdrew money on May 8th, a robbery having been on the 7th—I made an appointment and saw them both next morning with the solicitor—I asked Lidden if he remembered about the notes I asked him about last night—Mr. Gliddon said that he was the solicitor acting for them both, and advised them not to answer any questions at all that I put to them except through him—I then said that since my last visit I had traced the withdrawal of £120 from the Savings Bank on the 11th, and said, "You need not answer, but it is my duty to ask you if you can give me any information how those notes got into the possession of Howard"—Mr. Gliddon told them not to answer—I afterwards received this letter from Mr. Gliddon), and about June 14th I saw this letter from the same office to Mr. Lewis—on November 1st I got a warrant for the prisoner's arrest—I heard that he was seriously ill, and refrained from executing it for a few days—I made an appointment to meet him on the 6th, and went with other officers to 30, Furnival Street, but met him in Holborn—he went back with me, and I told him that I held a warrant for his arrest, which I read to him, for feloniously receiving jewelery, value £4,000—he asked me to let him see it, which I did—he made no reply—I searched his books; Mr. Lidden was there part of the time and the prisoner the whole of the time—I searched for old cheques, but found
none before April, 1901—the prisoner and Mr. Lidden said that those were the only books they had in connection with the business—I found these books in an American roll desk, and the others in the ante-room—the ledgers had leaves torn out of them, and Lidden said, "I was carrying on this business myself and tore them out to keep my business separate from that of Victor and Lidden's"—I said that the key had been given me by Victor—he said, "Oh yes, he still visits the place"—the name on the door was "Victor Lidden, Diamond Merchant," but I will not swear it was there on November 6th—I served this notice on the prisoner—(To produce the books and cancelled cheques of Victor and Lidden.)
Cross-examined. The loose pages tallied with the book they appeared to have been taken out of—I have not examined them—I had been looking for Cope 12 or 13 years, but it was thought that there—was more than one man carrying on these burglaries—I called Cope's attention to the difference in his statements, that of May 31st was more detailed—he said, "Well, I am trying to do the best I can; it is a very difficult job, and I am very much opposed by my wife, and may have made a mistake in one or two things"—that was after he was arrested—he was brought to the station by a constable—it was not pointed out to him that the more he told the better it would be for him, on the contrary, he was told not to rely on any hope—no request was made when he pleaded guilty that he might give information—he was put back because he was giving evidence against Brook at the time, but he was sentenced before Brook was sentenced—he was charged before Mr. McConnell—I did not go to Victor and Lidden on May 21st intending to arrest the prisoner; Brook and Cope having been arrested, I did not think of doing so—I first heard of—the transactions with Schmidt long after that, not till after the prisoner was in custody—Brook was arrested without a warrant—I read out the list to the prisoner; it included a string of pearls, between each of which was a white sapphire—I did not tell the Magistrate about the pearls, I was not asked, but I showed him the list—I did not compare the police list with the prisoner's books because his answers were a denial—it could not have been earlier than 4 o'clock on May 21st that I got there, because it was after Cope was to have been brought up for sentence, and the Court broke up—Brook had had just been arrested—the prisoner did not offer to go with me to the bank to get the pass book, although it was after closing hours; he said that he would send round for it in the morning—I did not ask him about the credit of £200 on November 10th, because he said, "I do not want you to interfere with my cheque book, but take out the entries you are referring to"—it was through the entry of £277 that I got on to Schmidt—I got the information a fortnight or three weeks after his arrest, when inquiries were made of the person by whom the cheque was paid into the bank—I thought Cope was telling a lot of falsehoods—I never heard of Mr. Lelong—the prisoner was not there when I asked Lidden the questions—I know now that he never did mount a single-stone ring for him; I made a. mistake, he said, "I mounted some stuff for him, and the single stone was a little off colour, and I brought it back—Cope did not tell me where he had been to sell the big pearl—it always appeared that cheques were cashed the same day—I have seen nothing of Cope or Brook since
their sentences—one of them sent me a telegram, and I communicated with the Treasury and was advised not to see him—the prisoner was called as a witness—Mr. Wasserborg's, solicitor, did not write to me and complain battery of the way I treated him—I do not think I ever spoke to him he did not write to me—I thought he was anxious to give me all the information he had in his books—he had been very seriously ill—he had been in good situations till he started in business for himself.
Re-examined. I made a long report to the Treasury, I think on June 7th—it had not been suggested before that, that the "prisoner was to be arrested—it is not true that I ever suggested or threatened Cope that I would prosecute him for bigamy; he was informed by the Government that they had no intention to prosecute him for bigamy—this letter (Put in as a specimen of the prisoner's writing) was in answer to a telegram—that was not the first I heard of any charge of bigamy.
HENRY HAYTER (Police Inspector, B.) On June 4th, 1901, I went to the office at 4, King William Street, and saw Mr. Gliddon—I said that I had come to take a statement—he said that before he could allow that to be done he must have a letter from Mr. Lewis, of the Treasury, that it should not be used against him.
WILLIAM HARDY KING . I am one of the firm of Pannell and Co., chartered accountants, of 13, Basinghall Street—I have examined a number of books produced by Inspector Drew—(A summary of the contents of the books was read to the witness, to which he assented.)
Cross-examined. The cash book of that date was handed to me—the bought book and the sale book relate to that period—I do not suggest that the bought book was all written up at one time—books C. D. E. and do not cover this period—assuming that there was a cessation of partnership on August 31st, I should not necessarily expect fresh books—on September 1st—if they were diamond mounters and dealers and got two or three friends to help them with capital and bought a few jewels I should expect to find the entry in the purchasers' book; cash would be entered as coming from people outside, and credited in the ledger—I should open an account with D. E. and F.—the entries would be perfectly simple: if they sold things and divided the profit you would have to put that into the books; it would have to appear somewhere—from what I have seen the man who kept these books knew what he was about—no doubt genuine business was done with first-class people.
Re-examined. One of these small thin books goes back to 1898—I found no trace of a dissolution of partnership on August 31st, 1901—the payments in are to the account of Victor and Lidden for the whole period.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, said that he was to a large extent guided by Brook's judgment; that when he bought the goods he did not know that they were stolen property; that he bought them from Brook in the ordinary way of trade and paid reasonable prices for them; that the pearls were bought for Mr. Lidden, senior, who advanced the money for them; that the transaction did not appear in the firm's books because it was
not a partnership transaction; that the money received for the pearls was paid to Mr. Lidden, senior, except what he the prisoner, had advanced; that he had not destroyed any of the books; that Cope had left no money at the office for Brook; and that Mr. Lidden, senior, gave them permission to use the money received for the pearls, for the purposes of the firm.
Evidence in reply.
A. F. LIDDEN, (Re-examined.) In November, 1899, my son came to me and asked me to let him have some money, as he had a speculation on—he did not say what it was—I let him have it—I I knew nothing about a speculation in pearls.
Cross-examined. I have known Victor since he was 10 or 11—I have been repaid the money I advanced.
Re-examined. I do not know where my son is—he is in London—he was in Court last Saturday.
GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth. He received a good character. Five years' penal servitude.
The Court commended Inspector Drew for the way in which he had conducted the case, and also Brook's case.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, 21 st January, 1901
Before Mr. Commisioner L. Smith, K.C.
MR. HUMPHREYS and MR. BOYD Prosecuted, and MR. CRANE and MR. BELL Defended.
EDWARD BOYAL OLDHAM, JUNR . I am one of the firm of E. R. Oldham Co. brokers, Bishopsgate Street, which was established in London in August—I came to England in October, my father having gone back to America—since he left I was the only partner in this country—we bank at the London and Westminster bank at their head office in Lothbury—In October 1899 I discovered that I was debited in my pass book with £780 in respect of two cheques I knew nothing about for £400 and £380, and communicated with the Bank—those cheques were not drawn by me nor by my authority—the signature is a good imitation—(Signed "E. R. Oldham & Co., E. R. Odham, jun." one for £400 drawn to the order of Mr. A. Gaunt, dated October 16th, 1901, and endorsed "A, Gaunt," the other for £380 to the order of Mr. C. Hunt, October 17th, and endorsed"C. Hunt")—I know nothing about them—I find that the cheques bearing those numbers have been abstracted from my cheque book—three counterfoils and three cheques appear to have been torn out—I saw the prisoner about half-a-dozen times—I kept my cheque book in a drawer of a desk in ray private office—I do not recollect in which office I saw him—we had no business with him.
Cross-examined. I arrived on October 2nd and went to the office on October 3rd—we bank for a particular concern—we deal in securities—he knew my father—we have three rooms; two are private, mice and Mr. Churney's and Mr. Harrington's—the cheque book drawer was locked—Mr. Churney bad one key and I had the other—I do not notice that any
more cheques were abstracted—I see the counterfoils before and after the abstracted cheques—one is to Mr. Churney for £250, one is October 19th for petty cash £10, on October 21st there is £2 for commissions, and on October 22nd £10 for petty cash—the signature is a good forgery—I cannot say whether the prisoner was in my private room with me or not—I know Mr. Massey, of the Economic Bank—I did not see him on October 29th—I did not say that it was a case of mistaken identity—I never saw him in my life—I have not visited the Economic Bank—I do not remember dates—I remember circmustances—on the day I went to Scotland Yard to see the inspector I met Hickman in the office elevator, and three or four of us went and had a drink.
Re-examined. We puncture our cheques—the puncturing of the forged cheques is different—the cheque book was more closely bound when I had it, and I did not notice these stubbs sticking out.
CHARLES KNOWLES . I live at 63, Shepherd's Bush Green—I am cashier to the London and Westminster Bank, 41, Lothbury—I cashed this cheque for £380 on October 18th, between 10.30 and 11 a.m. by £80 in gold and three £100 notes, numbers 79791-2-3—the other cheque I cashed the same day from 12 to 12.30 by a £200 note, number 39067, a £100 note, number 79794, and two £50 notes, numbers 95507-8.
Cross-examined. This is a very careful forgery—I see no discrepancy in the signature—I have been cashier 10 years—I have no memory whether the same person came with both cheques.
Cross-examined. I have four of the notes paid out by Knowles in cashing these cheques—they amount to £700.
HERBERT EDWARD GRIFFIN . I am cashier to Thomas Cook & Son, Ludgate Circus—I was on duty on October 18th—Mr. Huskisson, a junior cashier, was behind the same counter assisting me—the counter is an enclosed portion on the ground floor, with brass railings and extending the length of the room—the prisoner came in between 12.30 and 1 p.m. with a £100 and two £50 Bank of England notes and asked for change of £200 into French money—I put the usual question if he would have French notes or gold, and I further told him that I had not French notes of the amount—he said that he preferred English money—the whole amount in gold—I gave him 400 francs—2 francs in silver and 40 English sovereigns—I asked him to endorse one of the notes, and saw him write the endorsement and endorse the other two £50 notes with the same name, "J. Wilson, 8, Richmount Gardens, W.C."—I noticed that he wrote slowly—I was afterwards spoken to by the police, and gave them his description, which Inspector Cox took down in writing—he subsequently showed me this photograph of a group on board a steamer, the centre figure of which I recognised as the man who cashed the notes—I afterwards, at the request of the police, went to Paris and saw the prisoner in custody—after he had been ordered for extradition, I came back to this country and identified him from about half-a-dozen people in the cells at Guildhall before I gave evidence—when he cashed the notes on October 18th he was dressed in a short jacket suit and low hat or cap, which I afterwards recognised.
Cross-examined. I can fix the time as near as possible as 1.5 p.m. when the prisoner called—the request was not unusual—the gold was about 40 ounces—I looked closely at the man—that is my natural course to look at my customers, not because of any suspicion—if there had been a birthmark I might have noticed it—the light was good; I had my back to the light, my face to the person—this is his description, which the Inspector wrote: "A man having the appearance of a sportsman or a horse-dealer, wearing a jacket suit and a low hat or cap, full face, and to the best of my recollection having no moustache, aged 40 to 45, stout and broad chested"—I was in a room alone 10 minutes or longer—a gendarme was with Hickman—I next saw him in the magistrates' room—I believe I was asked to swear to the evidence I gave at Guildhall—I think I saw Hickman twice in Paris, or three times—I subsequently picked him out at Guildhall police cells—I know my age—it's signature in Paris—this is a letter from our Paris house.
EDWARD HUSKISSON . I am one of the cashiers at Thomas Cook and Son's, Ludgate Circus—on October 18th I was assisting Griffin, the chief cashier—I saw the prisoner come in a few minutes after 1 o'clock and change £200 in notes for £100 in French gold and £40 in sovereigns, and put it in his pocket—I had just returned from lunch—I have to be back at 1 o'clock—I was afterwards shown this photograph and picked out the same person—I again identified him on December 23rd in the cells of the Court from six men in a row.
Cross-examined. My attention was first drawn to the transaction about three weeks afterwards—the transaction seemed suspicious because he could have got notes—I looked closely at him—I did not see any birthmark—I conversed with Griffin about its being strange that we should have three transactions of changing £200 for French money that day, as there would be a run on French money—Griffin showed me the photograph about three weeks afterwards—Cox was present—it was when I came back from my holidays—I described him at Guildhall as fairly large with a pallid look, exactly as the prisoner looks, and clean shaven—I told Cox that he was very large, with a flabby look and clean shaven—he was dressed in a light suit with a dark cap and a low, turned down collar—I did not compare notes with Griffin as to his description.
Cross-examined. The defendant's solicitors gave me the opportunity of inspecting his luggage at Southampton Row—there were two trunks and his hat box—one was a large trunk—a leather travelling case, an invalid's elaborate wooden chair, not a deck chair—I examined the contents—I found two blue serge jackets, of similar material to the cap, serge suits, and lady's and gentleman's suits, and two of these photographs, which the solicitor took charge of—this was on December 20th, after he was brought back from Paris—the luggage was stored at Houghton's, 64, Southampton Row.
HENRY COX (City Police Inspector). On December 15th the prisoner was handed over to me by the French police at Boulogne—I read to him the warrant which charged him with forging and uttering cheques for
£380 and £400—he said, "It is a mistake, I am innocent of the charge, I can prove my identity"—I conveyed him to Cloak Lane police station—when the charge was read over to him he said, "I am innocent of this charge, it is like a dream to me"—I have been to 8, Richmond Gardens—I found no such person as J. Wilson there.
Cross-examined. I was first instructed by the London and Westminster Bank, through a solicitor, on October 29th—I went to the Bank of England for the numbers of the notes given in exchange for the two forged cheques—I traced the notes to Cook's—I inquired of Griffin, then I went to Oldham's—the signature on the cheque is remarkably like Messrs. Oldham's—I asked him who was in the habit of coming to his office—he gave me several gentlemen's names—I went once to the Economic Bank to subpoena one of the clerks and get a statement—I saw Hickman's account of his visit there—the clerk was present at Guildhall, but not called—I went to Hickman's place of business, but not upstairs to his office—I did not see this clerk—I ascertained that his address was 2, Vernon Chambers, Southampton Row—I found great difficulty in tracing him—I found out Vernon Chambers from inquiries at 3, Pembroke Square, Earl's Court, from a gentleman named Grant, who had resided there—it was stated that Grant was looking for flats, and that caused me to look at all the flats—I got Hickman's address from the housekeeper, who said that he and his wife had left, and were believed to be in Paris, and he afterwards gave me a letter which gave the address of the Oceanic Hotel, Rue de la Pepiniere, Paris—I found they were there—Hickman's office was on the fifth floor of Salisbury House—after the arrest I went to look at the office—I saw Hickman's name on the door—I do not wish to state how I got the photograph—I showed it to Griffin—I showed him a few photographs a week before that—he could not identify those—Hickman wanted to come back at once to London—Mrs. Hickman is in delicate health—I found in Hickman's possession about £10 in gold, 7 Napoleons—I was present when he was searched by the French authorities—I asked for his boxes to be searched at once—when asked by the French authorities he said, "I do object to have my boxes searched until I see the Ambassador or the French Consul"—subsequently he allowed them to be searched—he was present, Mrs. Hickman was not—she had one small box and a brown bag—one box contained wearing apparel—I examined some scrip from one box—it is in Court—this list was sent with the extradition papers [produced]—these things have been handed by the police to the solicitors of the Bank and kept in a safe—there was a seal of the Burt Gold Mining and Milling Company, a note book, some letters, and 8 blank cheques on the Economic Bank, and vouchers and accounts, certificates for shares in the Pacific States Oil Company, and in the Manufacturers' Mercantile Agency Company, sealed and signed by the accused, and other certificates—he is the publisher of the "The Credit Review," and treasurer of the Bankers' Manufacturing Agency—I traced two £100 notes to J. Attenborough, upon French money, and an American-made watch and an umbrella—Attenborough's clerk's description tallied with that of Griffin, except that he was wearing an overcoat, and Griffin said he was wearing a cap or bowler hat and looked like a horse dealer—the clerk Dawson
came to identify the prisoner at the police station from about eight others—he picked out another man who answered the description, but not the prisoner—in Paris he was wearing an American-made watch—the number was taken at the police station here—the umbrella did not answer the description given—I did not find out where it was bought, nor take the top off.
Re-examined. I have traced the notes given in exchange for these two forged cheques, but I have not identified the prisoner as cashing them, except at Cook's—I am endeavouring to find Grant, but have not succeeded—I had no power to bring the prisoner from Paris till he was surrendered.
The prisoner, in his defence, on oath, denied the forgery, and disputed his being the man who cashed the notes. He received a good character.
Evidence for the defence.
WILLIAM PALMER . I am a clerk in the Economic Bank, 34, Old Broad Street—I have been employed there nearly a year—Mr. Massey is the manager—this is a draft for 100 dollars, payable to Mr. Hickman, dated October 18th—I know him as a customer—I have frequently seen him at the bank—he came in on October 18th at about 12.30—I was looking at the clock, thinking of the Exchange List, which I am supposed to get at 10.30—he went into the manager's room—about five minutes afterwards I was called into the room, and asked to get this draft for 100 dollars at Brown-Shipley's Joint Stock Company in Lothbury—I left the bank to go that errand at 12.45—I was at Brown-Shipley's ten minutes—or a quarter of an hour—I was told to take it to Hickman's office—I went to the Exchange first, then to Have a cup of coffee, then to Hickman's office—he was sitting at his desk writing—I gave him the draft, he gave me this cheque in exchange—I returned with it to the bank—when I left the bank, Hickman was in the manager's office—I remember distinctly it was a wet day—I have never seen Hickman in any other than a silk hat—I do not remember seeing him in a short jacket or a turned down collar.
Cross-examined. I remember it was October 18th by its being a wet day, and by the date of the draft—I cannot say when I left the bank on October 17th or 19th; nor when I got the List—I should get the List at 10.15—the place opens at 10 in Copthall Court—I have no regular time to get it; I go as early as I can—I am told about it if I am later than 10.15—I cannot say when Hickman was last in—I was at the counter making up pass books when I was sent out—Brown-Shipley's is in Pounders' Court, about four and a-half minute's walk.
SAMUEL GURNEY MASSEY . I have been very ill—I am managing trustee of the Economic Bank—prior to that I was 25 years in William Peebles' Bank—I know Hickman as a client since August 30th—I recollect October 18th by this draft on Brown Shipley's or Brown Brothers, the New York House, for 100 dollars—Hickman called about 12.30 and asked me to obtain it—I instructed the clerk to take it to his office—he went to obtain the draft between 12.30 and 12.45—Hickman remained in conversation, and waiting for the draft about three-quarters of an hour—when the clerk came back, I told him to take it to his office—I believe it
was a wet day because I wanted to go out in the morning and did not go; other people wished to see me, the weather kept me, and I wanted to go to lunch, and Hickman kept me—the draft was on Hickman and Read—Read is the partner—they were doing work for our bank in New York—before entering into a contract I made inquiries, and the answer was that they were respectable, very well connected, but not of large means—I was a couple of months making inquiries, and sent over and got a gentleman to go to New York to inquire personally, and he brought back the same account—the contract was never entered into, but expired by lapse of time—I recollect a gentleman making inquiries at the bank on October 29th—I believed him to be Mr. Oldham—(Mr. Oldham was called in)—I do not think that is the man.
Cross-examined. I was first asked about this, I believe, on a Friday; the solicitor came to see me the first day I got out of bed—I signed a declaration then for the Lord Mayor's Court—if the solicitor says it was December 28th, that is about correct—Hickman came into the bank about once a week or once a fortnight; he did not always come inside to see me—on another occasion we sent out for a draft for him—I believe it was later—I told the clerk it was important—as it was mail day—he brought back the Stock Exchange List, usually obtained about 10.30; I do not know why it was left so late—as a rule I do not want it before 11—Hickman was in a hurry to get the draft by 1.30—Brown Ship ey's is about 5 minutes' walk, and then he may be kept waiting half an hour—there is a clock outside my room and in the office, which I can see through the glass door—I saw that he went out between 1.10 and 1.15—I think he came back about 1.20—it was very shortly after Hickman had left.
Re-examined. This is Hickman's pass book at our Bank—it was made up on November 4th—roughly, he had about £223 on October 18th to his credit, after crediting £50 and debiting the draft, £20—I went to Winchester House to lunch very shortly after Hickman left,—before 1.30 I know, and I think after Palmer came back.
DAVID DAVIDSON . I am a clerk to Brown, Shipley & Co., bankers, in Lothbury—this draft was issued by us on December 18th, 1901, and from the signature I think between 12.30 and a few minutes past one, because these are usually signed by the chief clerk, Sir Rowland Roberts, and he goes to his lunch at 12.30 and returns shortly after one, but this is signed by the manager, who signs in his absence—Sir Rowland Roberts was there on October 18th.
MARTIN CORMAC . I live at 9, West Mount Road, Eltham—I am a cashier at Parr's Bank—we have an account of Red, Carr & Co., of New York—they are our correspondents—I produce a certified copy showing the issues of letters of credit upon us by persons resident in America desirous of visiting London—one is in favour of Hickman for £100—I paid £50 of it on October 18th about 3 p.m. on his letter of credit in five £10 notes, Nos. 82463-7—I have seen Hickman.
ARTHUR HENRY JOHN WALKER . I live at 131, Sussex Road, South Croydon—I am a clerk at the Economic Bank—I produce the pass book of W. C. Hickman—I have seen him in the bank occasionally—I find on October 18th £223 11S. to his credit—£50 was paid in by cheque or notes.
HARMAN LEVERE . I reside at 29, Cookham Road, Fulham—I am employed by W. R. Perry & Co., Ltd., an inquiry agent for merchants and others—Hickman was engaged in a similar business, only his was American and mine English—on October 18th I called on him at his office in Salisbury House as to an inquiry which Le Faire & Co. had made for him in Switzerland—I had it translated into good English for him—I took it to him between 1 and 2 o'clock—he gave me this cheque in payment for 11s., dated October 18th, and which I received at about that time—this is the receipt I gave him for 11s., also dated October 18th—he told me he intended to go to Paris.
WALTER SCOTT . I live at Stoke Newington—I am a clerk in the Western Union Telegraph Offices, at 21, Royal Exchange—we receive cable messages from the United States—this cable message was handed in at our office on October 18th, 1901, at 2.21 p.m., with the three code words on it and addressed to Milye, New York—it was paid for by William Hickman's cheque for 3s.
Cross-examined, It was not handed to me—Milye means Messrs. Vermilye &, Co., of New York—I know from the notice on the telegram that it was paid in at 2.21 p.m.—the telegram would be sent by my office—on the line to America.
BERTIE GERALD LEVI , I am a financial agent—on Friday, October 18th, Hickman gave me some theatre tickets after I had returned from my lunch at about 1.30, presumably about 2 or 2.15 p.m.—he usually wears a silk hat—I have never seen him in a cap.
Evidence in reply.
HENRY DUKE (City Detective.) I have measured accurately the distance from the Economic Bank, Old Broad Street, to Cook's at Ludgate Circus, and to the London and Western Bank, Ludgate Circus—the latter is 1,663 yards—from the Economic Bank to Cook's, via Ludgate Circus, the Poultry and St. Paul's Churchyard, is 1 mile 50 yard 0, and takes 19 minutes and 50 seconds at a fair average pace, measured by machine—at 3 to 3 1/2 miles an hour.
E. R. OLDHAM, JUNR . (Re-examined.) I do not know Reeves—Grant was an agent of ours—I think he lived at Pembroke Gardens—he had not access to my cheque book—this cheque to him of October 10th is right—he often came to our office—he would see my signature and where I kept my cheque book.
NOT GUILTY .
No evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, 22nd January, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted.
GEORGE HARDING (P.C. 108, W.) On December 26th, at 10.20 p.m., I was off duty in plain clothes, and went with another officer into the Red Lion public house, Paradise Road, for some refreshment, and in another compartment I saw the prisoner Dance—He said, "Jack, there are 2—'coppers' in the other side, let's out them"—there was another man named Rivett, who is now in hospital—I had never spoken to them before, but knew them by sight—Dance then picked up a half-pint beer glass and threw it at me, but missed—he then threw another, and Rivett threw one at me—there were 3 glasses thrown altogether—the second, which Dance threw, struck me over my left eye, cutting it—I then left the compartment, and as I was crossing the footway I saw prisoner Holland standing outside the door—he struck at me with a knife, similar to this (Produced)—I then fell into the road—I saw Dance go to some iron railings just past the public-house and break some—prisoner said, "Come on Jack, let's out the b----with these"—he then came and struck me just above my right knee, and I bad a severe bruise there, and was off duty for 8 days—the prisoner then ran away, and I reported the matter of the station to my inspector.
Cross-examined by Holland. I did not see you in the bar—I saw you outside standing on the left side of the door as I came out—I had not my truncheon—I had nothing in my hand—you did not say anything to me—you struck at me with a knife as I came through the door.
Cross-examined by Dance. I did not say to Holland, "Jack, I see they have let you out again—how long are you going to be out now before you are back again?" nor did I draw my truncheon and hit Holland—I had not my truncheon on me—we were not in the same bar as you were—the cut on my eye was caused by the glass striking it; not by my falling to the ground.
Re-examined. I had had no conversation with the prisoner before the glasses were thrown down—I did not see Holland until I got outside—Dance used the name Jack—Rivetts' name is Frederick.
CHARLES COOPER (569, W.) I was with Harding—I heard Dance say,. "There are two f----g coppers in the other bar. Let's out them"—he then got up on the seat and threw a glass over the partition, which missed us both—he and Rivett then got up and threw two more, which caught Harding on his forehead as he left the door—I followed him out and was knocked down by Holland as I came out—I could not see who was in the next compartment—I saw Dance as he was looking over the partition—whilst on the ground Holland ran at me and kicked me several times on my chest, and I caught hold of his leg and pulled him down on top of me—then Dance came up and kicked me on my eye, and said, "That is one; I will kick his b----brains out the next time"—he came to kick me again but hit Holland on the head—Holland said, "Hold on, you are kicking me instead of him"—Holland got up and Dance went to some iron railings, broke one off and came and struck Harding on his leg with it—Dance said, "Let us go and out them with these now"—there was another piece of iron on the kerb.
Cross-examined by Holland. I had no conversation with you—you knocked me down as soon as I came out at the door, and kicked me on my chest while I was on the ground—I had several bruises on my
chest—when I got up I saw both of you running away—I did not see you use the iron bar.
Re-examined I was off duty about 10 days—neither of us had truncheons.
ARTHUR VOWLES . I am the proprietor of the Red Lion—I remember Harding and Cooper coming in—Holland and Dance were in another compartment—while I was serving Cooper and Harding, Dance said to me, "Governor, I going over your bar after them—I said, "you are not"—He then stood on the form and threw the glasses over the partition at Cooper and Harding.
Cross-examined by Holland. I did not see you strike either of the officers—I did not see you strike either of the officers—I did not go outside—I cannot say for certain that you aimed any glasses.
ROBERT EBBAGE . (Detective Sergeant, W.) On December 26th I was at the police station when Cooper and Harding arrived, and from what they said I and other officers went in search of the prisoners and found them about 11.30 p.m. in the South Lambeth Road—I said to Dance, "Joe, I want you"—He said "F—you," and took this iron bar (Produced) from under his coat and struck my head—I drew my truncheon and knocked him down—assistance came and he was taken into custody—I saw Holland arrested by Sergeant Hawkins—he attempted to strike Hawkins with an iron paling which he took from under his coat, and I struck him with my truncheon—I searched and found that it came from 47, Stockwell Road, some distance from the public house—they were all three armed with iron bars.
Cross-examined by Dance. I hit you on your head with my truncheon after you had struck me with the iron paling.
THOMAS HAWKINS (Detective, W.) I saw Holland in the South Lambeth Road—I told him I should arrest him for seriously assaulting two constables in Paradise Road—He said he knew nothing about it—I took hold of his hands, and he said "Let go,"I said "No"—He then released one of his hands and produced an iron bar from under his coat and was about to strike me when Sergeant Ebbage struck him on his head.
Cross-examined by Holland. You did not say you struck the constable in self-defence—you went to the station quietly—you did not strike me.
CHARLES GADD (Detective, W.) I was with Ebbage and Hawkins—I took charge of Rivett—He struck me with this iron bar on my shoulder and I struck him—he shouted "you have broken my leg"—he was then taken to the station on an ambulance—between 12 and 12.30 p.m. on December 26th I searched the pavement near the Red Lion and found this knife (produced) just off the kerb—it was shut.
ROBERT HAMILTON (Police Inspector, W). I was at the station when the prisoners were brought in—Holland made a statement, which I took down—this is it: "I was in the Red Lion public house when I heard a row—my brother Joe went out and pushed the iron railing, breaking it, and with it struck that chap (pointing to Harding) and threw four glasses at him over the bar"—he signed that.
covered with cuts. There were pieces of glass sticking in some of the wounds—I cannot say whether any of the cuts had been caused by a knife—he also had a mark across one knee, such as would be produced by an iron bar—Cooper had a severe contusion of one eye, which was more likely caused by a kick than a blow. He also had some bruises on his chest.
Holland, in his defence on oath, said that the constables came into the public house and that Harding struck him first and he hit him back in selfdefence; that he never used the iron bar and had never carried a knife; he denied making and signing the statement produced by Inspector Hamilton.
Dance produced a written defence, stating that the officers came into the Red Lion, where he and Holland were; on (jetting outside Cooper knocked him down, and as he got up Cooper tried to hit him again and fell to the kerb, cutting his eye, and that was all he knew of the matter.
GUILTY .—Both prisoners had been convicted of assaults on the police, and felony: HOLLAND, seven years' penal servitude ; DANCE, five years' penal servitude.
Before Mr. Justice Jelf.
MR. WARD Prosecuted, and MR. LEYCESTER Defended.
Before Mr. Justice Jelf.
During the progress of the case the prisoner stated that he was
GUILTY , and the jury returned that verdict—he received a good character.— Fourteen days in the second division.
This case was commenced last September and adjourned. The same jury now continued, and being unable to agree, were discharged (see next case) .
MR. GRANTHAM and MR. THOMAS Prosecuted and MR. LEYCESTER and MR. CAIRNS Defended.— NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
141. RICHARD HAMILTON (20), PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the shop of Alexander Morris, and stealing a quantity of oranges, his property, having been convicted of felony at West Ham on December 17th, 1897 .— Three months hard labour , and PERCY TAYLOR to a burglary in the dwelling house of Elizabeth Phelps , having been convicted of felony at Peterboro' on October 18th, 1900.— Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. HARRISON Prosecuted.
WILLIAM WATKINSON . I am salesman to Samuel Johnson, outfitter, of 61, Leytonstone Road, Stratford—on December 30th, about 4 p.m., I saw the prisoner take a coat from outside the shop—I was standing on top of a pair of steps, and my attention was attracted by the chain by which the coat was suspended rattling against the window—The prisoner ran off—I ran and caught him and brought him back to the shop—this is the coat (produced)—its value is 12s.—he had it with him, and also the chain and the ticket—he did not say anything—a constable came up when I got back to the shop.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. When I caught you my employer—came up and said, "You are not quite quick enough this time, old man."
FREDERICK PETTITT (504, K.) I am stationed at West Ham—on December 30th, I was on duty about 4 p.m. in the Leytonstone Road, about 50 yards from Mr. Johnson's premises—I saw the prisoner snatch a mackintosh coat from outside the doorway—I was on point duty—I saw Watkinson come out and follow him—he was given into my charge—Mr. Johnson had the mackintosh—then I saw it taken from the prisoner's arm—he was charged at West Ham Station—he said, "You would not have caught me if it had not been for my breath."
Cross-examined. I did not tell you to say that you took it because you were hungry.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Chelmsford on August 4th, 1900, as Joseph Adams, and 4 other convictions were proved against him, one of 10 years' penal servitude for arson in 1870.— 12 months' hard labour.
143. CHARLES WATKINS (61), PLEADED GUILTY to attempting to obtain money by false pretences from William Bryan with intent to defraud; also, to forging a request for the payment of money with intent to defraud, having been convicted of felony at"Birmingham on March 13th, 1899, and 3 other convictions were proved against him. Six months' hard labour.
BARNARD PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. FULTON Prosecuted. MR. HARRISON Defended Watson.
spoke to Barnard on December 23rd, and in consequence of what he said I sent for the police and gave him into custody—later in the day I accompanied the police to Watson's shop, 738, Old Ford Road, and in a room over the shop we found 2 bags each containing 72 lbs. of candles and 2 bundles containing 5 or 6 packets each, all labelled "Palmers' diamond wax"—those are some of the packets (Produced)—they contain 31b. each—I identify them—we also found these two boxes of fluted candles—I claimed them—they were made within a fortnight of my finding them there—those two boxes had not been sold—I can tell that from the peculiar colour—they were the first of that colour we had made—they were samples made for export; and were not to be sold in this country—they were all perfectly new and at the police station they were in a fit condition to send out again—Watson was not a customer of ours.
Cross-examined. I have been manager for five years—Barnard was in our employ 3 or 4 months—he came with a good recommendation—he is a warehouseman—I first spoke to him about the matter about 11 a.m., and told him to return to his work and I would let him know by dinner time what I would do with him—the police came at 12.30 and arrested him—we never keep damaged candles on the works, they are immediately melted down—we never sell them, neither do we give them away to our workpeople—the wholesale price of a packet is 10d.—I did not hear Watson say that he had bought them for 6d. a packet.
Re-examined. Barnard said that he had sold the whole lot to Watson for 4s.—Barnard's wages were £1 per week; he was a warehouse labourer.
HENRY GRAHL (Detective Sergeant, K.) On December 23rd Elsom and I went to Palmers' works, and last witness gave Barnard into our custody—we then went to Watson's shop, and I told him we were police officers, that we had a man named Barnard detained in custody for stealing a quantity of candles from Palmer & Co., his employers, and that Barnard had stated that they were at his, Watson's, shop—Watson said, "I have only got a few—I am minding them for him"—we found in a room over the shop 2 sacks, containing 144 lbs. of candles, and 2 parcels containing 7 packets each, 42 lb.; and in the scullery down stairs, 37 1b.; and two 1 lb. boxes of fancy candles in a back room downstairs; and one full and one half full packets in the shop, all of which Mr. Caulderwood identified, and gave Watson into my custody—I cautioned him—he became excited and said, "I shall go mad! Oh my! I was only minding them. Let me take them back. I only wish I could send them back. Won't you give me a chance? I will give you every information. Do not charge me, for the sake of my two children. Can I have bail?"—he was then taken to the station—in reply to the charge he said that Barnard had told him they were all damaged goods.
By the COURT. Meat, tea and butter would be sold at his shop, and I take it there would be a market for candles.
Cross-examined. I call it a small shop—it was fairly well stocked—we found other goods upstairs—kites, matches, an old pair of scales and a dinner service—so far as I know they both have borne good characters—the candles were in a perfectly new condition when we found them.
WILLIAM ELLSON (Detective, K). I accompanied Grahl to Watson's shop and heard the conversation between him and Watson—in the shop I found one full packet and one packet containing 15 candles opened, all in good condition.
Watson, in his defence, staled, upon oath, that Barnard came and asked if he would buy some damaged candies, which he did, paying him 26s. for the lot, but had no entry of it in his books; that it was usual for him to buy job "lines "in that way; that he had never met Barnard before; that he was sure they were damaged goods when he bought them, and thought Barnard was a traveller; he received a good character.
GUILTY .— Nine months' hard labour ;
BARNARD, six months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Commissioner L. Smith, K.C.
MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.
THOMAS FOREMAN . I live at 152, Redclose Lane, Forest Gate, and am foreman to Arthur Morris and was at their works at Stratford—on November 9th I closed the premises safely—on the following Monday morning I went there—I found the wicket gate forced, and I found Emmings inside it, and the button which fastened the door was broken off—I saw this iron dog there (Produced)—I compared the marks on the door with the iron dog, and they corresponded—the premises had been forcibly entered—a clock which had been in the office was gone, and also some stamps—when I left the premises on the 9th this piece of iron was not there.
Cross-examined by Shelvey. I do not know if there are hundreds of these dogs lying about opposite the premises.
RICHARD PENNY . I live at 22, Livingstone Road, Stratford, and am employed by Mr. Waddington, of Pudding Lane, Stratford, facing the prosecutor's premises—on Sunday, November 10th, about 4.30 p.m., I was in the yard feeding my horses—I saw Shelvey about 15 yards from the prosecutor's premises—I also saw Emmings, who told me not to say anything—he had a piece of iron like this in his hand—I informed my employer—the wicket gate was open when I passed—I do not know if it is locked as a rule—I have known Shelvey for years and Emmings about six months—Shelvey does some work, but not for Morris.
Cross-examined by Shelvey. You were 15 yards from the place, not 20 yards.
HENRY BROWN (Detective Sergeant.) I live at West Ham—on November 11th I went to the printing works of Arthur Morris and Sons—an entry had been made by forcing a wicket gate and the office door—the desk in the office had been forced—this iron instrument was handed to me—compared the various marks with it and they could have been caused by it—at 12.30 p.m. on December 5th I saw Shelvey outside the police court at Stratford—I said to him, "I am a police officer, and shall arrest you for being concerned in entering Mr. Morris's premises on the
10th of last month"—he said, "You are getting this up all right for me'—I took him to West Ham police station, where Penny identified him—he made no reply to the charge—nothing was found on him—he gave a name but no address.
WILLIAM ELSOM (Detective Officer). I live at Forest Gate—about 9.30 on December 16 I went to 507, Old Ford Road, Bow, and saw Emmings. I said to him, "I am a police officer and shall arrest you for being concerned with Shelvey in breaking into Mr. Morris's warehouse and stealing a clock and some stamps"—he said, "I do not know what you mean," but said afterwards that Shelvey took them away—he was taken to the station and charged—in reply he said, "Thank you"—we did not arrest the prisoners before because we could not find them.
The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Shelvey's says, "I plead not guilty and know nothing about it'—Emmings says, "We both know as much as the other about the case—I have a wife and children to keep."
Shelvey, in his defence, said that on the day in question he was sitting on the fence about 20 yards from the prosecutors premises, but did not break into the place or steal or receive any goods that he knew nothing about the robbery; and that Emmings knew he never had the clock, or knew anything about it.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. KENRICK Prosecuted.
JAMES WEEKS . I am a clerk, and live at 30, Malmesbury Terrace, Canning Town—on December 28th, soon after midnight, I was walking towards my home, near Ordnance Road, with my wife—I stopped to listen to some men having high words—my wife walked on and requested me to come with her—I received a blow on my jaw which knocked me down and stunned me by my coming in contact with the kerb—I found the prisoner on top of me—I felt his hand, and my coat torn open—his weight kept me down—I tried to scream—he put his hand in my mouth—I could not move—I felt him feeling all over my breast, and all my pockets—I have the same clothes on—the buttons were completely torn off—they have been sewn on again—when I tried to struggle I received a blow on my face—I received a lot of blows—my lips were all torn inside—I heard my wife call "Police," and a constable came up—I had a silver Geneva watch and a ladies' watch and chain—the former I saw on the ground, and called a policeman's attention to it—I was sober—I have a perfect recollection of what occurred—I held the prisoner till a constable came—my teeth were loosened, all the inside of my mouth was sore, and under my tongue was torn away—there was considerable violence.
Cross-examined by the prisoner I saw no man with crutches—I neither struck nor spoke to anybody—I am not a boxer—I work for Osborne, a Government contractor, and hare charge of the cashiering
at the Millwall Dock—I did sparring at one time, and won a competition as an amateur 7 years ago—I never made a business of it, nor received money from a club.
ETTIE WEEKS . I am the wife of the last witness—soon after midnight on December 28th I was returning home with him down Ordnance Road, Canning Town—I saw three men standing in a group—they appeared to be quarrelling—my husband stayed a minute or two—and I said, "Come on, don't look at the row"—I saw the prisoner strike him—I recognised him again in the police station—my husband fell on the back of his head—I ran up and tried to pull the prisoner off—he was on the top of him—two other big men with caps on caught hold of me and wrenched my coat off and handled me roughly—I called for the police—two policemen stood at the corner of the street when I screamed out—my husband was holding on to the prisoner—I heard the prisoner say, "leave go of me"—my husband said, "I shall not, I want my watch and chain"—when the two policemen came up my husband was still holding on to the prisoner—I saw my husband afterwards pick up his watch, which was lying on the kerb near the gutter.
ELLEN LUCAS . I am the wife of Edwin Lucas, of 4, Ordnance Road, Canning Town—on December 28th, soon after midnight, I was attracted by a noise in the road near the house and by calls of police—my husband and I went out immediately—I saw the prisoner and the prosecutor struggling on the ground in the road and I heard a blow and saw the prisoner hit the prosecutor towards his mouth, and the police come up—I found a piece of watch chain lying in the road and a black button—the police had then taken the prisoner up the Barking Road, towards the station—I heard the prisoner say, "Let me go"—the prosecutor said,. "No,"I will hold you till the police come."
ALFRED ALLEN (779, if.) On December 28th, soon after midnight, I was on point duty in the Barking Road about 50 yards from the Ordnance Road—I heard women screaming "Police" and "Thieves"—in the Ordnance Road I saw the prosecutor's wife, and a little way behind her the prosecutor holding the prisoner by his coat—he said, "This man has stolen my watch, I shall charge him"—the prisoner made no reply—the prosecutor's face was covered with blood—both were sober—this watch was picked up in the road—it was covered with blood—this bar was still fastened to the centre button of the prosecutor's waistcoat—Mrs. Lucas brought this part of the chain to the station shortly afterwards—when charged the prisoner said, "I admit striking him, but I did not take his watch, I had nothing to do with the watch"—he was charged with stealing the watch and chain and assaulting the prosecutor—I saw no man with a crutch in the street.
Cross-examined. You had a bruise and blood on your face, but I saw no cut.
Re-examined. The prosecutor's coat was torn open and one of the buttons missing, which was afterwards found; his lips were very much swollen and his face and clothes were smothered with blood—that might account for the blood on the prisoner.
Evidence for the Defence.
WILLIAM KING . I am a hydraulic crane driver at the Royal Albert Docks for the New Zealand Shipping Company—I was returning from my employment in the early morning of December 28th with my wife—we met the prosecutor, and the woman was standing on the left of the pavement—my wife said something, and the prosecutor said, "That woman is my wife"—I said, "If she is your wife take her home; see the condition she is in," and I said to her, "Is this your husband V and to him, "Don't put your face too close to my wife's"—I drew back, and was knocked and fell—a man helped me up and picked up my hat and stick and gave them to me—then the prisoner said to the prosecutor, "You vagabond to strike a man who cannot defend himself"—(The Witness was lame)—the prosecutor said, "You can have the same," and she saw him fall in the road, and said to me, "Come home"—I live in the same road, 42, Malmesbury Terrace, Canning Town, as Weeks, the man who struck me—I went home and heard no more till the prisoner's wife informed me that her husband was in prison, then I went to Plaistow Station and asked what I could do—I pushed Weeks away from my wife, and I suppose that upset him.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor's wife was standing on the kerb opposite—they were abreast of one another—I saw one constable 70 yards off on point duty—I wanted to see the result, but my wife pulled me along—Mrs. Lucas came out of her house, a barber's shop, and her husband followed—I doubt whether they saw me in the rush—I was not there when the police came, my wife took me away—I do not know the prisoner—I was in bed four days after I went home—the prosecutor's wife came to my house and asked for the man who was knocked down and I explained the matter—I heard no complaint of a watch being stolen.
ALICE KING . I am the wife of William King—I was with him in the Ordnance Road three days after Christmas between 12.30 and one a.m. coming home—I saw the prosecutor knock my husband down—the prisoner came across the road and I asked him if he would help me pick my husband up and he did so, and gave him his cap and stick in his hand and said to Weeks that he ought to be ashamed of himself for hitting a cripple, and Weeks said if he liked he could have the same, then Weeks hit the prisoner and both fell to the ground; his wife called out "Police," and I was so frightened, Weeks being a fighting man and my husband a cripple, that I thought the best thing was to get away, and we did so.
Cross-examined. We simply said, "That looks like the woman across the road," and the prosecutor said, "That is the woman that lives across the road, she is my wife; what do you know about her?"—I said, "Nothing"—with that he hit my husband and knocked him down—I am not complaining of the prosecutor's conduct to me—he looked me in the face; his hat touched mine, and my husband said, "That is my wife, take your head out of her face"—I did not know the man—I knew the woman—she lives at No. 2, and she appeared to be going away from her home—we were going from the Royal Albert Music Hall, where my husband is an attendant—he also works as a crane driver for the New Zealand Shipping Company when they have work—Weeks lives in the same street—I
heard so, and that he was a fighting man, or boxer rather—I got my husband away as soon as I could—when the prisoner's wife told me her husband was locked up I went to the police station and made a statement.
ALFRED ALLEN (Re-examined). Prom the prisoner's statement I made inquiries and afterwards saw King at Ralph's Music Hall, and asked him if he would come here and say what he had seen, and he said he would—I went to the address given me, 42, Malmesbury Terrace, and to 142, Malmesbury Road, and then to the Music Hall, and found he was not a paid servant, but occasionally worked there.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had never been in a Court before; that he was a fireman; and had been six months at the front; and produced a seaman's discharge.
GUILTY . Twelve months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
147. ARTHUR REEVES (25), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a pair pliers and a key, the goods of Angelo Taylor —also to breaking and entering the shop of Freeman, Hardy & Willis, Ltd., and stealing 2s. their money—also to a burglary in the dwelling house of John Robert Cockran, and stealing 2s., the money of Alfred Haile—also to a burglary in the dwelling house of Thomas John Burley, and stealing 7s. 6d. his money— two former convictions were proved against him— 3 years' penal servitude.
MR. OSWALD, Prosecuted.
ROWE, GUILTY , 6 months' hard labour —HARFORD, 4 days' imprisonment.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. KENRICK, Prosecuted.
EMILY MASON . I am the wife of George Mason, of 7, Greenbank, Ulverstone, Lancashire—my brother, Edward Tyson, is a medical practitioner, at 2, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, London—I do not know the prisoners—on December 17th I received this telegram, handed in at
Clapham Common Post Office, addressed to Mason, 7, Greenbank, Ulverstone, "Must leave London to-day, wire £10 by return, Post Cilice, Clapham Common; left Holloway, living here, Tyson"—I believed that to come from by brother, Edward Tyson, and went to the Clapham Post Office and wired the money to Dr. E. Tyson there—in consequence of receiving a letter from my brother subsequently, I wrote him, and on December 28th I received another telegram of December 27th, purporting to come from my brother, which stated "Wire early Saturday morning £10, 227, Walworth Road; rest by letter. Buying practice. Important. Edward"—this had been handed in at 7.59, and the Post Office closed at 8, which accounts for my not receiving it till the next morning—I sent no more money.
THOMAS GLENCROSS . I am a clerk in the Accountant General's Department of the General Post Office—I produce the original telegram of December 17th, which was handed in at the Clapham Common Post Office, addressed "Mason, 7, Greenbank, Ulverstone"—also the second of two telegrams of December 27th, received on 28th with the same address, and which was handed in at 17, Walworth Road, and signed "Edward," for £10.
SARAH MITCHELL . I am a telegraphic counter clerk at the Clapham Common Post Office—I received on December 7th this official telegram from Ulverstone directing me to pay E. Tyson £10—it is stamped—a few days after some one came and asked for the money—I know I paid it by my signature and the money order—the receipt was sent the next day to the General Post Office.
EDWARD TYSON . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 2, Gordon. Street, Gordon Square, London—the prisoner, McEachen, lived with me some years past—Oakes resided in the house she was living in in June last at St. John's Villas, Holloway—I have been away in the country—formerly McEachen lived in the house at Holloway at my expense—the prisoners left there together—afterwards McEachen made various requests for money, and I gave her money as late as December—I sent no telegram on December 17th from the Clapham Common Post Office, nor authorised anyone to do so, nor did I authorise McEachen to send a telegram to my sister—I heard about 9 days afterwards that £10 had been paid in my name at that Post Office—I did not receive it—on December 26th I sent Mrs. Mason a telegram to say I had not received the money referred to in a letter of hers—in consequence of her reply I communicated with the police—I arrested Oakes at the Post Office, 227, Walworth Road, on December 28th, in company with Detective Peachey—I was present when Oakes came in and asked for a telegram in the name of Tyson, received and opened it—I took hold of him while he was reading it, and gave him in charge to Peachey who was outside—I gave him no authority to apply for, or open, a telegram in my name.
Cross-examined by McEaches. I said to the police, "If the woman comes I do not wish to arrest her; if the man comes I shall certainly arrest him"—your sister wrote asking me to do my best for you and begged to see me, which I did; and said that the only thing I could do was to employ somebody to defend you, and I took her to a solicitor,
whom she instructed, and I found the money—your sister described Oakes as a swindler and a scoundrel—you did not leave in June last after 7 years because I ill-used you—I allowed you £1 a week if you led a proper life—I never entreated you not to inform my sister how I had treated you—you sent a telegram for someone to look after the child after you were arrested.
FREDERICK PEACHEY (Detective, L.) On December 28th I accompanied Dr. Tyson to the Post and Telegraph Office, 227, Walworth Road—Dr. Tyson went in, and I stayed at the door—Dr. Tyson came out holding Oakes by the sleeve—Oakes was reading the telegram when the doctor seized him—I took it from him at the station—I took Oakes to the station, where Dr. Tyson told him he was taken into custody for forging a telegram and attempting to utter it—he replied, "I never forged it, the woman might have done it, she sent me after a telegram in the name of Tyson, and I went"—I found on him the telegrams and envelopes (produced) addressed, "Tyson, 17, Walworth Road"—I saw McEachen outside when Oakes was given into my charge—she followed to the station—about 4-30 that afternoon I arrested her—I told her she would be charged with being concerned with William Henry Oakes in attempting to obtain £10 by means of a forged telegram—she replied, "Yes, quite right, I forged the first one, and received £10 at the Clapham Post Office, and me and Mr. Oakes lived upon it, and I have got £2 odd of it left; I sent a second for £10 to come to 227, Walworth Road, and I asked Mr. Oakes to get it, but it did not come this time"—at the station when charged she said, "I am very sorry, it is quite true"—when searched £2 3s. 9d. was found on her.
Cross-examined by Oakes. I did not cross the road, two other officers did—I was in plain clothes—I was close to the door—I could easily see into the post office—I drew back to let Tyson come out with you—I never heard Tyson say, "where's my man?"
Cross-examined by McEachen. Dr. Tyson told me that he did not feel inclined to charge you, that was after I had hold of the man.
The prisoner's statements before the Magistrate. Oakes says, "I know nothing about Dr. Tyson, or anything about his family affairs." McEachen says, "I was authorised to go, and I did send for it. Dr. Tyson was the worse for drink at the time, and did not know what he was talking about. He came to me in the first place with money, and asked me to go with him, I refused to do it on account of his ill-treatment. Oakes protected me more than once. I left him on account of his cruelty." The prisoners repeated these statements in their defences.
EDITH SMYTHE . I live at 165, Eggleton Road, Plumstead—I am Ellen McEachen's sister—Dr. Tyson came to me and asked me to go into the witness-box and say that Oakes was a swindler, and that if he could get you off he would pay for your defence—I wrote to Dr. Tyson after your arrest—at Lambeth he refused to charge you—he said "meet me between 1 and 4"—I went to Holloway to see my sister, and Tyson was coming down the stairs—I was told a gentleman wished to see me—it was Dr. Tyson—he offered his hand, which I refused to take—when we were outside he said, "No one is more sorry than I am that this has
happened—I will do everything in my power for your sister"—I said "what will you do?"—he said, "I will go with you to my solicitor and engage him for her"—I went with him—the solicitor was not there, and we arranged to meet him the next morning at 17, St. John Street, Bedford Row—he took down matters, and said he should like to put me in the box—I said "Yes, certainly,"' and Tyson said, "You understand what you have to say in the box, that your sister was perfectly blameless until she met this man; also you must lay it all on this man, and we shall get everybody off; this man is a swindler and a thief"—I refused to do it, and bailed my sister out—I was standing outside waiting for her when Tyson said, "What are you waiting for?"—I said, "For my sister; I have bailed her out"—he said, "That is good; the best thing you can do is to get her out of the way"—I said, "Where is the money to come from? I have not the money," and my sister refused.
GUILTY .— Six months hard labour each.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted, Mr. Burney Defended.
BERT GILLAND . I am page boy at the Elephant and Castle, Newington Causeway—on Boxing day at 7 p.m. the prisoner came in and said, "Give me a twopenny cigar"and laid down this coin (Produced) saying "Change this"—I took it to Mr. Gooch, who went to the prisoner, and I saw no more.
Cross-examined. I did not see the words "sixpence" on it or the weight.
THOMAS ARTHUR GOOCH . I am landlord of the Elephant and Castle—Gilland brought this coin tome on Boxing evening—at the first glance I took it to be a half sovereign, and asked the boy where he got it, he pointed to the prisoner—I went to him and asked him what he meant by passing a coin like that, he said, "Why, he gave it to me," pointing to my head barman, Shoubridge—I knew that Shoubridge could not have done so, and said, "You young scoundrel, I know that to be a lie, I will give you in charge," and proceeded to get over the bar; he ran out of the house; I ran after him—my servant continued the chase and brought him back—no one said anything to me about the coin being a sixpence.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was perfectly sober.
HENRY SHOUBRIDGE . I am head barman at the Elephant and Castle—on Boxing night I heard the prisoner say to Mr. Gooch that I gave him the coin—I had not done so, nor had I served him—I said that I did not and he ran out of the bar—I ran and saw him get into a bus—two or three others took up the chase, but directly it moved on he got out, and I gave him in charge—he said to one of the constables at the station that I had given him the coin.
ARTHUR OLIVE (240 M.) The prisoner was standing by the Rockingham, public-house, and I took him in custody—I said, "You hear what this man says;" he said, "Quite right, I know who gave it to me"—he dropped a cigar—I searched him at the station and found three more cigars in his pocket and a florin, two sixpences and five pence—the inspector charged him with uttering a gilded sixpence for a half-sovereign—he said, "I got it over the bar."
Cross-examined. The Rockingham is opposite the Elephant—Shoubridge pointed him out to me—he appeared quite sober—he gave a correct address.
GUILTY . Two months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Commissioner L. Smith, K.C.
MR. MARTIN Prosecuted.
THOMAS MARTINDALE . I am a painter, of 8, Culboard Road, Wandsworth—On Thursday, December 18th, about 7.30 p.m., I was going down the Broadway, Croydon. I went into the Crown public house and left my bicycle outside—I came out in ten minutes; it was gone—I have since seen it in the possession of the police and identified it—it is an old one, and had has a lot of wear; it was worth about 50s.—I have had it 4 years.
ALBERT MARMOY live at 14, Kennington Road—I am employed at a sign and facia writer's—On Friday, December 13th, about 5 p.m., Campbell came in; he asked to see my employer, I called him down—I do not know what their conversation was—I had seen him in the shop once before—I saw Burt looking in at the door; I had never seen him before—on the Saturday, Campbell came again and brought a bicycle; I was standing at the door, he went in to see my employer, who called me in, and Campbell said, "Do you want a machine?"I said I would have a look at it—he said, "Let us bring it inside;" he carried it into the shop—I looked at it; he said it was a bargain, and that it was £2, paying £1 down and 5s. weekly, or 35s. cash. I said I should not think of buying it without my father's approval—I asked to see the receipt for it; he took it out of his pocket and said, "Here you are"—This was a receipt for £5 for a cycle from a cycle maker at Streatham—he said he would let me take the machine and the receipt to my father, and I was to meet him outside the Enterprise at 4 o'clock—he said the machine was not his, but that he was selling it for a friend who was ill—my father did not approve of it, and I went down to give it back to the prisoner when I saw a detective—I saw the prisoners at the station and recognised them—this is my bicycle (Produced).
Cross-examined by Campbell. I do not know if you are a friend of my employer—I have seen you in the shop once or twice.
Cross-examined by Burt. I am positive I saw you looking into. The shop on the Friday—I did not see you on the Saturday till I saw you at the station—I did not see the bicycle in your possession—it was getting dusk when I saw you.
ARTHUR DAVIES . I am a bicycle maker, of 68, High Road, Streatham—on December 5th, about 7.30 p.m., Burt came to my shop—I saw Campbell standing outside—Burt said he had a machine he wanted repaired, the wheel was broken or bent, would we give him a price for doing it—I said we could not do so without seeing it—he said his office was closed and if we gave him a bill-head he would send it over by his clerk in the morning—I gave him a bill-head—this is one of ours—we only gave one blank one away—we put a rubber stamp on our bill-heads—there is not one on this—that is how I identify it—I gave it out without any writing on it—I do not know anything about a Mr. Robinson—Burt did not come back with the bicycle—I next saw the prisoners on December 16th at Lambeth Police court—I was shown into a room where there were 15 or 16 men—I picked out Campbell first and then Burt.
Cross-examined by Campbell. I saw you standing outside the shop—I am positive of that.
Cross-examined by Hurt. I have not made a mistake about your asking for a bill-head—I had no doubt about you when I picked you out at the police station.
JOHN CUBAN (Detective, P.) I arrested the prisoners on another charge on December 14th at Denmark Hill, inside the Metropole public-house—they were together drinking at the bar—I took them to the Camberwell Police station—I went to the Enterprise public-house and saw Marmoy—I went back with him and the bicycle to the station, and said to the prisoners, "You have been trying to dispose of this bicycle for 35s.; it is worth more than that, where did you get it from?"—Campbell said, "I had it to sell for a friend who is ill—I had to get 35s. cash down or £1 and 5s. a week"—Burt said, "I met him casually," meaning Campbell, and he asked me to go to Palmer's shop in Denmark Hill to sell the bicycle"—Campbell said, "I had the bicycle from a man in a public-house, and was to sell it for him; all I got over £1 I was to keep"—he said he did not know where he lived—on being asked where it had been for the two days he said, "I left it with a friend of mine—I would rather not say where he lives"—on the 23rd they were charged with stealing the bicycle and made no reply—I was present when Davies identified them without any hesitation—they were placed among 12 or 14 other men—he identified Campbell first—he went up to him and said "This is one of the men"—then he said, "This is the other man."
Cross-examined by Burt. I knew you were wanted before you were arrested, but I was not prepared to charge you with unlawful possession till I had seen Marmoy—you were arrested on another charge as Ryley, but when I found you were not Ryley you were detained for the unlawful possession of the bicycle.
Evidence for Burt.
MRS. BURT. I am Burt's mother—from December 2nd to December 9th he was ill with rheumatism—he did not stay indoors all the time, but he went out very little—he was not out on the 5th, 6th, or 7th.
Cross-examined. I do not know what day of the week the 5th was—he was not attended by a doctor—he has remedies of his own—he was not well enough to be out on the 5th—Campbell called at the house on
the day they were arrested—I do not think my son has known him more than a fortnight or 3 weeks before that—I saw Campbell with the bicycle, but I did not hear what was said.
FREDERICK FOX (Police Inspector, P.) I do not recollect asking Campbell at Camberwell Green whether Burt had anything to do with the bicycle and his saying no—he said that he had met Burt casually at Loughborough Junction—I asked him if he knew a man named Ryley.
GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury.
CAMPBELL then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court on September 11th, 1900. He also
PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling 21s, 4s, 7s, and 4s, the monies of Charles Pierce, his master. Also, to uttering two forged orders for the payment of £5 each with intent to defraud. CAMPBELL, Eighteen months' on the uttering and embezzling; and two months' on the bicycle indictment, to run concurrently.—BURT, Two months' hard labour.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10th, 1902.