CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
FOURTH SESSION, HELD FEBRUARY 10TH, 1902.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
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, February 10th, 1902, and following days,
Before the Right Hon. SIR JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE , Knt., M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAM , Knt., one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., M.P., LL.D., F.S.A.; Sir WALTER WILKIN , K.C.M.G.; and Sir ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , K.C., Recorder of the said City; WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq.; Sir JOHN KNILL , Bart.; and HOWARD CARLISLE MORRIS , Esq.; other of the Aldermen of the said City; ALBERT FREDERICK BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and JAMES ALEXANDER RENTOUL , K.C., M.P., LL.D., Deputy 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. FOURTH 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, February 10th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
155. HENRY RYE (23), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a case and 12 bottles of brandy, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on August 22nd, 1900. (Five other convictions were proved against him.) Eighteen Months' hard labour.
(156) JAMES BARTH (44) , to stealing a post letter and medical sample, the property of Henry Norman Duncan Milligan; also to stealing a post letter and a cheque, the property of Gains Tom Vincent; having been convicted of felony at this Court on December 10th, 1900. Eighteen months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(157) JANE SAUNDERS, otherwise MARTHA FOLLETT , to stealing and receiving a scarf and other articles, the property of Harrods Stores, Ltd. She received a good character. Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(158) CHARLES CRAVEN (32) , to breaking and entering the warehouse of John Edward Bailey, and stealing therein a metal measure; having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on July 3rd, 1900. (Two other convictions were proved against him.) Eighteen months hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
MR. POYNTER Prosecuted.
One of the managing directors of the company to which the property belonged having absconded, and another being under arrest, the Recorder directed a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
MR. DE MICHELE Prosecuted.
WILLIAM THOMAS RAPLEY . I live at 66, Montholm Road, Wandsworth Common, and am a traveller to an electrical engineer—on January 11th I went with my father and a Mr. Brown to an electrical exhibition at the Aquarium—we left about 11.40 p.m., and when we were about 20 yards up Chappel Street eight or ten men rushed out of a court—my hat was knocked off by the prisoner, and he hustled roe about with the rest of them and struck at me with his fist—I fell down—I got up and was knocked down again, and one man stuck a knife through my umbrella and into my coat—someone stole my watch and chain, a sovereign case with £3 in gold in it, and a cigar cutter—Mr. Brown called for the police, and they came almost directly—I followed the prisoner about 50 yards and asked a policeman to arrest him—I was about two yards from him then—I never lost sight of him from the time he knocked my hat off till he was taken—I have since seen part of the chain—I am sure the prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. The watch was in the road, and my friend called my attention to it—I did not look for it till after the policeman had you—the face of the watch was broken before—it was valueless—I picked it up and handed it to the policeman—it is in the same condition now as it was before I was robbed—there was no glass to it.
CLYDE HENRY BROWN . I live at 10, Banner Road, Balham—I am traveller for an electrical firm—I was with the prosecutor on January 11th—we went through Chappel Street after we left the Aquarium—nine or ten men came up and knocked Mr. Rapley, senr., and Mr. Rapley, julr., down—two men attacked me—the prisoner was one of them—I defended myself with my umbrella—the prisoner then went to Mr. Rapley, junr., and knocked his hat off—Mr. Rapley, senr., was knocked down while trying to defend himself with his stick—Mr. Rapley, junr.'s, watch fell to the ground—I cannot say how far he was from the prisoner then—I saw Mr. Rapley, senr., try to strike one of the men—I called for the police—the men disappeared—I saw one of them drop the watch on the kerbstone—when the prisoner was taken into custody he was walking towards St. James' Park Station, 40 or 50 yards from where the robbery took place—I saw the prosecutor defending himself with an umbrella.
HENRY THOMAS RAPLEY . I am a baker, of 22, Daffield Street, Battersea—I was with my son on January 11th, and went along Chappel Street about 11.50—eight or nine men rushed out on us—nothing was said—I fought two of them—I was ultimately knocked down, and I did not know anything more—I was rendered partly insensible—I am 60 years old—I was struck on the side of my head—I heard Mr. Brown call out "Police" and "Murder"—when I got up I see my son collar the prisoner, and I saw him strike at my son's bat.
JOHN BLOOMFIELD (229 A.) About midnight on January 11th I was on duty in Chappel Street—I heard some shouting of "Police"—I went in the direction of the cries—I saw the prosecutor following the prisoner round the corner of St. Ermine's Hill, about two yards behind him—he
said to me, "This man has stole my watch and chain"—I said, "Are you sure this is the man?"—he said, "Positive"—I took the prisoner into custody—he said, "I know nothing about it"—as I went back I met Brown and the prosecutor's father—Brown said in the prisoner's presence, "This is one of the men"—the prisoner said, "I know nothing about it"—I said, "How many were there?"—he said, "Seven or eight"—I said, "Are you quite sure this is one of the men?"—he said, "Positive."
The prisoner, in his dejence, said that he was coming home from marketing at Strutton Ground; that he saw the prosecutor and his father and Mr. Brown with three or four other men flourishing their sticks and umbrellas; that the prosecutor came up to him and said he had knocked his hat off and was implicated in the robbery; that he went away then, as he did not want to be mixed up in it, when the constable came and arrested him.
J. BLOOMFIELD (Re-examined). The prisoner had about 1 lb. of beef in his pocket wrapped up in paper.
GUILTY .—The police said that the prisoner had been employed at one place for five years— Six months' hard labour.
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted.
JOHN BROWN . I am the Registrar for Deaths and Marriages for the Garbles district at Glasgow—my official address is 50, Nicholson Street, Glasgow—I have been a registrar for 27 years, and I am cognisant with the law upon the subject—I produce the original schedule of marriage signed at the time of the marriage—the female could not write her name, so it was attested—it shows a marriage on December 27th, 1875, at St. John's Chapel, Glasgow, between Francis Marley, wood sawyer, bachelor, of Egleton Street, Glasgow, and Rose, daughter of Charles and Margaret Doherty—she signed with a cross—this shows a valid marriage according to the laws of Scotland.
EFFIE PENMAN MARLEY . I live at 49, Grafton Road, Kentish Town, with my mother Rose Marley—the prisoner is my father—as far as I can remember, it is nine years since he lived at home with my mother—I have lived with my mother all that time—my father has come home on different occasions during that time—for the first four years he used to come home once a week—lam 19 now—after the first four years he would come once in six months and then perhaps twice in the same week—I do not know when he last came—he came last year—I know his writing—this signature on this marriage schedule is his—my mother's father's name was Charles Doherty—my grandmother's name on my father's side was Margaret Flyn—when my father married my mother he was a sawyer—he was afterwards an engineer—I say he was a sawyer because it is on the marriage certificate, and I have heard him talking about the different saws at the mills to my brother, who is a coffin maker—my mother is here—he can only sign her name—I taught her to do so about six months ago—she is an attendant at some public baths—I am a type-writer.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. There was a mutual separation between you and mother—you sent her 15s. a week first, then 10s, then 7s. 6d. then 5s. a week—you were at home till a month or so ago.
JOSEPHINE HARRIETT GEORGE . I went through the form of marriage with the prisoner on April 5th, 1890, at St. Mary's Church, Newington—this is the certificate of the marriage—I was not aware that he had been married in Scotland—I first learned it when the officer came—I left him in December because he got so drunk and was so violent—there was a child of the marriage, but it died.
Cross-examined. I left you five times on account of your violence and drunkenness.
FREDERICK WEST (Detective C.) On December 6th the prisoner came to Great Marlborough Street Police Station and said he wished to give himself up for committing bigamy with a woman named Josephine Harriet George, at St. Mary's Church, Kennington Park Road—he was under the influence of drink—he was charged and made a statement in reply—(This stated that when he married Josephine George she knew that he had a wife alive, and he had given himself up because he was tired of this hanging over him.)—after he had made that statement he said he wished to with-draw what he had said about his second wife knowing that he was a married man.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he thought when his daughter was born the law did not hold him to his wife; that he could not live with her; and that he believed he was entitled to marry again.
GUILTY . Eighteen months' hard labour.
NEW COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, February 10th and 11th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
REBECCA WISE . I am a tobacconist of 66, Bow Road—on January 9th, between 4 and 5 p.m., the prisoner came in for an ounce of shag, price 4d—he gave me a shilling—I put it in the till with other silver, and gave him the change—there were no shillings in the till, only florins and sixpences—a policeman soon afterwards came in, and I found a shilling there—I gave it to him—I had not taken any other shilling—I put a cross on it—this is it (Produced)—here is my mark—I saw several men at the police station that evening, and picked the prisoner out from them.
ARTHUR ERNEST FINCH . I am an oil and colour-man at 540, Mile End Road—on January 9th, about 6.20 p.m., a man came in for four halfpenny candles, and gave me a counterfeit florin—(The coin was called a shilling in the Indictment.)—I bit it, and it was bad—he paid for the candles, and I gave him back the coin.
joined the prisoner and gave him something—I went across the road, and they ran away—I ran and took the prisoner and said, "What have you been doing at that oil shop?—he said, "Nothing"—I said, "I shall take you back to the shop"—I did so, and Mr. Finch complained in his presence that he had passed a bad florin—he said nothing—I searched him in the shop and found six counterfeit shillings loose, and two papers containing three florins each, and others loose, ninepence in bronze, two packets of cigarettes, three packets of tobacco, and some sweets—one tobacco paper has Mrs. Wise's name and advertisement on it—she came to the station and identified the prisoner—he was charged, and said, "I was not aware it was bad money, the other man misled me, and gave me 4s. a day"—he gave his name Jack Brown, but no address.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of coin to H.M. Mint—this marked coin is counterfeit—I also examined 15 counterfeit florins from three different moulds—three of them are from the same mould as the one uttered.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he received the coins and cigarettes from a man whom he met and who offered him work.
GUILTY .— Four months hard labour.
164. FREDERICK REID (28), FRANCIS DARVILLE (25), ARTHUR JONES (22), and ADA CROCKER (23) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Arthur Haddrick and stealing a brooch and other articles, his property; Second Count, Receiving the same.
MR. E. P. CLARKE Prosecuted. MR. PURCELL appeared for Reid, MR. HUTTON for Darville, and MR. BURNIE for Jones and Crocker.
INA HADDRICK . I am the wife of Arthur Haddrick, of 32, Ferndale Road, Dalston—on Sunday, December 15th, I left the house about 11 a.m., leaving this forget-me-not brooch safe (Produced)—I came back. About 10.30 p.m. and met Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, who were staying in the house, outside the station—we all went home together, and could not get in—my husband went nest door and got over the wall—we found the house in disorder upstairs—a. drawer in my room, which I had left locked, had been forced open—I missed two silver watches, two pins, and a gold seal—another watch was taken from the watch case and two gold bracelets from another drawer—I gave information to the police and a description—I identify this brooch—the police brought it to me about a week later—this (Produced) is Mrs. Hammond's brooch.
ALICE HAMMOND . I live with my husband at 32, Ferndale Road—on December 15th we went out at 5 o'clock, leaving no one in the house—my husband closed the front door, leaving it on the latch—we came back about 9.15 and could not get in—we went for a walk and waited till Mr. and Mrs. Haddrick came, and my husband went with Mr. Haddrick through the next house and over the wall and got in—when I got in I missed a brooch, a diamond ring, and several articles of jewelery—this brooch is mine—I know it because the top of it slides backwards and forwards—the police showed it to me two days before Christmas—I have not seen the other things since.
WILLIAM HALL (Policeman N.) On Sunday, December 15th, about 10 o'clock, I was near the White Lion public house, High Street, Islington, and saw the four prisoners there—I had seen them together before.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I first heard that they were in custody on the 17th, when I saw them at the police court at Clerkenwell—I have known Reid three or four months, but have never spoken to him—I have seen him six or eight times—I have met him in the street and in public houses.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I only gave evidence once at the police court—there may have been three remands, but we were all ordered out of Court.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. Ferndale Road, Dalston, is about two miles from St. James's.
By the COURT. I have seen Reid seven or eight times in six weeks, and with the others several times—it was shortly after ten on the evening of the 16th, about two miles from Ferndale Road.
ALEXANDER MCKENZIE (Police Sergeant J.) On—December 28th this jemmy was handed to me, and I took it to Ferndale Road—I had been there on the 16th and found that an entry had been effected by forcing the front door with some blunt instrument—the marks on the door correspond with the jemmy.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. There may be a legitimate use for a thing of this kind—they are sometimes used for opening packing cases, but then they generally have a notch in them—any instrument of the same kind would make the same marks if it was the same width—the marks are rather broader at one end—any instrument of this kind which had been used would wear in this way and make marks of this kind.
FRANK PIKE (Police Sergeant P.) On December 16th, about 5.15, I was in Percival Street, Goswell Road, with Blackmore, Forth, and Murrell, disguised very roughly—the four prisoners came down Percival Street together—there is a refiner's shop in the street, kept by a man named Small, and the Shakespere is opposite—they looked into Smith's shop, but a man wearing an apron went in and the prisoners went off together to Northampton Square—Crocker came back first and looked into Smith's shop and went back to the square, and I heard her say something—they then all came outside the Shakespere, and Darville and Reid entered Smith's shop by the side entry in Percival Street—their pockets were bulky—they stayed 10 minutes and came out and joined the other two—I was laying up against the public house window—I saw Darville with a gold watch and silver one—he handed them to Reid and said, "Put them with the others until we can do them in"—they all went to the ivy public house, Goswell Road—I went in and the three other officers stopped outside—when I got in they were drinking together, and I heard Jones say, "We won't cut it up here, we will wait for the others "; Darville said, "Oh, you know it is all right with me"—I went out and returned with the other officers, and said, "We are police officers, we are going to arrest you for loitering and having watches in your possession"—they made a rush to the door immediately—we took hold of them; they resisted and fought for their liberty—I saw Forth take this jemmy from Jones' inside coat-pocket—I threw my whistle
over to the barman and said, "Blow this, please"—he did so, and assistance came—we took them to the station—they were violent all the way—at the station I saw Blackmore take from Reid a gold watch, and Darville handed him three silver ones—Reid said that he got the watches from a man named Jones to clean—the Inspector asked him where Jones lived—he said, "I don't know, I met him at the Belvedere"—the watches were all clean, they did not require cleaning—£1 17s. was found on Darville and a metal Albert chain without a watch—Reid, Jones, and Crocker refused to give their addresses—Darville gave his address at Bolt Court—he afterwards said to me, "You mean to bag me this time, if you get me out of this I will give you some valuable information."
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. It was 5.20 when I first saw them on December 16th—it was rather dark—there are shops and private houses there, but the public houses were lit up—Smith is here—I used these notes at the police court, and I looked at them before I came in here—I was lying up against the public house window in an attitude suitable to my clothes.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I was standing about 10 yards off when Reid went into Smith's shop—I was alone, outside the public house—there was no traffic in the road—it was dark—they were all four together—when Darville was placed for identification next day, Smith refused to pick him out—he said, "I do not see anyone there I saw last, night," but he did not look at him—my note says, "He went into the room, took a hurried look round, and said sarcastically, "I don't see anyone there I saw last night"—about 13 people were there—he changed his clothes—the inspector on duty was present, and I believe Inspector Martin—Darville gave a false address, Francis Darville, 1a, Parkhill Street, Islington—Mr. Fee is the landlord there—he is not here—Darville's wife lives there with a man named Ray, a housebreaker, as man and wife—I know that from my own observation—I have been in the house and seen her and followed her, but never spoke to her—there may have been 100 or 150 people outside the public house when the arrest took place—I did not hear Darville say that if any officer in uniform would come up he would go quietly.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I had been on special duty there two or three weeks—I did not know Jones before; I have made enquiries about him, Crocker was one of his names—I have heard that he and the prisoner Crocker lived together as man and wife.
Re-examined. Smith was not called before the Magistrate—he is not here at my request—I know him; Sly is one of his names—I have no doubt that Darville is the man I saw go into the shop—the address he gave is a rag shop—he was not living there when he was arrested—I had kept the rag shop under observation and saw him visit it from October 19th to the first week in November, but not since—he has lived in that house as George Slater; that is not his right name—Jones has also gone by the names of Williams, Crocker, Ellis, and Andrews.
JOHN BLACKMORE (Policeman P.) On December 16th I was with the other officers in Percival Street and saw the four prisoners—they went into Northampton Square—Pike followed them—Crocker came back and looked into Smith's, the refiner's shop, and then Darville and Reid went
in and came out, rejoined the others outside the Shakspere, and all four went to the Ivydale public house, Goswell Road—Pike followed them in and came out in a short time, and we both went in with Frost and Murrell—the four prisoners were drinking at the bar—Superintendent Pike told them he should arrest them for loitering and having watches in their possession—they made a rush to the door—they were very violent, and the house had to be closed for a time—we got assistance and took them to the station—I searched Reid and found three silver watches, one gold watch, a silver brooch, and four pieces of metal—it is the forget-me-not brooch that—I call the silver brooch—there was also a metal box, a pipe, a card case, two pieces of candle, a knife, a dagger, and 9/6—the Inspector asked Reid to account for the watches—he said, "I got these from a man named Jones to clean, but I do not know where he lives."
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I was immediately outside the Ivydale when the prisoners went in—they all walked in a row—we were behind them—Smith's shop is about 200 yards from the Ivydale—I saw Pike leaning against the public house window for a few minutes while the prisoners were having a conversation.—I was eight or ten yards from him.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I distinctly saw Darville go into Smith's shop—I cannot say where Pike was then.
By the COURT. I do not know whether these four pieces are Britannia metal or silver.
JAMES FROST (426 N). On December 16th, about 5.15, I was with other officers in Percival Street, Goswell Road, and saw the prisoners go to Smith's shop—I followed them into the Ivydale public house, touched Jones on his shoulder, and said, "You are a house breaker, give me the stick"—he said "No, you have made a mistake"—I put my hand in his left jacket pocket and brought forth this instrument (The jemmy)—this is the stick—I took hold of his coat—he struggled for the door—I said, "If you don't keep quiet I shall have to hit you," he still struggled, and I hit him with my fist—other officers arrived, and he "was taken to the station with the others.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I took hold of him first by his sleeve and then by his collar.
JOSEPH MURRELL (319 N). On the night of December 16th I was on duty in Percival Street, Goswell Road, and saw the four prisoners—they went to Northampton Square; the woman came back first and looked into Smith's, a jeweller's shop, and went back, and they all went and stood by a public house opposite Smith's shop—Darville and Reid went into Smith's shop and came out and joined Crocker and Jones, and they all went to the Ivydale public house—Pike followed them in, and I followed him and assisted at the arrest, which was a very rough proceeding—after Crocker had been searched at the station, the officer asked her to account for the "stuff" that was found on her—she said, "You will find out where I got it from, it will take you all your time."
ELIZABETH ROWE . I am female searcher at the City Road police station—on December 16th, about 7 p.m., I searched Crocker and found in her bosom nine rings, one of which was a diamond one, a diamond pin, a gold Albert chain with a £2 piece attached, a chain bracelet, a gold
brooch and in a purse some little green stones like emeralds—she pulled some of them out herself, and handed me her purse, which had two receipts in it.
F. PIKE (Re-examined). We cannot find out where Crocker was living when the others were arrested—I do not know where Jones was living—I know that Jones and Crocker were living at White Horse Lane, Hackney Wick, as man and wife, but they are not, as far as I know, though I cannot prove it—Jones gave his name as Jones when arrested, and Crocker the name of Crocker.
Crocker here stated that she was guilty of receiving the brooch found on her knowing it to have been stolen, and the Jury returned that verdict.
INA HADDRICK (Re-examined by Mr. Purcell). On the night my house was broken into I prepared a list of the property we missed so far as we could tell—a forget-me-not brooch was not in the list—I had not worn it for more than 12 months—it was a gift to me—it is not of much value—in small jewelers' shops you can see a lot of them—this (Produced) is the one I lost—I am positive of that—it has a piece of enamel off one of the forget-me-nots—I stamped on it—mine had a bent pin like this.
F. PIKE (Re-examined). I have tested the four pieces of metal found on Reid—they are all silver, but two pieces are of better quality than the others—I have had experience in testing metal; I was a pawnbrokers' assistant before I joined the police force—some other stuff which is not silver is mixed with it.
(Reid received a good character.)
GUILTY .—Darville then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Guildhall on January 5th, 1895, and seven oilier convictions were proved against him; and Jones to a conviction of felony at the North London Police Court on March 29th, 1901, and three other convictions were proved against him. REID † Four years' penal servitude ; DARVILLE † Seven years' penal servitude ; JONES Five years penal servitude ; CROCKER † Three years' penal servitude.
The police were highly commended by the Court, the Jury, and the Grand Jury for the way they had captured the prisoners.
166. THOMAS BLAKE (24) , to a burglary in the dwelling house of James Newberry, and stealing a pair of scissors and other goods; having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on July 4th, 1899, as Thomas Lilley. Four other convictions of burglary were proved against him. Four years' penal servitude. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
167. ADA HANSON (28) , to stealing £10, the money of Arthur Belsey, her master; also to stealing a pin, a collarette, and £3, the property of Arthur Beach; also to stealing five rings and a bracelet, the property of Maud Nicholas; having been convicted of felony at Bow Street on May 18th, 1901. Six other convictions were proved against her. Five years' penal servitude. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
168. VERNON RAWKINS (18) , to stealing two keys, the property of the Automatic Skill Machine Company; also to obtaining an automatic machine by false pretences from Eliza Huxtable, with intent to defraud; also to forging and uttering a request for the delivery of an automatic machine. A former conviction was proved against him. Six months' hard labour — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
169. WILLIAM BROWN (31) and PATRICK COLVERT (19) , to wilfully damaging a glass window and a mirror, the property of J. Defries & Son. BROWN Three months' hard labour —COLVERT Twenty-eight days' hard labour. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
(170) DAVID WILLIAMS (28) , to stealing two over coats, the property of John Theodore Andy; having been convicted of felony at this Court on April 22nd, 1901. Two other convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, February 12th, 1902.
Before Mr. Bigham.
MR. MATHEWS and MR. BODKIN Prosecuted, and Mr. Geoghegan and MR. LEYCESTER Defended.
ARTHUR CUDD . I am a decorator of 14, Warbeck Road, Shepherd's Bush—on December 17th, between 11 and 12 a.m., I went to Mr. Evans' fish shop—I saw a small crowd outside—the deceased was holding the prisoner down in the doorway—he was partly kneeling on top of him—the prisoner was struggling to get up, and saying to the deceased, "Let me get up, you b—, I will settle and murder you"—a policeman came and helped him up—the deceased went back into the shop, and the prisoner went about 20 yards down the street—before he went away I heard him making some remarks, but I could not hear what they were—I saw some books in his pocket—he came back in about three minutes with some books in his hand and went in at the east door of the shop—the deceased was standing at the door—the prisoner put up his hand in a threatening manner and the deceased again called for the police—the prisoner came out of the shop and a policeman pushed or sent him away and followed him up—I should say he had been drinking.
Cross-examined. The prisoner had marks of ill-usage on his face, and his nose was bleeding—the deceased had been holding him by the throat—the prisoner was very excited—I did not see the deceased trying to prevent the prisoner from coming in at the door—I did not hear Miss Evans call out, "Let him come in, it is all right"—when the prisoner went away altogether the policeman was about 10 yards from the shop—the prisoner made the threatening gesture while the policeman was watching the shop—when he finally ordered the prisoner away, he went away quietly—Miss Evans ran out of the shop and told the prisoner to be quiet—the policeman said to the deceased, 'Do you want to charge him?" and the deceased said, "Don't lock him up, let him go away and let him come to-morrow when he is sober," and Miss Evans said the same thing—she was there the whole time.
JOHN VOUSDEN (507 T.) About noon on December 17th I was called to Mr. Evans' shop in Goldhawk road—I saw some people outside the door and the prisoner lying on his back just inside the west door—the deceased was standing at the prisoner's head, but not touching him—I lifted the prisoner on to his feet, and in his presence I asked the deceased whether he had any charge to prefer—he said, "No, let him go home now and come back in the evening, he will be all right then"—he said that the prisoner had been out on his rounds that morning and had come home a bit the worse for drink and had created a disturbance in the shop—I told the prisoner to go away, and he moved off 10 or 12 yards—he came back and I noticed some books in his hand—he went straight to the office at the back of the shop—I did not see him go through the door—he came out and passed me and went right away—I was 12 or 13 yards away then—before he came out I had been called to the premises a second time—I was on the pavement dispersing the crowd when the prisoner came out a second time.
Cross-examined. I did not see the prisoner make any threatening gesture towards the deceased—I heard no bad language used—the prisoner was undoubtedly the worse for drink—he went away quietly when I told him.
ETHEL BEATRICE EVANS . I am the daughter of Mr. W.S. Evans, a fishmonger of 62, Goldhawk Road, Shepherd's Bush—I live there with my father, and am employed by him as book-keeper—on December 17th deceased was my father's foreman—he had been there for a very long time—till that day the prisoner was employed there as fish salesman—some years ago he had been errand boy-to my father—he left my father's service to better himself—he returned in the spring or summer of 1901—I used to sit in the office at the back of the shop—there were also employed in the shop two men named Cohen and Hodley—on December 17th he came into the shop between 11 and 12 a.m.—he came to my office for me to book the orders he had taken on his rounds—I thought he was intoxicated—he then put some fish on the slab, straight, and then he went over to the Black Prince public house opposite—he returned to the shop after some little time—the deceased was standing at the shop door, and I saw them have some conversation—I could not hear what they said, but from their demeanour I thought it was an angry conversation—then I saw them struggling together—the prisoner fell to the ground, and I saw the deceased holding him down—the prisoner was shouting and trying to kick the deceased—I went and asked the prisoner to go home, because he was intoxicated—he continued to struggle and shout—I asked a bystander to go for the police—a policeman came and pulled him up on his legs—he came into the shop to get his overcoat and then left—shortly afterwards I saw him standing in front of the east door of the shop—the deceased was standing in the shop and was going to prevent him coming in—the prisoner held up some small books to me, they were customers' books—I told the deceased it was all right and to let him come in—he handed me the books and left the shop—about half-an-hour afterwards he came in by the east door, and as he was coming towards my office I saw him pick up a small knife which was used in the shop for filleting—I do not remember where he picked it up from—the deceased was cleaning fish at the fish
block—after the prisoner had picked up the knife, he went towards the fish slab—I came out of my office and said to him, "Put that knife down at once, Fred"—he threw it behind him on to the top of the cupboard—I said, "You had better come downstairs and have a cup of coffee"—I do not remember if he said anything—I took hold of his arm—he was still intoxicated—I led him through the door which led into the private house—he did not want to go, and he said he was very sorry, he did not mean anything, or something to that effect, and he burst out crying—I took him to the kitchen and made him a strong cup of coffee"—I left him there and went back to the shop—about 2 o'clock he came back to the shop—he seemed nearly sober then—he proposed to start his work again—I said, "You had better go home and come to-morrow"—he went away, and I saw no more of him that day—next morning he returned about 8.30—his ordinary hour of coming was 8 a.m.—my father was at the market—I told the prisoner not to start work till my father came home—I do not remember if I told him to come again when my father returned—the deceased was in the shop then—I do not think the prisoner spoke to him—he went away, and my father returned shortly afterwards—before he returned the prisoner came again, about 9.45—my father returned about ten and came to my desk and asked for 6s., the prisoner's wages for two days—he went outside and gave it to the prisoner—I do not remember what he said to him, something like "You had better go"—he dismissed him, and the prisoner went away, after he had asked my permission to fetch his apron from the kitchen, where he had left it the previous day—the deceased was present when the prisoner was paid his wages—after father had dismissed the prisoner I heard the deceased and the prisoner saying something, but I do not remember what it was—they both appeared to be angry—I did not see the prisoner again till between 10 and 11 p.m. on Monday, December 23rd—I was sitting in my office—the prisoner rushed in at the east door—he went straight up to the fish block—he took up this knife (Produced)—it is used for cutting up big fish, and is kept anywhere about the shop—the deceased was standing near the scales on the counter—I saw the prisoner turn round with the knife in his hand—I rushed out of my office and went towards the counter where the scales were—by the time I got there I saw Cohen holding the prisoner and the deceased falling—I noticed some blood coming from the deceased's mouth—I cannot remember where the knife was then—my father was not in the shop then, but he came in directly afterwards—then a policeman came, and then a doctor—it was only a minute from the time I saw the prisoner rush in at the door to the time I saw the deceased falling—I thought the prisoner was intoxicated.
Cross-examined. The prisoner has been in my father's service ever since he was 13, with the exception of the six or seven months when he went away to better himself—after leaving school he went first to Mrs. Biggs, who kept a shop for my father at High Street, Acton, then he came to the shop in the Goldhawk Road, then in the spring of 1901 he went to better himself for six or seven months, and then returned to the Goldhawk Road shop—previous to that my father transferred him to Silver Street, Notting Hill, where we have a small shop—I have known him nine or ten years—after he came in from his rounds on December 17th, it would
be his duty to cleanse fish and to fillet them—the knife he took up would be the one ordinarily used in those duties—after he had had the coffee he wanted to work again—when he came at 8.30 on the 18th he and the deceased did not speak to each other—I was the only other person in the shop—when he finally left, angry words passed between them—when he came back to us in the spring of 1901 I noticed he was much more abrupt and irritable—I thought he was rather more sullen and gloomy—I considered him not so good—he was more forgetful—I knew that in August, 1901, his brother-in-law had died leaving a widow and four children—he appeared very depressed about it—during the seven or eight years that he and the deceased had been together in my father's service I had never heard a threat or seen a sign of ill-feeling between them—I did not hear any threats which I could distinguish, used by the prisoner on the 17th when the men were struggling—on the 23rd I saw the prisoner was foaming at the mouth—after this affair was over I noticed that his eyes were staring and wide open—before the Coroner I said that ray reason for thinking he was not sober was because he looked so different to what I had seen him before—he looked wild—his eyes were wide open and he appeared to me to be foaming at the mouth—I did not notice when he came into the shop that his head was thrown back—I noticed it when he was being held after he struck the blow.
Re-examined. I cannot remember when the transfer of the prisoner was made by my father—it was before he left in the Spring of last year—he was transferred because of his insobriety—he had occasionally come home from his rounds intoxicated, and my father thought that he met people he ought not to—he wished him to get into a new set—he was at the Notting Hill shop when he left to better himself—when he came back after that he seemed better as sobriety—since the Spring of last year I do not think I have seen him come home intoxicated before December 17th—I remember on one occasion he did, but then nothing to speak of—the filleting knife is the same pattern as a dinner knife, but very much smaller—I believe I did notice on December 17th what part of the shop he got the knife from, but I have forgotten now—he did nothing with it then—he simply went straight behind my desk—I do not know why I said to him, "Put down that knife at once, Fred"—if I thought he was going to do some mischief with it, I thought it was more to himself—I cannot say if he was foaming at the mouth when he came into the shop on December 23rd, because he came in so hurriedly—I lost sight of him from the time he picked up the knife until I saw the deceased fall—I next saw him when he was being held—Hodley and Cohen were holding him, and, I believe, a stranger also—I cannot remember how they were holding him.
FREDERICK COHEN . I live at 30, Newcombe Street, Notting Hill—a few days before December 30th I was employed by Mr. Evans to take the prisoner's place—about 11 p.m. on December 23rd I was in the shop, which was being got ready for closing—I saw the prisoner come into the shop—I can hardly say by which door—he said, "You b—where is my knife I—took no notice, because I had been told he had left a small filleting knife at the shop—I went out to take some goods in—I heard someone say, "Don't, Fred" as I was
returning with the geese—that was about a minute after he came in—I saw he had this knife in his right hand against the ice box—I rushed up towards him and got hold of his wrist and wrested the knife away from him—I noticed the deceased for the first time on the floor near where the scales stand on the counter—just as I had hold of the prisoner, Hodley rushed up and got both his hands round his neck and pushed him towards the ice box—at that moment a stranger came through the door and caught hold of him—I have not seen him since—I went for Dr. Leith.
Cross-examined. When I got hold of the prisoner I twisted his wrist round—he had rather a peculiar look about him—he was foaming at the mouth while I had hold of him, three parts of his eyes were all white, they looked as if they were looking at the skies.
Re-examined. When I noticed that, Hodley had hold of him with both arms round his neck.
ALFRED HODLEY . I live at 62, Nasmith Road, Hammersmith, and am a poulterer engaged by Mr. Evans—I was in his shop about 10.40 on December 23rd, near what is called the poultry block—I heard a female voice shout, "Don't, Fred"—I see the deceased laying on the floor and I see Cohen had got hold of the prisoner by his wrist and he had a knife in his hand—I ran up the shop, he dropped it on the floor as I came up the shop—I got the prisoner round the neck with my arm and pulled him back on the ice box—while I was holding him he said, "Don't, Alf."—I was holding him rather tightly—I held him till a policeman came.
Cross-examined. For a moment or so he went very excited—as far as I could judge that excitement was not due to drink—I were behind him the whole time—I had him by the lappel of his coat.
FREDERICK WHISKER (Detective Officer.) I went to Mr. Evans' shop a little before 11 p.m. on December 23rd—I saw the deceased lying on the floor—the prisoner was being held down on the ice block by three men—I said to the men, "I am a police officer, let me have him"—I was not in uniform—Dowding came to my assistance and we took the prisoner to the station—we took him out of the shop by the side entrance to avoid the crowd—on the way to the station he said, "I am very sorry for what I have done, I was in drink at the time, my sister came down with me, I have a sister left with four little children; this man has got me out of my place, he has done me a lot of harm"—that was not all said at once, but at different times as we went to the station—it took us 20 minutes to walk there—it was raining very hard and a crowd of people were following—he appeared to me to have been drinking very heavily—when I first saw him at the shop he was foaming at the mouth and trying to resist being held, he was looking very peculiar about his eyes, he had got his eyes up towards the ceiling.
Cross-examined. I do not think he mentioned anything about his sister until he got to the station—when I first saw him I thought he had been drinking heavily, but afterwards when he was sitting in the station I thought he was strange, he appeared to be stupefied and peculiar about his eyes—in the station he was repeatedly muttering to himself, "My poor sister"—in the station I thought he was speaking to me and not to himself.
JOHN DOWDING (451 T.) I was called to Mr. Evans' shop in Goldhawk Road on December 23rd—the deceased was lying on the floor, and the prisoner was being held on the ice block by three men—one of the men said, "That is the man that has done it"—the prisoner was struggling—I had this knife given me—Dr. Leith came and examined the deceased—I and another constable took the prisoner to the station—on the way he said to himself, "He has done me a lot of harm, I am sorry I did it, I was in drink," or words to that effect—in my opinion he was drunk.
Cross-examined. The prisoner walked to the station—he was very drunk—I say he was drunk partly because of his excitement and partly from his vacant look—his eyes were rolling about; I should say he did not know what he was doing—I remained in the charge room till he was taken to the cells—he was sitting down with his head between his hands muttering to himself about his sister—he seemed confused and dazed.
By the COURT. I did not smell him to see if he smelled of drink.
GEORGE REYNOLDS (Police Inspector T.) I saw the prisoner at Shepherd's Bush police station about 11.30 p.m. on December 23rd—I went to Mr. Evans' shop and then returned to the station and told the prisoner he would be charged with feloniously and with malice aforethought murdering Edward Girling, at 62, Goldhawk Road—he made no reply—when the charge was read over to him he said several times, "What have I done, what have I done—he appeared to be recovering from the effects of a heavy drinking bout, and to be somewhat wild about his eyes.
Cross-examined. Dowding was present the whole tune before the prisoner was taken to the cells, so far as I remember—while the prisoner was waiting to be taken to the cells he was muttering to himself—I did not hear him use the word "Sister"—he was dazed and stupid, his eyes seemed to be staring when he looked up—he was not seen by a doctor that night—when a man is confined in the cells during the night an officer goes round more often than every two hours—next morning the prisoner was charged at West London Police Court—I believe he was taken there in the prison van—I was not there—he was in a collapsed condition.
ALFRED ROBERTSON . I am a trooper in D Squadron of the Royal Horse Guards at Windsor Barracks—I have known the prisoner about four years—I saw him on my return from South Africa in October last—from October up to December 23rd I saw him about twice—on December 23rd I saw him about 9.30 or 10 a.m. and went for a walk with him—we went towards Barnes, and both had some beer at a public house there—then we went to the Cricketers at Barnes and had some more beer—then we met a friend and walked back towards Putney—we went to the Star and Garter and had some more beer—then we went to the Spotted Dog at Putney and had more beer—then we went to another public house in Barnes and had beer again—we got on an omnibus and went to Hammersmith—that was about 8.15 or 8.30 p.m.—I had had something to eat during the day, but the prisoner had not—we got off the bus at Hammersmith Broadway—the prisoner became very queer in his manner, and started running across the Broadway—I ran and caught hold of him—he said, "Let me go, let me go"—we went towards his home, which is at the Dolphin in Sirdar Road, Notting Dale—we got there about 10 or 10.30—on the way he wanted to fight passers-by and
to break shop windows—I prevented him—when we got home he sat down and got quieter—his sister was there, not his widowed sister.
Cross-examined. Altogether we had about three pints of stout and bitter that day—during the time I have known the prisoner I have been out with him when he has been absolutely sober—I have not noticed anything in his manner—I met him at Barnes about 18 months ago with his young lady—he became funny and started knocking the railings about with his hands—I got hold of him and took him home to his young lady's place at Castleneau, at Barnes—I should say he was sober then—when I was taking him home on December 23rd, and when I got him home, I noticed he was foaming at the mouth and his eyes were staring out of his head—I had never seen him so bad as that before—I have had a drink with him before.
Re-examined. When I met him at Barnes about 18 months ago I cannot say if he had been drinking—I did not have anything with him—I should think people looking at him would say he had been drinking.
EDGAR ROWE LEITH . I am a registered medical practitioner of 117, Goldhawk Road—I saw the deceased in Evans' shop on the night of December 23rd—he was dead—I examined him then and subsequently—I found two wounds on the left forearm—they could have been caused by the man when putting up his hand to ward off a blow with a knife—another wound had penetrated the left lung and the heart and fractured the third rib—that wound caused instantaneous death, and could have been caused by this knife—the three wounds, in my opinion, were caused by three separate stabs.
Cross-examined. I have treated epileptic patients—epilepsy is somewhat obscure in its origin—it is sometimes congenical—in families where one member is afflicted with epilepsy the others may be somewhat weakminded—a person afflicted with epilepsy may be somewhat irritable and morose—one of the symptoms is foaming at the mouth, and another fixiture of the eyes—after the seizure the epileptic is sometimes confused, dazed, and stupid—a further stage would be a state of collapse—there would be a sudden loss of consciousness—sometimes a patient will throw his arms about—the actions of a person during an attack of epilepsy might be determined by a dislike or animus against another person—it is not necessary that he should attack the first person he meets—he would make direct for the person against whom he has an animus—I cannot say I have ever met a case of a man walking a mile in a state of epilepsy in order to find a person he desires—mania sometimes follows an epileptic fit—I have never known it to show itself by violence or homicide or murder—the description given of the prisoner's eyes would be a proper description of the appearance of a person's eyes during an epileptic fit.
Re-examined. The prisoner's state might be consistent with his having been drunk and having hurried for a mile—the appearance of the prisoner's eyes might be accounted for by his being held round the neck and being held down—I have not heard anything in this case which would be inconsistent with the prisoner having been drunk on December 23rd.
Witnesses for the Defence.
EMILY BLANFORD . I live at 17, Eleanor Road, Barnes—I used to be a domestic servant—I live at home now—I kept company with the prisoner for two and a half years—part of that time I was in service at Castleneau, Barnes—I broke off keeping company with the prisoner on November 17th last, because he used to have fits and knock me about so—he has had a good many fits when I have been out with him—I cannot say how many—when he had fits he used to foam at the mouth and his eyes would look very strange and he would clench his hands—he has struck me on several occasions, but never when he was not in a fit—I have told him of his ill-using me, and he has never remembered it—he said he had never done it—on January 8th, 1900, when I was in service at Castleneau, I remember being called by a stranger to the prisoner, who was in a fit in the street—at that time I did not know he had fits—he was sitting on the coping of a house down the road—I stayed with him till he got better, when he went home—I remember his brother-in-law dying in August 1901—he has had much worse fits since then—he would look very strange for a few hours after he had had a fit—the last fit I remember was on November 17th.
Cross-examined. I have never had to call for assistance to take the prisoner home when he has had a fit—I have never seen him the worse for drink—I told his mother that he foamed at the mouth—I did not tell Inspector Reynolds about it, because he did not ask me, or about the strangeness in his eyes—the Inspector asked me what the prisoner was like when he had fits—I told him he clenched his hands—on January 8th, 1900, I thought he had been drinking till I knew he had fits—he never remembered what was going on when he was having a fit.
Re-examined. I gave Mr. Hanson, the solicitor for the defence, a statement which he took down in writing—it was after that that Inspector Reynolds saw me—he sent a telegram to Barnes police station—a policeman brought it to my home, and I went and saw the Inspector at Hammersmith—the Inspector knew I had given a statement to Mr. Hanson, because he said so—I have seen the prisoner seized with a fit when he was absolutely sober.
H. MERRYMAN. I am an artist, and live at Southall Green—in January two years ago I was walking down Castleneau Road from Hammersmith—when I got within 150 or 200 yards of the Red Lion I saw the prisoner lying in the gutter—I went to him—he was evidently in a fit—I picked him up and placed him on the coping—his eyes opened and closed, and he was foaming at the mouth—when I left him he was still very stupid and I could not make anything of him—I had seen a person once before in an epileptic fit—I have no doubt the prisoner was in a fit when I saw him.,.
Cross-examined. I did not give my name or address, because there was a person there dressed in a cap and apron, who said she was his young lady—I have seen the prisoner on various occasions since—I was told he worked in the fish shop in Goldhawk Road—I did not know him before that—I have seen him driving a cart since, but he did not know me—when I picked him up I think it was about 2.30—I think it was on a Wednesday—it was not a Sunday, because I was there on business.
Re-examined. I wrote to the solicitor for the defence after reading this case in the paper—I did not sign my name—inquiries were made and I was traced—I lived in Hammersmith when I saw the prisoner there—I think Miss Blanford is the young lady I saw with the prisoner, but she was differently dressed then.
HARRIETT BIGGS . I am married, and live at 93, Studley Grange Road—about 14 or 15 years ago I was manageress to Mr. Evans at his shop in High Street, Acton, while the prisoner was employed there as errand boy—he was there for four or four and a half years—I have known him almost from birth—I know his mother and family—I have known him on and off right up to the present time—while he was with me he complained very much of his head—I have seen him in fits several times—he used to rub the back of his head and put his hands across—I first knew him to have a fit when he was between three and four—he got so agitated that I would have to send him home on account of his health—he would bite his lips, and he could not hold himself up, and he trembled very much—he was 18 or 19 when he left me—I have not seen him in a fit since—I have only seen him in three fits—he would then fall down and foam at the mouth and bite himself—once he bit his tongue severely—his eyes seemed to project out and he would turn them up—I know he was attended by Dr. Gardiner and by Dr. Baracoe.
Cross-examined. The fit which the prisoner had when he was three or four years old was not the ordinary convulsion which a child of that age often has—I have seen a child in convulsions, the eyes do not turn up then, the hands being clenched is a common thing—he was older when he bit his tongue—sometimes the prisoner would not go home, and I had send for his mother—he complained of his head all the time I had him—on one occasion he went to the stable, and we did not know where he was—when the man went to bed the pony up he found him in a truss of straw, and when we woke him up he declared we had put him there—he would not go home and I had to get my husband to take him home.
SARAH SLADE . I am the wife of George Slade, and 14 years ago lived at 17, Osborn Road, Acton, next door to the prisoner's parents—my son and the prisoner went to school together—I used to visit the Meakers—I have been called in about five times by Mrs. Meaker when the prisoner had violent fits—his features would be very extorted and he would foam at the mouth as if he was chewing soap—his eyes would come right out on to his cheeks and roll about there—he would fight and kick very much—the days following the seizures he was quite collapsed—the last time I attended him, when he was about eight years old, he was the worst.
ELLEN MEAKER . The prisoner is my son—I have a daughter named Florence—she was attended by Dr. Gardiner, who also attended the prisoner—Dr. Gardiner is at Bournemouth now—he attended my son for about six or seven years for epileptic fits—I think he said that Florence had inflammation of the brain, and I must not let her go to school, or read or write; she can only sign her name now—I remember my husband's father being sent to a lunatic asylum at Caterham, in Surrey—he was there about 20 months—he went there when he was about 72—Mrs. Eliza Meaker is my sister-in-law—she has two children, named Carrie and Christopher—the girl is 29, and has not been able to leave her mother to
earn a farthing—she has to be followed about, and is strange in her mind—she is the prisoner's cousin—since Christopher was 18, he has been better, but before that he had to be followed about—he was very strange in his mind, and could not be trusted—I know the prisoner has had fits while he has been walking out with Miss Blanford—he has had fits since he was four years old—Miss Blanford was frightened of him and would not have any more to do with him—the last time my son had a fit before December 23rd was about three weeks before that—the death of his brother-in-law upset him a good deal—he was always talking about poor Kate—she has got four little children.
Cross-examined. I met Miss Blanford in the street, and suggested that she should make it up with the prisoner and that they should keep company together again—she promised to do so—the prisoner's grandfather got into bad circumstances and went into the Fulham "Workhouse when he was 72—he was a wandering lunatic—I know he went to an asylum, but I do not know what went on after that—I do not know if he is alive or dead—I have heard he is dead—I told Dr. Gardiner my son had fits—he has not taken to drink lately—I have never seen him the worse for drink—I do not know he was discharged on December 18th for that reason—I knew he was in work up to December 18th—between December 18th and the 23rd he went out for walks and came back to his meals and then went out again—I was out when he came home on December 23rd with Robertson—he never gave me an explanation why he had been discharged—he said he had left—I did not ask him why.
ALICE MEAKER . I am the prisoner's sister—on December 23rd, about 10.15 p.m., I remember his coming home with Robertson—Robertson went to bed—he is a friend, and was staying with us—we knew him before he went to the war—after he had gone to bed my brother behaved very strangely—he was foaming at the mouth, and his eyes seemed to come out of his head—he threw down his hat and ran out at the back gate into the street—I picked up his hat and ran after him—I caught him at the top of Norland Market, and asked him to come home—I put his hat on for him—he ran away from home again, and I followed him—he went into the Goldhawk Road—I did not see him enter Evans' shop—I lost sight of him—I tried to get a man to help me take him home, but when he saw my brother foaming at the mouth he ran across the road—I went to Evans' shop to see where he was, and I saw someone holding him on the ground—I do not know if the deceased was there, I was so confused—I have always lived at home with my brother, and have seen him have fits—sometimes he has not had one for two months, and sometimes he would go longer—when he was in a fit he would clench his hands and grind his teeth and foam at the mouth, and his eyes would come out—afterwards he would look very funny and not know what was the matter with him—the last one he had was three weeks before December 23rd.
Cross-examined. When he came home on December 23rd he was foaming at the mouth—he was not drunk—I did not try to persuade him to go to bed—I made a statement to Inspector Reynolds next morning, which I signed—I said in that, "He came home very drunk, I tried to persuade him to go to bed"—I was so confused and worried I do not know what I did say—when I caught my brother up I said, "Why don't
you come home?" and he said, "I am going to Mr. Evans shop"—he ran very fast—I do not know if he was out of breath with running—just before he got to Evans shop I saw some foam at his mouth—that was not the first time I saw it—he was foaming at the mouth when he came home—I do not know if I said, "Just before he got to Mr. Evans' shop he commenced foaming at the mouth"—he has not been drinking a good deal lately—I do not remember saying, "He has been drinking heavily lately."
Re-examined. I went to the station next day because I was fetched by Detective Whisker—I do not remember signing my statement.
WILLIAM THOMAS GARDINER . I am a registered medical practitioner, and now live in Poole Road, Bournemouth—from 1899 to 1890 I remember attending a family called Meaker, in Acton—a girl in the family had brain affliction—I cannot remember her name—I remember attending a boy—I cannot say the name now—I cannot say if I saw him in the same house as the girl—a boy used to come with his mother to my surgery—Mrs. Meaker's face is familiar to me—I believe the boy was the brother of the girl Florence Meaker, whom I sent to the London Hospital—I attended the boy for epilepsy.
Cross-examined. His mother brought him to me as an epileptic.
By the COURT. I think he came for about two years—I cannot remember having seen him in a fit.
Re-examined. I prescribed a bromide for him, which is usual for epilepsy.
Evidence in reply.
JAMES SCOTT . I am the medical officer at His Majesty's Prison at Holloway—the prisoner was received there on December 24th—I have kept him under personal observation since—I have had conversations with him about his health and condition—he said he has had fairly good health, that he had not had fits, but had what he called faint attacks at times, when he went hot and cold; that during the three months previous to this affair he had taken rather more drink than he had been in the habit of doing—he said he had never met with any serious accident; that he had fallen out of carts occasionally, but not hurt himself; that he had had influenza twice—he has always been rational in his conduct, and not unnaturally depressed, considering his position—he has frequently complained of pains in his head, sometimes in the front, and sometimes at the back of his head—some of his nights were restless, but generally he slept well—I have detected no signs of insanity, and he has had no epileptic attacks—I had one report that he was faint—it was so short I did not see it myself—in my opinion he is of sound mind—I have heard the evidence and seen the depositions in this case—I see nothing in the prisoner's condition on December 23rd which is inconsistent with the condition arising from drunkenness—there are several features which make it rather improbable that his condition arose from an epileptic fit, although I cannot say it is impossible—during an epileptic fit a person is unconscious most of the time—as a rule they do not know what has taken place when they come to their senses—I have never heard or known of a case where a person has hastened or run nearly a mile to attack another person in an epileptic fit.
Cross-examined. It is rather dangerous for epileptics to ride on horse-back, or to cycle, but each case must be decided on its merits—the prisoner knew I was a doctor—I told him he need not say anything unless he chose—I do not think I told him his statements would be disclosed in Court—I said that he could tell me anything about himself that he liked—rotation of the eyes is not uncommon in drunkenness—foaming at the mouth, and the eyes turned right up into the head, are not always found in slight cases of epilepsy—mania may follow immediately after a paroxysm.
By the COURT. I have never known of a case where a fit lasts during the period while a man is running a mile—there are some cases on record of excitement following a fit—in the severe forms the person falls down, when they are unconscious and helpless—I think the evidence in this case shows there was an element of drunkenness, but I cannot say there was no epilepsy.
GUILTY—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth and his weak state of mind caused by the fits.
The Prisoner. "I do not remember seeing the man or going into the shop that night, and as I stand before God, I do not recollect anything of what happened at the shop." Death.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, February 12th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
The prisoner stated that he was guilty of unlawfully wounding, and the Jury found that verdict. He received a good character. Discharged on his father's recognizances
MR. TURNER Prosecuted, MR. LEYCESTER Defended.
The prisoner having been in business as a dealer in the same neighbourhood for 30 years, and having paid a fair price for the bicycle, the Court considered that there was not sufficient evidence that he knew that the bicycle was stolen.
NOT GUILTY .
No evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
LOTTIE BERDOE . I am single, and live in Victoria Park—on January 8th I was in the Commercial Road and had a bag with about 30s. in it in silver and gold—as I was passing Dorset Street three men were standing at the corner of the street, and one of them came to my side and snatched
my bag—I cannot identify him, it was 5 p.m.—I saw him carrying it and saw someone else take it and run away—I ran after them, but could not catch them.
SAMUEL MURRAY . I went to school last month; I am at work now—I live at 36, Chapel Street—my mother keeps a stall—on January 8th I saw the two prisoners and another chap—I did not know them before—Wells, the one who blinks, said to me, "Go away for a minute"—I said, "I can't, I want to look after my mother's stall"—he then said to Donnell, "Go and see if anybody is coming"—Donnell said, "Nobody is coming '—a lady came by, and the one who is not here snatched her bag and ran away—on January 10th I saw about 13 men at the police station and picked the prisoners out—I am quite sure they are the men.
Cross-examined by Donnell. I looked at your faces first and then at your boots—I recognize you by your face—I was standing outside the stall, and in your running past me, I was thrown to the ground by accident.
Cross-examined by Wells. The other one said, "Here she comes"—you stayed round the corner—nobody told me who to pick out, I picked you out by your faces.
LEON POLICK . I am 14 years old—I am at work—on January 8th, at five o'clock, I was talking to Murray at his mother's stall, and saw the prisoners and another man a yard or two from me—they went under the bridge and I heard them say, "Here she comes," and then they took their boots off and told me to move, but I did not—the lady came along, and the one not here snatched her purse, and they ran to the left—tried to stop them and was knocked down—I picked out Wells at Worship Street station, and Donnell a week afterwards.
Cross-examined by Donnell. I recognize your face—when I went into the station, I looked at the other men and said, "I can't see him"—I was told to have another look, and then I recognized you—they put you in front twice and then at the back, and I recognized you then by your side face.
Cross-examined by Wells. The policeman told me that they had got the man and asked me to go and see if I could pick him out—I had given my address—you ran away with the others—I tried to stop them and you knocked me down—we heard the lady screaming and I got in front of you—I know you on account of your winking—the detective did not say, "He has got a black handkerchief on"—I told him you had a black handkerchief, and he said that I was right.
WILLIAM SIME (263 H.) On January 10th, about 7 p.m. I was in Leman Street, and saw Donnell—I told him I should take him on suspicion of stealing a lady's hand-bag—he said, "I was at King's Cross on Wednesday; what time do you say?"—I said, "Wednesday"—he was put with other men, and the two boys picked him out—there is no truth in the suggestion that I or the other officers told them which man to pick out.
The prisoner Donnell. It was impossible for me to be there at 5 o'clock, as I can prove by a Roman Catholic priest.
GEORGE COORNISH (377 H.) I arrested Wells in Aldgate—I told him I was a police constable and should arrest him for stealing a lady's handbag at 5 p.m.—he said, "I know nothing about it; I can prove I was at
work"—I took him to the station and he was identified—he said something about his handkerchief—it is not true that any indication was given to the boys which man to pick out.
Cross-examined by Wells. No suggestion was made that the person who committed the robbery blinked his eyes and had a black necktie—I did not see you on Saturday, I may have passed you without seeing you—I did not see you from the 8th to the 16th—I only just looked into the kitchen on the 14th—I did not see you four times—I did not stand in the Model Lodging House passage, I went straight home—I know you well, and if I had seen you before, I should have arrested you.
Donnell's defence. On January 8th I was in East Street. I was released from prison at 8 a.m. I was told by a Roman Catholic priest to go to his house and he would show me how to earn an honest livelihood. I went, and was told that he would be home at 10.30, but I had to wait till 11.30, because his train did not arrive in time. They said that I should have to hurry to catch the train, so I walked. I should be a fool to do such a thing the day I came out of prison.
Wells' defence. I was not there till quarter past six. It was impossible for me to be there—I do not know this man, and never was in his company.
Evidence for Wells.
JOHN LEVY . I know Wells—on January 8th he was with me trying to get some labour at Irish Wharf, which is a quarter of an hour's walk from where the bag was snatched—he was trying to get an honest living.
Cross-examined. He was with me on the 8th from 2 o'clock to 6.15—Friday was the 10th—he is not an old friend of mine—we have never been tried together—I have been in trouble about five times—the last time was eight months ago, when I got 20 months for stealing.
ALFRED DREW (Police Inspector E.) I have made enquiries as to Donnell's statement—he was released from prison in Lincolnshire at 8 a.m., and he went to the Roman Catholic priest and was with him five minutes—before the Magistrate Donnell said that he could not catch the 10 o'clock train, but there is a train at 11.18 which gets to King's Cross at 2.10—this (Produced) is a letter from the priest.
L. POLICK (Re-examined.) I identified Donnell at once—I walked down the line and looked at their faces, but did not pick out anybody, and then I went round to the back and saw Wells' side face as he turned round—I say that he is the man.
DONNELL— NOT GUILTY ;
WELLS— GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court on February 4th, 1901, of highway robbery with violence, and two other convictions were proved against him— Three years' penal servitude.
176. JOHN MANLEY (23), and HENRY SESSIONS (35), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a scarf pin from the person of Lionel Vincent Riley; Sessions having been convicted on January 11th, 1897. Eight other convictions were proved against Sessions, and Manley had been convicted several times, but not of felony, and was the associate of thieves. MANLEY— 12 months' hard labour ; SESSIONS— 15 months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, 12th February, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. HUMPHREYS Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended.
EDWARD JAMES JAMES . I keep the Parr's Head public house, Cross Street, Islington—on November 12th I employed a manager named Cook—he brought the prisoner with him as head barman, and another barman, James O'Beirne, who is still in my employment—Gould & Co. take stock for me every fortnight—after Cook had been employed a week I found that £13 more should have been paid into the bank, according to his book of takings—I discharged him at once—on November 26th there was £24 1s. short, and at the end of the next fortnight £22 7s. short, and on December 24th £11 short—on January 7th I found a surplus of £5 12s. 7d., and on January 21st of £4 8s. 8d.—at the end of November I called in the police—the officer made a statement and left—on December 14th the prisoner said he wished to "turn the job in," or leave, as his foot was bad—he left on December 17th—about 12.45 a.m. on January 2nd O'Beirne made a statement to me, and afterwards to the police—we use Cox's till, and a check change till, in which I put £5 till 10 a.m., and £15 afterwards till closing time—by dropping a sovereign in, and pulling out a drawer, the change is obtained, of a half-sovereign and silver—the sovereigns can be taken out of the bottom drawer by removing the inner brass pin—only the head barman or myself re-filled the till.
Cross-examined. We have three of Cox's tills—I have been 10 years in the business—three barmaids and three barmen were employed in the bar on November 12th—I changed two barmen that day—the overplus is produced by serving glasses in the saloon—we expect to see it on the stock sheets—I said before the Magistrate that I was satisfied with the way the prisoner did his cellar work—he asked if I would give him a character, and I said I would do so—I should have shown the stock-sheets—I believed that his leg was bad, and I told him to go upstairs and rest.
JAMES O'BEIRNE . I am a barman employed by Mr. James—I was engaged by Mr. Cook on November 12th as under barman—on December 17th he told me was leaving, and asked me to take his umbrella to him at the Angel public house about 6.30 that evening—on the way I met a man at the Angel, Islington, who told me his name was Dr. O'Hara—we had drink with the prisoner—I presented the umbrella to him, but he said, "Don't mind to-night about it," and that I could post it to him afterwards—he suggested going to see Cook—I asked him how far it was to his address, 47, High Street, Manchester Square—he said, "That is not the right address, he lives in Hanover Street"—we all three went there in a two wheeler cab—on the way he said, "How much money do you think I had out of that house while I was there?"—I said, "I do not know"—he said, "I had over £38 out of that house during the time I was there"—he was there five weeks—then he asked me to be a pal of his, and do one thing; that he was going there in a few days time, and he asked me to take the money out of the till and hand it over the counter and he would give me half of it—he said, "You need not fear,
it will be all put on the new man"—the new man came that day—the prisoner said, "Open the door and raise up the yellow thing and take the lot out"—we went to Mr. Cook's—I did not see him—I did not go into the house—the prisoner went upstairs—Mrs. Cook met him at the door—we went to the Highland Queen public house, King's Cross Road, and there he proposed to go to the Oxford—I left them in Oxford Street—Dr. O'Hara left us at the Highland Queen—I got out of the cab at Oxford Circus and afterwards went to see my brother—I wanted to avoid them—I went into a public lavatory—my brother lives at 33, Rochester Row, Kentish Town—on Monday, December 30th, I got the prisoner's letter of December 29th, appointing to meet me at the Grafton Arms—I went there that night—the prisoner said, "I will be up there in the morning, you can easily pass me a bottle of Johnny Walker [Whiskey] over the counter, you need not be afraid, you can easily do it"—we were in the billiard room—the next morning I went into the bar at the Parr's head about 8.30—the prisoner was there—I did not go near him—I went to breakfast at nine o'clock—he was then in one of the bars—on January 1st, two or three nights afterwards, I told Mr. James, my master, all about it—I repeated my statement to the police and they took it down in writing.
Cross-examined. I reached the Angel about 6.30 on December 17th—we had three or four drinks of Scotch whiskey—we remained about half an hour—I shall have been about 12 months in London on March 30th—I have been in two situations, one as a tram conductor, after waiting for my license on the North Metropolitan trams, for about five months—a few days after I left I got a barman's berth—I gave no reference to the Tram Company; I referred to Mr. Welch, one of the managers at Mooney's, who knew me—I went to the Radnor in Chancery Lane—I was there two days—I was next engaged by Mr. Cook—I was out about three weeks—I answered advertisements—Mrs. Cook came after us into the Angel—I was not drunk—I left the prisoner and his friend about 9.30—I said I left the umbrella in the lavatory—I went back and took it to Rochester Row—I was joking, because the prisoner worried me about leaving them—I said in my letter to the prisoner, "I am very glad to have to tell you I found your umbrella"—that was a joke; it was not true—he called me a nice boy for leaving him, and I said it to make him happy—in my letter I complained of the barmaid, Miss Gill, and having nothing but dry bread for breakfast—I was still anxious to remain with Mr. James—I knew nothing about the till—I could see it examined—it did not concern me—I could see the money cleared—I was also employed at the Camden Distillery—I gave Mr. Welch as a reference—I referred to several managers, but on account of being sick I got no employment.
CHARLES WALTER (Policeman N.) On January 21st I had a warrant for the prisoner's arrest—he came to the station and asked for me about 6 p.m.—I said, "Is your name William Brown?"—he said, "Yes, I hear you have been looking for me"—I said, "Yes," and read the warrant to him—it charged him with inciting to steal monies and whiskies from Mr. James—he said, "I do not quite understand"—I read it again—he said nothing till after the formal charge was read by the Inspector, when he
said "Yes" as if he understood it—he was searched; a loaded pistol was found on him amongst other things.
Cross-examined. I found 2s. 8d. in money, a pocket case containing 12 cards and some pawn tickets, and another was found at his house afterwards [For a watch and chain, a hand bag, a diamond ring and other things, for sums ranging from 4s. to £5.]
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, denied all the conversation relating to what he made at the Parr's Head, and inciting to rob Mr. James. He received a good character.
GUILTY .— Three months' imprisonment.
MR. LYNE Prosecuted.
ABRAM OSBORNE (61 J.R). On January 12th I was in Whitechapel Road, about 11 p.m.—I heard cries of "Police," and went in that direction in the dark under a wall—the prisoner and another man had pinned the prosecutor against the wall—I got within a few feet, when they let go to run away—I grabbed at them and caught Roff—I took him to the station—the prosecutor came up and said he wished to charge him with robbing and assaulting him—Roff said, "I did not do anything, I was walking along"—on the way to the station he said, "I admit I was with two others who robbed him, but I did not do anything"—on January 18th I was in Whitechapel Road about 4 p.m., with Bissell, and saw Morris in the Black Lion yard—Bissell told him we should take him into custody for being concerned with two others in stealing a watch and chain, and pin, and other property, value 14s.—he said, "I do not know anything at all about it"—a stamp was attached to the end of the chain—on the way to the station he said, "Why should I steal a man's watch and chain which are not worth more than 3s. or 4s.?"—the prosecutor identified him from 10 or 11 others at the station.
Cross-examined by Roff. No tram was mentioned.
Cross-examined by Morris. On the way to the station you said, "I am innocent, this is the first time in my life I have ever been locked up"—I did not ask a man if his name was Morris, and you did not say, "No, my name is Morris"—you jumped a scaffold pole and I could not get close enough to catch you—I have seen you in Whitechapel on several occasions—I have seen you with Roff and another, before the robbery and since—you were out on bail.
PHILLIP GULACK (Interpreted.) I have been in England two years—I am a tailor of 39. Great Garden Street, Whitechapel—on January 12th, about 11 p.m., I was in Whitechapel Road going home—the prisoners and another came towards me—Roff snatched at my chain, which fell down—I caught hold of him and cried "Police"—Roff took my watch—Morris and another were there—when I took hold of Roff the others assaulted me, and I had to let him go—he was caught by a constable—my watch was near the wall when I fell, and my pin was taken and about 3s. I did not find among my money, and there was a case with a stamp with my name; it was, like the watch, oval.
Cross-examined by Roff. You were walking slowly so that I could seize you, the same pace as when you were walking towards me, a few steps only—I saw you take my watch—it happened in a moment—you told me on the way to the station that I should not tell on you.
Cross-examined by Morris. I sat in a separate room and then was called to another room, where I picked you out from others as the man who took part in the affair—the inspector asked me if I was sure, and I said yes—that was a week after I picked Roff out—I had no assistance—I spoke some English as I do here—yesterday you said that I was the same persuasion as you and should not tell on you, and I answered, "Why did not you have pity on me, and not take part in the assault?"—you said, "If you will say it is a mistake, it is all right, otherwise I will spend any amount to have revenge."
WILLIAM BISSELL (15 J.R.) I was in Whitechapel Road on January 12th, about 11 p.m.—I joined Osborne—I saw the prisoners and another man not in custody struggling with the prosecutor against a wall near Rawson's Brewery—Osborne grabbed at them and caught Roff—I followed Morris 30 or 40 yards—I knew him by name and by sight—he jumped a scaffold pole where the road is being repaired, and escaped—on January 18th I saw him again in Whitechapel Road and arrested him—he said he was innocent and said, "Do not hold me, I will walk"—on the way to the station he said, "Why should I rob a man of a watch worth no more than 3s. or 4s.?"—I was in the charge room when he was identified—there was no pointing to assist the prosecutor, who went up and down the row, and without any hesitation said, "That is the man," and pointed to him—I am sure he is the man I saw on January 12th, and I pointed him out to the other officer.
Cross-examined by Morris. I did not speak to other men—I said, "I want you, Morris"—I told you the charge then, and did not tell you to wait till we got to the station.
The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Morris says, "I was in Bethnal Green Road on the night of the 12th, and was not near Whitechapel Road that night. I went to my sister-in-law's in Bethnal Green Road, and I want to call Mrs. Horridge."—Roff says, "How could I pay the prosecutor with a hand like this?"
Evidence for Morris.
MARTHA ROFF . I am Roff's mother—he is respectable and works for his living—he was at his place when this happened; he has been discharged since—he paid a fine for assaulting the police at a bother in the Mile End Road.
MARIA MORRIS . The prisoner Morris is my husband—he was at my sister's place on January 12th with me and the baby, at 196, Guinness' Trust, Columbia Road, Hackney Road, from 8 till just before 11 p.m—then we went home to 75, Beeth Street Buildings, Brick Lane—we got home about 11 and went to bed.
SUSANNA HORRIDGE . I live at 196, Guinness' Buildings—I believe my brother-in-law is innocent—he was at my place on Sunday evening, January 12th, from about 8 p.m. till just before the public houses closed, about 11 p.m.
Morris received a good character— NOT GUILTY .
ROFF— GUILTY . Nine months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, 12th February, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, LL.D., K.C.
179. CHRISTIAN RYLANDER LEA (45), HENRY CHARLES BEDDING (36), and JAMES HODGES (62) , Conspiring to defraud The Vinolia Company, Ltd., of their goods and chattels. Second Count, Obtaining credit by fraud from the said Vinolia Company; Third Count, Obtaining 40 dozen boxes of soap and other articles from the said Vinolia Company; Other Counts, For conspiracy, and obtaining goods from other persons, with intent to defraud.
Lea and Bedding stated that they were guilty of the conspiracy, and Hodges of obtaining credit and goods by false pretences, and the Jury found that verdict. (Bedding received a good character.) LEA and BEDDING Nine calendar months' hard labour. Previous convictions were proved against HODGES at this Court on 9th April, 1892, and 31st May, 1899.— Eighteen months' hard labour.
MR. GREENFIELD Prosecuted, and MR. BURNIE Defended.
WALTER NORTHCOTE (441 H.) At 12.5 a.m on January 22nd I was on duty in Brick Lane, and heard a whistle blown—I went in that direction—I found the prosecutor with a crowd round him—he was bleeding from a cut on his forehead, and said he had been assaulted—I took him to the London Hospital, where he was attended to by Dr. Walker.
Cross-examined. He made no complaint at that time about losing his money—I first heard that at the police court the following day—I know Poll Petman by sight—I do not know that she had been living with the prosecutor.
EDWIN BARBER (13 H.) I saw the prisoner in Commercial Street on January 22nd, at 9 p.m.—I stopped her and said, "I want you for an assault and robbery"—she said, "I know what it is for, he asked for what he got"—I took her to the station, and she was identified by the prosecutor and charged—in answer to the charge she said, "This is a quarrel, I know nothing about the 26s."
Cross-examined. I was off duty when the information was given by the prosecutor at the station about the robbery, but it was in the daytime, not in the night—I do not know Poll Petman, nor a witness named Cohen—I did not know the prosecutor before.
HERMAN GOODMAN *. I am a tailor, of 15, Duke Street, Spitalfields—on the early morning of January 22nd, I was passing through Brick Lane, and went into a shop to make a purchase—I came out, and about a yard away the prisoner rushed at me, pulled a muffler off my neck, and struck me on the left side of my face—I staggered a little, and then two men sprang upon me and knocked me to the ground—they hit me on my head with an umbrella, kicked me, and left me unconscious on the ground—while on the ground I felt a hand in my right trousers pocket—I shouted for the police, and received several more knocks with an umbrella, and kicks, and could not move any more—some one blew a policeman's whistle, and a constable came up and took me to the hospital—I told the
constable that the woman had struck me at the side of my face, and pulled my muffler off my neck—I first reported the loss of my money when I got home from the hospital—I had it safe in my pocket two or three minutes before this happened—I did not make the charge at once, through the pain I was in—I was in bed two or three days, and am still attending the hospital—the cut over my eye was caused by the umbrella.
Cross-examined. I did not miss my purse and money until after I got home—I have seen the men in the prisoner's company several times—I do not know one of them was the prisoner's brother—I do not know Poll Petman, I never lived with her in my life, neither did she leave me to go with the prisoner's brother—I know nothing at all about her—I did not call the prisoner a w—in her brother's presence—I did not speak to her at all—I know the witness Cohen—he is not a cousin of mine; he is a perfect stranger—I have no other witness who was present—I do not know Sullivan nor"Onions"—I have been employed as a tailor, ever since I left school, by my father—I was once charged with an attempted assault and robbery—I was taken for another man, and was discharged.
By MR. BURNIE. I know nothing of the prisoner coming to the station and complaining that the prosecutor had threatened her.
JOHN FREDERICK WALKER , M.D. I saw the prosecutor on January 22nd, at 12.30 p.m., and found him suffering from a cut over his right eyebrow—there was a good deal of swelling of the eyelid and some swelling of the forehead—I dressed his wounds, and he was able to go away, but he has since attended the hospital as an out patient—I think the blow might have been caused by a fist, at any rate some violence must have been used.
Cross-examined. It was not caused by a knife, neither was it a serious matter.
By the COURT. It might have been by a fall and his head striking on the pavement—it might have been a fist, or a kick, or a blow by a blunt instrument, or a fall on some blunt surface—I cannot say if it was an accident.
GEORGE COHEN . I am a carman, of Cannon Street Road, East End—before this date I knew neither the prosecutor nor the prisoner—shortly before 12, on January 21st, I was passing through Brick Lane and saw the prisoner go up to the prosecutor, snatch his handkerchief off his neck, and strike him on his jaw—then two men rushed upon him, knocked him down, kicked him while he was on the ground, and the taller of the two put his hand into the prosecutor's pocket—the prisoner was kicking him while he was on the ground and shouting, "Go on Jack, go on Arthur, kick him, kill him"—I said it was a cowardly thing to do to a man on the ground—they said they would do the same to me—there was no one about at the time—a police whistle was blown, and the two men ran down Eyre Street and the prisoner walked off down Slater Street.
Cross-examined. This lasted about a quarter of an hour, and when the whistle was blown some people came up—I was standing close by—when the police came I went away—I did not give my name to the police—I
met the prosecutor accidentally on the following Friday, and gave him my name and address as a witness—I had never seen him before—I am of the same persuasion: a Jew—I did not tell the police that the prosecutor had been robbed, because I did not know whether he had been or not—I saw the hand put in his pocket, but I did not see what was taken out.
By the JURY. How I came to recognise the prosecutor was, I asked him whether he was the young man that was knocked about and robbed in Brick Lane on Tuesday night—he said, "Yes," and asked my name and address, which I gave him.
Evidence for the defence.
CHARLES SULLIVAN . I am a fruit porter—I was convicted about six years ago of stealing apples from Spitalfields market, and sentenced to one month, I have been getting an honest living since—I know both the prisoner and prosecutor—on the night of the 21st, I was coming through Brick Lane about 11.45—I saw the prisoner and the prosecutor jangling—the prosecutor said to the prisoner, "F—you and your brother Jack too"—he said, "I will serve you and your brother Jack the same as I did Onions" and he attempted to strike her—the prisoner's husband and brother were there, and there was a general fight.
Cross-examined. I did not see the prosecutor on the ground, nor the muffler torn from his neck—I saw an umbrella raised, but cannot say whether it struck the prosecutor.
NOT GUILTY . There was another indictment against the prisoner.
OLD COURT.—Friday, February 14th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. BOYD Prosecuted.
ARTHUR SCOTT (79 E.) I was on duty on Waterloo Bridge about 4.10 p.m. on January 4th—the prisoner walked past me with a baby in her arms—when she had gone about 20 yards she sat the baby up on her arm and threw it over the parapet of the bridge into the river—I got hold of her, and told her I should arrest her for throwing her child into the river—I blew my whistle, and saw the river police pick the child up—it was floating down the river—I took the prisoner to the station, and told her she would be charged with attempting to drown her baby—she said, "Me! what? you must be mad, my baby is out there, "and pointed to the charge room—she appeared to have been drinking—she could walk and talk.
JAMES WHEATLEY (122 Thames Police.) I was on duty about 4.30 p.m. on January 4th, at Waterloo Bridge Station—my attention was attracted by shouts, and a police whistle—I saw what appeared to be a bundle of clothes in the river—I went out and rescued it—I found it was a baby—he clothes were marked "Strand Union Workhouse"—it was unconscious, but it afterwards regained consciousness.
WALTER ANGIER (Inspector E.) I was on duty at Bow Street Police Station about 4.30 p.m. on January 4th—the prisoner was brought in and charged with attempting to drown her child—in answer to the charge
she said, "Me! you must be mad, my child, is out there," pointing to the charge room—I found on her the certificate of the birth of her child and a letter from Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum signed by her brother. (This dated that the writer was in good health, that he sent his sister a postal order for 2s., that he had plenty of work to occupy his mind, and was going on very nicely with it.)
GEORGE ALBERT HAMMERTON . I am surgeon to the E division of police, and for the Thames police—I was called to Bow Street on January 4th, where I saw the prisoner—I asked her what she had been doing—she said at first that she did not know what I meant—I said, "Why did you throw your child into the river?"—she said, "I did not, my child is outside, cannot you hear it?"—the child was not there—I had previously seen it at the pier—she looked very ill—she had had some drink, but was not drunk—she could explain perfectly about herself, but she appeared to me to be of weak mind—she appeared to be delirious at the time.
By the COURT. I examined her again on the Monday—by that time she had got over the effects of the drink, but she was just the same as regards her manner, and when I spoke to her about the child, she said, "It is absurd your talking like that, here is my child here; I have not done anything to it"—I have no reason to suppose that she was shamming.
JAMES SCOTT . I am the medical officer at Holloway Prison, and have had the prisoner under my charge since January 6th—I think she is decidedly of weak mind—she is suffering from a chronic inflammation of the membranes of the brain—I think it highly probable that in her condition the letter from her brother would have had an effect upon her mind.
The prisoner, in her statement before the Magistrate, and in her defence on oath, said that she did not remember doing anything to the child, that she was very fond of it, that she had just come out of the Edmonton Workhouse, where she had been confined, that she had only had four glasses of ale on January 4th, that she had always worked hard and had been in one situation for six years, but had to stop because of her confinement.
GUILTY .— Discharged on her own recognizances.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.
GUILTY .— Ten years' penal servitude.
NEW COURT.—Friday, February 14th,
OLD COURT.—Saturday, February 15th, and
NEW COURT.—Monday, February 17th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
The prisoner withdrew the imputation, apologised to Mr. Eaton, and undertook to pay his costs. Discharged on recognizances.
184. LESTER GUY HUMPHERY , Unlawfully incurring a debt and liability to the amount of £2,287 12s. 10d. to Sir Samuel Montague and others, and obtaining credit by false pretences. Other counts, for incurring credit for that amount by fraud other than false pretences; and for similar offences with regard to other persons. Other counts, for obtaining £2,287 by false pretences within four months of the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him. Other counts, for similar offences with regard to other persons.
MR. HORACE AVORY, K.C., and MR. BODKIN Prosecuted, and MR. C. W. MATHEWS and MR. GUY STEPHENSON Defended.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am an official of the London Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Frank Mievelle & Son, of Angel Court, who are described as foreign bankers—the petition is dated March 12th, 1901, the receiving order March 27th, 1901, and the adjudication of the debtors on May 1st, 1901—the two partners who were so adjudicated were John Frank Mievelle and Lester Guy Humphery, the present defendant—this is the statement of the affairs of the firm filed by the defendant; it shows liabilities £15,923 1s. 7d., and assets £222 10s. 3d.—there is one fully secured creditor—the net deficiency is £13,163 1s. 4d.—there is also on the file the statement of affairs of Mr. Humphery in his separate estate, showing estimated assets £151 10s., and liabilities £55 9s. 8d., with a surplus of £96—upon the file is a transcript of the defendant's public examination, which took place on June 11th, 1901—each sheet purports to be signed by the debtor. (Certain questions and answers of the examination were here read.)
Cross-examined. The petition of March 12th was founded upon a judgment obtained by Martin's Bank in relation to £1,989 5s. 2d.—the receiving order following the petition was on March 27th, and that was followed by a statutory meeting of creditors on April 22nd—after the adjudication on May 1st the defendant filed his statement of affairs—the unsecured creditors were 13, fully secured one—the public examination was on June 11th, 1901—on July 15th there was a private sitting, at which Mr. Barrett attended—the trustee's report is dated October 17th, 1901—the defendant's application for his discharge on November 29th has been adjourned, and nothing has been done in it—the date of the order to prosecute is December 21st, 1901—I attended with the file and gave evidence at the Mansion House in this case on December 17th, when the defendant was committed for trial. (Further passages from the transcript of the public examination were read.)
CHARLES BAGSTER . I am a banker and a representative of the firm of C. J. Hambro & Son, bankers, of 70, Old Broad Street—for some years past we have had transactions with the firm of Frank Mievelle & Son—during the last year or two in dealing with that firm we principally transacted business with the defendant—on Jannary 29th, 1901, we wanted to buy cheques on Paris, and I bought a cheque from defendant for 75,000 francs, about £3,000—that was a purchase on the Exchange at between 1.30 and 2.30—the rate of Exchange at which I bought was 25.14 francs as shown in this contract—on the same day I got a cheque
drawn by Mievelle & Son for 75,000 francs on Henrot et Fils, of Paris; they are Paris bankers—it would be the usual custom to pay for such a cheque the next day, but on this occasion I paid the same day because the prisoner asked me to do so and allowed us one day's interest—this is the cheque I signed on behalf of Hambro & Son, dated January 29th, payable to Frank Mievelle & Son, or bearer—it is equivalent to 75,000 francs", less a day's interest—the cheque we received from the defendant was paid by Henrot et Fils—I met the prisoner on the Exchange, and I said I was a buyer of cheques on Paris.
Cross-examined. The firm of Mievelle has been established for some years, it is not what you would call an old firm—I knew Mr. John Frank Mievelle for many years—he was the senior partner of the firm—I believe for some time he had not been attending to the firm's business—I had not seen him on 'Change for some little time prior to this matter—I have done business with the firm frequently prior to January, 1901—I might have said to the defendant on this day, "I can use a cheque on Paris to-day; have you anything to do?"—he would come up to me and I might say that—I stand there and he comes up to me—on this occasion I might have approached him first and made the suggestion that I could do with a cheque on Paris—the interest for the day was at three or four per cent., and that works out on this amount to about 5s. 6d., a very small amount—payment on the same day has occurred in times prior to 29th January—it has been made on the same day, on the same terms as with this transaction, on previous occasions—I should say the usual practice is to pay on the following day, but it is not an unusual thing to pay the same day as between anybody—I know the defendant's father was one of the proprietors of Hay's Wharf—his uncle, Mr. Hugh Collins Smith, is a director of Hay's Wharf, and was a governor of the Bank of England.
Re-examined. In these transactions we never pay the same day unless we are requested to do so.
THOMAS EDWARD GREEN . I am sub-manager of the London Agency of the Societe Generale de Credit Industriel in Paris, which is commonly called the Credit Industriel—their office is at 126, Cannon Street—on January 29th, 1901, I purchased from the defendant a cheque on Paris for 31,500 francs at the rate of Exchange of 25 francs 14 1/4 cents.—this is the contract (C); paying for it on the same day at his request by a cheque (D) for £1,252 13s. 10d.—the usual practice in banking is to pay the following day—he allowed me a day's interest for the accommodation, which I deducted from the cheque—the cheque which he handed me for 315 francs was drawn on Henrot et Fils at Paris.
Cross-examined. The day's interest amounted to 3s.—4d.—I have very frequently dealt with Frank Mieville & Son for some years—I have not seen Mr. Mieville for some time; I believe the whole conduct of the firm has rested with the defendant for some little time—I have seen Mr. Mieville on 'Change, but I cannot say definitely whether between 1899 and 1901—I had heard he was not well—I had paid the defendant on the same day on other occasions, and I may have done it to one other firm I do not think I can recollect more than one other firm, unless they were ordinary commercial firms, who asked for that accommodation—among my clients if a commercial firm were to come and ask to be paid the same day
I might give it to them if I was satisfied with the bills offered, and that sort of thing, and the reason that was given—that would apply to clients of mine generally.
Re-examined. I am speaking of commercial firms who are selling their own bills, properly accepted and indorsed—the regular practice in dealing with a bill-broker like the defendant is to pay the next day—in dealing on the Exchange with a broker the practice is to pay the next day—it is, the exception to pay the same day—I did it at his special request.
by MR. MATHEWS. I do not hold any of the bills of Alexander of Leeds.
PETER KNAPP . I am cashier to Messrs. Simpson, merchants, of 31, Fenchurch Street—on January 29th, 1901, I received instructions from my employers to give an order to Frank Mieville & Son to buy a cheque on Antwerp for 299 francs—in consequence, I put the order in the form of a note, and sent it round to Mieville & Son—I subsequently received this cheque, drawn by Sir Samuel Montague & Company, for 299 francs, on the Banque d'Auvers (E)—this is the contract which I received from Mieville & Son (F)—that sets out the price as £11 17s. 9d., at an Exchange of 25 francs 15 1/2—on January 30th our firm paid Frank Mieville & Son £11 17s. 9d. by this cheque (G)
Cross-examined. The cheque from Sir Samuel Montague & Company is dated January 29th—that cheque was stopped in Antwerp when it was presented—it was returned to us in London, and we re-presented it through a notary, John Newton, on February 14th, and it was paid—our cheque of January 30th to the order of Frank Mieville & Son is crossed London and Westminster Bank to their account, and indorsed by them—we have been asked to give cash on the same day, but I do not think it is the usual custom—it is not an unusual thing to have cash asked for on the same day—on behalf of Messrs. Simpson, in our dealings with Mieville & Son, I have asked for cash on the same day pretty often, paying the day's interest—I believe that is pretty generally done.
Re-examined. Our firm are East India merchants, and we were selling our own bills, and then we very often ask for cash on the same day—I know it is the custom with the broker to pay the next day.
SIR SAMUEL MONTAGUE, BART . I am the senior partner in the firm of Samuel Montague & Company, of 60, Old Broad Street, bankers and bullion dealers—I have had 54 years experience in foreign bankers' business in London—I am qualified to speak of the custom on the Exchange with regard to the buying and selling of foreign bills and cheques—it is almost the invariable custom to pay the next day for foreign bills which are bought—that has been the custom for about 20 years—prior to that we used to buy on Tuesday and pay on Friday, or buy on Friday and pay on Tuesday, but there were two cases of fraud under that system, and the custom was altered, to diminish the possibility of fraud, to payment on the next day—we could not have the money the same day as a rule, because we deliver the bills as a rule in the afternoon, after the banking hours—the alteration was made at my instance, after consulting Messrs. Baring and Messrs. Rothschild to get the cash next day—if the person buying is a bill broker, we rely on his having the principal at his bank, or on order, if he is not dealing on his own account
—the assumption is that we know we shall be paid—if he gives us the name of his principal, we look to his principal—if he does not give us the name of a principal, we look to him—it is understood that he has the money when he buys a foreign cheque of us, if he does not give the name of his principal—I have known the firm of Mieville & Son on Change for some years—for the last year or more before their failure defendant conducted the business of the firm on the Exchange almost entirely—I hardly remember seeing Mr. Mieville on 'Change for a year before this transaction—on January 29th, 1901, the defendant on the Exchange purchased of me a cheque on Paris for 57,500 francs 13 1/2—this is the contract (H)—I believe he handed me that on 'Change, or he might have sent it on afterwards—the usual custom is to give it at once, but I was so busy on 'Change I am not sure if he gave it to me—the equivalent in English money would be £2,287 12s. 10d.—on the same day he purchased of me a cheque on Antwerp for 299 francs at the rate of Exchange of 25 francs 15 1/2—this is the contract note—I delivered to him the same day our cheque for 57,500 francs drawn on the Credit Lyonnaise of Paris and also our cheque on Antwerp for 299 francs—those two total up to £2,299 10s. 7d.—in accordance with the usual custom I gave the defendant credit till the following day for that amount—on the following day, January 30th, my firm drew on Mieville & Son, in accordance with the usual practice, for that amount, £2,299 10s. 7d.—I believe the acceptance of that to be in the defendant's writing—he accepted it payable at the Head Office of the London and Westminster Bank—it was presented the same day and dishonoured—on the following day, January 31st, I received this letter (L) from the defendant's firm, dated January 30th, and addressed to us [Expressing regret that in consequence of the failure of a firm with whom Frank Mievelle & Son had had long business connections, they were obliged to ask for Montague & Co's kind consideration for about 14 days; that their books had been placed in the hands of Messrs. Harvey, Preen & Co., chartered accountants; and their solicitor was Mr. H. F. Pollock, and that they hoped to make a satisfactory proposal, as their total shortage, as they then made it out, was less than £3,000.]—we have received no portion of the £2,299 10s. 7d.—we have not received a penny of the £11 17s. 9d. which the defendant received from Messrs. Simpson and Co.—I knew he was buying that cheque on Antwerp for Messrs. Simpson & Co.—it is in the contract, and in drawing our cheque on Antwerp we made it payable to Simpson & Co.—upon receipt of the letter of January 30th from the defendant announcing his inability to pay, we stopped our Antwerp cheque and tried to stop the French cheque also, but we were too late—when we subsequently discovered that Simpson and Co. had actually paid the defendant for that cheque, we removed the stop and allowed our cheque to be honoured, and it was paid with the charges which had been incurred in protesting it—after I received the defendant's letter of January 30th, I sent for him, and he came to my private room at the office on the 31st—I reproached him for his conduct—he said he had only continued that which Mr. Mieville had done before—I said, "If Mr. Mieville had told you to pick my pocket, would you have done so?"—he said, "No"—I said, "That is what you have done"'—he burst into tears—it was a very painful
interview, and I was glad when it was over—I said that if he had come to me for assistance I might have helped him—we found out that he had been selling at a loss for many days before that, and on this particular day he was carrying out these transactions at a loss—he lost half a cent in one case, three-quarters of a cent in another, and paid for that day's interest—I certainly would not have given him those cheques if I had known he was carrying on business in that way—I should presume he was carrying on business, in the way usual with brokers, at a profit—we have not had an instance of non-payment like this for 20 years—the defendant must have been paying at the rate of 15 to 20 per cent on the transaction for the use of the money—we always looked on the firm of Frank Mieville and Son, as an honourable, respectable firm—we never heard anything against them—it dwindled rather—it was a dwindled firm, but respectable—I should say in 999 cases out of 1,000 in transactions on 'Change the custom is to pay the next day—sometimes when documents have to be cleared we may be asked to pay the same day, but it is looked on as a sign of weakness in the seller if he asks to be paid the same day—we should be rather frightened to deal—I am speaking of the case of a broker.
Cross-examined. The firm used to be Courtland and Mieville, and then it was the firm of Frank Mieville and Son, some ten or fifteen years after—it was an old firm changed into Frank Mieville and Son—the old firm was one of the best firms of brokers in the city—I knew it fifty years ago—Frank Mieville's uncle retired and took away, I believe, a great part of the capital, and then the nephew took it up—that was about 1889—I never heard anything against the firm until this transaction—it had a reputation not of wealth but of respectability—since 1900 Mr. Frank Mieville has not attended much to the business—I only saw him twice about that period—I had not seen him for many months before this transaction—the business then devolved on the defendant—the firm of Mieville dealt with us buying and selling, chiefly buying, during the whole time of their existence as a firm—at my interview with the defendant on January 31st, I cannot be sure if he told me he was trying to get time for the firm—I do not remember his saying that—he only said the practice of buying for the next day and selling for cash had been commenced long ago by Mr. Mieville, and he had continued it—he may have said he had been trying to get time for the firm—I think he said something about its being a hard struggle, but I did not pay much attention to his particular words—I was angry with him for the way he had duped us—I was astonished, too—possibly he may have said the had been trying to get money from his friends—I am sure he did not mention that Mr. Mieville had been approached for the purposes of getting money from Mr. Mieville's friends, I do not believe he did—I do not think he said that the effort to get money from his friends had been depending on the efforts of Mr. Mieville to get money from his friends, and in that way he was struggling on to carry on the business; the interview was very short—I was astounded at what had occurred, and I was glad to get him out of the place—he may have said he was struggling to get on and trying to get money; I did not pay much attention to him—I think Martin's Bank began civil proceedings against Mieville and Son immediately after the 31st, as soon
as they could—in those proceedings their solicitors, Goldberg, Barrett, and Newall, whom we also consulted, acted for them—I wanted to take criminal proceedings at once—Messrs. Martin instituted civil proceedings, which were followed by proceedings in bankruptcy—Goldberg, Barrett, and Newall were not my solicitors until this occasion; they became our solicitors as soon as we consulted Messrs. Martin—that was a day or two after January 31st, or perhaps the 31st—after that date they acted for us as well as for Martin's—I do not think our claim was put forward, we thought it was not a debt—I believe it was put forward later on in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings—I left the matter in Goldberg, Barrett, and Newall's hands, except that I proposed they should go before the Lord Mayor at once; I think I said that the same day, somewhere about January 31st or February 1st—I believe the solicitors carried on negociations under which we would accept payment of so much in the £in relation to this debt on behalf of ourselves and Martin's Bank—one of my partners was very averse to any settlement except taking criminal proceedings—I told the defendant on January 31st that this was a case of picking pockets—I believe the solicitors tried to obtain a settlement for so much in the £for Martin's Bank and ourselves—I do not know if those negociations went on for six weeks—I will not say they did not; it is very likely—they began about February 1st and went on to the middle of March—we were advised to wait till the bankruptcy—I fancy the negociations were on the basis that if 10s. in the £were paid we would not press the firm into bankruptcy—I should have to consult my co-creditors, Messrs. Martin—I do not know that the question of bankruptcy was a condition—no resolution was come to—we should have decided yes or no when we had the proposition—I had several visits from Messrs. Goldberg and Barrett—at first Mr. Goldberg acted and afterwards Mr. Barrett—they came and saw me between February 1st and the middle of March—they said the matter would be taken up by the Public Prosecutor in some way if we took it before the Lord Mayor—that representation was made between the 1st of February and the middle of March—they advised us not to take criminal proceedings, because they said the same result would come from the bankruptcy, and the Public Prosecutor would take up the case—I suppose I was a party to the negociations under which we should get 10s. in the £, and if the matter afterwards went into bankruptcy we were assured that the Public Prosecutor would take up the case, but we did not know of the facts of the case—I do not say that I was assured by the solicitors that if we got half our debt, nevertheless there might be a prosecution—it was very likely said that if 10s. in the £were forthcoming we would guarantee that there would be no bankruptcy; as far as we were concerned we did not take any bankruptcy proceedings—we did not know then the facts we knew later on—we did not know what had occurred—even after the petition was presented on March 12th negociations might still have gone on for the payment of 10s. in the £—it was not stated to me that the understanding was that the petition should be withdrawn if the payment of 10s. in the £was forthcoming; I suppose that would have been the result—the 10s. was not forthcoming; other facts were disclosed—on June 11th the defendant attended for his public examination, I believe—I attended a private
sitting—I suppose July 12th was the date—Mr. Barrett was there on both occasions—I believe December 2nd, 1901, was the date when I swore the Information at the Mansion House, I suppose in conjunction with Martin's Bank representative—we did not set out in the information the negociations which had been proceeding from the 1st February to the middle of March in regard to a settlement of our claims by a payment of 10s. in the £—we had determined that the facts disclosed necessitated other proceedings—the Public Prosecutor took the case up—I do not know whether the order of the Bankruptcy Court was on the 21st December—I believe I was informed of the result of the bankruptcy examination on the 11th June—I did not hear the answers that were given then—I was there when the application was made for his discharge—I may have heard something of what the defendant said on his public examination—I knew about the transaction with Henrot, I think, only a short time before we took criminal proceedings—I do not think I took the trouble to inform myself about his answers, except casually; I may have been told some of them—Mr. Barrett reported generally, I suppose—when I swore the information in December I knew generally, but not all the details—I may have heard the statement as to his drawings, and one or two things may have been told me, but I did not trouble myself very much about it—I swore in the information that on January 28th, 1901, the firm of Frank Mieville & Son had decided to stop payment and had called in an accountant, who appears to have suggested that the firm should carry on another day so as to give the accountant a chance of going through the books; Mr. Barrett told me that—I remember now that one important fact, and perhaps two or three others, but not all the details—it is quite impossible for me to fix the date when he told me that the defendant had said that it was in January, and owing to the failure of Schmolze and Reischmann, and the subsequent failure of Herbert Alexander, that his firm had been practically brought to the ground—I do not think it was long before the Mansion House proceedings—the delay was because I was told that the Public Prosecutor would take the case up immediately—I was not told that on January 31st—they said that was likely to be done, and the application was made, I was told, to the Public Prosecutor, and he said he would take it up after committal—information of that character was not given to me about January 31st, 1901—they dissuaded me from taking criminal proceedings, saying it would be better to wait for the bankruptcy, when the Public Prosecutor would take it up—that is if, in the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court, evidence was elicited which showed some criminal offence had been committed—until that was done there was no order to prosecute—we were guided by our solicitors—if Martin's Bank and my partners had agreed, I should not have opposed the accepting of 10s. in the £—I should have acted in that way, as my solicitors recommended—I am not so sure that there would have been no prosecution—I do not think my partners would have agreed to that—there would have been no bankruptcy if the other persons interested had agreed—we did not know until much later on the facts in the bankruptcy, and I thought it was necessary that we should endeavour, if we could, as a duty, to prevent the insecurity that would arise unless we did take those steps in our dealings on Change—I was present on November 29th when the defendant asked for his discharge—the proceedings only took a few
minutes—I do not think he received then the first intimation that criminal proceedings were contemplated against him—I think he must have known at the private examination—I cannot say if he would have presented himself and applied for his discharge on November 29th if he knew criminal proceedings were pending against him—payment the same day is most unusual in dealings on the Exchange—Mr. Bagster is a person of some experience with regard to such dealings—I do not think that any one can speak with more authority than myself—I do not deny that Mr. Bagster is qualified to speak as far as his experience goes—Messrs. Hambro is a considerable firm—it is extremely unusual in transactions on the Exchange to pay the same day, and I think Mr. Bagster said so; he said the usual practice was to pay the next day—I think we may have ten contracts to his one—I agree with him that it is unusual to pay the same day; I disagree with him that it is not unusual to pay the same day—Mr. Knapp does not come on 'Change, and it does not apply to him—if we dealt with a comparative stranger we should ask for the money the same day but it would not be on 'Change, but at our own office—a merchant might ask his broker, but he would not give bills, but his own cheque—it is a sign of weakness if a man cannot wait till the next day—it is very unusual to ask for the money the same day, except in the case of a very small merchant—half a cent would be 10d. in each £100, about 8s. per.£1,000—the rate of Exchange is worked very closely, the most closely of any Exchange operated on here—at 15 or 20 per cent., which the defendant was paying for interest and the difference in the rate of Exchange, it would work out at £20 in the course of a year—the rate of Exchange fluctuates very slightly; half a cent is considered a large fluctuation—it would not fluctuate here except a telegraphic communication came from Paris, and that arrives after the Exchange is closed, very rarely before—if the bank rate went up or down it would affect the rate; we should know that at 12 or 12-30; in those cases there would be perhaps a fluctuation of half a cent.
Re-examined. I did not know until after the defendant's failure that he had been doing the same kind of thing for some days before at a loss, or we should never have trusted him; I found out afterwards by enquiry in February that he had had repeated transactions, losing money by them—I was angry at my interview with him because he had deceived me; I thought he was incapable of doing such a thing; the money was not of very great importance—he had deceived me by buying a thing for which he could not pay, and did not pay, and had not the likelihood of paying, and it was the first case in 20 years that had occurred—my firm did not take any civil proceedings for the recovery of this money from the defendant—the writ was issued against him at the instance of Martin's Bank—I do not think it was issued in any sense on our behalf or in' our interest—I do not know whether we should have participated in it later on—the writ only claimed the money due to Martin's Bank, but I suppose our claim would have been similar to it—we made no claim, we always thought our claim was not an ordinary debt—at the time I first consulted Messrs. Goldberg and Barrett I had no information as to the defendant's knowledge of his own pecuniary position, except the letter which we Received—I had no previous knowledge of his position—it was by the
questions in the bankruptcy examination alone that I learned what his previous knowledge of the position was—I think we proved in the bankruptcy for our debt, but we put against it that we did not consider it was an ordinary debt—that was my opinion about the transaction—I do not know what form it took exactly—the defendant would schedule us among his creditors—we certainly did not approach the defendant or his advisers with a view to settlement after the proceedings had been begun by Martin's Bank—I think the proposals I have been asked about came from the defendant and his advisers; I cannot be certain about that.
LUKE HANSARD . I am the manager of Martin's Bank, Ltd., 68, Lombard Street—on January 29th, 1901, the defendant on the Exchange purchased of me this Paris cheque (N) for 50,000 francs at the rate of Exchange of 25 francs 13 1/2 c.—this is the contract—the equivalent in English money is £1,989 5s. 2d.—we drew our cheque on Messrs. J. Allard & Co., of Paris—on the next day, January 30th, I drew on Frank Mieville & Son for £1,989 5s. 2d.—this is his acceptance (O)—it is the defendant's writing—our cheque for 50,000 francs has been duly paid by the drawees, our Paris house—the defendant's acceptance when presented on the 30th was dishonoured—we received this letter from the defendant on January 31st. (This was in similar terms to that written to Sir Samuel Montague and Co.)
Cross-examined. I did not have an interview with the defendant—I saw him about 16 days after receiving the letter—I said I was sorry for him—I have no recollection of saying I desired to help him as far as I could—we instructed Messrs. Goldberg, one of the firm of solicitors to the Bank, and a writ was issued—we gave them instructions before I had some interviews with Sir Samuel Montague—probably he sent round and asked us to call on him, a day or two afterwards, within a week I think—the civil proceedings had not been begun then—I think Mr. Pollock, the defendant's solicitor, made some proposals in writing to Mr. Goldberg—probably it was after those proposals were made that we saw Sir Samuel Montague, but it was not on account of the proposals—the writ was issued after that, but not for some time—we proceeded to judgment, and then a bankruptcy notice was issued, and a bankruptcy petition filed on March 12th—between 2nd February and 12th March negociations were proceeding between Messrs. Goldberg and Mr. Pollock—Mr. Goldberg said it was done simply to gain time—we did not attach any real importance to it—we thought we must give him time—there were no serious negociations—he said he would be able to make an offer in writing, but it never came to anything—I do not think I have had submitted to me a correspondence from February 7th to March 21st between Messrs. Goldberg and Mr. Pollock and Messrs. Preen—I did not learn what was being done—I thought they were waiting to see if anything came from Mr. Pollock's offer, which was 10s. in the £ to the best of my recollection—Mr. Pollock has since died—I don't think Messrs. Goldberg went quite so far as to say that if the offer could be secured to their satisfaction they would accept it and there need be no bankruptcy proceedings—I understood they would advise us to accept it—during this time we saw Sir Samuel Montague on the Exchange occasionally and mentioned to him the fact of Mr. Pollock's letter—there
were no serious negociations—we never seriously entertained it—Messrs. Goldberg were acting on behalf of Sir Samuel Montague & Co. as well as ourselves very shortly after the suspension, no doubt, because I think he said something about its saving costs—from that date I understood the negociations were to be conducted on behalf of Sir Samuel Montague and Co. and our bank—they were acting for both from a month or six week, after it happened—I should not think the negotiations were continuing up to March 12th, when the petition was filed—I do not know that the negociations for settlement were continued after the petition was put on the file—I did not attend the defendant's public examination—I left it to our solicitors—Mr. Barrett was acting in the matter for us and Sir Samuel Montague & Co., I think, and he continued to do so down to and on December 2nd, when I and Sir Samuel Montague swore the information—I did not see Sir Samuel Montague upon this matter between June and December—I nearly always saw him on 'Change on Tuesdays and Fridays, very often we had no conversation—Mr. Barrett was solicitor for us and Sir Samuel Montague on December 17th, when the matter was before the Alderman.
Re-examined. As far as I know, Sir Samuel Montague & Co. were no parties to the civil proceedings which we took—the writ was issued on our behalf only—Mr. Goldberg advised us the offer was not serious, and was to gain time and postpone the date of the defendant's bankruptcy, and so we thought.
HORACE BARRETT . I am one of the firm of Goldberg, Barrett, and Newall, solicitors, of West Street, Finsbury Circus—for some years we have acted as solicitors to Martin's Bank—I believe Mr. Goldberg was first consulted about this matter on January 31st or February 1st—I was away at the time—on February 7th we issued this writ on behalf of Martin's Bank, claiming £1,989 due upon the bill which had been accepted by the defendant—judgment was signed on February 23rd—I think appearance was entered, and I believe we made application under Order 14—on February 23rd a bankruptcy notice was issued—prior to the issue of the writ I do not think there were negociations for a settlement of Martin's claim—we were approached by Harvey Preen, an accountant, and he made a proposal, presumably with a view to a settlement—I think Mr. Pollock came to see us first—he made one or two suggestions—the object, I believe, was to gain time—that was the view we took of it—I think Mr. Pollock called two or three times—Mr. Preen submitted a statement of the defendant's affairs, and on March 6th or 7th we told Mr. Pollock that nothing less than 10s. in the £would be entertained—that was communicated to Mr. Preen as well, I think—up to that time we had never had instructions from Sir Samuel Montague that he would accept anything in settlement—I knew we were acting for both parties, but we were suing for Martin's bank, and I take it that up to the beginning of March it was for Martin's bank, because I don't know that we were doing anything for Sir Samuel Montague so far as these negociations were concerned, up to the beginning of March—after we intimated that nothing less than 10s. in the £would be accepted, the matter took no definite shape, but fell through—it was rather what we had anticipated, and we continued our proceedings—I advised the private
examination on July 15th—at an interview we had on February 8th, 9th or 10th, Sir Samuel Montague & Co. desired criminal proceedings to be taken—that was in confirmation of what I had heard before—my partner and I advised it would be better not to take criminal proceedings at that time, as if we made the debtor bankrupt, the whole facts could then be got out—the defendant would be on oath—I had not obtained the whole of the facts till after the public examination—on behalf of the trustee I caused the bankrupt to be examined at a private sitting—the defendant was not only examined at that, but at the public examination—I applied for the private sitting at the end of May or beginning of June, immediately following the public examination—having obtained the evidence at the public and private examinations on 31st July on behalf of the trustee I submitted the whole of the facts to Counsel for an opinion, which we got, I think, a day or two before the long vacation—then the long vacation intervened, and we could not apply to the Court till November, as it was not vacation business—at the end of October we applied to the Registrar for an order to prosecute on behalf of the trustee—he adjourned it, and it stood over two or three weeks for his consideration—ultimately we went before the Registrar, and he considered that this was an unusual prosecution under Section 14, and the suggestion was made that we should start the prosecution, and on committal the order to prosecute should go—from the first, so far as our interviews with Sir Samuel Montague are concerned, he and his firm were anxious to take criminal proceedings—we were consulted with that view—Sir Samuel Montague said that, so far as his own views were concerned, it was only on our advice that it was postponed.
Cross-examined. About the beginning of February Sir Samuel Montague expressed the desire to take criminal proceedings—I do not admit we have had negociations; proposals were made to us by Mr. Harvey Preen and Mr. Pollock at that time—proposals were received and entertained by us principally, if not wholly, on behalf of Martin's Bank, but I believe that certainly from towards the end of February whatever proposals were made were submitted to Sir Samuel Montague & Co. about the first week in March—a proposal was made in writing to pay £100 down, and then something else—the definite proposal was about the end of February or beginning of March—that was submitted to Martin's Bank and to Sir Samuel Montague—before that, other proposals had come forward, which we had rejected—we should probably submit those to Martin's Bank, but I cannot quite say we should to Sir Samuel Montague; we may have done so, but if we considered them too small we should not—(The witness was referred to letters of February 14th and 15th with regard to the proposal, and to subsequent correspondence.)—it is clear from my answer that I did not submit the proposal to Sir Samuel Montague & Co.—we were in communication with Sir Samuel Montague & Co. as from March 6th, and acting on their behalf—in the letter of March 9th the total indebtedness is stated to be £4,700; I do not doubt that that includes Sir Samuel Montague's debt—10s. in the £ on that would amount to £2,350—the petition was filed on March 12th—I daresay negociations proceeded even after the filing of the petition, as is usual when the debtor wants to get the petition dismissed—I have the letters of March 18th and 20th—it
was with a view of compromising the petitioning creditor's debt and getting the petition dismissed—in the course of the correspondence reference is made to the help which is expected to come from Mr. Mieville and his friends, and how the defendant was doing the best he could in the circumstances of the case—I do not know whether, if 10s. in the £ had been forthcoming up to March 21st, we should not have proceeded in bankruptcy; I should have taken my client's instructions, and if my clients had been willing to take 10s. in the £ there would have been an end of the bankruptcy proceedings—you can only withdraw a petition by order of the Court—I should have taken instructions as to applying for it.
CHARLES PETERS . I am a clerk in the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury—Frank Mieville & Co. have an account there—I produce a certified copy showing the account from January 28th to 31st, 1901, inclusive—on evening of 27th there was £377 17s. 2d. to credit; on evening of 28th the balance was £57 7s. 2d.; on evening of 30th, £9 16s.; and on evening of 31st, £3 1s. 3d.
Cross-examined. On 28th there were payments into the account of £4 16s. 1d. and £4,020 2s. 11d., and drawings out—on 29th there were payments in of £4, £4,521 15s. 10d., and £26 4s.—no doubt the £4,521 would include the proceeds of the Hambro and Credit Industriel cheques—there were operations on the account on the 29th which reduced the credit balance to £32 5s. 1d.—on the 30th there were payments in of £11 17s. 9d. and £1 2s. 11d.—the defendant had no overdraft—the £4,521 was paid in to meet two cheques for £2,228 17s. 2d. and £1,592 0s. 10d. on that day.
Re-examined. Among the payments in on the 30th one of the credits was £11 17s. 9d.
JOHN MYERS . I am a clerk to John Annan, Dexter, & Co., Chartered Accountants, of Ironmonger Lane—Mr. John Annan, one of the partners, was trustee in the bankruptcy of Mieville & Son—under his superintendence I have investigated the books and affairs of this firm, including the ledger, which contains an account of the firm with Henrot et Fils, of Paris—it shows that on the morning of January 29th, 1901, Mieville & Son were in debt to Henrot et Fils about £116—Schmorlze & Reischmann are returned by the defendant in the bankruptcy proceedings as debtors to the firm for £1,164 15s. 9d., for bills under the heading doubtful debts—the state of affairs was sworn on April 16th, and the receiving order is dated March 27th—the deficiency account prepared by the defendant is on the file, and purports to account for the deficiency, there being £13,163—he puts down the nett loss on trading from January, 1900, at £1,040, the drawings of Mr. Mieville at £136, and himself at £1,044; that is under expenses incurred since December 31st, 1899, up to the date of filing the statement of affairs—Alexander & Co. have failed; I cannot speak to the date—I should not think their failure increased the liabilities of the defendant firm; they were endorsers of bills to Schmorlze & Reischmann, who had endorsed, in due course, to Mieville & Son—I should not think Alexander's failure increased the liability of Mieville & Son after January 1st.—Alexander & Co. had endorsed bills to Schmorlze & Reischmann, and Schmorlze & Reischmann, in the ordinary course of trade, I suppose, had
endorsed them to Mieville & Son—it is in respect of the same bills that the defendant speaks, when he speaks of Schmorlze & Reischmann having failed, and so caused loss to his firm—I should not think the loss sustained by Mieville & Son in consequence of the failure of Schmorlze & Reischmann accounted for the deficiency of Mieville & Son, for the reason that the deficiency as per statement of affairs is £13,361, and I do not know the exact figure at which Mieville & Son place Schmorlze & Reischmann's liabilities to them, but I am pretty sure it is not more than half that sum—the defendant puts down in his deficiency account the loss on the bills at £6,790, for which they were liable as endorsers, and that is not more than half of the total deficiency.
Cross-examined. The bills were drawn by Alexander, of Leeds, and various parties; they were accepted by various parties on the continent and endorsed by Schmorlze and Reischmann, and then by Frank Mieville and Son—I do not know that of those bills £1,100 had been taken up in January—I do not know that the defendant had taken up in January £1,400 worth of those bills; if you add that to the £6,790 it gives a liability of £8,000—I do not know that at the date of Schmorlze and Reischmann's failure bills to the amount of £16,000 were outstanding, of which Frank Mieville and Son were the endorsers—I have not concerned myself with that part of the case—so far as I know the books have all been quite regularly kept, I do not give a decided answer to that—I represent the trustee; we have investigated—it is a matter of opinion whether it is the trustee's duty, when a charge of fraud is made against a man, to see whether his books have been regularly kept—as far as I went I saw no mistakes in the books—I am a clerk in Mr. Annan's office; he being trustee in this bankruptcy has delegated his duty to me—I cannot tell you when the original firm of Frank Mieville was formed; I had no concern with that—as far as I have seen from the books I believe the original capital was about £6,000—I do not know it as a fact, because my investigations have never taken me over that ground—I do not know that the capital as it stood on the books was £10,000, or how much of that was put in in 1889—I believe the defendant came a clerk to learn the business in 1892, but I have never been told-in so many words—I believe he entered as a partner in March, 1893—I do not know that by that time all the capital had been absorbed—I made no investigation into that—I cannot say off-hand what Frank Mieville's drawings had been for a number of years, but if the ledger is produced to me I will tell you—it may have been about £1,200 a year—the defendant introduced £3,000 into the business in 1892—he had in 1893 £200 a year plus £150, the interest of 5 % on the capital he introduced—I do not know if he afterwards put £3,230 into the business—it would probably appear in the defendant's capital account—I have not had occasion to investigate this—the books have been in my care since about May last year—Mr. Guy Stephenson appeared for the defendant at the Police Court; he did not put these questions to me—the ledger is not indexed, and it is not my fault if I cannot find it; it is the fault of the defendant's cashier—I find that Mr. Payne advanced to the business in December, 1897, £2,500—I believe the defendant's drawing of £600 began subsequent to 1897 and to that advance for which he became responsible—in 1900, when Mr.
Mieville drew £136 and the defendant £1,044, Mr. Mieville was not attending to the business at all—in the bankruptcy Henrot et Fils appeared as debtors to Frank Mieville and Son in a sum of £124, which emerged at £132 on realization—everything has been handed over to me as far as I know—the proceeds of the cheques from Hambro and the Credit Lyonnaise of January 29th, 1901, went to liquidate other liabilities of Mieville and Son incurred in the same way the day before in the firm's business; every penny was paid into the bank, including Simpson's cheque, £11 17s. 9d.—two of the liabilities I speak of as incurred in the same way the day before were £1,592 0s. 10d. to Martin's Bank and £2,228 17s. 2d. to Sir Samuel Montague.
Re-examined. By liabilites incurred in the same way, I mean cheques were purchased from Sir Samuel Montague & Co. and Martin's Bank on the 28th exactly in the same manner as cheques were purchased on the 29th, and those bought on the 29th went to liquidate those of the 28th—the books show that on the 28th he was buying 40,000 francs at 25 for 12 1/2 from Martin's Bank, and selling at 25 for 14, a loss of 1 1/2 cent.—there are two transactions on that day, both showing the same loss, one with Martin's Bank, the other with Sir Samuel Montague & Co—I see on January 21st he bought 40,000 francs from Martins's Bank, and sold at a loss of 1 cent.—on the 25th he bought 38,000 francs from Sir Samnel Montague & Co., and sold at a loss of a half cent.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated on oath that he had put into the firm £6,200, and in 1897 he had voluntarily parted with securities he had to Harold Payne, who put in £2,500; that in 1900 the whole conduct of the business devolved on himself; that when he became involved in difficulties, through the failure of Schmorlze & Reischmann, he did not know the position in which his affairs really stood, as he had not had to do with his books or balance sheets, but that he heard that Alexander & Co., of Leeds, might be floated as a solvent Limited Liability Company, and that he thought if he could keep the business going he would receive help from his friends, and that the firm could be carried on successfully; that it was quite usual on the Exchange to ask for and receive cash the same day; and that he had no knowledge or intention of doing wrong to any one, nor of acting otherwise than in the ordinary course of his trade.
Evidence for the defence.
GEORGE EDMUND HOLLAND . I am a decorator in a large way of business at 9, Mount Street, and Ebury Street—I am the defendant's father-in-law—in January, 1901, he consulted me on the question of means, and there was a family meeting in that month at my house, at which I, the defendant, and my son were present—we discussed the affairs of Frank Mieville & Son—the defendant said he thought he was in serious difficulties because of the gentlemen you have heard about, and I said at once that I would find him £1,000, and my son was prepared to give him, I think, £500—my offer was not limited to £1,000; I would have found another £1,000 if he wanted it—I said if we found that, Mr. Frank Mieville's family ought to find a similar amount, and that would meet the whole question—our offer was open right through until I heard criminal proceedings were going to be taken—I don't think at the family gathering any sum was mentioned as the amount of the
deficiency, because he was not bankrupt then; he only said he might be in difficulties over this failure of Schmorlze & Reischmann—I think he said he had about £4,000 worth of bills outstanding against him, but they would not come back all at once.
Cross-examined. The family gathering was early in January, directly after Schmorlze & Reischmann's failure, when the defendant knew he would have to pay these bills—I did not gather from him that he knew early in January these bills would have to be paid by him; I gathered most likely he would have to find some money to meet these bills—I knew he was in difficulty unless I helped him—he would not have come to me unless he wanted some money—I did not help him because the Mieville family would find nothing—we did not make that a condition then—on January 8th I sent him a first instalment of £100, and he returned it saying it was not big enough, and I wrote and said if he liked he should have £500—then he said Mieville's people would not do anything and he did not see why he should do anything—he declined to have the £500 because the Mievilles would not help—he returned the £100 on January 9th or 10th—I suppose he knew by the middle of January the Mieville people were not going to help—when he was found to be bankrupt I offered to find 5s. in the £, provided Mieville's people would find the other 5s. to pay 10s. to annul the bankruptcy.
Re-examined. My offer was open to him until the firm was bankrupt and I knew of these criminal proceedings—he would have been entitled to rely on it on January 29th—I knew about the date of the petition on March 12th of the deficiency being £13,000—my offer might have helped him if the bills had not come in all at once—he would want £6,500 to pay 10s. in the £—I would have given him £2,000, and I could have got money easily from my brother and other people—I have here the cheque I drew on January 8th.
GEORGE HOLLAND , junior. I am the last witness's son and the defendant's brother-in-law—I am a partner in the firm of Cubitt's, the builders, of Gray's Inn Road—in January I saw the defendant frequently—during that month I was willing to help him to the extent of about £800 or £900—no sum was mentioned, I think—that offer was open through January and up to January 29th.
Cross-examined. I had no idea till I heard it in the bankruptcy that the liabilities of Mieville & Son amounted to £13,000—I would have gone to £1,000—it was quite understood in these negociations that we were to help on condition that Mieville's friends helped him.
Re-examined. My condition was exactly the same as my father's, that there should be some help from the other side.
FRANK JOB CHAMBERS . I am an architect at 11A College Hill, Cannon Street, and am the defendant's brother-in-law—I married his wife's sister—in January, 1901, I was in a position to help him financially, and he came to me in common with other members of his family—I was willing to give assistance, and my offer remained open up to the end of January, 1901.
Cross-examined. I did not know he had been carrying on business for more than twelve years at a loss; I knew he was in difficulties—I was resent at the same meeting.
The prisoner received a good character.
MR. THOMAS and MR. HERBERT Prosecuted, and MR. OLIVER and MR. LOCKWOOD Defended.
The Jury stopped the case, for want of evidence that the prisoner had made himself responsible.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Friday, February 14th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. JENKINS Prosecuted.
ERNEST GEORGE SMITH . I live at 86, Hewitt Road, Haringay—on January 19th, at 3 o'clock, I left my house thoroughly secure—I returned about 7.30, and found the front door forced open—I missed a silver watch and chain, a gold chain without a watch, a watch stand, a silver mug, and three silver labels of a spirit stand, value £10 10s. 6d., and an umbrella from the hall stand—I informed the police within half an hour.
FREDERICK WATTS (489,Y.) On January 19th, about 11.15, I went with other officers and arrested the prisoner in Tarragona Road, in the street—I took him to the station, and found on him five pawn tickets which do not relate to this case—he was charged, but said nothing about I this case.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. It was 9.30 when I saw you first—I followed you to a public house about 9.40, and never lost sight of you—I remained outside, and you went up Caledonian Road, and tried another door—I arrested you about 11.15, when you were showing a man a chain, in Caledonian Road.
By the COURT. I asked him what chain he was showing the man—he said "You have made a mistake, Governor, I have got no chain."
Cross-examined. I had you in custody for five or six yards before you dropped the umbrella.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I am innocent; I bought the umbrella, three pawn tickets, and a silk handkerchief, for 26s., of a man I had seen before." He handed in a written statement to the same effect.
GUILTY .—He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at North London Sessions on July 19th, 1898, in the name of George Edwards. Several other convictions were proved against him, and there was a further, indictment for housebreaking. Five years penal servitude.
The Jury commended the police.
MR. BIGGS Prosecuted and MR. TURRELL Defended Mabon.
THEODORE BERNARD ANDRE . I am manager to Edward de Poorter and Company, Limited, of Great Tower Street, cycle agents and importers of the Belgian motor which is known as the Derby motor, for which we are sole agents, about 30 of which have been sent over for sale—I exhibited one of them attached to a bicycle, at the Agricultural Hall in November last—I saw it there on December 2nd early in the day and missed it later—this is the motor (Produced), but I cannot identify the bicycle—I communicated with the police—I saw this advertisement (Produced) in a cycling paper dated January 4th, but it appeared on the Wednesday before. (This offered a bicycle for sale at 19, Clerkenwell Road.)—I called at the address given and went into the shop, but I could not see Mabon—I went later with a policeman and asked to see the bicycle; Mabon said that I could not see it, as it was sold, and afterwards that it was not finished—I went again with a police officer, went downstairs, and saw the motor attached to a different bicycle, and the accumulator was missing from the tank, but that is always missing—the officer spoke and Mabon said that he bought it—my firm sells a motor of that kind for £28 without the bicycle, but ours was not complete—it was worth £26 as it stood in the show.
Cross-examined. The Company is registered at Somerset House—I do not think the books are here to show how many motors we have sold—I went there thinking the stolen motor might be there—I was told by a man in the shop that I could not see it, because his employer was out—the advertisement gave the name of Mabon, and the shop was in his name—I went there and represented myself as an intending purchaser—a Mr. Bale had contracted to pay £25 for it, but I do not know whether he had paid it—it was not complete for riding—it had the tyres on—I had a constable outside—I do not know what Mabon said, but I went up to it and said, "This is our's," and I think he said, "That is right, that is the motor"—he said, "I bought it off a man named Davis, and I have his receipt upstairs"—the amount on the receipt is £8—the constable said, "The best thing we can do is to go and find Davis"—I think Davis' address is on the receipt, but Mabon went there with us—Davis said that he sold it for £8, having bought it for £7—at the time it was stolen it was attached to a Mohawk bicycle at the Stanley Show—all I found was the motor without the accumalator, which is worth about 23s.—the Dion motor is the finest of its kind—the price depends on the horse power—this is a Belgian motor made in Louvain—the material to make it would not come to £4 or £5—I cannot tell what the labour would come to—the value of the motor attached to a bicycle is £35, but it was never intended for sale—the price to sell would be £12—it was only put to a Mohawk to show it—I have sold them for £28 plus the accumulator—I sold one to Mr. Ice, of Paris, for £28 10s. direct—there is a discount to the trade—the highest price I have sold to the trade is £24-, but I cannot give you the name now—the trade price is £28, less 15 or 20 per cent.—the prices of motors advertised vary infinitely—I signed the charge sheet.
Re-examined. I cannot say what it costs to make this article in Belgium—I do not know where the Percy motor has gone.
By the COURT. "When I saw the motor at the shop I could see that it had never been used—I do not think it possible to get a motor of equal power to this for £8.
EDWARD DE POORTER . I am managing director of Edward de Poorter & Co.—the prisoner was in my employ—one of my motors was exhibited at the Stanley Show with a high tension wire attached, which is here—it could be fitted to the motor now, but it would not make the bicycle go, it wants another part—it would be insulated by putting a covering on the wire—this plug (Produced) was on it at the show—after the arrest I saw the motor at Mabon's place and the high tension wire at Davis' place—part of the motor was missing, as it was at the show, and the handles of the cycle are not fitted.
Cross-examined, This was part of the motor, not of the bicycle—there was no saddle on the bicycle when it was found, or front brake—there was an exhaust bar and cylinder, but it was badly finished—it could be put right—the driving chains are not adjusted—it was advertised as a complete motor bicycle—I should show it to you in that condition—I could not get on it and make it run, but there was no harm in showing it, we generally do so—when it was at the Stanley Show I had a racing bicycle lent me by the Mohawk Company, which I fitted to my motor—the bicycle was not complete; it had a front brake, but no mud guard—the price of motors varies to a great extent.
WALTER HENBEST (Police Sergeant N). On December 5th I received instructions from Mr. de Poorter and issued this list of property known to be stolen. (This described the motor and bicycle among other articles.)—that gives the number which is stamped on the motor—there was no response to that—on January 2nd, 1901, I went with Mr. Andre to Mabon's shop, 19, Clerkenwell Road—Mr. Andre went in first and returned, and afterwards I went in with him and saw Mabon—I said that I was a police officer and wanted to see the Derby motor which he had down stairs, as one had been stolen from the Agricultural Hall in December and I believed it to be the machine—he walked to the back of the shop and down stairs, and we followed into the workshop below—he seemed surprised to see us—he turned very pale and agitated—he went to the motor and said, "That is it"—Mr. Andre identified it and pointed out the number on the list, and said there was no doubt about it—he said, "No, that is quite right; I bought it of a man named Davis, of Aldgate, and gave £8 for it"—I asked for the receipt—he went up to the shop and produced it—this is it ("3/12/01. Received of Mr. Mabon £8, for one Derby motor and accessories. T. W. Davis.")—I asked him if he knew where we could find Davis—he said that he knew where his place" was—I said, "You had better come with me and find it," which he did—we went to 5, Great Alie Street, Whitechapel—I said to Davis, "I am a police officer; this man says you sold him a motor on December 3rd for £8"—he said, "Yes, I did"—I said, "It was a stolen motor, and I shall arrest you for stealing and receiving it"—he said, "I did not steal it, I bought it from a traveller for £7 and got a receipt for it"—I asked when he bought it—he said two or three days before he sold it to Mabon—I
said, "It was only stolen on the 2nd and sold to Mabon on the 3rd"—I asked him who the traveller was—he said he did not know, but he called on him casually—I asked him to produce the receipt—this is it ("164, Albury Road, December 2nd. Received of Mr. Davis £7, for one motor engine. Paid, T. Andrews, December 30th, by cash ")—he said, "The man brought it to the shop in his brougham; I don't know his name, but you will find it on the receipt"—I said, "When did you pay him for it?"—he said, "At the time he brought it; I paid him here in the shop"—on the way to the station Davis said in Mabon's presence, "I should not have bought it only I took a fancy to it"—I said, "Your fancy did not last long, as you sold it the next day"—he made no reply.
Cross-examined. It is an ordinary cycle—as far as I know, Mabon is a perfectly respectable man—there is no other charge against him—I searched his premises, and what I took away the Magistrate ordered me to return to him—Mabon's name actually appears on the bicycle in two places—I think you will find that it was sold before it was advertised—I asked for the one that had been advertised, and he went down into the cellar and put his hand on it—what he told me I found to be completely accurate.
By the Court. Davis's is a regular bicycle shop, selling them and letting them out on hire—a large number were found.
FREDERICK VALE . I am an engineer, of 53, College Street, Islington—a fortnight or three weeks before Christmas I saw an advertisement in the "English Mechanic" of a motor bicycle for sale, in consequence of which I called on Mabon but it did not suit me—he showed me another which was not complete, alterations would cost £1, and I suggested £26 for it when complete—I asked if it was a reliable one—he said that it was a Minerva one made for the Motor Company, and said that it had been at the show—I thought that referred to the Stanley Show—it was never in my possession.
Cross-examined. I have done business with Mabon, and know him as a respectable tradesman—I saw three motors there on the first occasion—he fetched this one out of the front window; people walking by could see it—I saw him again two days before Christmas—I also saw a green one—he did not tell me that he made one to show at the Stanley Show, but that the motor had come from the Stanley Show—I cold Mr. Stroud (Solicitor) at the Police Court that Mabon said that the motor came from the Stanley Show, but that I could not give the exact words—I told him that it was to that effect—he wished me to modify what I bad said, but I said I could not or I might get into trouble—I told the police that I must stick to it.
By the Court. I told Mr. Stroud that I was not sure word for word, but that I should stick to what I had told the police, for fear of getting into trouble—it would not do for me to make one statement at the Police Court and another at the trial.
WILLIAM DAVY (370, H.) On December 12th, I served this notice on Davis—he was not there—I left it with somebody in charge of the shop (This was a notice to pawnbrokers that certain articles had been stolen.)—the other notice was served on him a week later—I cannot say whether he was present.
GEORGE FROST (Police Sergeant 189.) On December 19th I served a copy of this notice (The same) at 19, Clerkenwell Road, Mabon's place of business—I did not see him, I left it on the counter and a workman said "All right"—notices are served there every week, but not by me—cycle makers would know of the notices coming in from time to time.
HAROLD VICTOR GRAY . I am a clerk at 37, Walbrook—on December 17th I left my bicycle in that basement at 12 o'clock—at 12.15 I missed it and informed the police—I next saw it at the police station—this is it.
Cross-examined by Davis. I recognise the machine by a dent on the front wheel, a dent on the top cross bar of the frame, and a dent on the back wheel—the handle bars have been changed, and the back tyre patched—I bought it from a friend, who is now in South Africa, in 1900—I had it more than a year—I valued it at £6 10s., and more than seven days after I lost it when I saw it in the hands of the police, I valued it at £2 10s., because it was in good condition when I had it, but it has now been damaged—the front tyre is half rotten—both tyres have perished all round—I have no receipt for it—I am not connected with the police.
DAVID DAINSLEY . I am an insurance superintendent at 44, Heathfield Gardens, Chiswick—on October 26th I left my machine outside 365a, King Street, Hammersmith, about 11 a.m.—it had a lamp—I next saw it at Upper Street, Islington, on January 7th—I see the wheel, frame, and lamp here—I knocked the lamp and the wheel going in at the garden gate one evening—I recognize the frame by a dent in the back stay—I go also by the maker—the wheel is rather deeper than usual—it is like mine—I am certain it is my machine.
Cross-examined by DAVIS. I have been a rider of a machine about ten years—I ride a high gear—there was a very large chain wheel—I had the machine in my possession about two months—the gear was 76 to 80—the maker's name was Harman—it is in a very much worse state than when I lost it.
WALTER HENBEST . Re-examined. I searched Davis's premises and found Gray's machine in his workshop, 5, Great Alie Street, Whitechapel, also a frame and a portion of Dainsley's machine in a shed at St. Thomas' Yard, Ben Johnson's Road, Stepney—I found 40 to 50 bicycles in parts, at all the places.
Mabon, in his defence on oath, said that he was asked to buy the machine, but refused, and it was left with him to sell. Davis, in his defence, said that he received the machine not knowing it was stolen. They received good characters.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. BRANDON Prosecuted.
JOHN ELMS . I reside at 14, Wellington Street, N.W.—about 12.45 a.m. on January 8th I saw the prisoner in Charington Street, Oakley Square, with another man—they had spoken to me in the British Queen, Morland Road—in Charington Street they forced their company on me, and while talking I received a terrible blow behind my ear, and they kicked me on
my ankle—they rifled my pockets and took my watch, chain, knife, and about 30s., some of it was coppers—the same morning I went to the police station—I saw the prisoner in custody and charged him with having stolen my property and assaulted me—it is not true that I hit him on the mouth and that he hit me back.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You followed me after getting down from the tram, and I think I said, "Have a drink?"—I stopped at the College Arms and you followed me in—I never said, "You cannot fight, I will fetch a man to fight you"—I did not attack you—I had no companion—perhaps your satellite had my money other than the 13s. 9d. found on you—my watch and chain were worth about 11 guineas—I had no time to see who kicked my ankle, it was all so sudden.
BENJAMIN DUFF (Y, 715.) I was on duty about 12.30 on January 8th in Charington Street, near Great College Street—I heard the cry of "Stop thief" and saw the prisoner running away—I stopped him—he was followed by several people—I took him into custody—the prosecutor said in his hearing that he had stolen his watch, chain, and some money—the prisoner said on the way to the station "He hit me on the mouth and I hit him back and then ran away"—I took him to the station—he made no reply to the charge—there was no mark on his mouth of any blow—I saw Bradshaw and Brackway in the crowd.
Cross-examined. When I stopped you, you fell down—I did not hear you say you bad been hit by a man with the prosecutor, but by the prosecutor.
EDWARD PROCTOR . I am a billiard marker, of 46, Camden Street, N.W.—I saw the prosecutor and the prisoner and another man in Charington Street—the prosecutor appeared to be in drink—I stopped three or four minutes—all at once I heard a thud and saw that the prosecutor had fallen on the back of his head—the prisoner was apparently helping to pick him up—he said, "They are robbing me, they have got my watch and money"—another witness said, "Look, the thief has got his hand in his pocket"—the prisoner then ran away—I followed and called "Stop thief"—I did not lose sight of him.
EDWARD BRADSHAW . I am a hackney carriage driver, badge No. 16184—I was outside the "Prince Alfred" public house and saw the prosecutor, followed by the prisoner and another man—I saw the prisoner strike the prosecutor behind the ear with his right hand and kick him on his right ankle—the prosecutor fell on his knees, and when he was down the prisoner had his hand in his right hand trousers pocket—I walked towards them—the prisoner ran away—the prosecutor said, "Stop that man, he has got my money"—I ran after him—I never lost sight of him till he was arrested.
Cross-examined. You never asked me any question at the Police Court—when Mr. Bros, the Magistrate, asked if you had any questions, you said "No."
ALBERT BRACKWAY . I reside at 83, College Place, N.W.—I was outside the "Prince Albert" public house, and saw the prisoner strike the prosecutor behind his ear, and kick his right ankle from under him, and I saw his right hand in the prosecutor's right hand trousers pocket—the
prisoner ran away—I followed and saw him arrested—I only lost sight of him for a second, when he turned a corner—I had previously that night seen him with the man not in custody.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Hampstead on August 1st, 1900, in the name of Thomas Davies. Two other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour and 15 strokes with the cat.
FOURTH COURT.—Friday, February 14th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. HAZELL Prosecuted.
FRANK CHARLES DEANE . I live at 59, St. Peter's Road, Hackney—on January 11th, between 1 and 2 a.m., I was in Old Street, St. Luke's, and the two prisoners asked me if I knew where I was going—I replied yes, and did not wish for their interference—Sullivan then aimed a blow at me, which I partly warded off—it caught me slightly on the eye—then the other prisoner struck me a blow on the side of my head, which felled me to the ground, my head striking the ground with great force—I regained my feet and grappled with the pair of them, and they again knocked me to the ground and knelt on me—they were in the act of robbing me when two policemen came up—I was ill in bed for a week from the effect of the injuries I received—I was slightly under the influence of drink, but knew what I was doing.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. You were both on top of me when you were arrested—you accosted me where it was dark, but I endeavoured to get under the light so that I should have a better opportunity of recognising you again in case I got seriously injured.
By the COURT. Sullivan struck the first blow.
ALFRED ROSS (61 G.) I was on duty in plain clothes, and saw the two prisoners stop the prosecutor—Sullivan struck him in the face—he fell into the roadway, and they fell upon him and commenced rifling his pockets, opening his overcoat and jacket—I seized Sullivan and Staton seized Rogers—we said we were police officers and should take them into custody for assaulting and robbing the prosecutor—at the station the prosecutor said he would rather take them into the back yard and give them a good hiding than charge them.
ARTHUR STATON (417 G). I was with Ross, and saw Sullivan strike the prosecutor, knocking him down—both prisoners then knelt on him, and Sullivan put his left hand in the prosecutor's right side overcoat pocket, and Rogers put his right hand in the other side pocket, and they both commenced to tear his coat open, when we caught hold of them—the prosecutor said at the station that he would rather take them into the back yard than charge them.
Sullivan, in his defence, said that he was never on the ground with the prosecutor and that the prosecutor interfered with him and Rogers first, and that he had always earned an honest living and did not attempt to rob the prosecutor.
Rogers, in his defence, said that the prosecutor invited them to come and have a drink, and they refused, that he then introduced himself as a professional boxer and struck him (Rogers), that he (Rogers) was not on the ground with the prosecutor and did not attempt to rob him, and that he had always worked hard for his living.
GUILTY .—SULLIVAN, Nine months' hard labour —ROGERS, Six months' hard labour.
FINKELSTEIN PLEADED GUILTY to this and to a like Indictment.
MR. HENDERSON Prosecuted, and MR. BURNIE Defended Paul.
JOHN WOLSEY . I am warehouseman to Roderick Mitchell, of 16, Watling Street—about 12 o'clock on January 25th Finkelstein came into the warehouse with a pattern of black taffeta—he could not give me any satisfactory answer as to whom he represented, and I refused to do business with him, and he went away—he came again in a few minutes and again I refused to do business with him, and then I missed this piece of silk (Produced), value £8, from the counter—I sent a porter after him, and he and Paul came back in charge of a constable.
WILLIAM FULLER (628 City.) At 12.30 on January 25th I was on duty in Cheapside, and from information received I followed the two prisoners into Milk Street and stopped them—I told them they would have to accompany me to Roderick Mitchell's, 16, Watling Street—I asked Paul if he knew Finkelstein, he said "No"—I asked Finkelstein if he knew Paul, he said "No"—when we arrived at Mitchell's I told Paul to turn out what he had in the bag he was carrying—it contained two pieces of silk, one of which they recognised as their property—they were then charged—in answer to the charge they both said "Yes."
Cross-examined. I spoke to Finkelstein first—Paul was four or five yards from him—I asked Paul what he had under his arm, he said he was carrying it for a man he did not know.
WILLIAM SARGANT (Detective Sergeant, City.) After the prisoners had been charged on January 25th, I went to Paul's address, 314, Oxford Street, Stepney, where, behind some things in a drawer in the front room, first floor, I found this piece of silk (Produced), which has not been identified—I showed it to Paul on Monday, the 27th, before he was taken to the Police Court, and he said that Finkelstein had given it to him on the Saturday morning—Finkelstein said in broken English, "Yes, that is quite right; I brought it from abroad"—On Finkelstein being searched, this tab (Produced) was found; it corresponds with the silk stolen.
DAVID JOHNSON . I am manager of the silk department of Robert Burt and Company, St. Paul's Churchyard—this piece of silk, value £4 16s. 3d., is their property—I identify it by the cover and number on it and by this ticket.
Cross-examined. I never saw Paul until he was in custody—I had seen Finkelstein twice before on January 18th.
Paul, in his defence on oath, stated that he met Finklestein on Saturday morning, January 25th, who asked him if he knew of a lodging; that he said he did not, and then Finkelstein asked if he would take care of the parcel of silk while he looked for a lodging, and he took the parcel home; that he then walked with Finklestein, who went into several shops while he waited outside and brought the silk to him which he said he had bought to take back to Germany, as it was much cheaper in England, and that he did not know there was anything wrong about it; that he had been seven years in England, and had worked as a cigar and cigarette maker at Messrs. Salmon and Gluckstein's and other firms during the whole of that time.
GUILTY . PAUL received a good character. Six months' hard labour. —FINKELSTEIN Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. HURRELL Prosecuted.
ALLAN THOMAS . At 11.30 p.m. on January 25th I was in Portsdown Road—I had a small bag containing provisions, which I was taking home—it had no lid—I noticed two men on the opposite corner of the road—one of them got in front of me and said "Where are you going?"—before I had time to answer he snatched my watch and chain, and the second man came up and knocked me down—I got up and overtook Richards and said to him—"You have got my watch and chain, you must give it to me"—he said he had not got it, and told me to search him—I did so, but found nothing on him belonging to me—two or three gentlemen came up—one of them found a policeman, and I gave Richards in charge and described Ryan, who was afterwards found—on returning to my house I turned out the bag and found the watch in it—I reported it at the Police Station the next day—I am positive Richards is the man who snatched my watch—I picked Ryan out at the Police Station from nine or ten others.
Cross-examined by Richards. You voluntarily offered to let me search you.
Cross-examined by Ryan. You knocked me down, but I was not hurt—I did not say at the Police Station that I believed, you were the man that knocked me down, I said I was sure you were the man—when I was asked if I would charge you, I did not say that I should like to have a private interview with the detective first—I say most decidedly I did not show you my chain—I was quite sober.
EDWARD BARRETT (Detective Sergeant, F.) On January 27th, at—8.45, I saw Ryan at the corner of Bell Street, Edgware Road—I said "I shall arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with another man in stealing a watch and chain on the night of January 25th"—he replied, "Old Bosley, the Mendicity Officer, ought to have bold of me, everybody knows that I do more cadging than thieving"—on the way to the
station he said "You will give me a fair chance for identification with men of my own class?"—I said "Yes '—at the station he was placed amongst eight others and the prosecutor identified him—after the charge was read over to him he said "You will hear such a prize packet in the morning; who is sitting, Mr. Bennett or Mr. Plowden? tomorrow is Wednesday: oh, Mr. Plowden"—I know both prisoners, and have seen them together many times.
Cross-examined by Ryan. At the station the prosecutor walked straight up to you and said "That is the man, I am positive"—the prosecutor asked to speak to me privately, but I said no, what he had to say he must say in your presence.
ALLAN LEWIS (146 F.)—On the night of January 25th I was called to arrest Richards—I said I should have to take him into custody for stealing the prosecutor's watch and chain, and he said "All right"—nothing was found on him—he gave a correct address.
Cross-examined by Ryan. I did not say to the prosecutor, pointing to you, "Is he one of them?"
Witness for Ryan's defence.
Cross-examined by MR. HURRELL. I was called as a witness by Ryan, but I do not know why—Ryan did not say he knew Richards, but I thought he did—I happened to be passing when this occurred.
Richards, in his defence, said that the prosecutor said he was quite satisfied, after he had searched him, and that he did not think his allowing the prosecutor to search him was the act of a guilty man. Ryan, in his defence, said that he tried to assist the prosecutor to recover his watch, and that was the reason why he identified him at the station and he solemnly declared he was innocent.
GUILTY . They then
PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions, Richards at Marylebone Police Court on March 12th, 1895, and Ryan at this Court on July 10th, 1896. Other convictions were proved against them. RICHARDS Twelve months' hard labour. —RYAN Five years' penal servitude.
NEW COURT.—Saturday, February 15th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted, and LORD COLERIDGE, K.C., and MR. ELLIOTT Defended.
GUILTY .— Two years' hard labour.
THIRD COURT.—Saturday, February 15th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. KEITH FRITH Prosecuted, and MR. FOWKE Defended. During the progress of the case the Jury said they were satisfied that the prisoner, who was admitted to be of good character, was
NOT GUILTY .
MR. BURNIE Prosecuted.
GUILTY on the Second Count. Three months' hard labour.
MR. ATTENBOROUGH Prosecuted.
ROBERT GEORGE . I am a pawnbroker of 652, Commercial Road—in November I advertised in the Pawnbrokers' Gazette for an assistant—I received this answer of November 11th from Arthur Gay, 24, Warner Street, Roman Road, Barnsbury, offering his services, and describing himself as aged 16, slightly deformed in the back, but with no injury to health, with slight experience in the trade, and a good reference—I replied asking him to call—the prisoner Gay called—I asked him to write his name and address and where he had been—he wrote "Mr. Dooley, 84, Ball's Pond Road," and "Mr. Sheppard, 25, Pulteney Street, Barnsbury, furniture dealer"—he said he had lived there 11 months, and that he wanted £10 wages and was 16—he said that Dooley was dead, but I wrote to Sheppard and received the reply (Produced) that Arthur Gay had been in his employment between 11 and 12 months, and that he was honest, industrious and obliging—I received a similar reference from Dooley's and saying that his affliction would not interfere with his work in any way—I wrote to Sheppard to know when he left, and received this reply, that he left on October 19th—I agreed to take him—he did not come—I received this letter asking what Dooley's had said, as the manager left at the same time as he did, and that if I kept his references that would keep him out of a situation, as Sheppard would not give him another—I kept Sheppard's letter.
JOHN ADDISON RUSSELL . I am a pawnbroker, of 37, Fore Street—on November 23rd I advertised in the Pawnbrokers' Gazette for an assistant for my business—I received a reply from Gay, which I have not kept—Gay called the next day—I asked him where he had been employed, and if he had been before in a pawnbroker's service—he said he had been with Mr. Dooley, who was dead, and his foreman had gone—I asked for a reference from his last situation—he said he had been with Mr. Sheppard, to whom I wrote, and received this answer of November 28th, 1900, from 25, Pulteney Street, stating that he had been with him 12 months, and that he was industrious and obliging—I had a similar reference from Mr. Dooley, a pawnbroker of Ball's Pond Road—I did not engage him.
CHARLES MATHEWS . I am a pawnbroker, of 133, Bridport Place, Hoxton—on October 22nd I advertised in the Daily Chronicle for an assistant—I received this reply from Arthur Gay, of 24, Warner Street, Roman Road, Barnsbury, describing the applicant as aged 16, slightly deformed in the back, but obliging—I wrote to Gay to call upon me—when he came I asked him what experience he had had in pawnbroking—he told me that he had 12 months' experience, and that he had left
Mr. Dooley in Balls Pond Road—I asked him several times what further experience he had had—he referred me to Mr. Sheppard, of Copenhagen Street, Clerkenwell, where he had been 10 or 12 months—I got this answer from 25, Pulteney Street, Barnsbury, of October 25th, 1900, signed E. Sheppard, stating that Gay had been 10 or 12 months with him, and that he found him prompt, industrious and obliging—I did not engage him, because I heard of his previous character.
FRANK ROW . I am manager to Messrs. Pullen, pawnbrokers, of 78, Rochester Row, and other places—on their behalf I advertised for an assistant in November—I received this reply, signed by Walters, of 24, "Warner Street, Roman Road, Barnsbury, with a reference describing him as slightly deformed in the back, but faithful, and stating that he had been working at a second-hand clothier's for 10 months—I wrote to that address, and Gay called upon me—he said his name was Walters, and he had been working at Sheppard's furniture shop, 25, Pulteney Street, Barnsbury—I wrote there and received this answer of December 3rd, 1900, signed E. Sheppard, and stating that George Walters had been in his employ for the last 12 months, that he was honest, industrious and obliging, and that he left owing to the sale of the business three weeks ago—I engaged him and reported to Mr. Pullen what I had done—I only knew him as Walters.
Cross-examined by Gay. I had no fault to find with you—you were with me four days.
CHARLES ISAAC PULLEN . I carry on business with my brother at 615, King's Road, Fulham, and other places—my manager having reported to me that he had engaged the boy Walters, I went to 25, Pulteney Street, Barnsbury, where Sheppard's letter purported to be written from—the prisoner Sheppard came to the door—I said, "I am sorry to trouble you to come down, I want to ask one or two questions with reference to a lad my manager has engaged, I want to know whether he is strong enough to do his duties, and whether he is honest and true"—I produced the letter my manager had received from Sheppard and said, "This is your handwriting, I suppose?"—he said, "Yes, it is"—I asked him if the lad was strictly honest, strong, and willing—he said, "Yes, you will find he is an honest and obliging lad"—I dismissed Gay the same evening on account of information I had received before I went to Sheppard.
THOMAS KINSELLY . I live at 11, Rafton Street, Canning Town—I manage Mrs. Dooley's business at 84, Ball's Pond Road—Mr. Dooley died about eight years ago—Gay was employed there about eight months ago—I never gave him a character—if any person applied, the application would come to myself.
Cross-examined by Gay. My man Parker engaged you.
Cross-examined by Sheppard. There was a manager named Hartson at Messrs. Dooley's.
ROBERT MILLS . I am a pawnbroker, of 272, Devizes Road, Bow—in January, 1900, I employed Gay as an assistant—I asked him questions—I engaged him without a reference—he left me on February 17th, not giving me any notice—afterwards I missed 31 pledges—I prosecuted him for stealing those things—he was convicted on March 19th, 1900, at the North London Sessions, and sent to six months' hard labour.
Cross-examined by Sheppard. Gay asked me to look it over and give him a reference—he said that he meant to lead a better life.
Re-examined. I took no notice of his letter asking for a reference.
HENRY HANCOCK (Police Sergeant, L.) I arrested Gay on September 7th, 1900, for stealing a quantity of property from Mr. Jackson, a pawn-broker, at 45, Copenhagen Street, Caledonian Road—Sheppard was also in the house—Sheppard said he was engaged by his brother-in-law, and objected to let him go—I told him I was going to arrest him for robbing his employer, and that he had better not interfere, or he would find himself in worse trouble—Gay was convicted and sentenced to 21 days' hard labour at Southwark Police Court—I produce that certificate, and another of his conviction on March 19th, 1901, for stealing from Mr. Mills, his employer, when he was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
THOMAS PEARL (Detective, Y.) On January 3rd I arrested the prisoners—they were taken to the station—they made no reply to the charge—I have known Sheppard about four years—part of the time he was carrying on business at 45, Copenhagen Street, Islington, as a second-hand furniture shop—the name on the facia was "Gay & Sheppard," or"Sheppard & Gay."
Cross-examined by Sheppard. You told me you had seen the warrant officer, and he said he would let you know when to come to the Court again.
Re-examined. The prisoners were summoned, and did not appear, and in consequence, warrants were issued—I was present when Gay was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Sheppard, in his defence, said that all he did was with a desire to assist Gay, whom he had employed, by giving him a reference, which was correct,—as he had always found him honest, that he was no relation, and that the name Gay over the shop was Frank Gay, another person.
Evidence for Sheppard.
Cross-examined. I have known him nearly two years, on and off, as working for my husband—I did not know he had been in prison till this case came on—he was away for a time—when he came back he said he had been at work in an oil shop—I lived at Barnsbury, but at the time of Gay's arrest, we lived at Copenhagen Street.
Gay produced a written defence, stating that he had obtained no situation by means of a false character, that he had been employed by Sheppard, and desired to live a better life.
GUILTY . SHEPPARD Four months' imprisonment.
GAY Judgment respited.
OLD COURT.—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday,
February 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 22nd, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
197. THOMAS PETERSON GOUDIE (29), PLEADED GUILTY to 20 indictments for forging and uttering cheques for the payment of £1,400, £3,000, £2,400, £3,000, £3,000, £5,000,£5,000,£9,000, £9,000, £5,000, £5,000, £9,000, £7,000, £9,000, £5,000, £9,000, £9,000, £7,000, £30,000, £31,000, also to conspiracy with Richard Burge, Lawrence Abraham Marks, James Mances, Thomas Francis Kelly, William Haines Stiles, and other persons, to obtain £5,000 and other sums from the Bank of Liverpool, Limited. (See next case).
GOUDIE PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. C. F. GILL, K.C., MR. C. W. MATHEWS, and MR. G. CAMPBELL prosecuted—MR. SMITH and MR. HEMMERDE appeared for Goudie, MR. HORACE AVORY, K.C., and MR. BIRON for Burge, MR. RUFUS ISAACS and MR. LAMBERT for Kelly, MR. MARSHALL HALL and MR. MOYSES for Stiles.
NORRIS WOOLGAR . I live at 3, St. Stephen's Court, Bayswater—I was employed in Lawrence A. Marks' office at 3, Adelphi Terrace—it was one room—during the time he occupied the office he lived at the Adelphi Hotel—I went into his service at the beginning of October, it may have been September—a separate business was carried on—I was clerk in the betting business—the ordinary books of a betting business were kept, a debit and credit book, a day book, and a betting book—during the earlier part of my time there I entered the transactions as they occurred from day to day—they varied a great deal—the average sum put on a horse was £1—there were smaller bets of 2s. 6d., 5s., 10s., and so on—that went on till last October—Burge first came about the beginning of October, it may have been earlier—I had been there about six weeks—it may have been the beginning of September—a man named Mances began to come about the same time—Marks told me they were authorized to open telegrams that came to the office—they came regularly about one o'clock each day, just before racing commenced—I gave them the telegrams, which they opened—some were returned to the entering clerk, some were retained—I kept the accounts which were opened between Marks and his customers—I never entered any bets in the name of Scott—these are the books (Produced)—Scott's name is not to be found in them—there was also this file for telegrams—there is no telegram purporting to come from a customer named Scott—I wrote at Marks' dictation this telegram, "To Scott, Bureau, 15, North John Street, Liverpool, Commissions executed, Marks"—that was the only one I wrote to Scott—I last saw Mances at the office on Friday, November 22nd—I knew Mances was living at the Charing Cross Hotel, and Marks at the Adelphi Hotel—Marks' telegraphic address was "Gargled, London"—The original of this photograph is the man I knew as Mances—Marks was at business on November 2nd to 5th—I did not know of these telegrams: "369, Strand, B.O., 2/11/01. To Scott, Bureau, 15, North, John Street, Liverpool. I am doing no business to-day, I will arrange for next week, so you are not on, Marks;" "West Strand, B.O., 5/11/01. To Scott, Bureau, &c," "Cheque received with thanks, have received no wires from you this week, neglect of clerk to post letter, Marks;" and "369, Strand, 5/11/01. To Scott," &c, "Clerk's neglect, having mislaid wires, so you have no bet, we are the losers, if horses had won should have had to pay, Marks"—I never heard of any clerk's neglect, there was none that I was aware of—I was
not, I think, given any letters to post for Scott—I knew nothing of this telegram in the name of Scott to put £20,000 on Sansome, nor of these telegrams to Scott of Nov. 11th: "Not doing anything to-day, Mr. Marks sick," or "Mr. Marks is very sick, I cannot do business without him," sent at 1.35 and 2.27 p.m. in Mances' writing; nor of these: "369, Strand, B.O., 11/11/01," sent 9 55, "To Scott," &c., "Cheque received, will not be able to execute any commissions for a day or two, L. Marks taken suddenly ill, he will try and write you, Gargled;" or "West Strand, B.O., 12/11/01, sent 10.54, "To Scott," &c., "Mr. Marks will be able to do business to-morrow or next day, he is very sorry for you, he could not help it, Gargled."—Sansome did win at Leicester that first day, starting at 5 to 2—I know Marks' writing—I looked at those telegrams before the Magistrate—they are not Marks' writing—The bets ranged from 2s. 6d. to £25—Marks had a book of rules for his customers—this is a copy—Rule 5 refers to bets up to £5 up to starting time of race, and with regard to larger sums, that must become the subject of special arrangement between Marks and his customers—the office generally opened about 11 am., when I got there—I was not there by the first post to receive registered letters.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Marks was there every day, but not at the same time, and sometimes not till 4 p.m.—he was in very bad health even before Burge and Mances came to the office—Marks opened the telegrams if he was there—I do not know of Burge opening a single letter—Marks was not always consulted before doing a large bet, say £25—I know of no bet over that amount—Marks rarely did any writing, I had written his private letters—perhaps he was physically incapable—he was often shaky—I believe he drank—he was sufficiently educated to read and write—I frequently opened letters and replied to them or left them for Marks—I opened all letters that were found in the letter box when I arrived at 11 a.m.—the letters that came by the first post were brought to me later in the afternoon by Marks to answer, letters which he had opened in the morning—Mances generally met a telegraph messenger at the door—he read the telegram, and if it referred to the ordinary business he gave it to me, otherwise he kept it, I can tell Marks was at the office by transactions entered in this letter book—the book merely shows the office was open—I saw Marks on November 22nd—I first heard of the Liverpool Bank on the next day, Saturday afternoon, in a newspaper report—I think it would be mid-day—there was racing that day, November 23rd—it was an important day—Marks had not appeared—Burge came in the afternoon—he asked me where Marks was—I advised him to go round to the Adelphi Hotel—I think he went there—he remained in the office about five minutes—Marks' brother was there—he had nothing to do with the business, he had come from New York "' two or three days before—both were staying at the Adelphi Hotel—I introduced Burge to Marks' brother—very likely Burge asked me who he was—I said at the Police Court, "He asked me where Marks was, and why he had not turned up at the office"—that is true—I know Burge was arrested on Sunday night, the 24th.
Re-examined. I entered the bet and knew the name of the customer, and whether we could accept the bet—Marks kept the book—I kept a record of every sum, however small, received from any customer.
HENRY SKINNER . I am in charge of the Inquiry Office, Euston Station, of the L. & N.-W. Railway—I received this telegram October 17th, 1901 "Brixton Road," &c, "To Station Master, Euston Station, Please reserve two sleeping berths on twelve o'clock train for Liverpool, Burge"—I entered the order in the Sleeping Car Register—the attendant's name on the train was Murray.
FREDERICK WALTER MURRAY . I was the saloon attendant on the L. & N.-W. Railway on the train which left Euston at 12 p.m. on October 17th, and arrived at Liverpool at 6 a.m.—the sleeping berths Nos. I and 2 in that train were occupied by two men whom I could recognise—these are the photographs of them [Burge and Mances]—they asked me to call them at 7.45—they left the car about 8.15 a.m.
ELLEN FRANCES ABBOTT . I am a waitress at the Victoria Hotel, Liverpool—on October 18th, Burge was dining with the man in this photograph—later in the evening I saw them in their private sitting room—I went in answer to the bell—they ordered wine—Burge afterward asked me to cancel the sleeping berths on the midnight train—he said he was going on the next one at 2.35 a.m.—he asked me to order a sleeping berth on the train, but there were none—that was about 11.30 to 12—as far as I remember, Burge paid the bill.
JOHN MCINNES . I am the proprietor of the Victoria Hotel, Liverpool—I know Burge from seeing him at the hotel—he was there on October 18th, between 8 and £ a.m., in company with the original of this photograph (Produced)—I said casually to Burge "What are you doing here?"—his answer was"Just passing through," something to that effect—I took the names to book the bedrooms—the other name was Mances—they had a sitting room, which was made into a bedroom, as the house was very full—I saw them in the billiard room after breakfast and again during the day—for a couple of hours that morning I did not see them—they were in the billiard room in the afternoon—I believe they dined there in the evening—about 9 p.m. Burge spoke to me about a sleeping berth by the 12 train that night for London—the order was cancelled—there is no sleeping car on the 2.35 a.m., by which he left—Mances slept at my hotel that night—he left about 11 a.m.—that was the last time I saw him.
Cross-examined. I had known Burge a few years—I knew he came to places like Liverpool on boxing competitions—Burge only paid his own bill.
HENRY BEVERS WALKER . I occupy part of 15, North John Street, Liverpool, as an office—it is called "The Bureau"—letters and telegrams are received there for a small charge for persons who fetch them—I have seen Goudie there on several occasions—I knew him by the name letters were addressed to him, Scott—in October, 1901,1 saw him in the entrance off the pavement—our office is upstairs—he was talking to someone about 11 a.m—I had to leave the building and passed them—when I returned within about half an hour Goudie was still within the entrance—other persons were there—I did not notice whether Goudie was with anyone.
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting at Holborn Viaduct—I have had 17 years experience—I have examined a number of telegrams of different dates between October 14th and November 21st, 1901, also samples of the prisoners Burge and Goudie's writing, as well as that of Mances and Marks—I have correctly marked the names of the writers of the several telegrams in this book—I have also examined these receipts for four registered letters delivered at 3, Adelphi Terrace, in October and November last—to the best of my belief they are in Mances' writing—one bears the name of L. Marks.
Cross-examined. Referring to this book I find now that the telegram sent from Liverpool on September 10, "Going to Manchester, return to-night to Surbiton, if anything important, wire to Victoria Hotel, Manchester, best love. Dick," is marked "Burge"—Dick is Burge's name—looking it that telegram' now, I say it is not the same writing as Burge's—I checked the telegrams marked in the book—this is unlike Burge's writing—that is a mistake—it is signed Dick, that is all—there were about 500 documents altogether.
Re-examined. The pencil entries in the copy book are not in Burge's writing—I had for comparison of writing, two letters written by Goudie from Holloway of December 10th and 12th, a cheque on the Credit Lyonnais of November 12th, made out and endorsed by Lawrence Marks, a counterfoil of the cheque book issued by the Credit Lyonnais alleged to have been written by Burge, and a specimen of Mances' writing on a small slip of paper alleged to have been taken by the police from a pocket book which Mances left with his luggage.
HENRY SEWARD . I am a clerk employed by the proprietors of the Sportsman newspaper—on October 21st we received instructions for the advertisement of L. Marks & Co., commission agents—these instructions in my hand are to insert the advertisement daily on the front page of the Sportsman five times at 10s. 6d. each advertisement—the front page is not considered 30 important as near the leading article—instructions were given on the 22nd to advertise in the more important part of the paper"L, Marks & Co., 3, Adelphi Terrace, London, and Guernsey, Cambridgeshire, Advantageous terms free on application, Telegraphic Address, 'Gargled,' London, Telephone, 3212 Gerard," and that was inserted in the middle of the paper—the same advertisement had appeared outside—the cost was increased from 10s. 6d. to 20s. each insertion.
Cross-examined. The firm of L. Marks & Co. had been in the habit of advertising in the Sportsman at least twelve months before this date.
WALTER GEORGE BISHOP . I am overseer of the Western Central District Post Office, New Oxford Street—I produce the four certificates of the delivery of registered letters addressed to L. Marks & Co., 3, Adelphi Terrace,"Strand, W.C.—these receipts refer to four letters posted at Liverpool Head Office on October 20th and 27th, and November" 3rd and 10th, 1901—attached I find what purports to be the signatures given to the postman who delivered the letters at 3, Adelphi Terrace.
THOMAS GEORGE AUSTEN . I am a postman, No. 101, at the Western District Office—3, Adelphi Terrace, was in my delivery in October 1901—the basement floor was occupied by Lawrence Marks—another man visited there in October and November—I know Burge by sight—I have
not seen him at 3, Adelphi Terrace—on October 21st I delivered a registered letter at 3, Adelphi Terrace, to a man I have since found out was Mr. Mances, about 8.30 a.m.—he came to the door in answer to the bell—I gave him this form of receipt and my pencil to sign it with—he asked me if I had anything for Marks or Marks & Co.—he signed L. Marks before me with my pencil—the following Monday, October 28th, I delivered another registered letter to the same man, Mances—he was waiting at the street door—he signed for it "L. Marks "'—on November 4th, when I delivered another registered letter, Marks and Mances were both waiting at the office door—Marks took the letter and passed the slip to Mances to sign, which he did "Marks"—I asked him to put an initial, so he put "L." to it—I delivered a fourth letter at the same address to Mances, who was waiting, and who signed for it "L. Marks."
Cross-examined. It was the early delivery, or what we call the general post delivery, on each occasion—I knew Burge as a professional boxer, having seen him at Nestle's Sporting Club, Covent Garden, also at the Tivoli, and about the neighbourhood.
EDWIN DOCKREE . I am cashier to the London and County Banking Company, Covent Garden Branch, Henrietta Street—I know Burge by sight—I produce certified copy of his account with that branch of the Bank—I have examined it with the books—it is correct—it commenced on February 27th and ended on December 18th, 1900, by a cheque to self of £4 12s. 2d.
Cross-examined. He had an account opened on 6/5/95—that was similar—I was subpoenaed to produce the one I have—I will produce a copy of the account or the pass book, to-morrow.
ROBERT WILLIAM HUDSON . I am one of the firm of R. S. Hudson and Company, soap manufacturers, Bank Hall, Liverpool—for many years my firm have had an account, and I have had an account at the Bank of Liverpool, one account in the firm's name and one in my own—this cheque of October 21st for £5,000 is upon my private account—I never drew any cheques in favour of T. P. Scott for £5,000, £9,000, £7,000, £9,000, £30,000, nor £31,000.
ANNIE THOMASON . I live at my aunt's house at 10, Thornton Place, Liverpool—my aunt knew all Goudie's family—he lodged with her seven or eight years ago, and up to November last year—he paid for his board and lodging £1 a week—the house is not far from the docks—the rent is about £25 a year—my uncle was dock gateman.
THOMAS PETERSON GOUDIE . I have pleaded guilty to this indictment—I was formerly a clerk in a Bank in Scotland—I entered the service of the Liverpool Bank eight years ago—I was in their service up to November 21st—I boarded and lodged with Mrs. Thomason—I was ledger clerk—I dealt with the names of customers from H to K—I am 29 years of age—Mr. Hudson was a customer—cheques drawn upon his account after passing through the clearing department and being entered in the journal, came into my possession from the clearing clerk—my duty was to enter it to the debit of the customer in the ledger—the cheques were filed—I was familiar with Mr. Hudson's account—for some time before October last year I had been engaged in betting transactions—I had lost considerable sums—I have pleaded guilty to forging cheques of
Mr. Hudson—in the case of cheques I forged I did not debit the customer's account—I destroyed the cheque—coming into possession of the clearing clerk, it would be entered in the journal—those entries should be checked with the entries in the ledger, and if correct they are ticked—I sat by the ticker off from the clearing book—the clearing book is a separate journal—to make the books agree I ticked off the clearing book, which ought to have been done by, the checker, a different person from the clearing clerk—I had been in the habit of receiving telegrams at the Bureau in North John Street, Liverpool, before October 18th, 1901, where I could have letters addressed by paying a fee of 1d.—I received letters and telegrams in the name of Scott and sent them away with that address—it was about 300 yards from the Bank, or about three minutes' walk—before October 18th I had sent telegrams to Newmarket and other race courses—I went to the Bureau nearly every day—about October 18th C was spoken to by a man I did not know, about 12.30, at the Bureau—this is his photograph—he asked me the address of some stationers, and I pointed out a building where he would be likely to find them, in North John Street—I went back to No. 15 and he followed me—he said, "You go in for racing"—I said he was making a mistake—"Oh no," he said, "I have not, I have seen you at Doncaster, Manchester and Sandown; I have seen you along with Kelly and his partner Stiles; you have lost a lot of money to them"—I still insisted that he was making a mistake—he said he had been in my company at Doncaster and that he knew all about me, and "You are a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool, and you are in a position where you can command money"—he wanted me to grant him an interview and to have an hour's conversation—I admitted being at Doncaster with Stiles and Kelly—he said he was an American, and knew all the American jockeys, and that he was in a position where he could get good information regarding racing, also that there was money to be made, and he wanted to make some—I suggested that he was hard up and wanted a sovereign or two—he said no, he was not at all, and showed me a receipted bill from the Charing Cross Hotel, London—he said his name was Mances—he said that it was only capital that was required to make a fortune, and that he was in a position where he could get racing information, whereby we would make a fortune—all this conversation took place just inside the door at 15, North John Street—he was decidedly hostile—he forced the conversation on me—when I tried to avoid the conversation he said, "I am not a detective"—that was immediately he said that I was a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool, and that I was in a position to command money—I was alarmed—I think he said he was staying at the Victoria Hotel—he said he had come specially from London to see me—I promised to see him in the London and North Western Hotel at eight that night—the conversation lasted ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—I arranged to meet him and went to the Bank—at night I went to the London and North Western Hotel—he came into the smoking room, where I was waiting for him—he asked me to come across to the Victoria, where he was putting up—there he took me into his sitting bedroom—I asked him how he got my name—he told me by taking wires off the telegraph board which were addressed to Kelly at different race meetings—I had telegraphed to Kelly
at different race meetings—he said he opened, read them, and put them back—he addressed me as Scott—he got my address, he said, by following Kelly until one day after he had written a wire he tore it up, and he, Mances, put the fragments together, and so got my address, 15, North John Street—he said he knew a jockey named Ballard, who owned race horses under various nom de plumes, and that Ballard could so arrange a race that he knew the absolute winner—this was all on the Friday night—he said he expected a message from Ballard for something very special on the following day, and that he could introduce me to a firm of very large commission agents, "L. Marks & Co.," and that Marks was very wealthy and connected with very wealthy people, and if any sum was too large for Marks, he could pass it over to any of his wealthy friends, who were Jews, and had large transactions on the Stock Exchange, and he would get a commission on the winnings, and that he did not back the horses himself, because he had not the means, but it was possible to back a horse for almost any amount—I arranged to call round at the Victoria Hotel the next day, Saturday, the 19th—I went about 2 o'clock—I saw Mances in the same sitting bedroom at the Victoria Hotel—he showed me a message signed by Ballard, and said that the horse Hedera was extra good—he showed me this telegram, signed by Marks, sent at 10.40 from 369, Strand, and addressed to Mances at the Victoria Hotel: "You can send £5,000 an hour before starting time of race"—he suggested that I should back Hedera for £5,000, and he gave me the address, "Gargled, London"—I sent off this wire in the name of T. P. Scott to back Hedera for £5,000 and "Reply if on to Bureau," etc., although I knew nothing of "Gargled" nor Mances—I sent it from the post office under the London and North Western Railway Hotel, close to where I was—shortly afterwards I received this reply from Marks: "You are on Hedera £5,000" the race was run after 3 p.m., and the horse did not win—I left Mances, but saw him at the same place after I knew Hedera had lost—he had this telegram, signed Ballard, that the horse was very unlucky and had got left at the post, but it would be all right next week—Burge was not mentioned to me—he said that he would arrange so that I could bet with Marks up to £25,000 in one week—to pay the £5,000 to Marks & Co., I made out a cheque in favour of T. P. Scott, and signed it R. W. Hudson, endorsed it T. P. Scott, and sent it to Marks by registered letter—I think I posted it on the Sunday—I never saw Mances after the Saturday, nor received any telegrams or letters from him—the cheque came back into my possession in the way I have described, and I destroyed it—on Tuesday, October 22nd, I telegraphed, "Five each way Lady Macdonald "—that meant £2,500, because Mances was to tell Marks that £500 was to equal "one" on a wire, so that Macdonald stood £2,500 to win and £1,500 for a place—I got the cheques from a book I bought at the bank counter—I had one cheque bonk in the name of a customer, but that was full by the time Mances came on the scene—I had a small account at the bank—I received the answer, "You are on five each way Lady Macdonald"—on October 23rd I was betting again, and received these two telegrams, "You are on, Marks"—I also sent this telegram, "Ten, Tee-to-tum"—that would be £5,000 on Tee-to-tum—that is
answered the same day at 3.57, "You are on, Marks"—on the 25th I bet on Tin Soldier and Port Blair, and on the 25th I got this telegram, "Impossible to do any business this week, as I am a commission agent, and made arrangements with other people same as I did with you, Marks"—I put "ten" each on Laird and May King, and got the answer, "All right"—that week I lost £25,000—to pay that £25,000 I forged two cheques for £9,000 and one for £7,000—I posted those in registered letters to L. Marks & Co.—I saw their advertisement in a sporting newspaper—the amounts were put on the horses at starting prices—the Sportsman gave the starting price—I recognise in it the advertisement of Marks & Co.—I received this telegram of October 29th, "You can do business to eighty this week, send letter to-night"—"eighty" meant £40,000—I did receive the letters—they were all signed, "L. Marks & Co."—I destroyed (item—as a rule they acknowledged receipt of what I had sent, asking for arrangements for the following week, and they would endorse what I put money on—I had no knowledge that Mances or Burge were sending these telegrams—on October 29th I telegraphed, "Ten each St. Bernard and Claret"—that would be £5,000—the answers were, "All right"—"Shot Gun twenty" would be £10,000—I sent another bet on Lock and Key, five, and Double Dealer on October 30th, and on November 2nd ten each on Laird and May King—that week's result of racing was my loss of £30,000, as I supposed—on November 2nd I received this telegram, "I am doing no business to-day, I will arrange for next week, so you are not on"—on the Saturday, to meet the indebtedness of £30,000, I forged the cheque for £30,000, and forwarded it in the same way to L. Marks & Co.—on. November 4th, I received this telegram, "Everything arranged, do nothing until you hear from me, Mances"—I had not heard from him since he left Liverpool—on November 4th and 5th, I wired again "Twenty Nahlband, ten Merry Andrew," and "Five St. Hilarious," but received no acknowledgment of cheque—and on November 5th I received this telegram, "Received with thanks, have received no wires from you this week, neglect of clerk to post letter," and shortly afterwards, in Mance's writing, "Clerk's neglect, having mislaid wire, so you have no bet, we are the losers, if horses had won should have had to pay, Marks"—on November 6th I telegraphed "Ten each Deep Sea and St. Quintin," and "Ten each Vertigo and Viper," and got answers "Ail right"—then I received this telegram of November 7th, "Yesterday bet on Sidus, seven to one"—I had put £10,000 on Sidus by letter, and asked what price he could give me up to £10,000, and the answer was "Seven to one"—on November 7th the race had been postponed—I telegraphed "Ten each on two horses at seven to one," which was answered at 2.33 "All right"—on November 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, I telegraphed, including £10,000 on Sansome on November 11th, which was the only winner that week—I met the loss that week by forging the cheque for £31,000, and sent it in the same way—Sansome started at five to two—I should have won £25,000 if it had been a real bet—having wired at 12.40, at 1.34 I received the telegram "Not doing anything to-day, Mr. Marks sick," and an hour later another, "Mr. Marks is very sick, I cannot do business without him," and on the same day. "Cheque received, will not be able to execute any commissions for a day or two, L. Marks taken suddenly ill,
he will try and write you"—on November 12th I got this telegram, "Mr. Marks will be able to do business to-morrow or the next day, he is very sorry for you, he could not help it"—up to Saturday, October 19th, I had had transactions with a man called Stripes—then I proceeded to bet with Marks and Co, whom Mances mentioned to me, because I was afraid of Mances exposing me to the Bank authorities—the telegrams produced signed Scott are written by me—on November 20th or 21st an enquiry was made with regard to one of the cheques, and I was spoken to about it at the Bank—in consequence of those inquiries I absconded—I was arrested about December 1st or 2nd—Burge had been arrested, but I had no knowledge that he was a party to the transactions I had been engaged in.
Cross-examined. I had never seen Burge to my recollection—I had heard of him as a boxing man—I was at the Hotel in Liverpool from about 8 to 9 p.m. on October 18th—the enquiry by the Bank was as to a cheque entered in the clearing book, but not in the ledger, for £9,000, one of those I had forged, and purporting to be signed by Mr. Hudson—anyone who had compared the books would have seen it—none of the forged cheques appear in the ledger—the accountant said it was not in the ledger—I said it must have gone to the wrong account—he said it was very curious it was not in Mr. Hudson's account when it was in the clearing book—he sent someone to look for the cheque—I said I would look through the ledger and find out what account it had gone to—the cheques are all passed at night, and the porter collects them and puts them away in separate bundles for each day—I posted £9,000 in the ledger to the suspense account of Horsfall Brothers, when the accountant had gone back to his own desk—the messenger came back and said he could not find the cheque—I was not surprised at that, because I had destroyed it—I said I had taken the cheque from the bundle and had laid it on a certain desk that I mentioned, but when he came to look for it it had disappeared—I said it was very curious—that was previous to the messenger going to look for it—the accountant and I went to the porter's desk to look for it—I said it was very funny, and that when the porter returned from his round delivering letters perhaps he could throw some light on it—when the porter came back he was sent for—he said he had not seen it—I said "It is a very mysterious disappearance"—I do not think the accountant was satisfied—he was momentarily satisfied—I showed him the entry to Horsfall's account—it took me about half an hour to find it after I had made it, so as to give it time to dry and so as not to blot it and make it appear a different entry—I had to interpolate it into Horsfall's account at the right date—I went out to lunch very shortly afterwards and disappeared—my answers were invented on the spur of the moment, as the necessity arose—before October 18th I had been betting perhaps three years in a small way, for the first year from 5s. to £5, and then on a bigger scale—for one year on a large scale—during the first two years perhaps I made £800 in a week—that is the largest amount—the most I lost in a week was about half of that—my salary was £150—my losses increased—I got the money to meet it from the same source—by forging Mr. Hudson's cheques—in addition to my small account at the Liverpool Bank I opened an account
at Lloyd's Bank, Liverpool, early in 1901, in the name of John Style—asked the manager to collect one of Hudson's cheques payable to Style—I paid a commission and received the proceeds—then I went again and got him to collect another cheque—I gave him an address near the Bank in Gray Street—on the third occasion I went to him he said if I did not want all the money he would be glad to take charge of some of it—I agreed to leave some in his care, and he asked for my designation and address—he already had my name, and I gave my designation as an oil and colour merchant—there was no such person at the address I gave—the account is still open—it increased in amount—it may be March, 1901, when I opened it—I dare say that is right—I volunteered to give evidence, I think, immediately after my second appearance at Bow Street—before the committal—I made a statement to Inspector Nearn in prison.
Re-examined. At the end of 19001 made the acquaintance of Kelly and Stiles—up to seeing Mances in October, 1901, I was betting with Kelly—Nearn arrested me and brought me to town—on the way I gave him an account of what occurred at Liverpool with Mances—my turnover at Lloyd's Bank at Liverpool was perhaps £10,000 or £5,000, it ran into thousands—I forget the manager's name—I was not asked for references—I do not remember that I signed my name in the book.
ALFRED EDGAR GALE . I am a turf commission agent, of Glenrose, Streatham Common—I have an office in Warneford Court—I know Larry Marks, an American, as carrying on a starting price business in racing at 3, Adelphi Terrace, up to October 14th last year—the Sunday previous he came to my private residence and stayed with me—when he came own on the Monday morning to breakfast he asked me to lend him £100, as he was temporarily short—I said "Certainly I will lend it you"—he came to my office with me—when writing this cheque he said "I am going to share in the profits of a ready money book"—I had previously lent him sums of £2, £5, or £10—he then owed me £22—on October 26th or 29th he repaid me the £122—I understood he was going to have a third share in a starting price business—I sent him sums on some horses later on.
Cross-examined. I had known Marks about two years—I do not remember whether the 14th was the day of the caesarwitch race—he had a good reputation, and I believed him to be a good, straightforward, honest man.
Re-examined. I believe he had then been at Adelphi Terrace six or seven months—he had an office in the basement—up to that time he had been in New Oxford Street—I do not know that he ever failed—he was very reticent.
EVA HISSGEN . I am manageress of the Adelphi Hotel, London—Marks had stayed there about four years up to November last—I last saw him on November 23rd—Mances came to see him several times—he stayed two or three hours sometimes—he had been coming for nearly two years on and off—he came on November 23rd—Marks was at home that evening—he was there till about 11.30 p.m.—Marks saw him—I saw Marks on Sunday, November 24th, between 11 and 12—he asked for his
bill—he said he was going to Brighton—I asked him for how long—he said probably three or four days, and then shook hands and said very likely I should never see his miserable face again—that was the last time I saw him—he took a kit bag like this—lie left a large cabin trunk in his room—that was handed to the police.
HERBERT JAMES JARMAIN .I am the sub-manager of the Cockspur Street Branch of the Credit Lyonnais—towards the end of 1899 an account was opened at the branch by Lawrence A. Marks, of 3, Adelphi Terrace—that account existed till November, 1901—on June 30th his balance was £2 7s. 5d.—there is no other entry till October 14th—there is a remittance, and a cheque book is taken out and small sums paid in and out—on October 21st, 1900, a cheque is paid in by Marks for £5,000, dated October 19th, 1901, purporting to have been drawn by R. W. Hudson upon the Bank of Liverpool—that was collected and placed to his credit on October 24th, after Bank hours, so that it was not available till the morning of the 25th—on the 25th Burge and Marks came to the Bank and presented this cheque on Marks' account for £4,500 payable to Burge and endorsed in my presence by Burge, who wished to open an account—Burge had £1,000 placed to his credit and £3,500 in cash—he took 10 £100 notes, 20 £50 notes, 50 £20, 45 £10, and £50 in sovereigns—I have the numbers of the notes which have been produced and which were paid to Burge—I obtained Burge's signature and his address, Hummum's Hotel, Covent Garden—he represented himself as a commission agent—the body of the cheque for £4,500 is Burge's writing to the best of my belief—the next day, the 28th, Marks brought two cheques for £7,000 and £9,000 and dated October 26th, drawn against R. W. Hudson in favour of T. P. Scott on the Bank of Liverpool—they were paid on the same day and credited on the 30th as £16,000—on October. 31st Marks came again with a gentleman, and said "I wish to introduce you to Mr. James Mances, who wants to open an account with you"—the usual form was gone through, Mances signed the book—he described himself as a commission agent living at the Charing Cross Hotel, and he opened a new account by a payment in of £1,500 in notes and a sovereign—I have the numbers of those notes—on November 1st Burge brought this cheque for £13,000, drawn by Marks, who was with him—it was endorsed Richard Burge, who opened an account by having £6,000 placed to his credit—he took £7,000, in cash by four notes of £1,000 and 60 notes of £500—I have the numbers—in Mances' account on November 1st I find £10,000 placed to his credit in exchange for the £13,000—on November 4th Marks brought a cheque for £30,000 of November 2nd, and purporting to have been drawn by R. W. Hudson upon the Bank of Liverpool—those were paid, and were credited to Marks on November 7th—on November 8th Burge handed me a cheque for £15,000 drawn by Marks in Burge's favour, and endorsed by Burge, and is credited to his account, and another cheque for £5,000 payable to himself or order and endorsed by him—that was paid to him in five notes of £500, 20 of £100, 15 of £20, and 20 of £10 each—the same day Mances brought a cheque for £10,000 drawn by Marks, and I find in Mances' account of November 8th he is credited with £10,000—on November 13th Burge drew on his account a cheque for £10,000 in favour of Mrs. Burge
—that was paid—on November 11th Marks brought another cheque for £31,000 of November 9th, which was dealt with in the same way and credited on November 14th—on November 15th a cheque was drawn by Marks in favour of Burge for £15,000—the same day Marks drew two cheques for £830 and £10,000 to the order of Mances, with which Mances was credited on November 16th, and Burge drew a cheque for £5,000, and £10,000 was transferred to his deposit account at 16 days notice—on November 21st Marks drew a cheque in favour of Bella Burge for £1,000—the last account was en November 22nd, £3,589 15s. 5d. and £10,000 on deposit—that day the balance standing to Marks' credit was £1,901 10s. 2d.—the £461 is a payment to us in exchange for drafts from America—he gave us a cheque, with which we debited his account—we have no advice, and we do not receive advice unless they are refused—we only receive notice that we have advised them, that is the Continental custom—Mances' last operation on November 22nd—Burge's transfer of £14,000 left him a credit balance of £18,324 19s., roughly £32,000, to his credit—I produce specimens of Mances', Marks', and Burge's writing.
Cross-examined. We had no suspicion—we did cot know Hudson—I never asked who he was—there was no conversation about Hudson—we inquired about the respectability of Burge, but not at Hummum's Hotel after Marks' introduction, which was sufficient for us—on Friday, November 22nd, we were served with an injunction arresting any transaction on account of Burge—it is customary to give a customer notice by a note of an injunction served on us—I cannot say this was done, but I assume the ordinary practice was followed—we may have been asked not to do so—I have never asked about it—I inquired as to Burge's character from people connected with betting—I asked Mr. Fry, a bookmaker and commission agent, of Cockspur Street—he is a customer—I did not send for him, I asked him when I saw him—it was entered on a card that we keep—I can produce the card to-morrow—there are two Frys, an uncle and a nephew—I believe they are both in the betting line of the best.
WILLIAM CHARLES FULLICKS . I am manager of the New Oxford Street Branch of the London and County Bank, where an account was opened on October 28th, 1901, by Lawrence Abraham Marks—I produce a certified copy of it from October 28th to November 21st, and extracts from the pass book, and the numbers of the note—two cheques for £9,000 each were paid to credit on October 30th on the Liverpool Bank in the name of Hudson.
STEPHEN ALLEN MATON . I am manager of the North Brixton Branch of the London and South-Western Bank—on October 31st last year an account was opened by Mrs. Bella Burge, of 28, Wiltshire Road, Brixton—this is a certified copy of the account—sums were paid in and drawn out to November 20th—on October 31st £3,700 was paid in—on November 12th there is an order for the payment of £1,000, and a further payment of £10,000 on November 13th, and £1,000 on November 20th, and a sum of £15,000 taken from current and placed to deposit account at three months' call at 2 1/2 per cent., and there was left to credit £813 7s. lid over and above the deposit amount of £15,000.
Cross-examined. An injunction was served upon us on Friday, November 22nd—we gave notice to the customer, but not till about five
days afterwards, because the telegram giving us notice stated that it was as well not to—I consulted the head office, and found it was not necessary.
GEORGE FAAZ . I am chief clerk at the Charing Cross Hotel—last year James Mances came, and stopped there about the end of September—this is his photograph—he appeared to be an American—he occupied a room till October 19th he went away, and returned on the 20th, when he occupied Room 87 till November 23rd, when he left without notice and without his luggage and without paying his bill—subsequently I gave Inspector Froest access to the room and handed over the contents.
Cross-examined. We saw Mances last about 11 a.m. on the Saturday.
LAWRENCE SOMERS . I carry on business in the neighbourhood of Paris in the name of Ellis Phipps—I knew Lawrence Marks for many years at Adelphi Terrace and before he went there—I saw him on Saturday, November 16th, and on November 18th received a cheque from him for £500—I will give that up on consideration—I next saw him on Saturday, November 23rd, and Sunday, November 24th—he went to Brighton with me at my request—I was with him the whole of the day—I left him at the Brighton station going away by the train to Newhaven—I understood he was going to Monte Carlo—he had a kit bag of this sort (Produced)—I lent him this rug—I never heard from him since.
Cross-examined. On November 16th he said he was going away for the winter, that he had sent for his brother to America, and they were going to make a tour—the brother came the following week and accompanied us to Brighton on November 26th—on Saturday, November 23rd, he said he was going to start for Monte Carlo—I was with him that evening—I was a partner in a manner—I advanced money to carry on the business of L. Marks & Co. for about twelve months—I think from September 1890—he formerly carried on business in Oxford Street under the same name—he had been a bookmaker about 18 months—he had been in partnership with a Mr. Michaels—then he moved to Adelphi Terrace—I was sleeping partner, I found the money—there were no profits—I had to put up with my share of the loss and his, too—it was a very bad year for people in our business—I have said that the arrangement was that I should bear a fourth of the loss and share a fourth of the profits—that was the arrangement—I never heard Hudson's nor Scott's name in connection with Marks—on the Sunday he went away, Marks confided to me that the name of the man he had been winning money from was Hudson, and that I might make him a customer, and that Hudson did not do business in his own name, but through a man named Scott—he said he thought Hudson must be a very rich man.
Re-examined. The business in Oxford Street was called "Barney Michaels" or"B. Michaels & Co."—my son was in that business from its commencement till about the middle of last September—I did not know on November 22nd or 23rd that Marks was connected with the reports in the newspapers—I had seen the reports, but I believe Hudson's name was not mentioned.
going—I was living in Paris, and said I was going home, and he said he would go with me—he had practically lived in Paris nine months—I had read of the Liverpool Bank frauds—I could not tell you when—I arrived in Paris on the morning of November 24th—I changed £2,000 in Bank of England notes into French money—I saw him in the afternoon at my apartments in Paris, and he left me there, saying he was going to the Continental Hotel, where he had lived about twelve months—I was with him from 10 till 11 a.m.—I met him again at lunch at the Grand Cafe—we went back to our apartments, and I left him about 4 p.m. because I told him I was going back to London—I left for London that night because I received a telegram that my mother had died—I neither went to Paris nor came from Paris with him.
JOHN JAMES RITCHIE . I am Chief Inspector at the Bank of Liverpool, at their head office, 17, Water Street—Goudie absconded, and was arrested some time afterwards with regard to six cheques in October and November which were paid as genuine cheques in the ordinary way.
Cross-examined. Goudie was in hiding for about a week after the other prisoners were in custody, and while the case was being heard at the Police Court, and he had access to the newspaper?.
JAMES NEARN (Detective Officer.) The warrants issued against the four prisoners at Bow Screet, were in possession of the police on November 23rd—on December 2nd I went to Liverpool, and at the Bootle Police Station saw Goudie detained—I charged him on the warrant and brought him back to London—he made a statement, the details of "which I gave in evidence at the Police Court—he made it entirely voluntarily in the train—I recorded it in writing—this is it (Produced).
Cross-examined. Burge was arrested on Sunday evening, November 24th, and brought up at the Police Court on the 26th—Kelly surrendered shortly afterwards—I believe Goudie had been hiding at Bootle—Stiles was arrested later at an hotel—he absconded.
FRANK FROEST (Detective Inspector.) I have had a good deal of experience on race courses from attending race meetings—betting commences after the numbers have been put up on the board, and when it is ascertained what horses are running and who the jockeys are—the interval between races is about half an hour—the betting continues till the flag falls and the horses are off—that is the starting price and is reported in the sporting newspapers the following day—the market varies up to the time the flag falls, &c, depending upon the amount put on a horse—bets are made while the horses are running—I knew Larry Marks very well for some time—he was an American: a "New Yorker"—I knew by sight. Mances, who was born in England, but had lived in America for many years—I knew Marks was carrying on a starting price business at Adelphi Terrace—my inquiries were directed to—the arrest of Marks and Mances—I received this telegram from Marks, it is handed in at Paris "Leave here at 10.30 by way of Folkestone. L. Marks"—accordingly I went to Folkestone to meet the Boulogne boat—I saw the passengers come off—Marks was not amongst them—he has an extraordinary face—I could not fail to miss him even in a big crowd—I did not find him—I made subsequent inquiries and was handed this bag and rug, which were on the boat—they have been identified—I subsequently took possession
of the books, documents and papers relating to Marks' betting business including those spoken to by Mr. Woolgar—I also took possession of room No. 87 at the Charing Cross Hotel, Mances' room—I found amongst a number of addresses 15, North John Street, Liverpool; 28, Wiltshire Road, Kemp Town; 99, Bedford Court Mansions; Mary worth House, Brighton, a lease of Marks & Co., formerly B. Michaels & Co., a number of telegrams from Goudie to Marks, signed Scott, gambling implements or a card sharpers lay-out—[Produced]—paying-in slips of the Credit Lyonnais and other banking documents and letters showing communications between him and persons in America, and some money he was sending there.
Cross-examined. I found 18 telegrams from Goudie to Marks in the name of Scott of recent dates in a pocket of a portmanteau.
WILLIAM GOUGH (Detective-Sergeant). I saw Burge at 28, Wiltshire Road, on the night of November 25th—he had just got out of bed—I told him I was a police officer, and held a warrant for his arrest, and that he would have to come with me to Bow Street—I read the warrant to him and told him he would be charged with being concerned with others in uttering forged bankers' cheques—he replied "all right," and commenced to dress himself—I called him out of the bedroom and read the warrant to him again—he said "Are they Marks' cheques that are forged?"—I said, "That is what is alleged"—he said, "That is all right, is not it? Mine's for betting"—amongst other papers I found a paying-in slip of the Credit Lyonnais for £15,000, a receipt for £10,000 on deposit, at the London and South-Western Bank, Brixton, in the name of Bella Burge, and a book of the same bank in the name of Mrs. Burge and a Credit Lyonnais cheque book and a paying-in book and a paper of sums lent and paid.
Cross-examined. I knew Burge well by sight—I saw him at the Tivoli on Saturday afternoon, November 23rd, but not at night—I had not the warrant then—I knew it was out—I understood he meant when he said "Mine's for betting," the part he had played with Marks and Mances—this is a betting book—his writing is difficult to read—I believe there is an entry of £100 and "Chester"—I have said I found transactions recorded, for most is so apparently—I find entries of £50, £50, and £150 and £50 in this book, and £100, £150 and £200—I imagine it is a bookmaker's record—and other entries.
Re-examined. The warrant mentions the cheques for £9,000, £7,000, £9,000, £30,000, and £31,000.
EDWIN DOCKREE (Examined by Mr. Avory). I am a clerk in the London and County Bank, Covent Garden—we did not know Burge to be living at Hummum's—we had no other address—between May and September, 1895, £2,700 was paid into Burge's account, and on September 12th, 1896, £1,700, and in 1897 and 1898 other sums—we did not deem it a substantial account.
GEORGE TRACE (Examined by Mr. Avory). I was a witness for the prosecution at the Police Court—I was a clerk in the office of Marks and Co. at Adelphi Terrace during the time Burge and Mances were coming there last year—I said, "all that Burge did was to open the telegram and hand it to me if it related to betting to be entered in the book, but had nothing to do
with whether the business should bedone or not," and "I believe Mances had all the telegrams and kept them"—that is, all the telegrams which were not handed in to be entered—Marks told me that Burge had part money in the business—I saw Burge between 3.30 and 4 p.m. on November 23rd—I expected him on the Monday—Mances had attended at the office quite two months before Burge came.
Re-examined. Before Burge and Mances came Gale had lent Marks £100—the business was carried on for a week—Marks never showed us anything—he paid the money into the bank himself—Mances was only a friend as far as I knew—I never heard of his putting money into the business—I understood the partners to be Burge and Marks—Marks said Burge had put money in and that he paid Kelly out with that—the business was not large—Burge or Mances opened the telegrams and decided whether they were to be entered—they attended at the office about three weeks—people bet from 2s. to £50—I did not know Scott.
Burge's statement before the Magistrate.—"I never had any idea that the money was forged or stolen, all I thought was that Marks had been betting with a man with plenty of money; I had no idea anything was wrong.
Burge, in his defence, on oath stated that having made £80,000 by professional boxing he was not hard up for money, but at Marks' suggestion had advanced him £250 and was to have half the profit of his betting, but hat he knew nothing of Scott or Goudie, nor that the firm was betting with a bank clerk; that he went to Liverpool to be introduced to Mances' rich friend and failed, but did not know of Mances' threatening attitude to Goudie; that the telegrams in his writing were dictated by Marks, who seldom wrote himself, but were never sent on his own responsibility; that he knew nothing about the telegrams about Marks being sick, nor that any of the money received came from any other source than fair and honest betting.
Burge received a good character.
GUILTY — Two years' hard labour on the count for conspiracy; four-years' penal servitude on the count for obtaining £5,000 by false pretences; three years' penal servitude for obtaining £9,000 by false pretences; and three years penal servitude on the count for obtaining £7,000 by false pretences, the two years' hard labour being concurrent (Ten years' penal servitude in all).—GOUDIE Ten years' penal servitude.
THIRD COURT.—Monday, February 17th, and
NEW COURT.—Tuesday February 18th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
200. CHARLES MEYER (24) and JOSEPH RICHARD ANDERSON (25), PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining from Hollington Brothers and others £58 4s. 9d. and other sums from other persons by false pretences.—MEYER Nine months' hard labour. —ANDERSON Six months' hard labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
ROBERT BATHO . I am a journalist—I reside at 21 Baford Street, Hackney—on January 16th I was driving home in a hansom cab—I had had some liquor and when I got to Hackney I stopped the cab to go to a urinal—I went into a public house to get change and went out to pay the cabman and returned into the public house—I had observed some men leaning against the side of the public house—I noticed some men inside—I remained inside about two minutes—I came out and asked some one to direct me to a urinal—he was standing by himself—but three or four men about there said, "I will show you where there is a urinal, governor"—they all wanted to show me—I did not like the look of them and attempted to get on a tramcar—they hustled me back to the foot-path and prevented me—I moved down the road as quickly as I could—they followed me—I tried to get on another Hackney tram—they hustled me in the same way—I tried to hurry away, but they kept close on to me—Johnson had hold of my arm and was leading me towards a urinal in a bye-street—I told him I did not want to be led, if he pointed it out to me that would be enough—I wanted to get away—a constable came and seized hold of Johnson near a bye-street—I had not got inside the urinal; I struggled not to go in—when I had walked another yard or two down the road another constable came—when I came out of the public house I had about 35s. in my left pocket besides some silver in a ticket pocket, and I had two half-crowns in my right trouser pocket and a sovereign and a half-sovereign in the left part of my vest—as I went along I missed the silver—and when I got to the police court I found that the gold was gone.
JOHN STEVENS (321 H.) I was on point duty in Hackney Road on January 16th in uniform, the prosecutor came up in a hansom cab about 6.15 p.m. outside the Three Crowns—I was 50 or 60 yards distant and on the opposite side of the road—I saw him get out and go into the bar—he came out and re-entered the public house—the prisoner and five other men entered the bar behind him—they came from the direction of Hoxton—the prosecutor was inside the house about 10 minutes—he came out and the four men followed one after the other towards Shoreditch—in a suspicious manner towards Tuilere Street—he tried to get on a tram going towards Hackney—the four men got round to prevent him—they hustled him at the corner of Tuilere Street—I saw him come into Hackney Road again, the men being round him, hustling and pushing him till they got to Horatio Street, he was walking very fast and trying to get away from them—he called a policeman near a urinal at a public house—he again tried to get on a passing tram—Johnson took his arm and pulled him towards this urinal, the other three men standing in the high road—the three men in the road, Burns being one, whistled and ran away as if giving the other men warning—one of them shouted—I knew the prisoners—I stood near the urinal in the darkness of a doorway—I rushed on Johnson when he had his right hand in the prosecutor's right hand trousers pocket at the entrance to the urinal, took hold of him and said, "What are you doing here?"—he said, "All right, governor, I have not done anything yet"—Batho said, "They have got a
few shillings away from me, but I want to get away home"—Johnson heard that but said nothing—I took him to the station and he was charged with robbing Mr. Batho of 5s.—he said, "I have had nothing to do with it"—I found nothing on him—next day, the 17th, I saw Burns at the same public house at the public bar—I called him out and told him I was going to take him to the station for being concerned with Johnson and two other men not in custody for robbing a man in Hackney Road—he said, "lam innocent, I know the lot you mean, I was there when the man got out of the cab, but I had nothing to do with it afterwards—I took him to the station and in the evening he was put up for identification but Mr. Batho could not do so—I am quite clear as to his being one of the men—when the charge was read he said, "I am innocent"—he gave his mother's address in Hackney Road.
Cross-examined by Burns. I did not take you on the spot because you an away—when I took you you said, "I am innocent"—you were let out on your own recognizances, and Johnson's mother bailed him.
By the Jury. Mr. Batho was at the urinal door, and Johnson behind him, with his hand in his pocket.
Evidence for Johnson.
SAMUEL WILSON . I am a boot laster, of 21, Gambia Road, Hackney Road—I have known Johnson 25 years, and on Thursday, January 16th I left off work at 2 p.m. and met Johnson, and we went to a little place in the middle of Essex Street, Kingsland Road, half a mile from where the robbery was, and he stayed with me till 6.10., when he said, "Samuel, I have got to go and shut my mother's shop; I can't walk very quick"—he left me, and I saw no more of him.
Cross-examined. We went in the White Horse beer house. From 2 to 6.10; we came out at 6.10, and he could not have been at the place where the robbery occurred at 6.30.
Johnson's Defence. How could I put my hand in the prosecutor's pocket? I had nothing found on me. I live at home and get an honest living.
Johnson received a good character.
Burns' Defence. When I was taken to the station, the gentleman said he had lost 10s.; then he said £3, and afterwards the Inspector took the charge for £5 in all.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. QUICK Prosecuted.
KATE BRITLAND . I am a widow and live at Denham Lodge, Twickenham—on January 7th I went to bed about 10.30—the house was properly., locked up—I heard a noise downstairs about 11.30 and went down, and saw that the gas was alight in the dining room—I said to my daughter, "There is a light," and two men rushed out of the dining room—we turned round and another rushed out, but we did not see him—there are three steps going out at the back door and they all fell down, or stumbled, and made a great noise—we went back to our bed room, opened the window, and screamed for help, and saw four men leave the house, two rushed off and two walked—the prisoner is one of them—he came back
with a pocket handkerchief round his head, but I saw his face first as he came out of the room; he was one of the first two, and I saw him again going out of the house, and a third time with a handkerchief round his head and tied under his chin; I saw his face then crossing the road—there is a very bright gas lamp there—a bag which I had left on the table by accident had been opened and the things thrown about, and about 30s. taken—some silver was moved, but left—25s. or 30s. worth of other things was carried off—I picked the prisoner out from other men on the 15th without hesitation.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not fix upon another man first; the Inspector said, "Look well up and down and don't decide in a hurry," and I walked down and said, "That is the man."
MAY BRITLAND . I live with my mother—on January 4 I saw the house properly secured and after I had gone to bed I heard a noise in the dining room—as I went down with my mother I saw a light under the dining room door and then the door opened and some men came out; I do not know how many; I ran upstairs, opened the bed-room window and called for the police; they came and I went down and saw blood stains on the table—a window pane was broken near the catch, and the window was wide open—after the men had got out I saw three or four of them outside, one tall and two shorter—I do not know whether the prisoner was one of them.
CHARLES EDWARD COUSINS . I am a bricklayer of 142, Halliburton Road, Isleworth—on January 4th I was coming along St. Margaret's Road, just before 12 p.m. and saw a man running towards Twickenham from the Duke's Head, about seven yards from it—I ran and stopped him and asked what he was running for: he said he was going home—I heard a policeman's whistle—I said, "You had better come back," and he walked back towards Durham Lodge with me—I saw a second man running with a hand over his head—that was the prisoner—he had lost his cap—they were both running and both from Durham Lodge—he was about 15 yards from it—I asked him what was the matter—he said he had hurt his head—he had his hands on his hips or in his pockets, I could hardly see which—the two men talked together as if they knew one another—I heard an answer to the whistle and the two men hurried away in the opposite direction—I identified the prisoner ten days afterwards from 14 or 15 others.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not pick out another man first—I looked at you, the Inspector said "Touch him" and I touched you.
By the COURT. St. Margaret's Road is on the Isleworth side of the river—there was a lamp—the first man was under the first light and the second man was between—I asked him what was the matter, because of his handkerchief.
ALFRED THOMAS FIELD . I am a machinist of 19, Marsh Road, Twickenham—on January 4th I was in St. Margaret's Hotel from 8 o'clock till 11—the prisoner came in with two other men, but one left and the prisoner remained in the bar with the other till 11 o'clock—he was arguing with another man about what drink they should have—he wanted rum and the other man wanted bitter ale—he had the rum and the other man said, "If you have rum I shan't go down there with you;
you can't do a job like that if you are drunk"—I came out and they wanted to fight with another man, and after that the prisoner and the other man went to St. Margaret's Railway bridge—the other man was about my height—I went over the bridge behind them, they walked through Bridge Road and stopped at the corner—I stopped behind and saw the other two men leave the prisoner and one of them said, "Don't make it late," the other answered, "All right, half-past 11"—the prisoner was wearing this cap (Produced) at the hotel.
Cross-examined. I told the Magistrate that you had a cap something like this, the same material, but I could see the red rim.
WILLIAM MOORE (Detective-Sergeant T). On January 14th I arrested he prisoner on another charge at St. Margaret's, and on the 15th I placed him with fifteen others, and Field identified him—on taking him from the yard at the station he said, "What does the policeman identify me for; this is the job at Kew, I will tell you all about St. Margaret's; I will tell where the receiver is and where you will find the goods"—the charge was read over to him, he made no reply—the two prisoners were placed with eleven men and identified.
Cross-examined. Some of them had overcoats on—I did not say,"I will give you four bob to put the other man away"—you said that you were going to ask the Magistrate to give you your money back—I said, "They won't allow you to have it," but I gave you a shilling.
WILLIAM LEE (Police Inspector T.). On the night of January 4th I was on duty at St. Margaret's Road, Twickenham, and heard a police whistle—I ran in that direction and found Mrs. Britland screaming at the window of Durham Lodge—she said that there were thieves in the house—I applied to some passers-by to prevent anybody from escaping and went in, but found no one—an entry had been effected by breaking the kitchen window—there was a quantity of blood by the window sill and on the table under the window—on January 14th I found three or four punctured wounds on the prisoner's hands about a week old, such as a man would get in breaking glass.
Prisoner's defence. I am innocent; it is a police got-up case.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Middlesex Sessions on August 4th, 1900, and there was another indictment for burglary against him— Five years' penal servitude.
MR. HUMPHREYS Prosecuted, MR. POYSER Defended.
JAMES BUCKWORTH DIXON . I am the proprietor of the American Register—the London office is at 80, Cockspur Street, and there is an office in Paris—in March last I engaged the prisoner as manager at 80, Cockspur Street—his duty was looking after advertisements—he was to be paid 30 per cent., for which he was obliged to employ another person—I employed Mr. Arthur Smith, a chartered accountant, to check the
books with the prisoner once a week—the prisoner kept the advertisement book—the entries might be made by a clerk—clerks were employed at Cockspur Street—Mr. Smith generally each week sent me a note of the amount due to the prisoner and I drew a cheque for it and sent it to Mr. Smith and he handed it to the prisoner—on June 27th I sent this cheque for £40 7s. 11d. to Mr. Smith for the prisoner, for his commission up to date—it is payable to Albert Miles and endorsed by him and has been paid by my banker—on September 6th I sent Smith an open cheque for £40 3s. 7d. to A. Miles or bearer—that has been paid across the counter—when I sent those two cheques I believed that they were due to the prisoner—I was abroad up to November, managing the business in Paris so that I did not pay attention to the Cockspur Street business—I went to Cockspur Street in November and found the office locked up—I went to the house-keeper, and on getting in I found the prisoner's desk locked—I got a locksmith and had it opened, but found no papers whatever—I did not know that the prisoner was going away—I instructed my solicitors to take proceedings.
Cross-examined. I do not say that my solicitors had written a letter dismissing the prisoner—I knew his private address, but I never applied there-for a reason—the prisoner wrote and offered to wait in England till the charge was gone into and yet I swore that he had absconded—I admitted before the Magistrate that I should not be surprised if he did not turn up—I did not expect to find that he was locked up—some of the papers in the office had been sent to my father before I missed them—Mr. James Dixon was financing this paper, but the cheques were given by my father on my behalf—I knew of their existence from what Mr. Smith told me, the accounts were sent to him first and the cheques did not pass through my hands at all—I did not pay this money, my father paid it—it was Mr. Strong who engaged the prisoner—I wrote him a letter but I think his acceptance was verbal—the terms were not that he should receive 40 percent whether the orders he received were through canvassers or not—it was not suggested at the time of the engagement that if he was successful with the paper he should become a partner—my father saw him several times and the arrangement was made in Paris before he came to England, but Mr. Strong came over here—I do not recollect that it was a term of the engagement that the commission account was to be made out periodically, and that the advertisements which turned out badly were to be deducted; they are generally paid in advance—it was deducted from any commission that came to him afterwards—the Register was in very low water at the time he was engaged, taking about £4 a week in London, and the advertisements almost nominal—the prisoner worked extremely well—he was engaged by me and my partner to get the advertising into as good a position as possible, and I believe Mr. Strong wrote to congratulate him on his success—he was a sort of manager, he received small sums of money and made disbursements—I should not allow a canvasser doing a large business like £60 a week to suggest contra accounts with people—I heard that it was proposed to put boys in uniform to sell the paper in the streets—I have never had a statement of account prepared between the prisoner and myself—we asked the prisoner to account for £90 which was
not in the books, and he at once made a counter claim, and suggested that we were indebted to him in a considerable sum for commission not paid—I do not think there are commissions due to him, but I have not seen, the books lately—I should not like to say positively—I have not been able to form any idea what is due to him, or what is not—I asked the firm for an explanation of these two cases—I sent a letter to the firms in question—I had no book keeper when the prisoner came into my employment, and he suggested that I should get an accountant, and have my account put into order, and smith was engaged—Mr. Strong is not here—since these proceedings commenced I have sold the newspaper for a good price, owing to the prisoner's exertions to some extent.
Re-examined. I have produced all the letters and documents the prisoner has asked me to produce—we discussed the engagement several times verbally, and I think he accepted verbally—I have not been able to find any letter from him accepting the engagement—I have said that he absconded—I asked his clerk his address, he said that he did not know it—this (Produced) is a letter from the prisoner to me, dated February 25th, 1901, and the writing on the back of it is his. (This was a draft agreement, unsigned, and it was not put in.)—whether anything was due to him depends on whether the advertisements are real or not—when my solicitor wrote to him for £90, that had no reference to these two accounts, so far as I recollect.
ARTHUR FREDERICK SMITH . I am an accountant, of 34, Nicholas Lane—since March last I have attended at 30, Cockspur Street, once a week, to go through the books with the prisoner, and arrived at what was due to him by comparing the contracts which I got from him with the advertisements—this is the advertisement book (Produced)—it contains a list of the contracts—I entered them up myself—I got the materials from him, but later on he or his clerk wrote them—I got to page 13 about June 17th, and made this entry with regard to Sandon and Company for £26—the week before, ended on June 15th—to enter that I had before me a memorandum signed by the prisoner, which I returned to him, and from the memorandum I entered these tickets and added up the amounts due to him for commission—the commission due to him on that order was £10 8s.; his total commission for that week was about £35, but altogether it would be £85 2s.—I wrote a letter and informed Mr. James Dixon of the amount due to the prisoner, and received this cheque from him, containing the amount of that commission among other things—I certainly believed that that was a genuine order from Messrs. Sandon—on September 5th, here is an entry in the prisoner's clerk's writing with regard to the Aspinall Publishing Company, and the prisoner showed me this contract from them. (This was an order for 56 insertions of an advertisement)—there are initials underneath that—I believed it to be genuine—the 56 insertions came to £78, upon which the prisoner's commission would be £31 4s., at 40 percent.—I wrote a letter and received a cheque for £40 3s. 7d., dated September 6th—the prisoner did not tell me in either of those cases that no money was to be paid by those people!
Cross-examined. I got the second cheque cashed at his request and gave him the whole amount in cash—those cheques included his potty cash—nothing was kept back out of Aspinall's cheque, £10 which was
kept back had nothing to do with Aspinall's—if he says that he was to receive 30 percent on some orders and 40 on others, that is not true, it was 40 per cent on all—the advertisement was obtained on about January 15th, and the commission was paid on the 21st—I submitted the account about the 16th to Mr. Dixon, senior, either personally or in writing—he was paying the money on behalf of Mr. Dixon, junior—I prepared a proper written statement every week, I did not always discuss it with the prisoner, he would see the entries in the books—I had considerable correspondence with Mr. Dixon, junior, at Paris, about the matter—all the money came from Mr. Dixon, senior—I showed the £10 in the books to Mr. Dixon and showed him why it should be deducted, and he did so, that £10 was a question of advertisements—the only settlement I had with the prisoner was when there were one or two small advertisements which had not been inserted, they were to be deducted from his commission at certain dates.
Re-examined. He was always paid as soon as he produced a contract. I went through the account of Sandon, after June 15th.
By MR. POYSER. In one or two cases the prisoner was kept waiting for his commission.
WILLIAM EDGAR LANGTON . I am accountant to Messrs. Sandon & Co., tailors, of 8, Saville Row—the prisoner has been a customer of theirs for some years, and in May last owed them £97 17s. 6d. for clothes—we received this letter from him addressed to Mr. Moore, a partner: "May 22nd, 1901. Dear Sir, I am considerably interested in the enclosed; can you fix up a contra?"—I went and saw him, he said he thought we could arrange a contra account, as the paper had a considerable circulation we thought it was an occasion to get something rather than make a bad debt, and we agreed to advertise—we were to pay £8 for a year, and credit his account for that amount—he agreed, and it was afterwards put into writing—we wrote a letter, of which this is a copy: "Referring to our interview with you, we shall be glad if you will continue to insert the advertisement in the American Register at 10s., the agreement being that no cash is to be paid, but our private account is to be credited with the amount"—the year is not up yet—Mr. Dixon afterwards applied to us about it.
Cross-examined. We had not been pressing him, it was voluntary—his letter was simply a suggestion whether we would take the amount out in a contract—it said, "Can you fix up a contra?"—he wrote Mr. Moore asking me to come down and see him about it—that was later than June 13th—he said that I had mistaken the arrangement altogether, and wanted a new contract—he said that it was not at all in respect of the old debt—there was nothing to show the contrary—I understood that it was to go off of his old account, but he did not.
By the COURT. The written contract was in existence before he wrote that letter—this is a copy of what I call the agreement.
Re-examined. Mr. J. B. Dixon did not owe us any money—I do not know him at all.
LOUIS FRANCIS ASPINALL . I live at 5, Adam Street, Portman Square, and am traveller for a typewriting company—I was in the prisoner's employ last year for about six months as canvasser for advertisements for
the Register—he paid me £2 a week at the commencement—he said in September that he had obtained a large contract for advertising, from people who were going to run a company about sea-sickness, and wanted me to act as an agent by giving him a contract on the letter paper of Aspinall & Co., which would enable him to get a little extra commission and enable him to keep paying me £2 a week—I asked him if it was all right—he said "Yes," and he would give me a letter absolving me from any consequences, and gave me this draft letter to copy on the paper of Aspinall & Co.: "Dear Sir, Please reserve double column 26 and will account monthly"—I signed that—the Aspinall Company, Limited, was started by my brother—I have no interest in it except as a traveller—I did not intend to give the American Register an order—he gave me this letter: "February 5th. I beg to acknowledge that I am personally liable for this order, and you are not. Albert Myers"—I took the draft to the office of the Aspinall Publishing Co., Farringdon Street, and copied it on the office paper (Produced)—these are my initials at the bottom, L. F. A.—I gave it to the prisoner, keeping his letter acknowledging that it was not a genuine order—I did not tell my brother.
Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate, "I may have represented to the defendant that I was a partner," but I do not remember it—I was acting as canvasser to the prisoner in June on behalf of the Medical Register—I had not ceased to do so for several weeks, but I was not paid for several weeks, and then I was paid again—I was working fairly regularly for him at this time, but not full time, as I was working for the Barlock Typewriting Company for some months—I act for several people—I had ceased to receive £2 a week from the prisoner, but he told me he would make it up to £2 a week if this advertisement was sent in in the way he proposed—I do not think I got £2 a week, but it was most decidedly bona fide.
Re-examined. I understood that he would get a commission for the advertisement of the sea sickness cure—I understood that he was going to get a commission from the proprietors of the paper out of that order—I thought the sea sickness people would pay—the Aspinall Company make paper patterns and have ladies' fashion journals to go to the drapers—I was not employed by the proprietors of the American Register, What I did was for the prisoner.
By the JURY. I was not authorised to sign for the Aspinall Company, but I used to sign the letters I wrote on certain occasions.
J. B. DIXON (Re-examined). This is the letter my partner and I wrote to the prisoner (Dated February 25th, 1901, acknowledging his letter of the 22nd, and stating that they confirmed the verbal arrangement for 30 per cent commission without an intermediary and 40 per cent with: one month's notice on either side to terminate the engagement.)—I saw the prisoner after that letter, and he wanted 40 per cent.—we had a great deal of conversation—Mr. Strong said to him that 40 per cent was a great deal too much and to the best of my recollection there was no specified arrangement whether it was 30 or 40 percent.—he practically agreed to the terms of that letter, excepting as to the percentage.
Cross-examined. I was in Paris when this letter was written, and the prisoner was in London—he wrote it on the 25th, but he came over to
Paris afterwards and saw both of us—the final arrangement was not between Mr. Strong and the prisoner—the prisoner was paid 30 or 40 per cent.—Mr. Smith would have informed me if he had charged 90 per cent.—he could not have taken a much larger commission if he wished to be dishonest unless Mr. Smith was dishonest as well—Mr. Smith was put there by the prisoner—I left it to them, and I should not like to swear what commission was paid.,
ARTHUR LAW ASPINALL . I trade as the Aspinall Company, at Leeds and publish fashions—I had an office at 2, Farringdon Street, last September—my brother, Louis, sometimes did business for the firm, but he had no salary, he had commissions on one or two occasions—he was in no sense a member of the firm—he was not authorised to pledge the credit of the firm, or give orders for it—I never gave an order to the American Register to insert advertisements—I know nothing of the transaction, either from my brother or anybody else.
Cross-examined. He was not a member of the firm, but I rented part of his office for the Aspinall Company, of which I am the proprietor—I am the Company—my brother did a little canvassing for me—he had authority to use my paper—we never gave him authority to sign for the Company like this—I say"We," the "We" was not my brother and myself, he had had the office some time, I simply paid him a rent for it—he was not authorised to sign for the Aspinall Publishing Company—I do not think he had commenced canvassing at this time—he had no authority to write the document"—I do not wish to withdraw anything I said before the Magistrate; what I said was, while he might have our authority in writing to people for whom he sold goods, he had no authority to sign for us—I never gave him authority.
By the COURT. He wrote to customers on the firm's paper—the name was not up at the office.
Re-examined. My brother had no authority whatever to write this order for advertisements, signed "Yours faithfully, the Aspinall Publishing Company"—I went there several times—I do not know how regularly my brother was 'there—he may have been there every day to see people, and he would write on the Company's paper, and sign it in their name with initials—he would also canvass for orders, if he could get them.
EDWIN POLLARD (Detective, A). On December 11th I had a warrant for the prisoner's arrest—it is for four amounts—I went to Horsham and found him detained there—I read it to him—he said, "I am perfectly innocent of the charge, I am most anxious to meet it; I have never received any money for myself, but for the use of Mr. Dixon for payment of the office and clerks; I did not abscond from there, neither had I any intention of absconding; I heard about a month ago that they were going to get a warrant for my arrest, and I wrote to Mr. Dixon that I heard they were going to prosecute me, and would he let me know, as I was prepared to meet it, as I had an appointment on the Continent and would not leave England till I knew, but I heard nothing from him"—he was brought to Great Scotland Yard and charged, and made no reply.
Cross-examined. He was out on own recognizance after the first week—he was living in a seven-roomed house with his wife and child.
MR. POYSER submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, as Mr. James Dixon, from whom the money came, was not a member of the firm but sent money to Smith on certain representations, and that the indictment ought to have charged the obtaining from Smith, not from Dixon. MR. HUMPHREYS contended that it was immaterial who the money belonged to. The RECORDER considered that there was evidence for the Jury.
The prisoner, in his defence upon oath, stated that he was appointed by letter, and wrote immediately suggesting various items, one of which was that he was to have 40 per cent, on everything, which was subsequently agreed to at an interview in Paris; that he had to pay 20 per cent, to his canvassers, and the office rent, and his expences to and from Paris, whether he earned anything or not; that the newspaper only had a circulation of 800 a week, but that its advertisements produced £50 to £60 a week after he had worked it up; that he had a dispute with Mr. Strong about paying a commission to a canvasser in Paris, and his solicitors advised him to leave, which he did; and that he had demanded a settlement with the American Register through his solicitors, but had never had it; and that he asked Mr. Aspinall for 26 advertisements instead of 13, the commission on which would enable him to pay the £2 a week as agent.
NOT GUILTY .
FOURTH COURT. Monday, February 17th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
204. CHARLES HESCOTT (34), and GEORGE VINCENT (33) , Breaking and entering the warehouse of Robert and Henry Parnell, and stealing 120 pairs of trousers, 13 jackets, and other articles, their property.
MR. WRIGHT Prosecuted.
EMMA IVETT . I am married, and live at 156, Devons Road, Bromley—our house adjoins the gates of Messrs. Parnell's factory—at 5.40 a.m. on January 13th I was aroused by the noise of the gates being opened—I opened the street door and saw four men, and a pony and van being backed into the yard—one of the men said, "Look at that woman standing at the door"—the van was driven away, and on January 22nd I went to the police station and identified Vincent as one of the men.
Cross-examined by Vincent. I looked round twice at the station and identified you the second time.
ROBERT MILLER . I live at 82, Belsize Road, Hampstead, and am manager to Messrs. Parnell and Company, Limited, of 156a, Devons Road, Bromley—at 1.30 p.m. on January 11th I securely fastened the premises—I returned to them on Monday, the 13th, and on the big gate I found a small padlock, instead of our own, which was gone—I had to break the padlock to get in, and then found a lot of boys' suits, trousers, and other articles in the yard—on going to the factory door I found the big gate, which runs on wheels, wide open—the glass doors leading from the office to the factory had been forced open, and two drawers in a desk also—we missed goods value £50—the police were communicated with.
WILLIAM PHILIP BUCHAN . I am a postman, of 187, Campbell Road, E.—I was passing Parnell's clothing factory at 5.50 a.m. on January 13th and noticed a covered one horse van being backed into the yard—there is an electric lamp outside the gates—I took particular notice of the men who were backing in the van, both as to their height and features—on arriving at home about 10 o'clock the same morning I heard that a robbery had taken place, and I went and gave the last witness particulars of what I saw—a few days after, I was sent for to go to the police station, and picked out Hescott at once as being the man who backed the horse in.
Cross-examined by Hescott. I said at the police court that you were wearing a dark suit, but that. I was not sure about the cap.
JOHN BINGLEY . I am a labourer, of 83, Fairfoot Road, Bow—on January 13th, about 6 a.m., I was passing Parnell's Factory, and noticed a pony and van being drawn out, full of clothing—two men were in the van, one holding the reins, and two men stood inside the gateway—I went to the police station on January 22nd, and identified the two prisoners as the men whom I saw standing inside the gate.
Cross-examined by Vincent. I did say at the police station, "I fancy this chap" meaning you, but I was sure you were one of the men.
WILLIAM BROWN (Detective Sergeant, K.) I saw the prisoners at the Isle of Dogs police station, on January 22nd, and told them they would be placed with other men for the purpose of identification—they were put with eight others, and identified by the last three witnesses—I then told them they would be charged with being concerned in breaking and entering Parnell's Warehouse, in Devons Road, on January 13th—Hescott said "As true as God, I know nothing about it"—Vincent said "I know nothing about it."
Cross-examined by Vincent. I told Mrs. Ivett to have a good look, and not be frightened, as she was rather nervous at being brought into the station.
Cross-examined by Hescott. I did not hear any mention, by the post-man, bout the cap you were wearing.
Vincent, in his defence, said that he was afflicted and could not commit a burglary, that it was a trumped-up case, and he was quite innocent.
Hescott, in his defence, said that the statements by Brown and Buchan with regard to his description were inaccurate, and that he would swear that he was innocent
GUILTY . (See next case.)
205. CHARLES HESCOTT and GEORGE VINCENT were again indicted, with ALFRED INGLETON (38), WILLIAM JONES (65), and JOHN POWELL (28) , For being found by night having implements of housebreaking in their possession.
MR. WRIGHT Prosecuted, MR. PURCELL Defended Jones.
the light was on the wrong side of it, and spoke to the driver about it, and he said he thought it was all right—Jones, who was lying in the bottom of the cart, said, "We want to ship from Milwall Dock"—they drove on, and I followed—on reaching the swing bridge they got out, and I saw Vincent throw something into the dock and the others throw something over a fence—about half an hour afterwards I arrested Jones, and at 5 a.m. I arrested the others, with assistance—the prisoners were searched, and on Jones I found one cap, a table knife, two pairs of glasses, a latch key, and a comb; on Vincent, a pocket knife and a ball of twine; and on Powell a watch and a matchbox, with a chain and locket attached.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The pony and cart were coming towards us—I did not turn my lantern on them, it was light there—I did not know any of the men before—I arrested Jones about a mile and a half from where I stopped the pony—the other officer was with me, and had the same opportunity of observing them as I had.
Cross-examined by Vincent. I chased you 300 or 400 yards. (Vincent here stated that he is afflicted and cannot run a dozen yards.)
Cross-examined by Hescott. I cannot say I saw you throw anything away.
Cross-examined by Ingleton. I did not tell the other constable to stand by while I went to seek assistance.
JOHN WAKELING (545, K.) I was with Cleaver—my attention was called to a pony and barrow coming along, containing six men, including the driver—the prisoners are five of the men, the driver has not been found—one of the men said they wanted to get a ship at Milwall Dock—the cart drove on, and we followed—the five prisoners got out of the cart at Milwall Dock Bridge—Vincent threw something into the lock and Ingleton threw something over a fence—I then lost sight of them.
Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. The men were strangers to me—Jones was lying at the bottom of the cart—I next saw the prisoners at-the police station before they were put up for identification—I know it is the practice to place prisoners amongst other people for the purposes of identification, but it was not adopted in this case so far as I was concerned.
Cross-examined by Ingleton. Cleaver followed with me—he did not go back to get assistance.
Cross-examined by Vincent. I have no doubt about your being one of the men in the cart, and I saw you throw something into the dock.
WILLIAM ROBINSON (92, K.) On January 22nd, at 2 a.m., I saw four of the prisoners in Eastferry Road—I followed them a short distance and lost sight of them—I next saw them at 5 a.m., when they were taken into custody.
Cross-examined by Ingleton. I told all of you you would be taken into custody on suspicion, and you replied, "We have done nothing."
JOHN HARVEY (55, K.) From information supplied to me by Cleaver, I searched a spot over a fence near Milwall Dock and found this dark lantern, hammer, and cap (Produced), and Mr. Hall handed me these two chisels.
GEORGE ROBINSON (194, K). On January 22nd I went to Claude Street, which is about 100 yards from Milwall Dock, and in the gutter of the warehouse at No. 20 I found this six-chambered revolver fully loaded.
Hescott's defence. I admit being in the cart, but not for a felonious purpose, and I did not have any burglarious implements upon me.
Vincent's defence. I was never in the cart, and know nothing about it.
Powell's defence. I was never in the cart.
They then PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions, JONES at Chelmsford on January 1st, 1890; INGLETON at the South London Sessions en December 6th, 1898; HESCOTT at this Court on April 2nd, 1894 VINCENT at this Court on September 14th, 1891; and POWELL at the North London Sessions on August 4th, 1897. Many other convictions of felony were proved against them, and they were stated by the Police to be a dangerous gang of burglars. Five years' penal servitude each.
206. ALFRED FEAST (41) , Feloniously wounding Thomas Kinsella. The prisoner stated that he was GUILTY of unlawful wounding, and the Jury found that verdict. He received a good character. One month in the second division.
MR. PETER GRAIN Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, February 19th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
208. THOMAS STOCKWELL, WILLIAM PRICE, RAYMOND ALEXANDER MILES, WILLIAM INGRAM WHITE and WILLIAM VANDERWOLK , Unlawfully conspiring to pervert the due course of law and justice; Second Count, Charging STOCKWELL, PRICE and VANDERWOLK with conspiring to indemnify Stockwell and Price against liability on their recognizances as sureties for one E. Massen; Third Count, Charging all the prisoners with conspiring to indemnify Miles and White.
MR. C. MATTHEWS and MR. STEVENSON Prosecuted; MR. MUIR appeared for Vanderwolk, and MR. EDMONDSON for the other four prisoners.
Vanderwolk, by Mr. Muir's advice, refused to plead, and the Recorder directed a plea of
NOT GUILTY to be entered for all the prisoners. A discussion took place as to whether there was any case against Vanderwolk, he not being one of the bail, not being a householder, and MR. MUIR contended that the mere fact of indemnifying the bail would not necessarily pervert the due course of justice, and as to the whole Indictment it was not necessary that there should be an intention to defeat the ends of justice. MR. STEVENSON submitted that there was a case for the Jury. The JURY handed a note to the Recorder.
The RECORDER. Gentlemen, I understand you are of opinion, that there was no intention to pervert the due course of law and justice.
The JURY. Yes.
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Thursday, February 20th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. HUDSON Prosecuted.
LOUIS GEORGE ALEXANDER . I am a master mariner, and live at 85, Highbury New Park—on January 13th the house was properly locked up at night—the cook came to me at 6.30 next morning, and I found the kitchen window forced open and marks of tools on it—I missed all the silver and electro-plate, about £35 worth, and this umbrella (Produced), which is Mr. Milne's, from the hall stand.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. There was no cover on it then—I know it by a lot of holes in it, it is nearly worn out—you cannot get to the back of the house without getting over a low wall.
Cross-examined. A piece is torn off it and there is a hole in it—it is cotton—the fastener has been torn off and sewn on again.
ALFRED KEEBLE (515, N.) On January 13th, about 3.30 a.m., I was on duty at Highbury Quadrant and took the prisoner in custody on another charge—I found on him a box lock and screw driver, gimblet, a box of matches, a piece of candle, and a case opener—I asked him what he was doing there—he could give no address, but he did afterwards—I said, "What are you doing with these?"—he said "lam a carpenter and have lost my way"—these things are useful for breaking into houses.
Cross-examined. You said that you were a carpenter, not that these were carpenter's tools.
JOSEPH NICHOLLS (Police Inspector.) On December 28th Keeble handed me this case opener—I found that it corresponded with the marks on the window at 85, Highbury Park—he was arrested rather more than 300 yards from that house—these are housebreaking instruments—here is a knife which is specially made for pushing open window catches—this case opener takes the place of the old-fashioned jemmy—the screw driver and candle would be very useful.
JANE BARRY . I am landlady of 111, Graham Street—the prisoner has lodged with me from October 11th—I showed the police his room on December 28th, and they took away a hat and an umbrella—he told me he was a compositor, and he used to be out late at nights.
Cross-examined. I never saw you without an umbrella or walking stick—I do not recognize this umbrella as one you had when you came in
October—I cannot say whether you had a hard hat, but they went out of fashion and you had another.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he bought the umbrella in Essex Road, with a cover on it, and knew it by a mark on it and by the maker's name, and that he had it when he took the room in October, and Mr. Milne and Mr. Alexander were both mistaken about it; that he had a lock to put on but was arrested because he was drunk, two or three miles from his lodgings; that he was not a compositor, and declined to say why he was out late at night.
The prisoner called
WILLIAM ROSEBERRY . I keep a general shop at 1, Cross Street, North Islington—I tried to find the prisoner work, but could not—I have come to speak the truth—he borrowed these tools to commit a burglary, and he knows I am speaking the truth—I have supplied him with money because I promised his father when he was dying that I would do the best I could for him—he told me to pay his rent, and I sold what things were in his lodging for 5s. and paid his rent and washing.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction on January 7th, 1895, at this Court in the name of Henry Jenks. Other convictions were proved against him, and he had been sentenced to eight years' and 20 year's penal servitude. There were two other indictments against him. Seven years' penal servitude.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.
GUILTY .— Six months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. ELLIOTT Prosecuted.
CHARLES PHILPOT . I am employed by Mr. George Scales, a barge builder, of Rotherhithe Street—on December 2nd, about 4 p.m., I was on the landing stage there—I have seen the prisoner about before—he came with another man, who goes by the name of Smith—I have heard him called "Pug"—and asked me to lend him a couple of cold chisels—that is a tool used for cutting iron—I refused—I recognise this crowbar and chisel as Mr. Scales' property—they were kept by the foreman's box.
JAMES EZRA JAMES . I am foreman to A. & B. Keen, of the Globe Wharf—Mr. Percy Keen is the sole proprietor—on December 2nd I left the premises about 6.5 p.m.—the safe in the office was locked up—there was.£3 1s. 6d. in money in it, and the business books—the office was locked up, but the key was—left in the door—the office door cannot be reached from outside if the outer door is locked, it is inside the building—I locked the outer door and took away the key—when I left there was no smell of fire—the lamps were out and the gas turned off at the meter—I assured myself everything was right—we store loose wheat, bags of flour, and grain of all kinds—it is almost the largest granary on the river—I returned next morning about 5.55 and found the premises in the bands of the fire brigade—the office and part of the warehouse was on fire—it was smouldering then—we examined what remained of the office—we found this crowbar and chisel near the safe—they had evidently been used to break open the safe—the side of the safe was broken open—this little tool was found in the keyhole of the safe—the books were taken out and were lying about, and the money was missing.
JAMES BLYTH . I am superintendent of the Southern division of the London Salvage Corps—on the early morning of December 3rd I was called to this fire—it undoubtedly originated in the office—the total damage is somewhere between £2,000 and £3,000.
BENJAMIN LEEK (Police Sergeant M.) On December 3rd, about 9 a.m., I went to the Globe Wharf, Rotherhithe Street—I went into the office, where I saw a safe with the doors forced open—I found a crowbar, a chisel, and a hammer there.
ALBERT HELDEN (Thames Police Inspector.) About 11.30 a.m. on January 14th I was near the Shadwell Dock Bridge—I saw the prisoner—I had known him for some time as a labourer about the river—I said to him, "Kefford, I shall arrest you for warehouse breaking and setting fire to Globe Wharf"—he said, "That is right, I wish you had caught me before, I will tell you all about it; Pug" meaning another man, "and me went to Scales; he took the tools; we walked into the place at 5.45 and stowed away till it was quiet. I admit the burglary, but did not set fire to the place. We got nothing, and as Pug was making a row with the safe I told him I would clear out, and I dropped out of the first floor. That was at 9.30. It was a shame to do such a thing; he did it, not me. I left him in there. I saw Pug about a week after, on a Friday; he came to me at my house and we had a row about the fire. I wish I had not gone with him; he is to blame, not me"—I was not at the police court when he gave a further explanation.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I put down what you said—you did not say"I got nothing."
The prisoners statement before the Magistrate. "I am innocent of the arson; I went away, leaving Pug with the safe unopened; I did not know of the fire till I saw the report in the paper."
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he went into the warehouse with Pug and would plead guilty to it, but left before Pug; that he did not take the money or set fire to the place.
NOT GUILTY .
PLEADED GUILTY . Five years' penal servitude.
Before Mr. Recorder.
214. JOHN HEAD (21), and WILLIAM JOHN MURRAY (19), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a tray and 63 gold rings, the property of Frank Hunt; HEAD also to assaulting and beating Leonard Hammond, a constable, while in the execution of his duty, Head having been convicted of felony at Newington on June 13th, 1900, as Harry Johnson. Three other convictions were proved against him. Twenty months' hard labour. MURRAY Discharged on recognizances.
MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted.
THOMAS SMITH . I am a compositor, and live at 11, Victory Place, Camberwell—on December 22nd I was going home about 12.15 a.m.—I saw a gang of boys, who I had often seen before—the prisoner was one of them, and also one called Glover—they were standing at the head of my street; in order to get rid of them I went into a urinal—they immediately blockaded the place so that I could not get out; I forced my way out, and Glover, saying I had struck him, pushed me about; they tripped me up and threw me down, and as I was struggling to get up the prisoner kicked me on my arm; they then decamped—I was taken to Guy's Hospital; I was examined there; my fore arm was broken.
RUTH BOWDERY . I am the wife of George Bowdery, of Victory Place—I saw the prosecutor on the ground, and the prisoner and also some others—the prisoner kicked the prosecutor while he was on the ground—they then all ran away—I know the prosecutor and the prisoner—I am sure he is the man.
CHARLES KEYS (Detective, L.) I heard of this wounding, and applied for a warrant against the prisoner—I executed it on January 19th—when I read it to the prisoner he said, "Glover did it; I expected this; I fell over him"—the prosecutor had been taken to Guy's Hospital.
FRANCIS GEORGE CROSS . On December 22nd I was house surgeon at Guy's Hospital—I examined the prosecutor, and found a compound fracture of the ulma bone in his right fore arm—that could have been caused by a kick—it was done by a blunt instrument—there was a considerable amount of bruising and inflammation, but I did not see it for some hours afterwards.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he went into the urinal with Glover as the prosecutor, who was drunk, was coming out; that the prosecutor struck Glover in the face; that the prosecutor fell down; and that they went away; that they went back to him, and as they were picking him up he called out "Murder"; and that they then wont away.
GUILTY . Two previous convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to two previous convictions of like offences. Four month's hard labour, and to find sureties for his good behaviour, otherwise to be further imprisoned for three months.
MR. DEVONPORT Prosecuted.
HENRY BISHOP . I am 68 years old, and live at 40, Preston Street, Old Kent Road—on December 30th, about 4.30 p.m., I was collecting rents as an agent, and had got £7 10s. 6d.—I went to ray office in Phoenix Road about 4.40 and unlocked the door—I had the padlock in my hand when I received a blow on the back of my head which made me unconscious—my money was in my left pocket—I got up and felt for the money, and it was gone—I still feel the effects of it—I never saw or heard anybody.
EDWARD COOK . I live at East Street, Camberwell—on December 30th was in Parish Road, near a plumber's yard, and saw Glover, Edgar and Tyler—I know Row as Glover—I saw Mr. Bishop—one of the boys hit him with a stick, and knocked him down—I ran after them, but they did not speak to me—I picked them out at the station without any trouble; I have known them quite well for two or three years.
SIDNEY MORRIS . I live at Bermondsey—on December 31st, about 9.45 a.m., I found this iron bar (Produced) near Mr. Phillips' gate—I saw a mark on the ground as if it had been thrown over the wall—I know Row and Edgar.
ERNEST HENRY DRAKE . I am a surgeon, of 161, St. George's Road, Peckham—on December 30th, about 5 p.m., I examined Mr. Bishop; he had three large scalp wounds and one on the back of his neck—he suffered a good deal from the loss of blood—they were caused by some blunt instrument, this (A life preserver.) would effect them—four blows of considerable force would be required.
WILLIAM MARSH . I am a chimney sweep, of 228, East Street—on December 30th, in the morning, I saw Row—he asked me to treat him, as he had no money—I said that I did not feel inclined, and in the evening he said, "Oh, we have got some now, we don't want your treat."
FREDERICK HEYES (Detective) On December 31st, shortly after 10 p.m., I saw Row carrying a horse cloth—I was about to arrest him when he threw this at my legs and ran towards the canal bank, and Edgar the other way—I followed Row—he stopped short and threw me, and said, "Let me go, or I will put you into the canal"—we had a violent struggle—I got assistance, and he was taken to the station, and shortly afterwards Edgar was brought in on another charge, and the next morning Row and Edgar were placed with six others and Cook identified them without the least hesitation—on the 4th, at 1.15, I saw Tyler at Neat Street, Camberwell, and said, "I am a police officer, I shall take you for assaulting a man with two others"—he said "The boys told me you
were going to pinch me"—at the station he said "I was not there, but I was with them at a quarter to five at Perrin's Road"—he was remanded till January 8th, and Row and Edgar were before the Magistrates, and Edgar said, "I know nothing about it."
Edgar's defence We know nothing about the charge at all; I do not see why we should be taken.
Tyler's defence. The three of us went for a walk over Stone Bridge, Edgar went down the road, and I never saw them again.
GUILTY . The Jury considered that Tyler was led into it. The police stated that Row was connected with a gang.—TYLER Six months hard labour. —ROW Eighteen months' and twelve strokes with the cat ,—EDGAR Twelve months'.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
218. PHILIP BENTLEY (42) , Attempting to obtain by false pretences 32s. from Edmund Pearce; from Louisa Burrows 28s.; from Harriet Streetfield 28s.; and from Mary Ann Seward 28s, with intent to defraud.
MR. COUNSELL Prosecuted.
HARRIET STREETFIELD . I am the wife of George Streetfield, of 74, De Burgh Road, and am a tenant of Mr. Denyer—on January 13th I went to No. 80, De Burgh Road, about 8.45 a.m.—I saw this post card (Produced) on the table there—I read it to the tenant of No. 80—I have seen my landlord's writing—this does not resemble it—at 9.20 the same morning I saw the prisoner at No. 80—that is the house at one end of the houses belonging to Mr. Denyer—they run from 70 to 80—I went to the door of No. 80, and asked him his business—he said he had called for the rent on behalf of Mr. Denyer, our landlord, as he could not come himself, as he had gone to Southend the day before—I said that Mrs. Martin did not care to pay money to a stranger, and I did not care to do so either—I owed Mr. Denyer 28s. for four weeks' rent—I said I thought it was Mr. Denyer's place to bring the man himself if he wanted a stranger to collect the rents—the prisoner said, "Very well," and went on to No. 78.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I told you I had seen a post card which professed to come from Mr. Denyer, but that I did not recognise the writing—you did not come to my house after I had seen you at 80—you asked me for my rent at Mrs. Martin's—I did not know you before—I do not remember your doing my house up—I told you I had read the post card to Mrs. Martin, who was ill in bed—there was one to a Mr. Pearce, too.
MARY ANN SEWARD . I live with my husband at 76, De Burgh Road—we are tenants of Mr. Denyer—on January 13th I saw the prisoner about 9.30 a.m.—he asked me for my rent—I owed Mr. Denyer 28s.—the prisoner said he had called for the rent, as Mr. Denyer could not call himself—he had a post card, a book, and a pencil in his hand—he said
there was a letter sent, and had not I seen it, and I told him "No"—I asked him whose house he had left the letter at—he said, "At one of the end houses, I think Mrs. Martin's"—he had never come to collect money before—I had seen him before, when he was doing Mr. Denyer's houses up—he had done some papering in my house—Mr. Denyer has always collected the rents.
Cross-examined. You offered to show me a post card, but you did not do so.
LOUISA BURROWS . I and my husband live at 72, De Burgh Road, and are tenants to Mr. Denyer—we pay 7s. a week—on January 13th we owed him 28s.—the prisoner came to my house on January 13th, between 9.30 and 10 a.m.—he said he had called for the rent for Mr. Denyer—I said I would not pay my rent to anybody but Mr. Denyer himself—he called for his rent once a month—I told the prisoner I did not think it right to send such a man as him without coming himself—he then went to No. 70, and I saw no more of him—I saw this post card—I have seen Mr. Denyer's writing—this is not his (This was directed to Mr. Martin, and was signed, F. Denyer, awl stated that the writer would not be able in future to call for his rents, but that Mr. Watson would call between 9 and 10, and asking Mr. Martin to let the tenants at Nos. 76 and 78 know, and saying that he had written to Mr. Pearce)
Cross-examined. One post card went to Mr. Pearce's house and one to Mr. Martin's—I told you I did not think it right to send a man like you for rents, and then you went to Mr. Pearce's.
EDMUND PEARCE (Policeman.) I am a tenant of Mr. Denyer, at No 70, De Burgh Road—on January 13th, shortly after 8 a.m., I received this post card: "Sir, I shall not be able to come myself in future for rents, but Mr. Watson will call to-morrow and every Monday, between 9 and 10 o'clock. Will you kindly let them know at 72 and 74? I have wrote to Mr. Martin. Yours, F. Denyer"—I did not know the prisoner—shortly after 9 a.m. I went into my garden and saw the prisoner come to the corner of De Burgh Road—he went to Nos. 78, 74, and 72, and then came to me—he said, "Are you Mr. Pearce?"I said, "Yes," and I asked him into the front garden and closed the gate—he then said, "I have called for the rent; "I said, "Very good, will you step inside?" and unlocked my front door—I owed 32s. rent then—Detective Allen, of the W Division, was in my house—the prisoner produced this post card, saying he had come from Mr. Denyer: "Mr. Bentley, will you look at my houses at Wimbledon, and let me know what you will do the front rooms in each house for, the ceilings and walls? Be there early on Monday morning; you might also collect the rents for me while you are down there. I have wrote and told them you are going down. Yours, F. Denyer"—I said to the prisoner, "I shall not pay you any rent, as Mr. Denyer never writes to me without it is in a letter"—I know his writing—these post cards are not in his writing—he never sends for his rent, he always calls for it—I have been living there for over two years—the inspector aid that he should take the prisoner into custody for attempting to obtain money by false pretences—he said, "I did not know you were a policeman"—he was then taken into custody.
Cross-examined. I did not ask you if you knew a policeman lived at my house—I saw you go to 74, as well as to 80, 76, 72, and mine.
FRANK DENVER . I live at 174, Clapham Park Road, and am a builder and decorator, and am landlord of the houses No. 70 to 80, De Burgh Road—I have been the owner of the houses for five years—I collect the rents myself monthly—I did not write either of these post cards—I do not know the writing, but in my opinion it very much resembles the prisoner's—he has been in my employ for four years on and off—these papers (Produced) are time sheets written by him—I had not seen him for about 12 months before January 13th—I did not tell him I was going to Southend, or to collect any rents—I did not authorise anyone to write these post cards—I employed the prisoner as a painter and paperer.
Cross-examined. My clerk's name is Mr. Paterson—I have no idea who Mr. Watson is—you have done jobs for me at different times.
BENJAMIN ALLAN (Police Inspector, W.) On the morning of January 11th I was at Mr. Pearce's house—he is a constable—about 9.30 the prisoner called there—he was shown into the room where I and Inspector Scott were—Pearce said to him, "I have received a post card from Mr. Denyer this morning saying that Mr. Watson will call for the rent"—he did not reply—I said, "Are you Mr. Watson?"—he said, "No, my name is Bentley"—I said, "Have you been authorised to collect the rent on behalf of Mr. Denyer?"—he said, "Yes"—he produced another card—I then said, "I do not believe it, as I have been informed that the writing is not Mr. Denyer's; I am a police officer, and shall take you into custody for attempting to obtain the rent by false pretences"—he said, "I do not understand it after receiving a post card this morning from Mr. Denyer; will you send for him?"—I said, "Yes"—I conveyed the prisoner to Wimbledon police station, and a telegram was sent to Mr. Denyer, who attended at the station later on—the prisoner was charged, and when the charge was read over to him he said to Mr. Denyer, "Did you send that postcard?"—Mr. Denyer said, "No"—the prisoner said, "I received a post card asking me to collect the rents for you; I did not retain it, as I did not know what it was."
Cross-examined. I believe you said to Pearce that you did not know he was a policeman.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had received a post card signed by Denyer, asking him to collect the rents; that he believed it was from Mr. Denyer, and that it was not his writing on the post card.
GUILTY . A previous conviction was proved against him. Nine month's hard labour.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY,and as a justification that the prosecutrix (her sister) was unfit to teach children through her adultery with her (the prisoner's) husband, and called witnesses to prove the adultery.
MR. B. W. MATTHEWS and MR. A E. GILL Prosecuted, MR. JELF Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, MARCH 10th 1902.