CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
NINTH SESSION, HELD JUNE 30TH, 1902.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
JAMES DROVER BARNETT
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, June 30th, 1902, and following days,
Before the Right Hon. Sir JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Baronet, M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir CHARLES JOHN DARLING , one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir GEORGE F. FAUDEL-PHILLIPS, Bart., G.C.I.E.; Sir FRANK GREEN , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Knt.; Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Knt., and THOMAS VEZEY STRONG ,. Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; ALBERT FREDERICK BOSANQUET , Esq., Common Serjeant of the said City; and JAMES ALEXANDER RENTOUL , Esq., 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. NINTH SESSION.
A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT.—Monday, June 30th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
478. EVA SEYMOUR (28) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a hat, the property of Thomas Wallis and Co., Ltd., having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell, on August 1st, 1899. Seven other convictions were proved against her, and she had 342 days still to serve. Twelve months' hard labour —
(479) HENRY CLARK , to burglary in the dwelling house of Sir Arthur Lawson, with intent to steal therein, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on October 2nd, 1900, as Henry Clarkson, and two other convictions were proved against him. Five years' penal servitude. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(480) CHARLES LOVETT (See page 646), to embezzling £6 and £20, the moneys of John Gwynne his master. Six months' in the second division, to date from the first day of last Session. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(481) HENRY MITCHELL , to stealing while employed under the Post Office, two post letters, the property of the Postmaster General. He received a good character. Nine months' hard labour; [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] and
MR. COUNSELL, Prosecuted.
WILLIAM MILLER (Detective Sergeant). I arrested the prisoner on May 29th—I said to him, "You know me "'—he said, "Yes"—I said, "You will be taken into custody and charged with being concerned with a man named Horsewell, not in custody, and a man named Delafuente, already in custody, for stealing and receiving a chest of tea, the property of Mr.
Donaldson, on April 9th last"—he said, "Yes, but I know nothing about it"—he was token to the station, confronted with Hart—he was charged, and when leaving the dock for the cells he said to Hart, "You know as much about this as I do, and you had as much out of it as I did"—in the prisoner's presence Hart said that he was in Gower's Walk when Horsewell, Delafuente, and Keith came down with a barrow; that Horsewell put a chest of tea on to the barrow, and that Keith and Delafuente went up the walk with it—the prisoner made no reply to that.
WILLIAM HART . I am sixteen, and am a van guard employed by Mr. William Donaldson—I was on Horsewell's van one day early in April, about 4 p.m.—I got on to the van in Crutched Friars—the van was loaded when I met Horsewell—we went to near Gower's Walk, we got there about 5.45—Horsewell stopped the van—Delafuente came round with a barrow—the prisoner, who I knew before, came behind him—the prisoner had been in Donaldson's employment for about three months—Horsewell helped Delafuente to put a chest of tea on the barrow and cover it over—Delafuente was in the shafts of the barrow and the prisoner by the side—they went up Gower's Walk together—I remained with the van—Horsewell returned by himself, and we drove away through Great Prescott Street—he put his hand into his pocket and took out 2s. which he threw down in the van—I left it there, the money looked like a 2s. piece or half-a-crown.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You were not with the van when I got on to it at Crutched Friars.
WILLIAM DONALDSON . I am a carman and contractor, of 42, Crutched Friars—Horsewell was a carman in my employment, and Hart as a van guard on Horsewell's van—Horsewell's duty on this occasion was to collect and deliver tea—I first discovered that a chest of tea had been taken about three weeks after April 9th—we had complaints from the consignees that they were one packet short, its value was £4 odd, and weighed 1 cwt. 71bs.—each chest is numbered—item nine on the delivery list alludes to chests 403 to 407, that is five packages, but my clerk wrote "4" against them instead of "5"—the prisoner was in my employment up till about three weeks previous to the robbery.
ALBERT HORSEWELL I was a carman in the employment of Mr. Donaldson—I have pleaded guilty to taking this chest of tea on April 9th—I had been with him for more than two years—I have not been sentenced yet—I remember driving down to Gower's Walk—I saw Delafuente there, he was a stranger to me—he had no barrow with him when I first saw him—I saw Keith there, two or three yards behind, he had nothing to do with the robbery.
Cross-examined. I sold the chest of tea to Delafuente, not to you.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he was waiting in Gower's Walk for a friend; that a ran came up, and a chest of tea was taken out and placed on a barrow; that he was about twenty yards away; that he did not know anything about it and that he did not know Delafuente.
NOT GUILTY .
HORSEWELL (See page 671)— Twelve months' hard labour, to date from the first day of last Session.
MR. WATERIOW Prosecuted.
ARTHUR WHEELER . I live at 102. Ben Johnson Road—on Saturday, June 21st, about 12.45 in the day, I was going home from work—the prisoner came up and asked me to treat him—I refused, and he struck me in the face and knocked me to the ground—there were several others around me—the prisoner put his hand over my mouth and robbed me of 8s.—they ran away, and I went home—my mother went up to King David Lane—two detectives came down, and I gave evidence against the chap—I had never seen the prisoner before—he was locked up for being drunk, and the two tecs came down to my house for me to identify him—he was standing among about fourteen others, and I picked him out—I have no doubt about him.
By the COURT. I gave a description of the prisoner on the same day that I was robbed, and he was taken into custody for being drunk on the following Friday—he was then dressed as he is now, but not as he was when he robbed me—I identified him by his face.
HENRY RUTTER (Detective). I saw the prisoner in custody at the Thames Police Court—I said I was a police officer and should put him up for identification for being concerned with a number of others for robbery with violence about 12.30 p.m. on the 21st—he said, "Where was this done?"—I told him in Brook Street, Ratcliff—he said, "I was in bed at that time"—I put him up with ten others—the prosecutor identified him without the slightest hesitation—he was charged and made no reply—I took a description of the prisoner on the 28th, and on the Sunday I was looking for him, and I saw him in Brook Street, and he ran away—on the Friday a constable was called to eject him from a public house, and he was recognised—I have known him a long time, and he knows me.
The Prisoner's, statement before the Magistrate. "I was not there, I was in Leytonstone; I call no witnesses."
GUILTY of robbery. He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on November 19th, 1901, and three other convictions were proved against him. The police stated that the prisoner trained boys to steal. Five years' penal servitude.
MR. RODERICK Prosecuted.
The prosecution, owing to the absence of a witness, being unable to prove the first marriage, the Recorder directed the Jury to acquit the prisoner.
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Monday, June 30th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
(487) JOHN HENRY WILLIAM WHEELER (23) , to stealing a bicycle, the property of Alfred Maxwell ; also to stealing, in the dwelling-house of Henry Guest, a box and other articles, the property of Frederick Gapp. One month's hard labour — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(488) HARRY SEARK (54) . to attempting to procure the commission by Thomas Davidson and others of acts of gross indecency with himself. Discharged on recognisances. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(489) HENRY LENCH † (18), to robbery with violence on Frances Pitcher, and stealing from her a watch and chain. One previous conviction was proved against him. Six months' hard labour — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(490) RALPH DIX (46) . to obtaining from Frederick End 4s., from Nellie End 3s. and from George Leslie Bannerman 4s., by false pretences with intent to defraud. Twelve months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
ROBERT COLLINS (383 K.) On May 30th, about 9.30 p.m., I was in Lefevre Road, Bow, off duty—I saw the prisoner with a box—he was by himself at first, but he was joined afterwards by others—I asked him what he had in the box—he said, "What is in the box belongs to me"—I told him £ was a police officer, and should take him to the police station—he then dropped the box and a struggle commenced—two other men and a woman joined in the struggle, and tried to get the prisoner out of my custody—I sent for another constable, and the prisoner was eventually taken to the station, where he was searched, but nothing found upon him—the box was examined, and it contained a mould, a ladle, two pieces of white metal, a spoon, some plaster of Paris, and some lard—when he was charged with the unlawful possession of the mould, he said, "I know nothing at all about it"—he made no attempt to explain how he got the box into his possession, only that he had brought it from the Lefevre Road, where he had been living—I went to 39, Lefevre Road, and saw the landlady—I went into the room he occupied and made a search, but found nothing.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I arrested you in Lefevre Road you were as far from your door as the length of this Court—in the struggle I was dragged to your door and the door was knocked—you said to your landlady, "Do not I live here?"—she said, "He has been lodging here, but he is not living here now"—she said that you had left three months before—she did say that she had just given you your box—I do not know whether you and your landlady were going to the Eastern Empire—the reason I did not give you an opportunity of opening your box in front of your landlady was because you acted in a suspicious manner—I told you to come to the station.
the end of February last—he gave the name of Chamberlain—I asked him for references, and he said he was working for Messrs. Phillips, lightermen, in the City—he had one room to himself, for which he paid 4s. a week—when he came he paid me 4s. deposit—he did not bring anything "with him at the time, but he said he would go and fetch his box, which he did—it was a tin box—the box produced in Court is his—he remained at my house for five days, and then he was supposed to have fallen into the dock—it was three months later when I next saw him—during his absence my husband locked the tin box up in the front room—on May 29th the prisoner called for it, but it was locked up and my husband had the key of the room, so I told him I could not give it him till he called again—he called again the next day, and I gave it him—during the time he stayed at my house he had sole occupation of the room he had hired—during his absence nobody went into the room—the morning after he left a man called for his trousers and other articles of clothing for him to change, as he had fallen into the dock—I gave the man the things for which he asked, and what he had not got I lent him of my husband's—the man never went to the prisoner's box—as far as I know no one touched the box—there was only my husband and myself in the house.
Cross-examined. I was not going to the Eastern Empire with you—I did not meet you in the Bow Road—I gave you your box at the door of 59, Lefevre Road—I saw a scrimmage between you and the constable—I shut the door quick—there was a knock at my door, but I could not tell who did it—I did not speak to anyone, but I heard an awful noise—I was looking out of my window—I never spoke to a man named William Newson—I saw you once on May 29th and once on May 30th, when I gave you your box—on the 30th I told you a man had been for your trousers that hung at the foot of the bed and your scarf that hung at the back of the door; he would not have known where they were had not you told him—you said it was a scandalous shame and that someone had taken your clothes under false pretences—you did not point any man out to me as the man to whom I gave your clothes—I did call out of the window, "I have just given him the box"—there was a mob there so I didn't want to be at the door—when I gave you your box I was not with you half a minute.
ARTHUR WELLS . I am the husband of the last witness and I am a 'bus driver—the night after the prisoner left the house I took charge of his box—I took it away and locked it up in the front parlour of which I keep the key—I could not say exactly when it was the missus asked me for the key—from the time of my first locking the box up down to the time when I gave my wife the key it was never touched by anyone—nobody could get to it.
Cross-examined. During the time you lived at my place I did not see you—I never saw you use any of the tools produced—I do not know anything about the latch-key that was given you—the night after you left I locked your box in the parlour—I never knew what was inside it—nobody could have gone to it.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am an Inspector of Coin of H.M. Mint—I have seen the mould in question—it is a single mould for half a crown—i have also seen the other articles that were found—they are all such as are
generally used for the making of counterfeit coin—these are not the whole of the instruments, only a portion—some of them can be used for other purposes.
The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "When I was arrested I took the constable to the house at Lefevre Road; I had applied at Bow Road Station about some lost property; the things were put into my box during my absence."
GUILTY . Twelve other convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, July 1st, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
493. GEORGE FREDERICK WALKER (28) , Feloniously administering and causing to be taken by George Frederick Walker, the younger, certain poison, with intent to murder him. Oilier counts—With intent to endanger life, or to inflict grievous bodily harm.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
ELIZABETH PARKER . I lodge at 11, Railway Street, North Road, King's Cross.—the prisoner lodged there with his family—on June 3rd I returned home about 7 p.m.—soon afterwards I was on the staircase in the house—I heard the prisoner shouting, "Help, help; some one come down, Mrs. Basey"—she is a fellow lodger—I went to the prisoner's room—the door was open—I stood on the landing—I could see into the room—I see the prisoner laying on the bed—he said, "I have done it, I have done it"—I said, "What have you done"—he said, "I have taken spirits of salts; I have given the baby some too"—I went to Mrs. Thompson, who returned to the room with me—a policeman was there when I returned—I went into the room—the prisoner again said, "I done it, I done it"—I took the baby into my arms and I took it to the Royal Free Hospital, where it was seen by the house surgeon—I brought it back the same night—I think it is 2 1/2 years old.
FREDERICK COX (40 G.) I was called to 11, Railway Street, at 7.20 p.m. on June 3rd—I found the prisoner lying on a bed groaning—I said to him, "What do you mean by this "'—he said, "I did it because I have got a bad wife, she stays out all night"—I said, "Where is the child"—a woman standing by said it was in the next room—I said, "Fetch it here"—she brought it in—I gave it an emetic—I was going to give the prisoner some mustard and water—he said, "No"—I forced it into his mouth and drenched him with it—I asked him what he had given the child—he said he had given it the same as he had taken himself, spirits of salts—he was taken to the hospital—I did not search the prisoner's room—the prisoner had been drinking—I could smell beer upon him.
JOHN WEST . I am house surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn Road—on June 3rd I received the prisoner—I thought he was intoxicated—I examined him—his tongue and the roof and back of his mouth were white, which would be easily brought about by swallowing
corrosive fluid—I also examined the child—its lips were swollen, but chiefly the under lip, and there was a minute patch of redness on the tip of the tongue—I have examined this bottle (Produced)—I think it had contained spirits of salts—the condition of the prisoner's and the child's mouths could be caused by swallowing spirits of salts, which is a poison if taken without water being added—it destroys life easily by doing damage to the passages, but I cannot say what quantity would be required to cause death, as it depends on the age and strength of the person to whom it is given—the child was quite well again next day—the stuff the baby took was capable of destroying its life—it would not require much—I do not think it swallowed any at all.
WALTER SELBY (Detective G.) I arrested the prisoner on June 10th on his leaving the Royal Free Hospital—I told him he would be charged with attempting to murder his son by administering poison to him, also for attempting to commit suicide at 11, Railway Street, on June 3rd—he said, All right, I shall have to put up with it; I do not remember anything about it; me and my wife having had a few words, I went and had a few half-pints of beer; the next I remember I was in the hospital"—at the station when he was charged he said, "All right, sir"—I went to 11, Railway Street, and made a search there on June 3rd; I found this empty bottle (Produced) under a fire grate amongst a quantity of broken crockery.
By the COURT. The prisoner is a good husband and a good father when he is out of drink—he has been very much addicted to drink, especially on Saturdays—he has three children—his wife drinks slightly—I did not see the prisoner on June 3rd.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had some words with his wife, that he went out and did not remember anything more until he was in the hospital, that he did not remember seeing the child or taking the poison, and that he had no intention of doing the child any harm. GUILTY of administering poison, so as thereby to endanger life, being under the influence of drink. Discharged on Recognisances. The Court and the Grand Jury complimented P.C. Cox for the prompt way in which he had acted.
MR. WILKINSON, for the prosecution, offered no evidence
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted, and MR. BURNIE Defended.
During the progress of the trial his Lordship said that he should not leave the case to the jury on the charge of rape. The prisoner then pleaded guilty to carnally knowing Mary Rosina Cavanagh, a girl between the ages of thirteen and sixteen. Three previous convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour.
HENRY WILLIAM MARTINS DANVERS . I am a cashier at the London and County Bank, Hackney Branch—I produce a, copy of the passbook of the Skegness Life Fund—the account was opened on June 11th, 1894, with £1,800, and on June 29th, 1894, the sum was invested in India Three Per Cent. Stock—the account continued as a current account until August 13th, 1900, when £2 7s. 8d. stood to its credit—cheques drawn upon the account were signed by two of the trustees, and countersigned by the secretary of the trustees—I cannot swear that the prisoner presented this cheque, dated August 13th, 1900, for payment on that date, but it has his endorsement on it—a Mr. Myers used to come to the bank to cash cheques, and also the prisoner—when this cheque was presented I cashed it—it closed the account, but I did not know it at the time—the selling out of the £1,800 was carried out by the manager.
HENRY PORTER STOCK . Up to March 31st last I was manager of the Hackney Branch of the London and County Bank—I have now retired—while I was at the Bank the Skegness Relief Fund kept an account there—I received this letter signed by Mr. Rennell as the secretary of the trustees, and which enclosed the names of the trustees—at that time a cheque for £1,800 was paid to the bank, which was invested by the bank in India Stock in the names of the trustees, G. C. Fletcher, Arthur J. Stone, W. G. Rennell, W. Maxfield Mead—there was a power of attorney enabling the bank to sell out stock from time to time—the last amount sold out was. £200 on February 10th, which realised £216 16s. 8d.—I had this letter from the prisoner who was the secretary and also a trustee, dated January 8th, 1895—(This stated that at a meeting of the trustees it had been agreed that £200 of the money invested in India Three Per Cent, be sold out, and the amount placed to the current account of the Skegness Relief Fund, and asking that the matter might receive immediate attention, as they would require to cash cheques at the end of the week.)—this letter, dated February 6th, I received also from the prisoner (Read) "Dear Sir, I am directed by my co-trustees to request you to be so good as to sell out the remainder of our India Three Per Cent. Stock, and to place the sum to the credit of our current account"—that resulted in the sale of the remaining portion of the investment—on each occasion when stock was sold there was a similar order.
LOUIS RICHARD QUENNEL . I am an accountant in the Chief Accountant's Department of the Bank of England, and produce a power of attorney signed by William Maxfield Mead, Arthur John Stone, G. C. Fletcher, and Walter George Rennell—it is dated February 11th. 1895, and is a power to sell £1,808 19s. 11d. of India Three Per Cent. Stock—the whole of the stock was sold out by February 10th, 1900.
FREDERICK WILLIAM WEBB . I am a professional accountant, and live at 110, Powerscroft Road, Clapton—I was appointed trustee under this deed dated March 31st, 1894—it recites the names of the other trustees, they are Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mead, the Rev. George Charles Fletcher, and Mr. Rennell: it also recites that £2,786 has been subscribed for the benefit of children and widows of several men who were drowned at Skegness on July 8th,.
1893, and that of that sum £2.672 10s. remains to be distributed—this (Produced) is the minute book—a meeting was held on July 31st, 1894; the minutes are in the prisoner's writing, and are signed by Mr. Mead at the next meeting—Mr. Rennell's resignation was agreed to and accepted, and on the motion of Mr. Mead it was agreed that Mr. Stone should act as secretary—that is the prisoner—he was to be paid 10s. a month for his services—he was empowered to take possession of all documents—there was another meeting on October 19th—the minutes are in the prisoner's writing—it is recorded that the secretary stated that he had got the cash-book, the vouchers, and banker's passbook, and it was agreed on the suggestion of Mr. Johnson that the secretary should prepare a schedule of all receipts and should supply a copy to the trustees—it is also recorded, that cheques should be signed for three months—the habit was to sign cheques and fill them in beforehand—I believe I signed a cheque out of a meeting—that would be about 1897, at the Clapton Park Club, in the room where we generally held the meetings—I did so at the prisoner's request—I was present at the meeting on May 31st, 1895, and also on December 13th, 1897. when the prisoner submitted exhibit 45, which shows the benefits extending down to February 25.1907—the fund was sufficient to meet all payments and leave a balance, but I have not calculated the amount—so far as I know the payments continued down to December, 1901—about that time I had complaints as to a non-payment; causing inquiries to be made, I discovered the cheque for £2 8s. 7d. and the drawing out of the whole of the fund—there ought to have been £708 in hand on August 13th, 1900, when that cheque was drawn—I have looked through all the cheques and vouchers which could be found—I do not find that the beneficiaries received more money than they were entitled to—I have compared the existing cheques with the bank passbook, but about twenty are missing.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. An audit was arranged for December 20th, 1898. and on another date—I was not prevented from being present owing to a family bereavement—Mr. Mead was detained—my duty as trustee was to see that the fund was properly administered as far as my ability went—£130 was paid over to the beneficiaries after the account was closed.
By the COURT. I presume that came from the prisoner's pocket—it was paid to the beneficiaries by the prisoner before criminal proceedings were taken.
GEORGE CHARLES FLETCHER . I am a priest in Holy Orders, and vicar of All Saints', Clapton—I am one of the trustees to this fund—I did not sign this cheque for £2 8s. 7d.—the signature which purports to be mine is a fair imitation—I have no doubt that these three other signatures are mine—I did not know that the whole fund had been drawn out of the bank, or that the whole of the investment had been sold out—I first discovered, that it had been at the end of November or beginning of December, 1901—I and the other trustees are at present paying the beneficiaries out of our own pockets.
Cross-examined. Many attempts were made to hold meetings—I failed
to attend four or five meetings when summoned—if that cheque for £2 8s. 7d. had been sent to me in the ordinary way I do not think I should have signed it because of the small amount—the only small amounts that we drew from time to time were cheques drawn in connection with a Mrs. Rixon, and there was a particular reason for their being small—I find now that the other trustees are not prepared to swear that the signatures on the other cheques are forgeries.
Re-examined. I did not authorise the prisoner to sign my name to any cheque.
BENJAMIN JOHNSON . I am an undertaker at 56, Devons Road, Bow, and am one of the trustees of the Skegness Relief Fund—from time to time I signed cheques in conjunction with the other trustees—this signature on this cheque for £2 8s. 7d. is not mine—I did not authorise anybody to sign it—I was not aware in August, 1900. that the whole of the funds had been exhausted and the account closed—I first discovered that during the present year.
Cross-examined. I consider the imitation of my signature to be a very bad one—if this cheque had been submitted to me in the ordinary"way I should not have signed it because it has never been necessary for the trustees to sign so small a cheque—I do not know how many meetings I attended, or how many I was summoned to without attending—the great difficulty was to get you to have a meeting.
WILLIAM MAXFIELD MEAD . I am the borough accountant for Poplar, and am one of the trustees for this fund—I attended meetings from time to time—at one of the meetings it was decided the accounts should be audited, and I, with one of the other trustees, was instructed to do it—once or twice I asked whether we might have the audit—I believe that was in 1898—I asked the prisoner for the books—he never let me have them—he did not give me any reason for that except that he was very busy and that it was not convenient to have the meeting—the books were never audited—the dividend warrants were sent to me from the bank—I sent them on to the prisoner—in August, 1900, I did not know that the whole of the funds had been exhausted, or that the account had been closed—I first heard of it in the beginning of this year—I wrote two or three letters to the prisoner, and I received this answer from him, dated January 31st, 1902, (Read)"Dear Mr. Mead,—Your letter to hand. It is most inconvenient for me to return to town just now. If you and your colleagues will just remember the patience I have shown during eight years you will feel the least you can do is to wait my pleasure now."—he was at Sudbury—he left the School Board in December, 1901, I think—I heard he had done so, and I wrote to him in the country.
Cross-examined. I am aware that several meetings were called, and the trustees did not put in an appearance—a meeting was arranged for you to meet Mr. Webb and myself to audit the account—I do not remember that Mr. Webb was unable to attend.
FRANCIS ALFRED BURT I am a clerk in the London School Board—I was employed at the Lamb Lane offices—the prisoner was there as correspondent until November 23rd last year—he received £278 per annum—after he had gone I found in the office which had been his a number of
documents relating to the Skegness Relief Fund—I did not notice any paid cheques among them—they were receipts for money paid—I gathered them all together, and put them into a parcel, and gave them to Mr. Myers, the caretaker, and I have a receipt from him for them.
Cross-examined. The papers were in the first instance removed from the divisional office to Lamb Lane in your bag.
Re-examined. The prisoner was then in the service of the School Board.
WILLIAM HENRY MYERS . I am caretaker at the Hackney divisional offices of the London School Board—after the prisoner had left, the last witness handed me a parcel of papers which he had found—I handed them over to Detective Sergeant Ward, in the same condition as I had received them—whilst the prisoner was in the service of the Board I had occasionally taken cheques to the London and County Bank for him—they were drawn on the Skegness Disaster—I noticed alterations and erasures in the dates—I drew the prisoner's attention to it once—he said it was perfectly accurate, as he had noticed it.
Cross-examined. I usually cashed cheques for you while you were at the divisional offices.
CLARA HUNT . I am a widow, and live at 278, Dalston Lane—the prisoner lodged with me in November last for four or five weeks—he paid us a week rent, and if he had board I charged for it—he paid for one week, then he let it run on, and I could not get the money from him—I eventually got it the day before Christmas Day—he did not give me any notice that he was leaving—he left his luggage behind—several people came for it, but I would not give it up till the police came for it—Sergeant Ward took the papers only.
ALFRED WARD (Detective-Sergeant.) I arrested the prisoner on May 5th between 6.30 and 7 p.m. in Brook Road, Stoke Newington—I had a warrant for his arrest—I said, "I am a police officer, I am going to arrest you on a warrant for misappropriation of trust funds"—he said, "What may that have reference to?"—I said, "The Skegness Disaster Relief Fund"—he said, "I can explain that away; what is the amount?"—I said, "£11 1s. 8d. in the warrant, but the whole amount was about £700"—he said, "That cannot be; at whose instigation are these proceedings taken?"—I said, "The other trustees"—he said. "I know who is at the bottom of it"—I took him to the station, where he was charged—he made no reply to the charge—I looked through the papers handed to me by Mr. Myers and Mrs. Hunt—the counterfoils in the receipt-book were most of them blank—I found a tabular statement—I find that the funds go down to February 25th, 1907—I have been through, the cheques found and the pass-book—sixty-two cheques are missing.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I reserve my defence and call no witnesses here."
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he had no motive for forging the cheque; that he believed the signature of Mr. Fletcher was genuine; that if he had wanted to close the account he could have done so by adding the amount to any of the other cheques; that he had received no salary for his services; that he had been given to understand that he was to receive at least £500 out
of the account; that he did not, understand it was to be in, a lump sum, and that he therefore drew money as he wanted it; that he had paid considerable sums an-ay for petty cash which had not been repaid to him, and that he had never destroyed any cheques.
The Jury considered that the trustees had been negligent in allowing so much power to pass into the prisoner's hands. Twelve months in the second division.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, July 1st, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
The prisoner stated in the hearing of the Jury that she was GUILTY of unlawfully wounding, and the Jury returned that verdict. Five previous convictions were proved against her. Nine months' hard labour.
MR. CLOSE Prosecuted.
PATRICK REGAN . I live at 24, Marlborough Road, Chelsea, and am a labourer—at 11.10 p.m. on June 1st I was standing at the corner of Marlborough Road listening to a crowd of people singing—the prisoner came up and stood in front of me with his back towards me, and I felt a tug at my watch—I looked down and saw him with it in his hand—I got hold of his arm and he threw the watch into the crowd—I picked it up and he struck me and walked away—I followed him and gave him into custody.
Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am sure you are the man.
Cross-examined. I am sure you are the man.
CHRISTOPHER REGAN . I am 16, and am the prosecutor's son—I did not see the prisoner until my father said he had lost his watch—I then saw the prisoner throw it over his shoulder, and as my father picked it up he was struck in the eye by the prisoner.
GUILTY†of robbery. He then pleaded guilty to a conviction of felony at North London Sessions on September 3rd. 1901. Twenty months' hard labour.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.
JOHN REYNOLDS (61 C.) I was standing outside this house and saw Walker come out—I asked him what he was doing there—he said, "We have only come for a bit of lead"—I asked him how he got into the house and he said with this key (Produced).
JOHN WILLIAM HEYWOOD . I live at 16, Frith Street, Soho, next door to 17—I have noticed Sliney going in and coming out of No. 17—he had a latch key—I have also seen Walker outside the house on several occasions.
BENJAMIN SNOW . I am manager to Swan and Edgar, Limited, 9, Piccadilly—No. 17 Frith Street is their property—it was being fitted up for sleeping accommodation for some of our staff—on the 18th I went there and found the lead gutters, gas and water pipes, and other lead in various parts of the house had been taken down, and about 100 tiles were loose on the roof—it will cost about £60 to put right again—I do not know the prisoners and they had no right to be there.
DANIEL TOMLIN (Detective Sergeant C.) On the 24th I examined the premises and charged Sliney with cutting and ripping the lead—he said. "You can bring as many cases as you like against me, I do not care"—Walker said, "I have been in 17, Frith Street, before the day I was arrested; I was there with a man whom I do not know; on the day we were arrested we went to get some lead; there was another man watching outside'; I do not know his name or where he lives."
Sliney, in his defence, said that he did not go into the house with the intention of stealing anything, and as they found no lead on him they could not charge him with stealing it. Walker, in his defence, said that he was asked by a man to carry a bag from 17, Frith Street; that the man gave him a key and said he could go in at any time.
GUILTY . Sliney then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at North London Sessions on April 2nd, 1901, and eight other convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour for stealing the lead, and seven years penal servitude for the assault, to run concurrently. WALKER— Nine months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, July 1st, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. FISHER Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended.
to 32, Great Peter Street, Westminster, to see a man whom I sometimes employ—No. 32 is a lodging-house—I went into the day-room and there saw about 100 people—as soon as I entered, four or five men jumped up and seized me—one seized my left arm and another my right arm and got behind me—I identify the two prisoners—I know them by name—Connors put his hand in my hip pocket and got it out altogether—Collins had already seized me by the throat with his hand—they threw me down on the floor, and I was rendered insensible for a minute or two—I took particular notice of the two prisoners because they were in front of me—I could not identify the other men because they were behind me—the deputy connected with the lodging-house was there and saw what occurred—he told me I had better go and fetch a policeman, which I did, and I related the case to him—the policeman took a statement from the proprietor—I did not see the prisoners at the house when I returned—they ran out as soon as they threw me down.
Cross-examined: I knew Connors and Collins by sight, but not by name—I have several times seen Connors about there with a barrow—the houses in Great Peter Street are not very fine houses—the day-room in question is a very large one, but I cannot say whether it is lighted by gas or electricity, I did not take particular notice—it is not true to say that I am practically blind in gaslight, but I cannot see to read without glasses—one day last month I was taken to a police station and saw a number of men in a row and was asked to pick out anyone who was concerned in the attack upon me—after walking in front of them and looking at their faces I pointed out Connors—I do not remember pointing to anyone else—I was sober-when I picked out Connors another man came out as well—I do not know why, they might have arranged to do so for all I know—I said, "I do not want the two of you, but will see you in the morning"—I knew Connor by the marks on his face—I noticed the marks on the night of the robbery—it was gaslight when the men were put up for identification—Collins was not in the row—I carry on my business as consulting electrical engineer at 81, Lillington Street—I have been working on my own account for a great number of years—I have been at 81, Lillington Street for about three years off and on—I left there just before last Christmas, but afterwards went back again—I was away for about three months—during that time I was staying at one of H.M. prisons—I did not get the three months for taking a bag at Victoria Station, I insulted a porter—I have also served a term of five years' penal servitude, and was released in 1892—I have had no other term of imprisonment since 1892 except the three months.
THOMAS PURVIS . I was assistant manager at 33, Great Peter Street, in January last—on January 2nd I was in the office about 4 or 5 p.m., when the prosecutor came up, and complained that he had been robbed in the kitchen—I saw Connors, but not Collins—the prosecutor afterwards went for the police.
Cross-examined. The day-room is about four paces from the office, but I could not see any disturbance there because it is round the corner—the gas is always lit as soon as it is dark—it was alight on this particular evening
—I have often seen Connors in the neighbourhood with a barrow—as far as I know he is a hard-working respectable man—I was not at the police court on May 31st when these men were before the Magistrate—I saw the policeman that the prosecutor fetched on January 2nd, but it is not correct that he took a statement from me—he did not take my name—I ceased to be deputy at this lodging-house about eight or nine weeks after this occurrence—Detective Smith came to me with regard to this case on June 13th, and I told him what I knew about it—I have seen Connors at the lodging-house once or twice—on this particular evening there would be about 100 men in the day-room—some were regular customers—I was deputy for twelve years—I could not say how many of these 100 were regular lodgers, but there would be more than 10.
ARTHUR FLETCHER (217 A.) On January 2nd I was called to 33, Great Peter Street, about 4.30 by the prosecutor, but he failed to recognise anyone there, so I directed him to go to the station and see the officer on duty—I had seen Connors opposite the house about an hour previous—I had not seen Collins.
Cross-examined. I have never seen Connors with a barrow—I was not at the police court on May 31st—I was first asked about this matter on June 16th—between January 2nd and June 16th I had not heard anything about it.
By the JURY. The prosecutor showed me where his pocket had been torn out—I did not notice any marks of violence.
FREDERICK HOMER (Re-examined by the JURY.) I could not recognise the prisoner by the gaslight at the police station, so I told him I would see him the next morning—I could not say whether there was any difference in the lighting of the lodging-house and that of the police station—the purse that was stolen contained five sovereigns and six or seven shillings which was the balance of £100 I drew from the bank to pay some small sums—I have a banking account at the Post Office—I drew out £16 about eight weeks ago at Dartford—my deposit book is at home—the £100 was paid to me at the Post Office near Westminster Abbey—it was paid to me in gold because I wanted it for small sums.
GEORGE SMITH (Detective A.) I arrested the prisoners at the beginning of the month—I do not know exactly what date—I arrested Connors the night previous to Collins on another charge—when I arrested Connors I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with three other men not in custody for stealing a purse and contents from Mr. Homer, and also with assaulting him; he replied, "Well, you will have to prove it"—he was put up by gaslight for identification, but the prosecutor failed to identify him—the prosecutor was in court when the prisoner was taken before the magistrate on the other charge, and was then quite convinced that he was the man—the identification of Collins was very good—the prosecutor said he identified Connors by an abscess on the right side of his face—that was said in Connors' presence—he did not say how he identified Collins, but he had no difficulty—he went straight to him.
Cross-examined. Connors was the first of the two in custody—he was charged with assaulting me—at the time Connors was before the
magistrate the prosecutor was in court, and then he said he was certain that Connors was the man who assaulted him—the previous night when Connors was put up for identification the first thing the prosecutor did was to pick out the man next to Connors—he happened to be a respectable man put up for the purpose of the test—when Collins was put up the prosecutor picked him out at once.
By the JURY. The police station is ordinarily lighted, not brilliantly—I do not know much of the prosecutors business, but at the time of the robbery, I believe he was going round fitting up electric light, and putting in kitchen ranges—I believe he has been getting an honest living since Christmas.
NOT GUILTY .
503. ARTHUR STONE (43) and ALBERT SCROSTON (61) , Conspiring together to obtain by false pretences a buggy from Percy Crompton, with intent to defraud. STONE, Obtaining by false pretences from Alfred Thomas Overall the sum of 25s.; from Frederick Wren three pairs of boots, and the sum of 10s. in each case with intent to defraud.
MR. GANZ Prosecuted.
HENRY MAY . I live at No. 1, Castlestone Stables, Ealing, and am employed as coachman by Mr. Percy Crompton—I remember pulling up at the Wellington public house at Shepherd's Bush Green, where I saw Stone—I was sitting in the buggy—I knew him, and he asked me if the buggy was for sale; I said yes, the price was thirty guineas; he said he had a friend who he thought might buy it, and suggested my going to the Goldhawk Road—I went to the Goldhawk Road, and there saw Scroston in the afternoon—before Scroston came, Stone told me that Scroston was a very rich man, and was about to buy a motor business—when Scroston came he said he liked the buggy, and if I would bring it to-morrow he would buy it—Stone told me that he bought Scroston's horses and carriages for him—they came to Ealing on the following Friday, April 11th—Stone said in Scroston's presence, "I will give you thirty guineas for the buggy," to which I agreed—there was a suggestion about buying a horse, and I very nearly parted with one worth 100 guineas—it was arranged that I should take the buggy to Paddington—I drove Stone there in another trap, and Scroston followed on a 'bus but the groom who was driving the buggy lost his way, and we went back to Ealing—Stone wrote out a cheque there for the money. £31 10s.—I handed it to my master, and it was passed through his account, and returned marked "no account."
Cross-examined by Stone. It was about mid-day when I first saw you at Shepherd's Bush—a coachman of the name of Adams was with me at the time—I did not ask you forty guineas for the buggy—there was not a word said about us having £2 each—I understood you were buying the buggy for Scroston—you did not say, "I shall not have anything to do with it"—Scroston told me if I went up with it on the Tuesday he would buy it—on the second occasion when I saw you I asked thirty guineas for the buggy—it is not true that I asked forty—there was only one cheque, for £31 10s.—when the cheque was returned I went to Birmingham to try and
cover the buggy—I received a letter from you saying that you had given me a cheque out of the wrong book—when in Birmingham I called at your house, and your wife said, "If you give him time he will pay"—she said she would try to get the money from your son—she showed me a draft drawn in Australia, but I told her I had seen it before—it was not arranged that payment should stand over until the money arrived.
Cross-examined by Scroston. I first met you at the Tube Station, and we went and had a drink—you were supposed to be connected with a motor business—Stone did not say he would buy it himself—I understood he was buying it for you.
GEORGE FREDERICK BROWN . I am night foreman at Webster's Depository, No. 6, Whitechapel Road—I know Stone—I remember him bringing a buggy to the Depository, and he asked me to take care of it for the night—the buggy remained there till the following Monday or Tuesday.
Cross-examined by Stone. I did not see the buggy delivered up, as I am only night foreman—we should not deliver it unless we had proper instructions.
WILLIAM JAMES VICKARY . I live at 32, Barnsbury Road, Islington, and am a builder and contractor—I have known Scroston for twenty-five years—on Sunday, April 13th, he came to me and said that he had bought a carriage, and wanted it moved from the livery stables—he wished me to see it before he sent it away—I saw the buggy—he asked me to try and dispose of it, which I eventually did for £10—after paying the people where the buggy had been warehoused, etc., I gave the balance, £4 10s., to Scroston.
By the COURT. I am a good judge of vehicles—I was coach-building for thirty years—the buggy was not worth 30 guineas.
HORACE LEIGHTON POWELL . I am a clerk at Lloyd's Bank, Kidderminster—I know Stone—I remember him calling at the bank on March 26th—he never had an account open at the bank—he came to the bank wishing to open an account, and left a bill to be discounted, which we agreed to do if the reports were satisfactory—meanwhile we gave him a cheque-book—it is not usual to give cheque-books out in that way, but Stone represented himself to be a man of means, and we did not want to lose an account.
Cross-examined by Stone. I was not present when you came to the bank, and I do not know what happened—the cheque-book was paid for.
EDWARD WEST (Detective Sergeant). I saw Scroston about 4.30 on May 13th at the Central Police Station, Birmingham—I read the warrant to him, and he made no reply—while in the train coming to London he said, "I may as well tell the truth about it; the buggy was taken away by a Mr. Vickary, of 25 or 27, Barnsbury Road, Hackney, and he borrowed £9 on it for me; I had £4 or £5; the other was for Vickary's expenses and storage."
ALFRED OVERALL . I am a saddler, living at 23S, High Street, Acton—on April 11th Stone came into my shop with May, and wanted a set of harness—he purchased a set—we adjourned to the King's Head Hotel, where the cheque was written out—it was for £11 6s. 6d, £10 1s. 6d. for the harness, and 25s. I gave him—I passed the cheque
through my bank, and it was returned, "no account"—I received a letter from Stone saying that he had given me a cheque out of the wrong book.
Cross-examined by Stone. In answer to your letter I wrote saying that if you would send me a cheque that the bank would honour I would return the other—I did not fix a time for payment of the money—you bought the harness as cheap as you could, and that impressed me that you were a genuine man—I did not know beforehand that I was going to have a cheque; I thought it was going to be in hard cash—you produced a bond for £350, which you said you were going to pay into the London and County Bank at Shepherd's Bush.
Re-examined. When I received the letter from Stone I had already passed the cheque through my bank.
THOMAS ERNEST WEATHERHOGG . I am an auctioneer at the Birmingham and Warrington Horse Depository, Birmingham—I know Stone—he came to me on April loth, and wanted an advance on some harness—I gave him an advance of £4, and I have a receipt which he signed in my presence.
H. L. POWELL (Re-examined). The cheque for £11 6s. 6d. was presented at our bank and returned marked "no account."
ARTHUR HUGGINS (Detective-Sergeant.) On May 10th, about 3 p.m., I saw Stone at the Birmingham Police Station, when I read the warrant to him—a cheque-book and a pocket-book were found on him—a bill of £30 was found in his hat.
FREDERICK JOSEPH WREN . I am a bootmaker, of 265, Gray's Inn Road—I know Stone—on April 26th he came into my shop and said he wanted a pair of boots for his wife—then he said he would like a pair for his daughter, and also a pair for his son—he bought three pairs, the total amount being 30s.—after showing me a bank draft for £350, and saying that he had deposited £250 in the Shepherd's Bush branch of the London and County Bunk, he drew a cheque for £2, making the excuse that he did not like drawing odd money, and would I give him 10s. change—I paid the cheque into my bank, and it was returned marked "no effects."
Cross-examined by Stone. I had a letter from you on the Wednesday, crossing one of mine, in which I told you that the cheque had not gone through—you told me that you had deposited £250 at the Shepherd's Bush branch of the London and County Bank—you showed me the draft for £350—you told me you were a large farmer—the letter I received from you asked me not to present the cheque—I then wrote to you again saying that I had been advised that you had committed a criminal offence, namely obtaining money by false pretences.
ARTHUR MELVILLE WELD . I am a clerk at the Shepherd's Bush branch of the London and County Bank—on April 7th Stone opened an account at the Bank—a cheque for £50 was paid in, and he requested us to hold it over till the Wednesday—on the 8th Scroston called with a letter from Stone for us to give the cheque back to him—we gave up the cheque, for which we have his receipt—from that time nothing was paid into his account—on April 29th this cheque was presented, and there being no effects, it was returned marked "no effects"—that was a cheque from the cheque book tint we had given Stone.
Cross-examined by Stone. I did not hear the conversation you had with the manager when you first came to the bank—I did not hear anything about your wanting a draft cashed—you gave us a bill to be discounted which we returned.
The Jury stated that they thought Scroston had been the dupe of Stone. STONE then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Leicester on October 16th, 1900; and SCROSTON to a conviction of felony at Hertford on July 31st, 1890, as Alfred Rose. Five other convictions were proved against STONE. Five years' penal servitude. SCROSTON— Six months' hard labour.
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted, and MR. WATT Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, July 2nd, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
WILLIAM EDWARD MATHEWS . I am a member of the Portsmouth Police—I was at the Portsmouth Police Court on August 26th, 1898—I saw the prisoner there, he was convicted of stealing an overcoat in the name of Nathan John Backer—he was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour.
GUILTY .† Five years' penal servitude.
His Lordship stated that if the prisoner would inform the police who forged the bill, and who were his associates, and who shared the money with him, he would take care that the sentence would be considered by the Home Office and reduced.
MR. JENKINS Prosecuted.
ELLEN THOMPSON . I have been living at 5, Havonica Street, Bromley—I have been a widow for nine years, and have been living with the prisoner for about five years—on May 19th, between eight and nine, I was at home—the prisoner and I had not been quarrelling—I was sitting down sewing—he had been messing about with the things I was sewing with—I got up, he followed me along the passage and struck me in the back—I did not then know what with—this (Produced) is the prisoner's knife, and is the one I was stabbed with—he bought it about a fortnight before—I did not see it
in his hand—I bled a great deal—I was attended by a doctor and then taken to the hospital.
JOHN HOW (Inspector K.) I saw the doctor dressing the prosecutrix's wound—in the prisoner's presence the prosecutrix said, "He done it, he struck me in the back, I felt a pain, and blood began to flow"—when he was charged the prisoner said, "All right, sir"—he had apparently been drinking for some time, and he was very drunk when I saw him.
WILLIAM BATTLE (Sergeant K.) I saw the prisoner at the police station—I said, "I shall arrest you for stabbing Mrs. Thompson at 5, Havonica Street, this evening"—he said. "All right, is she dead?"—I said, "No; I shall take you to her and then to Bow police station"—on the way to the station he handed me a knife and said. "That is what I did it with, I am very sorry, I was in a passion when I did it."
GEORGE HILLIER . I am a registered medical practitioner, and live at 20, Abington Road, Bow—about 8.30, on May 19th, I was called to attend the prosecutrix—I examined her—I found a small incised wound—there was a fair amount of venous bleeding—I probed the wound, I found it was done with a sharp instrument which had glanced from the second rib to the third, to the extent of 1 1/2 inches—it was very near the vertebrae—it was not dangerous but it might have been dangerous if it had not struck the rib—if it had gone between the ribs it would, in my opinion, have been instant death to the woman—it was about inch deep—I should say it could be caused by this knife—I advised her removal to the hospital at once.
The Prisoner's Defence. "I am sorry for what I have done, I done it over the booze; me and the old girl fell out over something or other. Sooner than go home and have a bother over the children I went and gave myself up. I fully expected to get a good hiding if I went home; I had had one the week before." GUILTY of unlawful wounding. Two months' hard labour.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, July 2nd, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. HENDERSON Prosecuted.
CHARLES HANNINGHAM . I am a Clerk in Holy Orders, and live at 12, Wormsley Road. Stroud Green—about 1.30, on June 12th, I heard a noise outside my house—I went to the window and saw somebody strugling in the load—I went out and found the foreman of the works struggling with the prisoner—I asked what was the matter, and the foreman said he had found the prisoner rifling the boxes in the church—I got a policeman and charged him—I examined the boxes, and from one of them at least 1s. 6d. had been taken—I also found two other boxes had been opened and emptied—at the station the prisoner was searched, and on him were found ten candles, which I identified as belonging to the church.
I was foreman of works at the building of this new church—about 1.30 p.m., on June 12th, I saw three men enter the church—I looked through the' glass inner doors and saw the prisoner and another man on the altar steps, and heard the rattling of money out of one of the boxes—I called out to them, and turned round to get assistance, but they were on me before I could get out—I held on to the prisoner, and he was given in charge.
FREDERICK ROLFE . I live at 53, Cleveland Street, Marylebone—I was employed on the building at the church—I saw the last witness and the prisoner struggling in the road, and two men came out of the church and ran away.
ALEXANDER JOSEPH MANGOT . On this day I was looking after the church—I left at 10 a.m., and fastened the inner doors after the service was over—the two offertory boxes near the door were sound and safe when I left.
HENRY COBHAM (110 Y.) I was called to the prisoner—I told him he would be charged with being concerned with two others in breaking into the church—he said, "You know more than I do; it was only one more man went in with me"—at the station I searched him and found these ten candles (Produced), 2s. in bronze, 1s. 6d. in silver, a knife, and a key on him.
The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I met a man on Crouch Hill, and he asked me if I wanted any work. I said yes, and he took me to the new church in Wormsley Road to get me a job as carpenter's labourer. He gave me the money and candles before we went into the church, and said, 'You are sure to get a job if I don't.' The man's name is John Prior. He asked me to give the money and candles to his mother on my way home. We both went into the church together and as I was coming out of the door I was thrown into the road by the foreman. I am perfectly innocent of the charge."
The prisoner, in his defence, said that the doors and boxes were not forced in his presence.
GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, July 2nd, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. STEWART Prosecuted; MR. SANDS Defended Jenkins.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Thursday, July 3rd, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
MR. MUIR and MR. A. GILL Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.
JOHN BRYAN BUDIVENT . I am a bank clerk and live at 22, Woburn Place—the deceased was a friend of mine, and at the beginning of June he was living with me at that address—on June 2nd, which was the occasion of the peace celebrations, I went out with him—we left home about 7 p.m., and having seen the illuminations in the West End, we returned home about 12.30 a.m.—we got home about 1.45 a.m.—we did not go in when we got to our house, but went on to the end of the road where it joins Euston Road—I left the deceased at the corner of the road and went over to the coffee stall opposite—he remained at the corner—we were both sober—we had not had any quarrel or dispute with anybody at that time—I was served with a cup of coffee at the stall—I finished my coffee and turned to rejoin my friend, when I saw he was surrounded by four or five men—I had left him for less than three minutes—the men had caps and mufflers on and dark clothes—their ages were about twenty or twenty-two—they were all talking when I came up and then they struck him in the face with their fists—I rushed at them with the deceased—we had a fight—they kept attacking us—I was kicked and hit in the stomach—we struck the men and kept them off us—one of them I struck down—we managed to get out into the middle of the road—we had been retreating backwards for about twenty yards or more towards Woburn Place—the men shouted "Kick them"—we had passed St. Pancras Church then—we must have been very near the electric lamp at the corner of Woburn Place and Endsleigh Gardens—I saw a belt drawn, and I told the deceased we must cut for it—he said, "Yes," and we turned round and started to run in the direction of Upper Woburn Place which comes out ultimately into Russell Square—the deceased could not run as fast as I could, owing to his having been wounded in the foot while in South Africa—I took his arm and tried to drag him along—I looked round and saw a man with a belt about to strike—as far as I could see the belt was a black leather one with a big hook—it was not like this one—(Produced)—we had barely run a few yards—I do not think we had got past the light at that time—he man with the belt struck the deceased over the head with it while we were running—I could not see where the blow alighted—the belt lapped round his head—he instantly fell on his face in the road almost opposite the corner of Endsleigh Gardens—the men all ran into the Euston Road—I am not able to recognise any of the men—I am not able to say whether the prisoner struck the blow or not—the deceased did not get up—he remained unconscious in the road—the police came up and the deceased was taken in a cab to the University College Hospital.
JAMES STEADMAN . I am a schoolmaster and live at 1, Woburn Buildings, St. Pancras—about 1.45 a.m. on June 3rd I was by St. Pancras Church—I saw the coffee stall on the other side of the road—I saw Mr. Budivent there—when I first saw him he was coming from the direction of the stall—I saw the deceased standing higher up the street than I was—he was alone when I first saw him—I saw five men go up to him together—
they evidently came from the direction of the coffee stall—a minute or two after they went up to him they commenced pushing and striking him—I had not seen him do anything to them before that—I was only a few yards away, standing by the drinking fountain and on the same side of the road—the deceased kept retreating from the men and warding off the blows—I crossed over to the church side—the deceased and his friend kept retreating—I went up as far as the church gates—I saw a blow-struck which knocked the deceased down—the blow was evidently struck by a belt—just before the blow was struck I saw the prisoner swing his left arm and strike heavily at the deceased—there was something in his hand which I took to be a belt—I could not see what sort of a belt it was—the deceased was then just a few yards beyond Endsleigh Gardens—just after the blow had been struck a trap drove up which caused the assailants to scatter—the prisoner and two other men passed very close to me and I had no difficulty in identifying one of the three as they passed me—I had kept my eye all the time on the man who had used the belt, and I say it was the prisoner—the place is very well lighted—after the men had passed me they ran into Euston Road and Seymour Street—I did not go to the police—they came to me on the 13th—on the 17th I was at the Clerkenwell police court and I identified the prisoner from among nine others.
Cross-examined. I am not in a school at present—I have been doing private tuition—I was not having any coffee at the stall—I was just going home—I saw Mr. Budivent leave the deceased—I did not see them till I got to the corner of Woburn Place and Euston Road—the stall was on the other side of the road as I came down Euston Road from Gower Street direction—the deceased was left by his friend standing just above the water trough.—I stood for a few minutes at the corner of Euston Road and Woburn Place, then I crossed the road to the church side in a slanting direction—when I got to the gates the deceased was standing almost opposite to me—I said before the magistrate "To the best of my belief the prisoner is the man," that is another way of saying "I am sure"—I mentioned the fact of the man swinging his left arm round at the police court—I said so to someone in court—I do not remember if it was given in evidence.
ANNIE HILL . I live at a lodging house—I used to live at a lodging house at Charlotte Place, Tottenham Court Road—I am an ironer by trade—just before 2 a.m. on June 3rd I was in Upper Woburn Place, and four or five yards from Woburn Buildings—I was walking towards Euston Road on the St. Pancras Church side of the road—I heard a scream—I saw some people in the middle of the road and I run towards them—I got so near to them that if I had been a man instead of a woman I could have taken a decent stride to where the gentleman was, and then put my hand out and caught the coat—I was only about 1 1/2 yards off—I saw four or five men standing in the road, one of them was a little further off than the others, and I saw a man strike a gentleman as he was falling—he appeared to strike him on the left side of his head—I did not see anything in the man's hand—the gentleman fell with a heavy thud to the ground—he
appeared to fall on his back—the man who struck the blow was the prisoner—I have no doubt about it—once before I had seen him at the coffee stall close by where I afterwards got a cup of cold water—I had seen the prisoner there on the previous Thursday or Friday—he asked me for a cup of coffee and I told him to do the same as I had to do, to pay for it, and he raised his left arm like that, as though he was going to strike me, but a gentleman got between us and I walked away, but I took a good look at him—I did not know his name or anything about him then, but when I saw the gentleman knocked down I recognised the man who did it as the man I had seen on the previous Friday—I went to the coffee stall and got some water, some brandy was asked for but I said it was impossible to get it—I did not see a policeman there—I went to the station the same morning and gave a description of the man—on the early morning of June 8th I went to the police station and was told I should be wanted about nine o'clock—I went there and picked the prisoner out from among nine or ten others—when I identified him he said, "Which hand did I strike with," Inspector Pugsley said, "No question had better be asked here"—I did not notice which arm the blow was struck with.
Cross-examined. I did not see a belt at all—I was going towards the Euston Road—I was about 1 1/2 yards from the gentleman when he fell, and he was about 1 1/2 yards from Woburn Buildings.
ALFRED ERNEST JONES . I am one of the resident medical officers at the University College Hospital—I was present at the hospital when the deceased was brought in about 2.20 a.m. on June 3rd—Mr. Budivent was with him—the deceased was deeply unconscious and comotose—the only cut on him was a single one behind the left eye, that was a deep wound, not wide, but sharply cut; it might have been caused by the prong of a buckle of a belt—it was party punctured and party incised—he had dirt and blood marks on his face and on the front of his shirt—there was no dirt on the back of his head, but there was on the left side of his head—there was a bruise on the left elbow and one on the outer side of the left knee—I should have thought he fell on his left side and rather forward—he was evidently suffering from a fractured skull; there was no evidence of bleeding on the brain for five or six hours afterwards—an operation, trepanning, was performed at 9 a.m. that relieved his general condition, but not his mental condition as regards consciousness—he remained unconscious till he died at 6 p.m. on June 4th—I made a post mortem examination—I found that death was due to the injuries to his head—the base of his skull was extensively fractured; there were over twelve separate fractures; the brain was slightly bruised—there was bleeding between the brain and the skull, and pressure on the brain which caused death—I think the seat of the injury which caused the fracture of the skull was just behind the left eye and in front of the temple—the bones were more crashed in there; the signs seemed to radiate from there, the fractures extending like a wheel or a star—in my opinion the factures could not have been caused by a belt; a man in a helpless condition falling would cause them—if a man received a blow such as caused the wound on the left of the eye he might very well fall in a helpless condition—the wound on
the left of the eye was about 1/4 inch long and 1/2 inch deep, reaching to the bone—I should not describe it as a serious wound.
By the COURT. If the deceased got a blow from a belt I think it would be only natural for him to fall in a helpless way.
GEORGE STEVENS (475 E.) Between June 3rd and 6th I saw a description circulated in the police information of a man wanted in reference to the attack on Mr. Spicer, and at 6.30 p.m. on June 6th I was off duty in plain clothes in Euston Road just outside the White Hart, near St. Pancras Railway Station—at that time I had received no personal instructions with regard to the affair—I overheard a conversation between two women and a man—one of the women is named Annie Billington, and the man's name is Brown; he is known as Cocky Brown—their conversation led me to keep them under observation, and I walked close behind them for three or four minutes—they walked to 5, Derry Street, Gray's Inn Road, I following them; the women went into the passage and into the first door on the right on the ground floor—I spoke to an inspector on the 7th, and on the 8th, at 2 a.m., I went to the house—I went into the room where I had seen the women enter on the 6th—I knocked at the door, the prisoner let me in, he had been to bed, he was undressed, but he got up to let me in—I told him I was a policeman and that he answered the description of a man wanted for being concerned with others for the manslaughter of a man named Spicer at the top of Woburn Place, about 2 a.m. on June 3—that was the first time I had seen the prisoner, he said. "I know nothing about it, it is the first time I have heard about it"—his wife said, "You only know what Brown told you"—the prisoner said, "I was half boozed, he said something about it, I had only known Cocky Brown two days"—I took him to the station and he was subsequently identified by Annie Hili—he then said, "Which hand did I strike him with"—that question was not answered when I took him to the cell, he said, "Am I the only one who has got to settle up for this"—I searched him, he was wearing this belt (Produced) and also some braces.
By the COURT. After he had let me into his room he dressed in my presence, and he took the belt off the bed.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that on June 2nd he got home about 5.45 p.m.; that he had some tea and went to bed about 7 p.m., as he generally got to Covent Garden, where he worked, at 4 a.m.; that while he was in bed a man named Frank Fairbourn came in and asked him to go out and see the peace illuminations; that he said he could not, as he had to get up early next morning; that his wife came to bed about 7.30, as she always got his breakfast for him; that he got up at 2.30 a.m.; that he had not left his house between 5.45 p.m. and 2.30 a.m.; that he had his breakfast and a couple of cigarettes, and went out at 3.40 a.m. to go to work at Covent Garden Market, where he arrived about 4 a.m., and worked the whole day; that he did not know Annie Hill; that he had never asked her for a cup of coffee; that he was never out at 11.30 or 12 p.m.; that he had had the belt produced for four or five years, and had never had any other; that when he vent to work he walked through Sidmouth Street, across Judd Street, into Compton Street, down Marchmont Street, across Herbrand Street, through
the Old Colonnade, across southampton Row, and into Covent Garden; that he did not go anywhere near Woburn Place or St. Pancras Church; that his right arm was withered and he could not use it, and that he had always born a good character. He admitted that if he had gone to Covent Garden via St. Pancras Church it would only be about quarter of a mile out of his way, and that if he had got up at 1.15 a.m., and had only taken fifteen minutes for his breakfast and ten minutes to dress, he Could have been at St. Pancras Church before 2 a.m.; but he denied being there at all. He said that Annie Billington who was his sister-in-law, was in prison, but that he did not know where Brown was; that he had not tried to find him; that he had not told the police that Brown could prove what time he (the prisoner) had left home in the morning; that he had not heard of the murder till Brown told him on the Thursday before his (the prisoners) arrest; that Brown had not told him that the "splits" were on to Sullivan and Barley, or that somebody had "flocked" the "bloke" out, and that he had not been identified fairly, as there were no dark men among the men he was placed with.
Evidence for the Defence.
JANE BEELS . I am the prisoner's wife, and live at 5, Derry Street—on June 2nd my husband came home at 5.50 p.m., the worse for drink—he laid on the bed—I undressed him, and he went to bed—a man named Fairbourn came in to see him—I got up at 2.15 a.m.—the prisoner was in bed then—I took the time from a watch—I called my husband about fifteen minutes after I got up—he had breakfast, and eventually, about 3.45 a.m., he left to go to the market—this is his belt—he has no other—he is never out late at night—he comes home early, because he has to get up early to go to the market—he has always conducted himself as a respectable man—I never sleep much on a market night, because I am afraid of oversleeping—he did not leave the bed that night—he generally smokes in the morning.
Cross-examined. The earliest that I have known my husband to go to market is 3.30—he gets up about 2.30, and goes to work about 3.45—he takes about fifteen minutes to dress, and about forty-five minutes to have breakfast and smoke—he has always got up at 2.30 since I have known him—Annie Billington is my sister—she is in prison now—she was not living with me on June 2nd and 3rd, but on market mornings she came, because I am so nervous—I do not know what prison she is in, or what she is in prison for—she was not taken from my house—I do not know that it was for robbing a sailor of £15—I heard she was at Clerkenwell Police Court—I did not go there—I saw in the newspaper that it was for robbing a sailor—I only know Brown through his coming to my sister—they were at my house on the Thursday before my husband was arrested—we Were not talking about Mr. Spicer's death till Cocky Brown read out from a newspaper that some hooligans had attacked a gentleman in Euston Road—he did not read out that he was dead—he did not say that a mob had knocked a bloke out down the road—we did not discuss it amongst us as to whom it could be—we said it was a shame—my sister never said anything to me about Mr. Spicer being flocked out all right—I have never heard the word
flocked—I do not know what it means—she never told me that the splits were on to Sullivan and Darley—I did not hear those names mentioned till I read them in the paper—I believe that splits mean detectives—I remember my sister coming to my house with Brown—me and my sister went up to the Euston Music Hall—we met Brown there—I do not know if we were standing outside the White Hart—I do not know where it is—we did not mention the name Spicer—we did not say, "Beels flocked him out all right," or "the splits are on Sullivan and Darley I hear"—I went home about 11 p.m. by myself—I left my sister and Brown as soon as we came out of the Euston—we did not all three go home at 7 p.m. together.
ALFRED HIGGS . I live at 109, Pentonville Road, and look after the coffee stall at the corner of Seymour Street and Euston Road—I was there on June 3rd about 2 a.m.—I did not see any row going on at the cattle trough, as it was behind my stall—I did not see the prisoner at all—the first time I saw Annie Hill was when she came for a cup of cold water at 2 a.m. on the 3rd—I have never seen the prisoner at my stall.
Cross-examined. My stall faces the pavement on the station side—my back would be towards Woburn Place—my customers are principally people from the railway station and clubs—I never see people of the prisoner's class in Euston Road in the small hours of the morning.
By the COURT. People dressed as the prisoner is never come to my stall—I know now that the deceased was knocked down and hurt very near St. Pancras Church—I was at my stall at the time, but I heard nothing of the row—Mr. Budivent did not come to my stall to my knowledge—I was very busy at the time—I am alone there—there are plenty of police about—if I had seen anything done by four or five men I should not be afraid to say so—I suppose there must have been twenty or thirty people round the stall at the time—I do not know the names of any of them—they were club people and men in uniform from the railway stations, and also people coming up to London by rail.
By MR. MUIR. None of my twenty or thirty customers called my attention to a row going on down Woburn Place.
FRANK FAIRBOURN . I live at 4, Derry Street, and am a labourer—on June 2nd I called on the prisoner between 7 and 8 p.m.—he was in bed—I asked him if he was going to see the illuminations—he said he had got to get up early in the morning to go to work, and could not come—I was in the house about fifteen minutes.
HENRY BEELS, SEN . I am a porter at Covent Garden Market—the prisoner is my son—he has worked for me there for six or seven years—he has also been in regular employment for some buyers there—he bears a good character as a quiet and hard-working man—he was at work at 4 a.m. on June 3rd.
Cross-examined. I got to Covent Garden at 2.30 or 3.30—we start work about four.
Evidence in Reply.
WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Inspector E.) I was present when the prisoner was put up for identification on June 8th and 17th, and I was responsible for the manner in which it was carried out—a number of men were invited
in from the street to assist—they were placed in the charge room in a row—the prisoner was brought in from the cells and told to place himself where he liked—he was asked if he was satisfied—the witnesses were called in and told to pick out the man wanted—several other witnesses were called in besides Hill—the prisoner did not make any objection to the persons he was placed among—it is not true that they were all fair men and he the only dark one—Darley, the other prisoner, was a dark man, and very like the prisoner.
Cross-examined. The other prisoners were taken before the Magistrate and charged with being concerned in this crime.
GUILTY of manslaughter. Seven years' penal servitude.
The Jury highly commended P.C. Stevens for his conduct. The Court concurred with the commendation, and awarded Stevens £10.
NEW COURT.—Monday, June 30th
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday and Wednesday, July 1st and 2nd
NEW COURT.—Thursday, July 3rd.
OLD COURT.—Friday, July 4th. And
NEW COURT.—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, July 7th, 8th, and 9th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
511. CHARLES BRIGHT, ROBERT GEORGE FUDGE , and JOAQUIN FERMIN MORENO, Conspiring to commit certain misdemeanours under the Debtors' Act. In other counts BRIGHT was charged with having committed certain misdemeanours, and MORENO and FUDGE with aiding and abetting him.
ARTHUR JOHN PENNEY . I am a clerk in the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, and have the care of documents used in litigation—I produce writ in the action of James Killey v. Charles Bright, dated January 23rd, 1900—it is specially endorsed—£20,000 is claimed by the plaintiff—also appearance which was entered on January 30th on behalf of Bright by his then solicitors, Messrs. Bennett and Chance—also Order of February 15th, giving Bright leave to defend upon £5,000 being paid into Court within ten days, otherwise judgment against him for that amount, and leave only to defend as to the rest of the claim—also Order of May 12th for Bright's examination as to his means—the seal is May 14th—he was examined before a Master—(In the record of the examiners before Master Lawford, which was read, Bright slated that he had no permanent address, and no banking account in this country, but was worth between £300,000 and £400,000 in Buenos Ayres; that he was a director of "Charles Bright and Co., Limited"; "The Buenos Ayres Tramways Co., Limited"; "Bright's Light and Power Company," and that"Charles Briqht and Co." of Buenos Ayres consisted of himself and a few others
"in participation ")—I find here also a Charging Order Nisi of May 16th, issued on behalf of Killey with regard to 12,501 shares belonging to Charles Bright and Company, Limited—I am unable to find the Order Absolute—I produce all the affidavits—also Order of the Court of Appeal dismissing appeal from order of Darling J.; judgment for £5,000 of April 27th, obtained in Killey v. Bright; writ in the action of The Intelligence Bureau v. Bright, of February 12th, 1901 for £511 12s.; appearance of February 19th; summons under Order 14 of February 20th and leave to defend endorsed; and formal Order drawn up on March 13 th—there was an appeal from the judgment against Bright of March 27th for £514 10s. 6d.—in the action of Bright v. The River Plate Construction Company I produce the writ of February 9th, 1900, amended writ of April 2nd, when James Capel and Company are added as defendants—that action was for specific performance of an agreement of August 10th—that went to arbitration—I also produce writ of June 28th between the same parties and Arthur Raymond Kirby on a question about the arbitration—I have here the summons dated March 15th, 1901, to enforce Mr. Chadwick Healy's award of March 11th, by which Bright was to find £60,000 for the purpose of taking up 60,000 shares in the River Plate Construction Company, and to pay the costs—on April 23rd there is a judgment of Farwell J. enforcing the award, and an appeal by Bright on May 2nd, when the Court of Appeal discharged Farwell J.'s Order, and the case was remitted back to him and re-considered—on May 18th Farvrell J. made a fresh Order enforcing the award—I also produce copies of Judgments, the originals of which I have, against persons in respect of shares in Charles Bright and Company, Limited, and Bright's Light and Power Company.
HENRY PICKERTON GREENWOOD . I live at 23, Ladbroke Grove, and am seeretary to a limited company in the City—I know Bright—in November, 1897, a company of which I was the secretary occupied the third floor of 13 and 14, Abchurch Lane—I sublet half to Bright—there was a joint occupation between him and my company from November, 1897, to Midsummer Day, 1898, at £100 for the term—I was there very little—I saw him sometimes—I saw a clerk and a lady typewriter there—I did not know the names—my company was the California and Mexico Land Company—when I was introduced to Bright I was told, he was a tramway contractor and electrical engineer in South America—the rent was paid regularly—cash was brought me by a clerk, to whom I gave the receipts made out to Mr. Charles Bright—I had a private wire—I do not know about another telephone—the registered address of the company has been removed.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. Bright told me he wanted the office for temporary use, and the gentleman who introduced him told me the same thing—after a week or two I did not see him for some months—he told me he was going to South America.
WILLIAM RICHARD HERBERT . I live at Sefas Street, Mile End—in 1898 I was tenant of 13 and 14, Abchurch Lane—Mr. Greenwood had offices there—Bright used to come there—I said before the magistrate that his
name was not up, but afterwards I remembered the name up was"Charles Bright," but no description—Bright came regularly about the first week—then there was an interval—then he came back—I saw Fudge go to the same office—I saw a clerk and a lady typewriter—I fancy her name was Miss Grosvenor.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. I was there about four years—Bright's name was pointed out—when he came there the names "Greenwood" and "The Californian Land Company" were up—Greenwood's lease expired, and Bright took on the office.
HERBERT BANYARD . I am employed by Jerome and Co., solicitors—I produce on behalf of William Somers Leo Schuster a copy of an agreement between Schuster and Bright for the lease to Bright of 14, Copthall Avenue, from July 4th, 1898, at £350 per annum and £42 for additional expenses.
STANLEY CUTHBERT RUSS . I live at 26, Lionel Gardens, Barnes—I represent the National Telephone Company at 58 and 59, London Wall—I produce copies of letters between Bright and the company with reference to arrangements for a telephone at 1,3 and 14, Copthall Avenue for Mr. Bright, and afterwards for the Buenos Ayres Electric Tramway Company, Limited—one letter in June, 1898, is a request from Bright to remove the telephones at Copthall Avenue, and referring to his having taken premises of Schuster—the agreement with the company is signed "C. Bright and Co., Limited. R. G. Fudge, Secretary."
ALBERT EDWARD HOLE . I am a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies at Somerset House—I produce the file of "Charles Bright and Co., Limited," which was registered on November 24th, 1898, with a nominal capital of £200,000 in 20,000 shares of £10 each—amongst the seven signatories I find the names of Charles Bright, James Oliver, and R. G. Fudge, their addresses and descriptions being Bright, "Engineer, 17 Copthall Avenue; Fudge, "secretary to a public company, 38, Beecroft Road. Brockley"; and Oliver as "gentleman, 13, Canfield Gardens," their private addresses—the registered office was 14. Copthall Avenue—I also produce file of Bright's Light and Power Company, registered July 21st. 1898, with a nominal capital of £200,000 in 200,000 shares of £1 each, divided equally into preference and ordinary shares—only ordinary shares have been issued, and of those 33,333 were issued as fully paid vendors' shares, Nos. 166.668 to 200,000—I find the contract with the vendor, who is Charles Bright, "14, Copthall Avenue, in the City of London, electrical engineer"—amongst the signatories are the names of Charles Bright, James Oliver, and R. G. Fudge.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. In Charles Bright and Co., Limited, there is no vendor's contract.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , I am a messenger in the Bankruptcy Division of the High Court of Justice—I produce file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Charles Bright—amongst the papers I find the Bankruptcy Notice purporting to have been served on March 30th, 1901. at the instance of the Commercial Intelligence Bureau, and which was not complied with—that constituted an act of bankruptcy, for which there is this petition
by that company of May 31st, which alleges the failure to comply with the notice, and sets out a judgment against Bright for £514—on April 13th there is an application to strike out the bankruptcy notice at the instance of the debtor—that was adjourned till April 18th and then to April 25th, when it was dismissed with costs—that is followed by an application for a Receiving Order, which was fixed for hearing on June 17th, adjourned to July 1st, 4th, 13th, 18th, and 26th, and then stood over for judgment—on July 30th the Registrar gave his judgment and made the Receiving Order—that was served upon Charles Bright on July 31st, and a Notice of Appeal was served on August 1st—a meeting of creditors was held on August 28th, and a resolution passed for adjudication of Bright as a bank upt—on August 29th Carnaby Harrower was appointed trustee by a resolution of creditors, and on September 9th an adjudication by the Court—the same day Harrower's appointment was certified by the Board of Trade—Bright's appeal of August 1st was heard by the Court of Appeal on November 8th and dismissed—the first day fixed for the examination of the bankrupt was fixed for September 24th, adjourned to November 13th to 27th, and the bankrupt not appearing on the 27th, it was adjourned sine die—Bright filed no statement—on January 16th, 1902, there is a Report by the Official Receiver to the Court, and on January 17th an Order by the Court to prosecute—Bright was examined during the proceedings, and the transcript of the notes of that examination is on the file—the notice of appeal was signed by Charles Bright's then solicitors, Petch and Smurthwaite—on the file I find a Bankruptcy Notice, dated May 24th, 1900, issued by Killey, and on July 25th a petition presented by Killey, founded upon his judgment for £5,000 against Bright—on August 7th the petition was adjourned sine die, with liberty to either party to apply.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANK There is an affidavit on the file of the service of the Receiving Order by Herbert James Jackson, one of the clerks of the Official Receiver, by registered letter, addressed to Mr. Charles Bright, 14, Copthall Avenue, E.C.—this is one of the envelopes used in that Department—there was a Stop Order, which precluded anyone from examining the file—that was rescinded by the Registrar—during the existence of the Stop Order the file was only accessible to the Treasury or the Board of Trade by permission of the Registrar—the Stop Order was on January 18th, 1892—the Official Receiver granted the order to prosecute about December 12th, Bright not having attended to give evidence—that was cancelled the same day—there was an affidavit of Mr. Wingfield filed by Mr. Gray on the application for leave to issue a warrant on September 6th, 1901. (The affidavit stated that Wingfield saw Bright at Boulogne on August 3rd and 10th)—that was sworn at 74, Cheapside, before Mr. Le Brow, a commissioner for oaths—I take it the resolution by the Committee of Inspection adjudging Bright a bankrupt was on August 27th, 1901—on August 28th, November 4th, at 11 o'clock, was appointed for the hearing—subsequently it was altered to September 9th upon an affidavit of Mr. Wingfield of September 6th, and upon short notice of adjudication—I produce the document which shows the list of Registration
letters dispatched from the office to the General Post Office in the official bag at 5 o'clock on September 4th, and there is one to Mr. Charles Bright, 14, Copthall Avenue, and to Messrs. Petch and Smurthwaite, 42, Bedford Row, and the signature of the officer making up the dispatch of letters is C. W. Hopgood, and the signature of the General Post Office officer G. B. Bonny—the order for the warrant is cancelled on December 16th, 1901, by the Registrar on Mr. Vidal's evidence.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Fudge was summoned to give evidence against the bankrupt at the instance, of tire trustee, and was examined in the ordinary way, I believe, but the shorthand writer is here, and that examination is on his transcript.
ERNEST HALL BARBER . I am an official shorthand writer to the London Bankruptcy Court—I took notes of the defendant Bright on July 19th and 22nd, 1901—this is my transcript—there is a clerical error, "14" instead of "17"—I attended several private sittings in the bankruptcy, including those when the defendant Fudge was examined on October 9th 11th, 14th, November 6th and 11th, and my transcript is on the file—on October 15th Moreno was examined—he was recalled on November 11th, and I made a transcript—these transcripts are correct—on October 15th Mr. Smurthwaite appeared for Bright, and produced a letter of August 10th, written on board the steamship "Chili."
Cross-examined by Moreno. There was some discussion when the Court had risen, which, of course, I did not take down. (The examinations and correspondence referred to were put in for reference, the defendant in substance stating that the shares transferred or dealt with were the property of F. R. Bright and others, in whose interest he acted, and that he had no assets in London.)
JOHN RICHARDSON . I live at 85, Somers Road, Walthamstow—I am secretary to Bright's Light and Power and other companies—I produce transfers of shares in that company on July 9th, 1900, of Frederick James Harris to C. Parsons of 3,000 ordinary shares, attested by Valentine Brown and C. Bright at 14, Copthall Avenue; 1,500. Blanche Harris to C. Parsons, attested by Phoebe Barnett, 3, Manchester Square Mansions, widow, and Bright; 6,000, July 24th, James Oliver to C. Parsons, attested by J. Camlin Down, 130, Clapham Road, and C. Bright; 1,600, Renee Oliver to C. Parsons, witnessed by J. C. Down and C. Bright; 3,600 to B. Garchia, of Beunos Ayres, to Killey, attested by Brown and C. Bright, the two last having no seal opposite Parson's name; 4,800. Belgrano Tramway shares, Harold D. Buxton to C. Parsons, attested by Brown and C. Bright, and no seal; 3,600, George Handley, of Salta, Argentine Republic, to Caspar Parsons, witnessed by H. John of Salta, merchant, and C. Bright, 17 Copthall Avenue, and no seal—all these shares are transferred for the nominal consideration of 5s.—I also produce the share register and the minute book of Bright's Light and Power Company. (The minutes were read at which these transfers were passed by the Board of Directors, the defendants being present; also the minutes of the meetings at which the defendants were appointed directors, and showing 24,100 shares transferred). From the minutes. I see that Charles Bright was appointed a director on July 29th,
1898. and that his resignation was accepted on June 7th, 1900, in conesquence of his letter of May 31st, 1900; that Fudge was on July 29th, 1899. appointed secretary, and on May 31st, 1900, it was "resolved that Mr. James Oliver and Mr. Robert George Fudge be and are elected directors of the company"; that on August 15th, 1901, it was "resolved that Mr. J. F. Moreno, being duly qualified, be and is hereby appointed a director of the company."
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. I was appointed secretary of Bright's Light and Power Company on November 26th, 1901, in the presence of Colonel Heyworth, chairman, and Mr. C. J. Wharton and his solicitor, Kite, Wingfield, Moreno, and Mr. Bennett, solicitor to the company, and Mr. Bennett the shorthand writer—the minute is, "It was resolved that Mr. John Richardson be and is hereby appointed secretary of the company, and that the question of his remuneration be arranged at a subsequent board meeting"—Mr. Bennett is still the solicitor—I am not certain its to Mr. Harrower's position at this time—Mr. Wingfield was appointed—a director at that meeting—the qualification was 200 shares—Mr. Harrower appears to have been first present on Thursday, October 24th, 1901, and to have transferred to Mr. Wingfield 201 shares, and the transfer was submitted and passed on November 26th—Mr. Harrower is mentioned in several minutes—on October 10th, 1901, Mr. Chance (I take it of Bennett and Chance, solicitors) said that Mr. Harrower had expressed a desire to sit on the board, but as he had no qualification the question was deferred—a letter was read from Wingfield and Blew, of October 10th, in a post script of which they proposed to place the matter before a Committee of Inspection, and on October 16th a letter of October 11th from Bennett and Chance stated that Mr. Harrower expected to be in England early in November—several letters passed as to Mr. Harrower which are referred to in the minutes—on October 2nd, 1900, notice was given appointing Mr. Harrower trustee—the letters in which notification was given of shares being held by Parsons as the nominee of Bright are dated October 4th and 5th. And the minutes are of November 18th, 1901—during my time as secretary the books were inspected for the trustee by Mr. Fairbairn, Mr. Wingfield, the solicitors of the company, by Charles Bright, and by Moreno—I have nothing to do with the trustee—I have an office as a chartered accountant at Guildhall Chambers—those are his offices—I have some experience in public companies—the forfeiture of 12,500 shares in a company with a capital of £200,000 would not affect the value of the remainder of the shares, and they would still be liable to call—it depends upon whether the remainder of the shares are sufficient to carry on the business of the company—companies are often ruined by wiping out the shares—you reduce the liability but you have so much less available capital—I was not present at Mr. Harrower's examination before the magistrate—he left London shortly afterwards—I believe he is at Algiers trying to recuperate himself, being seriously ill, and there is a doctor's certificate to that effect—the books of the company were concealed, and I do not think I have all the papers yet—I have not the general stationery, the articles of, association, and one or two agreements—it is inconvenient to go to
Somerset House to look at them—I have been embarrassed for want of papers—some may have been lost in transit.
Cross-examined by Moreno. I failed to get books from you—I believed you were in control—I do not know that you had the key of the safe where books are kept—I saw the three defendants there—not all together—I asked you for the books—you said you could not put your hands on them—I do not think they are in your possession now.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. After I was appointed secretary on November 26th, I wrote to Fudge asking him to meet me—I know that he resigned his position on November 20th—Fudge came and explained that he had no control over the books.
Re-examined. I could get no definite reply from any one of the defendants—the Receiver retained his appointment till about March 8th—the action for production of the books was withdrawn then because the opposition to their production was withdrawn—there were cross actions between the date of my appointment and March 8th as to who constituted the board—Moreno was a suitor—then Mr. Wilton, the Receiver, was discharged,' and I got the books about March 12th or 15th—Harrower is at Algiers suffering from diabetes and nervous prostration, an old complaint, and cannot come here.
HERBERT J. COOPER . I am clerk to Mr. Chadwich Healey, K.C., of New Square, Lincoln's Inn—his award of March 15th, 1901, was that Mr. Charles Bright should pay £60,000—I was present at the proceedings—I know his writing—I witnessed his signature to the award—the defendant Bright is the party referred to.
FRANK HYLAND . I am the Official Liquidator of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, and produce the books of that company which were produced at the police-court by Mr. Wheeler, including the register of shareholders, the cash book, journal, ledger, and so on, also a number of transfers for the nominal consideration of 5s., and among them one dated March 23rd, 1900, Charles Bright to Moreno of 4,593 shares of £10 each, Moreno's signature being witnessed by J. C. Down, of 14, Copthall Avenue, clerk; Bright to James Oliver, of 2,900 shares on March 23rd. 1900, witnessed by J. C. Down; 4,593 on April 24th, 1901, Moreno to De Mendeville; 2,900, Oliver to Caspar Parsons, of the Hotel Cecil, witnessed by Down and C. Bright; 2,000, Moreno to De Mendeville, witnessed by Down; 1,500, April 24th, Moreno to F. R. Bright; 40. Moreno to Elkin on August 15th, witnessed by D. Grosvenor; and 50 to Rowland Hastings—I also produce telegrams of July 31st, 1901, C. Bright to Fudge, care of Brillar (the telegraphic address of Charles Bright and Company), sent from C. Bright, Hotel Folkestone, Boulogne (for Fudge and Moreno to come to Boulogne), and of August 7th, unsigned, from Boulogne, "Meet Grosvenor Charing Cross 5.30 to-night," and from Paris to Fudge, Beecroft Road, Brockley, "Wire John go office early to-morrow. Send him to catch steamer Chili, address me, Vidarraga," and another handed in at Richmond, Surrey, "John going to-morrow 10, get early, give him money—Grosvenor"; one to Brillar, London, from Lisbon, "Selarno, Wait letters, sail seven to-night, cable important"—I also produce letters
of November 21st to Charles Bright and Company (one signed, "for F. R. Bright, his legal attorney, Moreno," offering to purchase 2,500 shares on terms, and another offering to purchase 1,500 shares on terms, and signed J. F. Moreno); a letter signed D. Grosvenor to the directors of Charles Bright and Company (offering to purchase 10 shares at £6 per share, £1 being paid but no further calls to be made till after the expiration of eighteen months); another from D. Grosvenor, of November 23rd, 1901, to the secretary of Charles Bright and Company, enclosing bank notes for £10; and letter to Charles Bright and Company, "Please open account in your books in the name of D. Grosvenor for the sum of £10,000 and debit account with you, for F. R. Bright, his legal attorney, J. F. Moreno"; a letter of November 21st. 1901, from D. Grosvenor to the secretary of Charles Bright and Company (enclosing draft for £6,000 in payment for 6,000 shares at £1 a share); and a letter from D. Grosvenor of December 18th, 1901 (acknowledging the share certificate). (The Minutes were read from April 12th, 1899, to November 22nd, 1901, of the Board Meetings of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, at which 4,993 shares were allotted in four lots to Charles Bright out of a total of 20.000; Glyn, Mills, Currie and Company, were appointed bankers; also with regard to the election and resignation of directors, including the Defendants, and the registration of the Company; and with regard to calls and forfeiture of shares). On August 9th, 1899, it was resolved to make a call of £5 a share on the 12,500 shares on which £1 had been paid—on March 2nd, 1900, to appoint R. G. Fudge secretary, and on March 31st, 1900, a director of the Company—at the Board Meeting on May 23rd, 1900. a letter was read from C. Parsons, offering to allow £24,000 to remain with the Company at call at 5 per cent. per annum interest on condition that satisfactory securities were lodged with him when it was "resolved that the secretary be instructed to write Mr. Parsons, accepting the arrangement, and that Mr. Bright be requested to sign a transfer for 550 shares standing in his name in the River Plate Construction Company which he holds for this Company, and also to transfer 3.000 shares in the American Electric Company," which were to be forwarded to Mr. Parsons as collateral security—an agreement was executed that day, of which I have a copy—on June 9th. 1900, a letter from Charles Bright of May 31, resigning his position as director was read—when it was resolved to accept Mr. Brights resignation and to notify him to that effect—on 24th July, 1900, James Oliver and R. G. Fudge being present, the transfer, James Oliver to Caspar Parsons of 2,900 shares was ordered to be registered—on August 7th. 1900. Oliver resigned, and Mr. Wharton was appointed—and it was V resolved that Mr. R. G. Fudge's salary be fixed at £400 per annum as from August 1st, 1900"—by the Minute of March 6th, 1901, Wharton and Fudge being present, it was "resolved that Mr. Joaquin Fermin Moreno be and hereby is appointed, director of the Company"—on Monday. April 24th, 1901, Moreno and Fudge being present, transfers of 2,000 shares were passed from Moreno to De Mendeville—and of 1,500 shares from Moreno to Bright, and ordered to lie registered for the nominal consideration of 5s.—on June 3rd, 1901,
wharton, Moreno and Fudge bong present De Mendeville is appointed a director—on August 21st. 1898. there is a Minute of a meeting at which Wharton and Moreno were present held at the Castle Hotel. Taunton, wharton being in the chaired a which Moreno was appointed acting-secretary for the purpose of meeating and Fudge's resignation by letter of August 13th was accepted—Mr. Rowland Hastings was appointed a director and a secretary of the Company pro tem—transfers were passed of 40 shares from Moreno to Elkm and on August loth of 50 shares from Morton to Hastings, and ordered to be registered, and the secretary reported that a Receiving Order had been made on Mr. Bright, who was a debtor of the Company to the extent of £58.584 4s. 8d.—on Monday, November 21st, 1901, Monday and Hastings being present, with regard to the forfeiture of 12.500 share and calls to the amount of £25.000. being due on same, it was "resolved that the solicitor of the Company be instructed to present this claim against Mr. Charles Bright"—the situation of the Company was fully discussed and the question in dispute in reference to the forfeited shares, and it was pointed out that this being a private company the Board had an absolute right to refuse transfers to outsiders, and that in view of certain claims an injunction should be applied for to restrain the directors from illegally dealing with the shares, and the solicitor was instructed to carry out Article 28 of Articles of Association (referring to forfeiture of shares)—2,500 shares allotted to Frederick Bright, l.500 to Joaquin Fermin Moreno, and 10 to Daisy Grosvenor—on November 22nd Hastings and Moreno! long present, at a meeting held at 14. Copthall Avenue, 5 of C. Bright's C. Bright's shares were ordered to be re-issued—£10 was paid into the Company's account from D Grosvenor and a cheque for £7 10s. her five weeks salary, was ordered to be drawn and a letter was read from J. Down applying for shares—on December 13th, 1001, a meeting was held at Moreno's house, 18 Oliver Grove South Norwood—the directors presnt being Moreno, Hastings, and Vidal and Vidal and Zubiaurre were appointed directors—and shares allotted 6,000 to Grosvenor, whose draft for £6,000 was received—the draft is typewritten and has a stamp.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANK I find an entry in the cash book on June 21. 1899, "to capital, C Bright, amount due on shares allotted 19th inst, viz., 1,300 £10 per share called up £13,000"—and that on 12,500 shares £1 per share was paid—on June 2nd there is a cheque for 9,000 received from ('. Bright for the 4,993 shares, and on June 20 a cheque for £7,00-the entire capital was subscribed by C. Bright and the signatories—£o was called up on the 12.500 shares on August 9th to complete the purchase for £90 000 of the Buenos Awes Electric Tramways—of the £90.000 £62,500 was credited to Bright—the trustee has put in proofs against the Company amounting to £305.214 19s. 9d., which I have not dealt with—there is one for £250,00 and another for 252,214 19s. 9d—Mr. Bright has told me that the claims are not maintrable, but I am responsible tor dealing with them—I have had a tentalive offer from the trustee of Charles Bright's estate—he wrote to my solicitors—I am an officer of the Court—I am a chartered accountant—
I was told by the Registrar that I was to be careful to consider myself an officer of the Court, and to act only as an officer of the Court in this matter—I was appointed on May 26th, 1902, by the Court to act prohac vice and to hold an even hand between the parties—the trustee's offer referred to was made three or four weeks after proofs for £305,000 were put in, and after criminal proceedings were instituted on January 7th last.
Cross-examined by MORENO. Mr. Wharton signed the Minutes of the meeting held at Taunton on August 22nd, 1901 (The Minutes were referred to, and it was found that these Minutes were confirmed at a subsequent meeting held October 17th. 1901).
Re-examined. I was appointed Liquidator in April this year.
ANDREW DODDS FAIRBAIRN . I am a chartered accountant, and one of the firm of Fairbairn and Wingfield—I live at 9, Eldon Road, Hampstead—at the request of Mr. Harrower, the trustee of Charles Bright, about the middle of January, 1902, I have made an examination of the books and documents in this case—amongst those are the minute book, the cash book, and the banking account with Glyn, Mills and Company, of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, and a copy of the account of Charles Bright at the London City and Midland Bank—the latter account shows five cheques, amounting to £74,930, paid by Charles Bright to Charles Bright and Company, Limited—that account was opened by Charles Bright on December 1st, 1897, and closed April 27, 1900—it was debited on June 7th, 1899, with £9,000; 20th, £20,930 and £7,000; 21st, £13,000; 22nd, £25,000—on June 21st the account is debited with £12,500, being £1 a share on 12,500 shares in Charles Bright and Company, Limited—on August 9th, 1899, there is a credit to Bright in the ledger of Bright and Company of £62,500, part of the £90,000 the purchase of the Bright's Tramway Company—that is applied in paying a call of £5 a share on 12,500 shares allotted to Charles Bright in Charles Bright and Company, Limited—Charles Bright had a general account and a deposit account in the ledger of Charles Bright and Company, Limited—in the deposit account on May 22nd, £6,500 is debited as a payment to Caspar Parsons—the corresponding entry appears in the cash book of the general account on the same day—in the ledger of the general account Mr. Bright is debited with £17,500, also paid to Caspar Parsons, and those two sums are entered in the cash book together as £24,000—I have before me a document of May 23rd, from the Hotel Cecil, purporting to come from Caspar Parsons—in the Register of Mortgages there is an entry of 3,000 shares of £10 each fully paid in the South American Electric Company, Limited, issued to Caspar Parsons as security for this loan of £24,000, plus 600 deferred shares of 1s. each in the River Plate Construction Company—560 of those shares are in the name of Bright, and there are ten shares each in the names of Parish. Lewis., Ford, and Stephens, as further collateral security—I find no receipt by Caspar Parsons—Charles Bright and Company, Limited, are giving him security for the loan he has advanced to them—the business of the two companies referred to was also carried on at 14, Copthall Avenue—the
next day in the cash book the £6,500 and the £17.500 is debited to Caspar Parsons, and a letter in May shows that the 600 deferred shares and the 3.000 shares are River Plate and South American Electric shares—I find no record of interest in cash paid to Parsons, but in the ledger he is credited with interest on December 31st. 1900, amounting to £692 11s. 11d.—in 1891 there is no entry to that effect—no balance appears in the general account after the payment of the £17,500—there are appreciable payments out of the deposit account between May loth and June 29th—on May loth, £1.000 to C. Bright; May 22nd, £6,500 to Parsons; June 4th, subscription to Otto Motor Club, 4 guineas; June 7th. £3,123 4s. 7d. to Bright's Light and Power; June 22nd, £14,935 5s. cash, which is entered in the book cash as"C. B. to Charles Bright and Company deposit cash £14,935 5s. June 22nd, £25, and 28th, £3.192 10s. to Bright's Light and Power Company; 29th, £3,788, which is entered in the cash book as"C. B. deposit"—and on June 29th the deposit account is-overdrawn and Charles Bright owes to the Company £23,678 9s. 7d.—this is from the certified copy of Bright's account with the City and Midland Bank—£113 8s. was the balance withdrawn on April 27th, 1900, by this cheque—I find from the books of Bright's Light and Power Company, 24,100 shares were transferred to Caspar Parsons—they stood originally in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Oliver and others, but they were applied for and the allotment money paid in respect of them by Bright on July 26th, 27th and 28th. 1898—prima facie they go to somebody as trustee for him—haf-a-crown was payable on application, and half-a-crown on allotment of these shares by Bright's cheques, and the calls are debited to Charles Bright in the books of Charles Bright and Company—Charles Bright's account at the City and Midland Bank was closed—the first call was paid—the second call was paid on March 2nd by a cheque for £12.916—the amounts were debited in the ledger account of Charles Bright and Company—so long as he had a banking account he drew upon it—out of that he paid the application, the allotment, and the first call of 3s. a share—the second and third calls were drawn on the account of Charles Bright and Company, Limited—Bright's Light and Power Company declared a dividend on March 31st, 1900—£2,263 17s. was credited to the account of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, at the City and Midland Bank—cheques were made out to individual shareholders or to bearer—and on March 30th appears in C. Bright's banking account £2,257 13s. 6d., and on March 28th £6 3s. 7d. represented as dividend on J. Thorn's shares in the Company or making a total of £2,263 17s. 1d., which represents a dividend on 91,347 shares of the company—I get that out of £2,294 9s. 7d.—only about £31 went to anybody else—so that Bright must have received in that sum the dividend upon Caspar Parsons' 24,100 shares, the original holders being Garchia and others—that was the last and only dividend I believe—I have the warrant here—I find there is paid into the credit of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, at Glyn, Mills and Company's bank, £9,000 on June 7th, 1899; £27,930 on June 20th in two sums of £20,930 and £7,000; and £13,000 on June 21st, which is included in the £25,000
appearing in the account, and is identified in the cash book as the £13,000 now dealt with, being a call on the 12,000 shares—I find eight cheques signed by Charles Bright after he received his director's fees in Charles Bright and Company, Limited, on June 7th, 1900—on July 22nd there is a cheque in favour of F. H. Jones, Esquire, a director, for £58 15s.—from the passbook I find standing to the credit of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, on July 30th, 1901, the date of the Receiving Order, £3,246 4s. 9d.—and on November 28th, 1891, the date of Miss Daisy Grosvenor's draft of £6,000, 4s. 6d.—amongst the claims against the estate of Charles Bright, subsequent to adjudication, is the claim of the Commercial Intelligence Bureau for £1,028 3s. 3d. for the second call of 10s. a share; Mr. Killey's claim upon his judgment for £5,000, which was originally £4,251, but mounted up to £10,251 10s. 1d., and was admitted as £8,001 10s. 1d.; James Capel and Company and the River Plate Construction Company, £1,945 10s., £1,055 9s., and Capel and Company only £7,035 9s. 7d.—the £1,945 10s. was for expenses incurred in defence of numerous actions brought by Bright—the £7,035 9s. 7d. was for the difference in the value of the shares which were depreciated from £60,000 to £54,000—some smaller claims were admitted—others were rejected, including one appearing in the books of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, for £1,594; the South American Company for £37,000; James Oliver for £2,160—Caspar Parsons did not prove his claim for £24,000 and interest against Charles Bright and Company, Limited.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. There was also a claim of Adams and Sons for £7 18s. 6d., of which £7 11s. 6d. was admitted; of Oliver Redman And Company for £7 9s. 6d.; of Crawford and Chester for £23 17s. 6d. they are the solicitors in Bright's application; of Mr. Pinner for £23 19s. 8d.; of Woodcock, Bevan, and Company, £84; and of S. Forman and Co. for £20 16s. 4d—the total admitted claims amounted to £19,323 17s.; the claims not admitted to £200 or £300—I find a payment made to Bright's Light and Power Company on behalf of Charles Bright of £3,123 4s. 7d., and in that company's cash-book I find the note, "C. Bright, Buenos Ayres, amount received from C. Bright, being balance in hand of Buenos Ayres Agency, 31st December, 1899"—it is not quite a payment to Bright; as vendor he was entitled to receive a certain payment for Bright's Light and Power—Bright collected and paid out monies as agent for Bright's Light and Power in this case—Bright received 33,000 vendor's shares for the transfer to that Company of two substantial properties in South America—he also received sums amounting to £33,333 6s. 8d.—the properties were the concessions for the Santiago and the Salta electric light—in that property Bright's Light and Power Company acquired 22,000 shares and 2,000 snares in the South American Electric Company at £10 each—Charles Bright and Company, Limited, had originally 4,993 shares of £10 each in the South American Electric Company—Bright contracted to turn over the Santiago and Salta concessions with the works completed as a going concern—when Bright's Light and Power Company was organised Charles Bright and Company, Limited, subscribed 12,500 shares and paid £1 a share—in August £5 was called
up—on August 9th he is credited in the ledger of Charles Bright and Company. Limited, with £90.000. the purchase money of the Buenos Ayres Electric Tramways Company, and he is debited with £62,500, leaving a credit of £27,500, that was debited with £15,000 in the cash-book of Charles Bright and Company. Limited—I am dealing with his deposit account, where £27,500 appears at his credit—on March 28th,. 1900, in the cash-book of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, is an entry of a payment by Bright to the South American Electric Company of £15,000 for 1,500 shares—there is a letter of April 5th from Charles. Bright and Company, Limited, to Bright's Light and Power Company, 14, Copthall Avenue: '"Gentlemen, Please pay to the South American Electric Company all monies due to your company,"&c, "as arranged in Buenos Ayres"—the cash-book has reference to it—I do not find the same notification with reference to every cheque—the £3,788 on June 29th is a payment to Charles Bright and Company, and is debited to Charles Bright's deposit account in the cash-book and ledger of Charles. Bright and Company, Limited—the entry is simply"C. B. deposit £3,788"—it is not taken out of the deposit account, it is overdrawn—it did not find its way to the South American Electric Company—it is paid into Glyn, Mills' bank—it is paid by Bright's Light and Power Company on deposit to Charles Bright and Company, Limited—two cheques for calls, are paid of £9,000 and £5,935 to Bright's Light and Power Company, and entered as £14,9.35 5s. in the books of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, as one cheque in the first instance—the cheque is London, June, 22nd, 1900. on Glyn, Mills, Currie and Company: "Pay No. 56 or Bearer £14,9.35 5s. C. Bright, Director; R. G. Fudge, Secretary," and is crossed London City and Midland"—Bright had ceased to be a director then—there was a second call on F. R. Bright, Garchia, Handley, Oliver, and others amounting to £10,897—the list is here, leaving £4,038 5s., and that is entered as being received in payment of a third call upon R. G. Fudge for 1.800 shares, Mrs. Oliver 1,600, and J. Oliver 6,000 shares, F. R. Bright 5.253 shares, and Trant 1,500 shares, the total being £14,935 5s.—it was a 5s. call—I can follow the £14,935 5s.—there is an entry in the cash-book of Bright's Light and Power of a cheque to Charles. Bright and Company, Limited, of £9.000 in liquidation of loan of £20,000—£5,935 is paid to the vendor, amount paid to South American Electric Company as per letter of C. Bright, the vendor of Bright's Light and Power of April 5th, 1900—the £5,935 then appears in the cash-book as paid to the Salta Works—the cheques for £3,192 10s. and £6,980 10s. I find in the cash-book of Bright's Light and Power Company, drawn by Bright, similarly endorsed by Fudge, as paying various calls on shares—in the cash-book I find it was received in lour sums in respect to a call of 5s. a share on shares of Fudge and Palmer—these sums amount to £3,191 10s. 5d—I find a payment out to the South American Land Company of £3.191 10s. 5d., and by letter of April 5th £3,788 is placed by Bright's. Light and Power to the deposit of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, and other cheques are drawn by Bright's Light and Power Company, one for £3,788, and deposited in the same way—the date in the cash-book
is June 9th—I produce the eight cheques of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, drawn after Bright's resignation upon Glyn. Mills, six being: R. G. Fudge £1,210; "Pay 62 or bearer" £25, and stated in cash-book to be cash; "L. D. Tandy or bearer" £30; June 22nd, paid to "58" £50—but the cheque itself is not dated, and as to that I have two entries: petty cash £25 and C. B. deposit £25; then July 14th £14 6s.; in the cash-book that is for"Stamp duties on debentures of Buenos Ayres Electric Tramways"—then July 20th, "Pay F. H. Jones, Esq. £68 15s."—that is rent of 68, Coleman Street, and the Buenos Ayres Tramways seem to be marked for it—£200 11s. is the total—when Miss Grosvenor presented her draft for £6,000 on November 28th there was only 4s. 6d. in the bank—£10 cash was paid by Miss Grosvenor—the draft was on Charles Bright and Company, Limited, to the order of F. R. Bright, by his attorney, D. Grosvenor—£10,000 was paid in by F. R Bright's authority to the credit of Grosvenor—on November 26th, prior to the draft of £6,000, F. R. Bright had to his credit £31,370—he had also a joint account with another person, but I do not find another account individually—the £6,000 is not entered—the books were passed to the Offcial Receiver—these claims against Charles Bright had been admitted at the date of his arrest: The Commercial Intelligence Bureau for £1.0.38 3s. 3d. on December 18th, 1901; P. Thomas and Sons, £7 11s. 6d.; Alfred Rapkin, £97 7s. 6d.; Crawford and Chester, £23 17s. 6d.—on December-13th, 1901, application is made by D. Grosvenor for 6,000 shares in Charles Bright and Company, Limited, at £1 a share out of her deposit of £10,000, and they are allotted.
Re-examined. There was an account of F. R. Bright in the books of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, and a second account jointly with Moreno opened May 31st, 1901, with a credit of £100,000—on May 31st, 1901, £50,000 is placed to the credit of F. R. Bright—that account was opened on May 23rd with £850—the 24,100 Bright's Light and Power shares transferred to Caspar Parsons were a separate lot from the 33,333 vendor's shares and the balance of the 200,000—I find in the ledger payments to the vendor down to March, 1900, but afterwards to the South American Electric Company—the Salta works were not completed as quickly as anticipated, and £1,000 was what Bright agreed to pay the company less profit for works not completed—the deposit account of C. Bright with Charles Bright and Company, Limited, prior to the payment of the £15,000 to the South American Electric Company stood at a credit of £27,500 in the general account—that is the figure as it stood from August 9th, 1899, to March 27th, 1900—on March 28th, 1900, £15,000 was drawn out to pay for 1,500 shares in the South American Electric Company—Bright, applied that sum for the payment of those shares in his own name—by a minute of the South American Electric Company the Secretary is instructed to issue fresh certificates in the name of the nominees of C. Bright—I find they are J. F. Moreno and James Oliver—3,000 were allotted, but only half of those were debited to Bright's general account; another 1,500 were debited to Bright's deposit account—a letter of April 5th, 1900, contains
Bright's direction to pay such sums as accrued to him from Bright's Light and Power to the South American Electric Company—I produce a copy of that letter—the original is not under my control—the Killey litigation was then pursuing its course—£5,000 was credited to Bright's general account with Charles Bright and Company, Limited, in March—that raised it to £17,500 on March 28th—on May 22nd that balance was paid in the Caspar Parsons transaction—no cheque passed—on the third call the Bright's Light and Power calls were fully paid—Bright was debited with the calls for application and allotment except 22,000, which he caused to be transferred to the South American Company, and a small number applied for by the public, probably about 800—the vendor's shares of course were fully paid—they passed to Caspar Parsons on July 24th, 1900—Moreno transferred 100 and retained 1,400—50 were transferred to Hastings and Elkin on August 31st 1901—Moreno transferred the shares to the Trustee in Bankruptcy in March last—there are orders from Bright to Caspar Parsons of May 17th for £7,500 on Charles Bright and Company, Limited.
Cross-examined by Moreno This is the agreement between Harrower and Bright of March 8th, 1962 transferring 1.003 shares of Charles Bright and Company since the judgment on February 17th, 1902, on Mr. Justice Buckley in favour of the trustee of Bright and Company, Limited—there was another action by the trustee of Bright's Light and Power Company.
HENRY MARTIN WRIGHT . I am chief reception clerk at the Hotel Cecil—I have charge of the list on visitors' books—I have made inquiries and find that we have no record or a Caspar Parsons staying at the Hotel Cecil on or about May 23rd, nor on July 9th or 24th, 1900—Moreno stayed at the Hotel from May 22nd to 25th 1000 inclusive—this is his bill receipted—in 1900 Bright was a constant visitor.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. This is the alphabetical index book of all the guests staying at the hotel—it is an abstract from the register made by clerks in my office kept for inquiries—every visitor's name is registered, and these names are copied from it—Mr. Bright has stayed there on or off for the last three or four years—he had rooms for three months—a parlour, two bedrooms, and a bathroom—he had the privilege of inviting a guest—we have no record of Caspar Parsons at all—if he occupied a room of Mr. Bright we should have no record unless he put his name on the register—Mr. Bright had frequently people to stay with him.
Re-examined. I have a record of Tandy in room 514 from May 20th to July 28th 1890—that was not Bright's room but a room across the hall—Bright brought him there both left on July 28th—the bill was rendered to Tandy and Bright as it accrued between those dates.
HERBERT JAMES JACKSON . I am a clerk employed by the Official Receiver in Bankruptey—I served a Receving Order against Charles Bright by post in a registered envelope on July 30th at 5.30, in the official letter bag of the General Post Office—I produce the record of the registered letters sent out that evening—among them I find one to Charles Bright, Copthall Avenue the letter containing the Registered Order the same day the order was made.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. I cannot swear to this being the letter—this is addressed to 788 Calle, Victoria, Buenos Ayres—from his report on the file in our possession I should say an inspector of the Official Liquidator attended at 14, Copthall Avenue, on July 31st, and that he was informed that Mr. Bright had no part in those offices, and no papers or other property there, that his address was as giver here in South America; his solicitor was Mr. Smurthwaite, of Bedford Row, and that letters were received for him at 14, Copthall Avenue.
THOMAS CHARLES ROOTS . I am a postman—I delivered letters on July 31st in the district of Copthall Avenue, City, and amongst them a registered letter addressed to C. Bright, 14, Copthall Avenue—I took this receipt from the charwoman, Mrs. Simcoe—there were other letters—I could see that one addressed to Bright came from the Official Receiver.
SARAH ANN ROBINSON . I am the housekeeper at 14, Copthall Avenue—I look after the offices with the name of C. Bright and Company, Limited on the door with other names—I know Bright. Moreno and Fudge frequented the same office—this is a rubbing of the door plate showing the names of The Metropolitan Railway Company of Buenos Ayres, Bright's Light and Power Company, and the South American Electric Company, Limited—Miss Grosvenor, a lady typewriter was constantly there—I go later than Simcoe—I received this letter from Simcoe—I gave it to Fudge—Fudge came there a week or so after Bright had ceased to come—he told me that any other letters that I received for C Bright I was to send back to the post office—No. 17 is a school house and not connected with No. 14—a caretaker lives there—Simcoe takes in letters when I am not there and gives them to me afterwards—I lay them on the desk.
JOHN WISE (City Police Inspector.) On January 21st, this year, I went to 14, Copthall Avenue with a warrant for Charles Bright's arrest—I read it to him—he was charged with unlawfully concealing certain portions of his property with intent to defraud his creditors—he said, "I am Charles Bright, but not a bankrupt, and no offence could be committed without I was a bankrupt"—I said he would have to go to the station with me—I conveyed him to Moor Lane Police Station—on the way he said, "I was going to Buenos Ayres where you could not touch me, no offence having been committed"—when charged at the station he said, "I carry under £20. so that the trustees could not take it," or it may have been "touch—I was taking it down as he said it—I was counting his money, £7 10s.—he asked that a letter to Trant from Oliver might be kept—he was searched—I also went to the Hotel Cecil for two trunks and a dressing bag—I found, mostly upon him, there being one or two documents in the trunks, among other documents, Exhibits 52, memorandum July 1st, 1898, Trant; 53 receipt, July, 1900; 54 and 54a, copy letter. October 19th, 1901, from Wingfield and Blew to Casper Parsons, and the envelope directed to Bright attached and marked "private"; 55 part of a torn letter; 56 and 57, type-written copies of preference and ordinary shareholders in the
Buenos Awes Electric Tramways Company, Limited, and certificate of Bright's character signed 1). Garcia. Mansilla November 25th 1901 58. type-written copy letter to D. E. Bodington, Paris; 59 and 59a. letter Smurthwaite to Bright. November 27th 1901, and the envelope; 60. a typed memorandum relating to Bright's Light and Power, of December 31st. 1901; 61. list of shares etc. in Spanish; 62, petition to wind up Bright and Co.; 63 memorandum of subscribed capital to Bright and Co.; 64 memorandum to Harrower, unsigned, as to lease of premises; 65,.1 list of shares held by Caspar Parsons in the South American Company: 66 a list of claims re Charles Bright: 67. a list of liabilities 68. a memorandum as to creditors of "C. B."; and other exhibits being memorandum, diary, etc. up to No. 73, a letter from Mr. Smurthwaite; 74 is a newspaper cutting on Charles Bright's affairs; 75, I found in his breast pocket-book on his person, and he drew my special attention to it: 68, Coleman Street, March 23rd, 1900, "Dear Mr. Trant, I beg to advise you that I hold for you as trustee Certificate No. 17 for 2,900 shares of the company Charles Bright and Company, Limited. Please have it on record. Yours sincerely. James Oliver"'—I was present before the magistrate when other exhibits were put in and when Moreno made this deposition, which was taken down in writing, and signed by him, and in which he refers to exhibits 135, 138, 143, and 145 (correspondence and cablegrams): (Read) "I am at the present time secretary to a public company, and I reside at 19, Oliver Grove, South Norwood. I deny entirely that there is any ground for the charges made against me. I have never conspired. I did not know Mr. C. Bright at all at the beginning of February, 1900. At that time. I was Chief Clerk in the American Legation at Madrid. In February, 1900.I had an offer from Mr. Bright through Mr. Sims. On February 26th. 1900. I went to London. I remained in London till the 5th April. 1900. During that time I had nothing whatever to do with Bright's business or the business of the companies. When I arrived, I confirmed the arrangement with Bright that I was to look after F. R. Bright's interests. That was one of the objects I came to London for, but the principal object was to look in connection with the Metropolitan Railway of Buenos Ayres. The accused. Bright, who held the Concession, was at that time thinking of commencing the construction of the railway. Between the 26th February and April 5th, 1900, I worked almost exclusively at the Hotel Cecil, except during about, two weeks at the end, when I was ill. On March 23rd. 1900, or on some day prior to it. Mr. Bright came to me and told me that he had certain shares belonging to his brother in his name, that on account of the litigation then going on, of which I had a very vague idea he thought it was no longer advisable for him to keep those shares. At that time I took Mr. Bright to be a rich man, and I had no reason whatever to doubt what he told me. And the transfer No. 5 was executed. At this time I knew there was some litigation going on, but I had a vague idea of what it was all about. On April 5th I left London and went to Paris on private business, which had nothing to do with Mr. Bright. I went to be married. While in Paris I met Mr. Bright once or twice. On May 22nd I returned to London and on May 24th, the accused. Bright called my attention to the fact that I
had not informed his brother, Mr. F. Bright, of this transfer (No. 5). I then wrote to Mr. F. Bright a letter dated May 24th, 1900, which I handed to Mr. Charles Bright on the same date, May 24th, 1900. I was appointed a director of the South American Electric Company, Limited, and on the 18th June following I became a director of the Metropolitan Railway of Buenos Ayres, Limited. From the 26th June, 1900, until the present time I have been managing director of the South American Electric Company at a salary of £308 4s. 7d. per annum. Since the 26th June, 1900.I have not received from the accused, Bright, one penny, either as salary, gift or in any other form. On May 24th, 1901, I became a director of the Central Buenos Ayres Railway Company. I became a director of Charles Bright and Co., on March 26th, 1901, and on August loth, 1901, I became a director of Bright's Light and Power, Limited. About the same date, or perhaps July, I became a director of the Buenos Ayres Electric Tramways Company, Limited. Until about July, 1901, I took no part whatever in the management of any of these companies. I had a desk at 14, Copthall Avenue, in the board room, quite apart from the general offices. The only company with which I had anything to do was the Metropolitan Railway of Buenos Ayres, and that not in the management, but in the preparation of estimates, preliminary work. Of course I was aware of the litigation going on, practically, since I came to London, especially of the Arbitration between Charles Bright and the River Plate Company. On July 31st, 1901, I think it was, Mr. Fudge and I went to see Mr. Charles Bright at Boulogne. Bright told me that Mr. Fudge had 7,000 shares in Bright's Light and Power belonging to his brother, Mr. F. Bright, and he asked me to have them transferred to me by Fudge. Also 1,500 shares in the same company standing in the name of L. B. Trant. I cannot remember where the transfer for this last 1,500 shares came from. The transfer was made, however, and passed on September 11th, Mr. Harrower wrote to me claiming the shares. I took no notice. The first letter I received from Frederick Bright was about October 5th, 1901, by post, dated September 13th, 1901, and this letter of same date. I received a cablegram from him on September 13th, also on October 7th, and on October 11th. The latter telegram was in reply to one I sent a few days before, saying that the shares had been claimed by the trustee. I received the letter produced from F. Bright, dated October 17th, 1901, enclosing this letter from L. B. Trant, dated October 12th, 1901. I received this letter, dated October 31st, 1901 enclosing this copy. I received this telegram, dated November 25th, 1901, from F. Bright. The telegrams are addressed to my registered cable address "Mohican"In November, 1901, Mr. Charles Bright returned from South America and came to London. I could get no information from Mr. Charles Bright's ownership of these shares. The trustee had brought two suits against me, one for Charles Bright and Co.'s shares, and the other for the Bright's Light and Power shares. I consulted my solicitors. A judgment was given against me in the action for Charles Bright and Company's shares, and the others I gave up. Up to the time of the judgment I placed all the obstacles I could in the way of the trustee, believing honestly I was defending Fred. Bright's shares.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I did not know in March, 1900, that; Killey had obtained judgment against Mr. Bright. I knew there was litigation. He may have told me that Mr. Killey had signed judgment against him for £5.000. He told me it was no longer advisable the shares should remain in his name. They were transferred to my name, as it was no longer advisable for him to keep them and they were his brother's. At that time I held no power of attorney for F. R. Bright. In April 1901, Mr. Charles Bright was concerned in considerable litigation. I knew of the judgment of the Commercial Intelligence Bureau about the date of it. The arbitration in the River Plate Construction came to an end about March 1901. After that I executed transfers Nos. 8 and 9. I don't think I knew in 1900 of the charging order obtained by Mr. Killey on 12,500 shares. I knew it in 1901. In April, 1901, it was apparent to me that Charles Bright was in considerable difficulties. He asked me to transfer the shares to Mendeville and his brother. I asked him no questions about it. I did not consider myself bound to do what he asked. As a matter of fact I did. I knew of the presentation of the bankruptcy petition, its resistance by Charles Bright, and the making of the Receiving Order. I must have heard of it on July 30th. On July 31st I left for Boulogne, I think by the night boat by way of Calais. We went to the Hotel Folkestone, arriving thereabout 2 a.m. We did not see Bright at the Hotel Folkestone that day. We knew he was there. We did not go at Bright's request. I think Bright came to us on August 1st at the Hotel Folkestone. I think we left in the afternoon of August 1st. We were there, about four or five hours. The Receiving Order was mentioned. Miss Daisy Grosvenor was there. I have known her since I came to London. She has been always associated with the office, 14, Copthall Avenue. She was a typewriter at weekly wages. Down was always in the office. I went again to Boulogne on August 3rd or thereabouts. Owing to a desire to discuss business matter for a longer period. I think we agreed I should go. I went with John Down. I stayed from Saturday over Monday. Mr. Smurthwaite was already there. I think he remained He did not return with me on the second visit, I 'think the Receiving Order was mentioned. Everything was mentioned. I think only the 8.500 shares in Fudge's and Trant's names were mentioned as to be transferred to me. It did not occur to me that this was an effort on the part of Charles Bright to defeat the Receiving Order, which had been made within a week. I did swear on January 2nd, 1902, that I denied that Fudge had transferred the 7,000 shares at the bankrupt Bright's request. Bright asked me to got them from Fudge that is my explanation. At that time I was doing all I could to defeat the trustee. I would do it again. I did swear in that affidavit that I was acting as the said bankrupt directed. I did not know of the transfer 25, Fudge to Vidal, till it came. As far as I know it was brought over by Vidal. I transferred the shares to Elkin and Hastings referred to in exhibits 10 and 11, at Charles Bright's request, according to instructions he gave when I was in Boulogne. I had no hesitation in fulfilling those instructions. I did not know the reason for these transfers of F. Bright's shares. I did not ask. It did not cross my mind that the defendant was ridding himself of his
property to defeat the judgments. The only company that paid me was the South American Electric Company. They had no banking account. The money was drawn by Charles Bright and Co., Limited, by cheques on Glyn, Mills and Co. The letters I received from Bright, Nos. 91 and 92, dated September 6th and September 9th, are headed Buenos Ayres. I had rather you did not press me for an answer whether I do not now think that the subsequent letters from F. R. Bright were inspired by Charles Bright I had a suspicion then. I think I first had a power of attorney for F. Bright in May, 1901. I thought it was very natural that it should be dated about that time when difficulties were grave. The new power of attorney in the name now of Miss Daisy Grosvenor was first shown to me on January 22nd, 2 902. the day I was served with a summons from this court. I have always intended to go into the witness box in this enquiry. I know that the Chancery actions against me were adjourned in order to get an affidavit by F. R. Bright When Mr. Charles Bright would give no information at my solicitors, I was suspicious enough to wash my hands of the whole matter. The action proceeded. I did not desist. I wanted Mr. F. Bright to take charge of the action and the plaintiffs to leave me alone. I wanted my costs also. Mr. Charles Bright suggested the writing of the letter of November 21st (No. 45). I knew it did not come from F. R. Bright at all. He was in Buenos Ayres Mr. Charles Bright also suggested my writing the letter No. 46. I knew of the letter No. 47 being written. It is an absurd suggestion that at the meeting of the company on November 21st, when I was in the chair, I knew that the re-allotment of the shares was an endeavour fraudulently to conceal the property of Charles Bright. A meeting of directors of December 13th, 1901, was held at my house, as was ill. I was too ill to pay the slightest attention to the application (No. 33) of Miss Daisy Grosvenor. I did not know of the application. It never occurred to me that these shares belonged to Mr. Charles Bright. I will swear that I, at the time din't know what was the purpose of opening the account for Miss Grosvenor for £10,000. On November 28th, 1901, I don't think Charles Bright and Co. had any amount to its credit at the bank.
Cross-examined by Mr. Charles Bright. I will not swear that Charles Bright told me of the Killey judgment. I don't recollect if, when I came over from Paris first, Charles Bright told me that his brother's interest and his might sometimes clash. It was understood that I was to look after his brother's interest. If any difference arose, I was to use my discretion. We have had arguments. The power of attorney I held was simply to deal with F. R. Bright's interest in companies when there was a question as to investing money for him. I could not do it without authority. I knew Charles Bright had a general power of attorney. Several things I refused to do when Charles Bright asked me. I won't swear positively the Receiving Order was mentioned when I was at Boulogne. I went there to discuss business in general, not to discuss transfers of shares. One matter was the South American Electric Company collecting £2,000 from the Tramways Company. Another was the sale of the tramways in Buenos Ayres. The Metropolitan Railway was also discussed. All the business of all the companies
was discussed. I did not know that Fudge's shares were F. R Bright's. I wrote to Mr. Fudge on August 10th, and requested him to transfer the shares. I did not speak to him about the shares before we went to Boulogne The object of the transfer of the 7,000 shares and 1,500 shares was to obtain voting power in the company and not to conceal the property. The question of concealing the property was never mentioned I have so sworn in affidavits. My recollection is that in November, 1901, we could get no particulars from Charles Bright as to F. R. Bright's owner ship. We wanted documentary evidence. He wanted to give evidence himself. I considered that was no good. Immediately after that the accused (Bright) was taken ill. I was not offered remunerative employment by Wingfield and Blew. I have not had any offer from them. I do not know Mr. F. R. Bright One of the reasons I suspected the letters of F. R. Bright were inspired by the accused (Bright), was the style of the letters Mr. Charles Bright told me to open the credit for £10,000 for Miss. Grosvenor. I said I could not do that without Mr. F. R. Bright's express instructions At that time, according to the books, Charles Bright and Co. owed F. R. Bright more than £100,000 for the Metropolitan Railway Concession. Offers of £100,000 cash have been made for it. A cheque for £18,000 was brought to me signed by the accused (Bright), and I declined to accept it. Since these proceedings commenced I returned it. This is the cheque. The words "pp. F. R. Bright, D. Grosvenor" have been added since, and the endorsement. We consulted the solicitors of the company before re-allotting the shares The accused (Bright) was in custody at the time the cheque No. 145 was presented. As long as I thought what Charles Bright requested was right, I did it. I followed his suggestions so often as I did because he had great experience, and was the brother of F. R. Bright. I have repeatedly offered the trustee to transfer the shares still standing in my name. This is a copy of a letter I wrote to Fudge, dated October 14th."
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. I was in the office with Bright about four minutes—there were remarks which I did not take down.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I was present practically during the whole of the proceedings at the Guildhall—Fudge and Moreno were summoned and appeared—they were released on their own recognisances from day to day.
HAROLD BARHAM . I am a partner of Mr. Carnaby Harrower—we are accountants—he was unwell from about midsummer of last year—he gradually got worse, till in February or March he had to give up the work connected with Charles Bright and Co., Limited, after having given evidence at the Guildhall—I have Dr. Fairweather's certificate of his condition when he left this country, and a certificate since he has been living in Algiers, visaed by the Consul—he is unable to come back.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. Mr. Harrower placed the details of the matter with Messrs. Fairbairn of Cannon Street—a power of attorney was given to Mr. Fairbairn from the trustee—no information is given at his residence beyond the medical certificate.
The statement of George Carnaby Harrower was read as follows:—"I live at Beulah Lodge Enfield. I am a chartered accountant of College Hill
Chambers. I am the trustee in the bankruptcy of Charles Bright. On July 30th, 1901, a Receiving Order was made. On August 1st there was a notice of appeal against the Receiving Order. On August 20th the creditors resolved on the adjudication of the defendant, and on September 9th last he was adjudicated bankrupt. On the same day I was appointed trustee. The public examination was fixed for September 24th. Mr. Bright did not attend. It was adjourned to November 13th. On November 8th Mr. Bright's appeal against the Receiving Order was heard by the Court of Appeal and dismissed with costs. Mr. Bright did not attend on November 13th. There was an adjournment to November 27th, on which day the defendant did not attend, and the examination was adjourned sine die. Mr. Bright has not filed any statement of affairs, neither has he given any assistance towards the realisation of his estate. About November 17th I had an interview in London with the accused, and there was another interview either on November 18th or 19th at my solicitor's office. I did not inform him that the examination was adjourned to November 27th; so far as I recollect no reference was made to it. On December 12th the Official Receiver obtained a warrant against the defendant for failing to appear. On January 16th I reported to the Court, and on the 17th the Court made an Order for the prosecution of the bankrupt On January 21st I swore an information at this Court, on which a warrant was granted for some little time past I have been unwell, and as a consequence I have left the detail of this case to Messrs. Fairbairn and Wingfield, Chartered Accountants under my sanction. Mr. Fairbairn has made a minute examination of the books and documents. Examined by MR. CRANE for Bright. On November 16th or 17th last I saw Mr. Bright at a club in company with Mr. Smurthwaite, and I was with him from about 2 to 6 p.m. We had a conversation about Mr. Bright's bankruptcy and matters relating thereto. The next day I saw him again, and we had another conversation of about two hours, and on or about November 22nd we had another long conversation. I believe Mr. Bright called once or twice at my office. In these conversations Mr. Bright talked most of the time. I also saw Mr. Bright at a meeting of Charles Bright and Co., Limited. I also saw him at a Board meeting. We had no private conversation that day. During our conversation I never heard that Mr. Bright had come over to see me against his doctor's orders. Mr. Bright said he was not well, and that he was going away immediately to undergo a severe operation. In these conversations Mr. Bright told me all about the Killey judgment. From what he said, and from what my solicitors have told me, I know that that judgment was based on a contract for the purchase of a concession in South America, and the contract was to be carried out in South America. Bright said that Killey and his partners were the owners of the concession Bright was to purchase. I know that Killey has never been here, that his action was brought by Power of Attorney by Mr. Weir, the writ was for £20,000. An Order was made for £5,000 to be paid into Court, and leave was given to defend as to the rest. I know that Bright brought an action to set aside the Killey judgment. I don't know that Killey issued a summons to set that aside. There was a whole
shoal of actions, and I left the details to my solicitors. Mr. Bright did inform me that the Killey judgment was obtained on the faith of an instrument in Spanish which he said was a fraud. Mr. Bright also told me that proceedings were being taken by him in Buenos Ayres against Mr. Killey. Mr. Bright referred to so many actions that I suggested that he should see my solicitor and my solicitor has investigated Mr. Bright's statements, and has advised me that Mr. Bright's objections cannot be held in regard to the Killey judgment. Mr. Bright referred to four or five actions, viz.: The Killey the River Plate the Sandford, and, I think, two others. The admitted claims in the bankruptcy of Bright are:—Thomas, £7 18s. 6d.; Rapkin. £97 9s. 6d.; Crawford and Chester £23 17s. 6d.; the Commercial and Intelligence Bureau, £1028 3s. 3d. The time for the determination of the unadmitted claims has been extended to March 25th. The unadmitted claims are: The Killey, £5,000; James Capel and the River Plate Construction. £2.445 10s.; James Capel and Co., £7,035 9s. 7d.; H. D. Perin, £42 6s. 10d.; Woodthorpe, Bevan, and Co., £84; Chas. Bright and Co., Limited (that is rejected). £58.494 4s. 8d.; South America Electric Company, Limited (that is rejected), £37,484 2s. 10d.; James Oliver (also rejected), £2.160; Chas. Bright and Co., Limited (rejected), £25,000; a further claim not yet adjudicated. The first two claims I have mentioned as rejected are standing over for further proof. Mr. Bright's object in meeting me was to get me to fight these actions for him, and that if I would he would find me the money, and that if not he defied me as the trustee, as he said he did not come under the English Bankruptcy Court. Mr. Bright told me that he disputed everything. I know that £75 was paid into Court in the action Bright v. Killey as security for costs. I have no knowledge as to whether any portion of the £75 has been paid out to my solicitor. Mr. Bright did ask me to continue the Killey action. I did not agree to do so if funds were provided. I know that the bankruptcy petition was stayed by the Registrar. I know that my solicitor agreed to reconsider his opinion of the Killey action if Mr. Bright would put down £.500 as earnest money. I think that in the presence of Mr. Bright my solicitor had given it as his opinion that there was nothing in Mr. Bright's contention. I did not consider this matter sufficiently important to take Counsel's opinion. When I assumed the trusteeship the action Bright v. Killey was still pending; it is still pending my decision as to whether I shall continue the action. I take it that at this moment I may continue the action if I am so disposed. I wish to correct that that action has been dismissed. I can't remember on what terms. In the action of the Intelligence, etc., Bureau Bright there was judgment for £514 12s. 6d. on March 27th, 1901. I don't remember Bright speaking about that action. I didn't offer to go to Paris to see Bright if he would pay the expenses of myself and Mr. Wingfield That action for £514 12s. 6d. was based on a contract in which Mr. Bright had contracted to take some shares. 1,000 bonus shares were allotted to Mr. Bright. They had been transferred to my name. I can't remember what value was placed on them. These are the only shares of Mr. Bright's that have been transferred to me. The security in that claim has not been valued. Mr. Bright brought an action to set aside that claim
on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud in the prospectus. The Committee of Inspection consist of Mr. Taylor (of the River Plate Construction), Mr. Percy Wingfield (Secretary of the Intelligence, etc., Bureau), Mr. Warner, solicitor, representing Mr. Killey. The solicitors for the River Plate Construction also attend. My solicitors, Messrs. Wingfield and Blew, are also solicitors for the petitioning creditor, the Commercial Intelligence Bureau. Mr. Bright wished me to continue all his actions, but I don't remember him specially mentioning this one. In our discussions as to Messrs. Capel's claim Mr. Bright informed me that he had a contract with Messrs. Capel with respect to concessions in South America, and I understood that he agreed to go out there to extend the time for those concessions, and when he returned there was a litigation with Messrs. Capel, the subject matter being whether he had had these concessions extended; it was referred to arbitration; the award was that Mr. Bright should be entitled to 60,000 (£1) shares in the River Plate Construction Company on paying £60,000 for them. Mr. Bright didn't pay for them. Those shares were valued at £32,965 by Messrs. Capel, and they proved for the difference between that sum and £60,000. That claim will stand until the shares are disposed of; there is an Order of the Court to value those shares dated about last August. I have called upon Messrs. Capel to have those shares valued; they have not done so. Mr. Bright told me that in his opinion all these four claimants against him were acting fraudulently. My Committee instituted these criminal proceedings. Mr. Bright has contended that these shares concerned in this charge were not his, but belonged to Chas. Bright of Buenos Ayres, also that Charles Bright was the trading name of persons in Buenos Ayres. I have also been informed that by Argentine law a trader must disclose to whom his capital belongs, and that the books must be stamped on every page. I have satisfied myself from my investigations, and from that of my solicitors, that the defendant is the holder of these shares. I have made no inquiry as to the existence of a firm trading as "Chas. Bright" in Buenos Ayres. After the examination of the witnesses in the Bankruptcy Court I came to the opinion that a criminal offence had been committed, principally the examination of the defendants Moreno and Fudge. I know that notice was originally for the application for the adjudication of bankruptcy to be heard on November 4th; that was changed to September 9th, 1901. I can't say at whose instance. I know that Mr. Bright returned to England on November 17th. A warrant for contempt in the Bankruptcy Court was applied for and subsequently withdrawn. I have no doubt that Bright was ill in Paris. I personally applied for the warrant of this Court.
Cross-examined by MR. COHEN. I instructed certain proceedings to be instituted against Mr. de Mendeville. It was reported to me that judgment had been signed against him in his absence. An application was made to set aside that judgment. I left the whole matter to my solicitors. All the facts I have deposed to in the information I knew of my own knowledge and from reports of my solicitor. At that time I did not know that Mr. Moreno had held positions in the American Embassy at Madrid and later at Paris, nor do I know so now. I cannot remember having heard so before; if
I had known so it would have made no difference to my view I do not know that Mr. Moreno was a stranger to Mr. Charles Bright previous to his coming here If I had known that it would still have made no difference to my view. I know of my own knowledge that Mr. Moreno has been in the service and pay of Mr. Charles Bright, and I arrived at my knowledge on hearing Mr. Moreno give evidence, and also from a personal interview with Mr. Fudge. I never told Mr. Moreno that I thought he was perfectly right in refusing to give up the shares standing in his name. I leave all the details of the actions in regard to the estate to my solicitors There are a number of actions pending in regard to Bright's Light and Power Company's shares In regard to those in Moreno's name, Moreno claims that he is a trustee for Mr. Frederick Bright, and says that the latter ought to be made a party to the actions. I believe that my solicitor is instructted to commence an action against Moreno, claiming the shares in his name in the company, Charles Bright and Co., Limited. I did not know that Mr. Moreno was not a director of Charles Bright and Co., Limited, at the forfeiture of the shares, nor until longer afterwards.
Re-examined by MR. GUY STEPHENSON. Charles Bright and Co., Limited, went into liquidation on the 13th February, and the action referred to was one brought the same day to prevent the holders of the re-issued share voting on the appointment of the Liquidator and for other purposes. This (produced) is a copy of the writ. I heard Mr. Moreno's evidence in the Bankruptcy Court. Questions Nos. 280 to 286, also No. 90, are correct. By the COURT. There is an action between myself as trustee and Charles Bright and Co. Limited, Moreno, Vidal, Daisy Grosvenor, Hastings, Down, and Zubiaurre. That writ is dated 12th February, 1902, and relates to shares No. 2.208 to 14,707 inclusive, being part of 12,500 shares forfeited and reissued. That action is down for hearing next Friday."
GEORGE ARTHUR WINGFIELD . I am one of the firm of Wingfield and Blew, solicitors, of 74, Cheapside—I first acted as solicitor for the Commercial Intelligence Bureau, Limited, and conducted the proceedings on their behalf up to the date of the Receiving Order last year—subsequently I acted for the trustee—I was so acting in October last when Fudge and Moreno were examined in bankruptcy—I received no information with regard to the actual position of affairs of Charles Bright and Co., Limited, except what the petitioning creditors told me—I was not able to examine the books—I obtained from those examinations considerable information with regard to the administration of this company's affairs, and by order of the Examiner, Mr. Hansell, I examined the books—Bright was in London between November 16th and 23rd last—I saw him three or four times with Mr. Harrower—he only obtained information with regard to his litigation, but none with regard to the distribution of assets—he always maintained that he had none except the shares which the Commercial Intelligence had given us, which he had in that company—the public examination had been postponed twice, and was fixed for November 27th last—Bright left England the Saturday before that—I served him personally with a notice on Friday, November 22nd—he did not return to this country till January 19th or 20th—between those dates I received no assistance from him—with regard to the
shares held by him, I never received any information from him—I was in constant communication with the trustee, and the official duties, mostly with regard to litigation, fell upon me—as far as I know Bright never saw the trustee out of my presence except on Sunday at a club, when an appointment was made to meet me the next day—that was upon the information of Mr. Harrower.
Cross-examined by MR. CRANE. The action of the Intelligence Bureau Co. was brought under my supervision—it was for payment of £500 for Bright's calls on 1,000 shares, 50 per cent having been called up—I got judgment under Order 14 on March 27th—the vendors had also agreed to give him 1,000 fully-paid ordinary shares as a bonus—they gave them to the trustee—the judgment was obtained upon affidavits sworn, I think, by the secretary of the Intelligence Bureau Co. or my brother, Mr. Percy Wingfield, who was the chartered accountant at the formation of the company—I gave the bankruptcy notice three days after the judgment, and the petition was filed on May 23rd—I did not disclose the fact that we had the shares—it was not necessary—it did not occur to me they were held as security—there was no right in the company to hold those vendors' shares—I have not the Articles of Association—I can produce them—I will ascertain whether Bright was on the Register—I was present when my brother was examined before Mr. Registrar Giffard—Bright was nominated for the vendors' shares about a year before the action was commenced, and at the time of the contract—Bright has denied being the owner of the shares in Bright and Co. from the beginning—if that were so he could not give up the books—the meeting for the examination of Bright on November 4th was antedated to September 9th—I was not cognizant of his movements after July 30th—I did not know that he had gone to Brazil—Mr. Smurthwaite said that he had gone to South America—that was at the first meeting—I forget the date, I will take it from you it was August 6th—I think one meeting was adjourned—Mr. Smurthwaite stated on the first day that Bright had gone to Buenos Ayres before the Receiving Order, and I denied it at the time because I had seen him the day before if it was August 6th—I do not accept that date—the application for antedating the examination was supported by my affidavit, in which I stated I went to Boulogne in July and that I saw him twice at Boulogne, on August 3rd and again on August 10th—I thought so at the time, but if he sailed on August 9th from Bordeaux I could not have seen him on August 10th—I think now that I did not—I saw him on two occasions, on the second he was with Mr.' Smurthwaite and they went into Bayley's Hotel—I stayed at the adjoining Hotel Paris—I may have got wrong in the date—I said that he was not on his way to South America, and must have known of the Receiving Order—Mr. Smurthwaite stated he was on his way to Brazil—I understand now that he was—I do not see that the date is material—I keep a diary and a daybook—I do not enter what I do in my holidays, but I will look for entries on August 10th and 12th, the 11th was a Sunday—the object of the affidavit was not to antedate the examination sixty days—the object was to show that instead of Bright going straight to Buenos Ayres about three' weeks before, he had at a much later date been seen at Boulogne—the
previous Saturday was the August Bank Holiday—that was why I went to Boulogne on the Saturday with my family, and came back the following Tuesday night, August 6th, and I went back on the Saturday following, August 10th, and returned on the Monday or Sunday evening—I think I saw him on the first Saturday I arrived and again on the Tuesday before I left, and I must have put down the following Saturday in mistake—I state in my affidavit that on the following Saturday, August 17th, I went again to Boulogne and was informed at Bayley's Hotel that he had removed to the Imperial Hotel in the same town—I could not believe in the coincidence that I had seen him, so I went to enquire at Bayley's Hotel; they told me he had removed to the Imperial—I did not pursue the matter—I did not like detective work—I did not go to the hotel to do detective work, but to make sure I was not mistaken—I do not know of any other affidavit in support of the application antedating Bright's examination from November 4th to September 6th—I was not present, I do not think there was one—the Official Receiver conducted the proceedings, and the Registrar directed him to cancel November 4th and fix the earlier date on the application of the creditors James Capel and Co,. Killey, and the Commercial Intelligence Bureau—I think when the facts were brought to the Registrar's notice I was present—I knew that Bright had appealed against Registrar Giffard's order, that it was pending, because he asked the Registrar to stay the bankruptcy pending it—the Registrar refused because he was of opinion that during the Long Vacation Bright would make away with his property—the evidence of that is in the Registrar's judgment, which is on the file—the civil actions against the nominees of Bright were brought at the instance of the Committee of Inspection, and on my advice—I expect I swore the affidavit in Moreno's action referred to in the examination before Master Lawford and in the Killey judgment case, because I have sworn so many—I swore that Bright said he had no assets in this country—I cannot recollect the words, but I meant in this country—I assume the copy affidavit is correct—judgment had been obtained a month before that—that affidavit was on an application to set aside the judgment—I know that Bright did come back on November 16th, and from his own information that he landed from South America at Bordeaux on November 9th, and came to London within a week on a Sunday—Harrower knew it—I do not know that he despatched a message to Harrower—Harrower did not tell me the next day—he telegraphed to Harrower and to my residence—the meeting on September 4th was adjourned to November 13th, and again adjourned—the Receiving Order was on July 30th, Bright left on the 29th—the creditors' resolution for adjudication was on August 28th—Harrower who lived at Enfield, came to see Bright—Harrower told me they had a very long interview and decided to discuss nothing except in my presence, and they adjourned till the following morning at my office, because their meeting was at a club on a Sunday and they had no papers—the next day, Monday, both came to my office—we talked over matters nearly the whole day—I made notes in my day book—I will produce it—I swore the affidavit of December 9, that I had a long interview with Bright on Monday, November 18th—I had many interviews—we certainly
saw him that week—Bright stated that he had consulted a surgeon in Paris, and that he had submitted to an operation—I have no reason to doubt it—I have had letters from Paris confirming it—I only employed a detective a fortnight, that expired practically the day Bright was arrested, on January 7th—we had agents in Paris, solicitors, not detectives—I understood Bright was to undergo an operation—it was a thing of the future—the Registrar adjourned the examination with the result that the Official Receiver applied for a warrant—he consulted me about it—a warrant was issued—Bright could not be served—he was out of the jurisdiction—I have heard that the warrant was withdrawn—Vidal, Moreno, and Fudge were examined—Vidal told the Registrar that Bright had undergone an operation in Paris, and was ill in bed, and the Registrar wrote across the file "withdrawn "or "suspended" owing to Vidal's evidence—Bright returned to London from Paris on January 19th or 20th—I saw him on January 21st at the Treasury, sitting in the waiting-room—while I was talking to Mr. Angus Lewis, a piece of paper was written on by Bright—I read it—it was a list of crimes, bribery, forgery, perjury, conspiracy—I surmise that his object in going there was to accuse the trustee and the Committee of Inspection of all these crimes, and blackmailing and a lot of things, I believe perjury was one—Bright was arrested the following day, and his two trunks and a dressing-case at the Hotel Cecil were seized, and his books and papers in Paris, at the instance of the trustee, and he was taken, I believe, to Holloway—I was present at the hearing before the magistrate—the bail was two sureties in £2,000 each—Bright was unable to find it, and it was reduced—the Par's authorities refused to give up his trunks without the consent of both parties—I heard a lot about it and read of it in the Daily Mail—Bright has given me no assistance—I think we have practically all the shares of Bright's Light and Power and Bright and Company in the possession of the trustee.
Cross-examined by MORENO. From inquiries through the United States Embassy in Paris, your character is satisfactory—when the detective was watching Bright he made those inquiries, in January—I think you have always claimed to hold the shares in Bright and Company for F. R. Bright—that was your defence before Mr. Justice Buckley—you asked for your costs—that was refused—Mr. Justice Buckley found that there was no evidence that F. R. Bright had any interest in the shares—I think you read letters from F. R. Bright to support your case—you went into the box and gave evidence as to F. R. Bright's title—I read a letter from you the next day and on other dates—on February 12th there was an action about the re-issued shares—we objected to the re-issue—we knew it was being done and wrote to your solicitors objecting—you did it as a director of the company—if you say so I will admit that we issued a writ to prevent further re-issue—we could not accept your terms, and 1 suggested that the only way was for you to defend the action which is still alive—I know Mr. Oliver—he has lived many years in South America—as far as I know you were not a director of Charles Bright and Company, Limited, at the time of the forfeiture of the 12,500 shares.
Re-examined. The action against Moreno for the recovery of the shares was early in October—it stood over at his request for two months for affidavits—F. R. Bright, in an action before Mr. Justice Buckley, insisted upon being the owner of the shares and Moreno produced correspondence produced here at the time the affidavit should have been made—Moreno commenced an action about the end of November, and sought to remove the directors, Wharton being one, of Bright's Light and Power, as soon as the directors showed a desire to assist the trustee, and the circular of December 31st, 1901, as to their removal was drawn up and sent out by Moreno—the action continued till March 8, when it was abandoned—at the meeting which was held in consequence of the circular, every director was removed, or purported to be—the Receiver would not let Moreno have the minute book—Moreno executed a deed poll of January 10th—Cohen and Cohen were acting for him—the deed poll was produced by Moreno's solicitors with affidavits in support of the motion to remove the Board—all the directors except Moreno were removed—Fudge had resigned—Fudge had been a director until after the receiving Order—we have applied to Bright's representatives to have Bright's boxes in Paris opened in his presence, and to use any documents because he contended at the Guildhall that we were keeping back materials for his defence—that offer was made by our agents in Paris to his agents in Paris and refused, and afterwards an application was made by Bright to get the luggage himself—my affidavit of December 9th correctly sets forth the whole information I obtained from Bright during his stay here from November 16th to 23rd—I personally asked him to file a statement of affairs—Bright's documents have been sealed by the Court or the police authorities, but the trunks can be opened by the consent of both parties, and if objection is withdrawn they can come to London, or if the trustee withdraws his objection, Mr. Bright can have them.
ARTHUR JOHN PENNEY (Re-examined). I also produce at the request of the defence, Charging Order Nisi of Mr. Justice Farwell, of January 13th, 1902, in Charles Bright and Company, Limited, against The River Plate Construction Company, Limited, in Bright and Company's favour with costs (a charge on shares); Order Nisi of May 24th, 1900, in Killey v. Bright—charging 500 deferred shares at 1s. each in the River Plate Company, in favour of Killey—four days afterwards the order was made abso lute; Order of June 22nd, 1900, Discharging Order of May 28th, 1900 Killey to pay costs of Bright; writ, Bright v. Killey, June 14th, 1900, with endorsement "Plaintiff's claim on judgment for £5,000 by Killey against Charles Bright, set aside on the ground of fraud, said judgment obtained April 27th, 1900, action in High Court, Q.B. Division."
The defendant, Charles Bright, in his defence on oath, stated that he was: not the owner, of the transferred shares, which, he said, belonged to his brother and others for whom he was acting in this country; that he had not concealed his property or refused to assist the trustee; and that his property was not in this country. During his cross-examination the Jury intimated that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not sufficient to convict, and, returned a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder
513. OSCAR ARTHUR OTTEN (31) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering two bills of exchange for £105 and £48 10s. 3d. with intent to defraud. Six previous convictions were proved against him. Three years' penal servitude.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
514. RICHARD THOMAS HOLNESS PLEADED GUILTY to forging receipts for £50 and £50 with intent to defraud; also to stealing the sums of £50 and £50, the moneys of the Stratford Co-operative and Industrial Society, Limited, his masters. The prisoner received a good character. Judgment respited.
MR. SANDS Prosecuted.
GUILTY . Three months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
516. JOHN DOE (38) , Being a person holding office under the King and having in the course of his employment acquired certain information, did corruptly and contrary to his official duty attempt to communicate that information to Richard Sturton and another, being persons to whom it ought not to be, in the public interest, at that time communicated.
HARRY ALLSOP LUDFORD . I live at 36, Lansdowne Road, Old Charlton, and am an accountant—I am employed at the Supply Depot in Woolwich Dockyard—the prisoner is one of the clerks tinder my control there—he came into that employment on April 21st—he had been in the Army Reserve—he had to prepare monthly accounts in connection with the supply of provisions—in order to do that he would have bills of contractors, before him—the bills would show the prices at which the contracts were tendered—this (Produced) is an office copy of a bill showing the prices at which Sturton Brothers were supplying provisions—the prisoner would require that bill for his work—whilst he was using it it would be kept in
a locker in front of him—he might have one hundred or more bills in his locker from other contractors which he would have access to—they would be in his charge for the time being—he was not at liberty to show them to anybody—there was a key to the locker, which he would keep—after the prisoner had finished with this bill it would be put up in a bundle of one hundred, and placed in another locker in the office, where all bills of past accounts were kept—that locker was kept locked out of office hours, but open during the day for general reference by the clerks employed there—on June 2nd I looked through a bundle of these documents, in which this particular one ought to have been—I found Bill 8,168 was not in its bundle—on the 5th I was shown this letter, the envelope is dated May 22nd (Read): "Messrs. Sturton Brothers,—Sirs,—Being in a position to give you valuable information regarding your Contract with the Government for Meat and Vegetable Rations, this said information is such that will enable you to know exactly what to quote each month for future deliveries, giving you in ample time the latest prices quoted by other firms for current deliveries of the same article and of the same standard quality as your own, there are now no less than eight other firms contracting for meat and vegetable rations other than yours, viz.,—Maconochie Bros., 131, Leadenhall Street, London; John Moir and Sons, Limited, 9 and 10, Great Tower Street, London; Poulton and Noel, 62, Brewery Road, London; J. M. Davidson, Logan Street, Glasgow; Duhamel and Co., Plough Yard, Shoreditch; Lazenby and Son, 18, Trinity Street, London; Moir and Wilson, Esplanade and Old Ford Road, Aberdeen; the London Canning Co., 30, York Road, King's Cross. I can quote you each of the firms' prices for current deliveries each month, as this will convince you yours for old contract was 9s. 6d., last bill passed for you was 2,028 cases, total £2,247 10s., and now you have a contract for another 72,000 at 9s. 3d. I could have given you such information that would have at least given you a few hundred pounds more, so if this is of any use to you reply per return, confidentially, when the necessary information will be supplied you on the following conditions, that is, 10 per cent. on the actual benefit gained, taking as a basis your first contract, viz., 9s. 6d. per dozen, that is to say, supposing by information supplied you get 9s. 9d. per dozen that would be 3d. per dozen, and on 12,000 tins that would mean £75 net gain; my charge, 10 per cent., £7 10s. Again, I may benefit you in helping you to increase your Contract, if you can supply more than you are at present doing; also assist you in getting your Bills passed quickly. This must be in strict confidence. Awaiting immediate reply.—I remain, yours faithfully, G. FLETCHER." The list of names in that letter is correct—the information could be obtained from the office copies of the contractors' bills, and to which the prisoner had access—no clerk has any right to divulge that information to any outsider—I know Messrs. Sturton, of Cambridge; they have held several contracts from the War Office for meat and vegetable rations—the contracts are given out, as a rule, by tender from the Director of Contracts at the War Office—other things being equal the cheapest tender is accepted—I was afterwards shown this letter, dated May 24th (Read): "Sirs,—Your
acknowledgment to hand, and as there has been an important development in price of meat and vegetable rations and favourable to sellers,—should communicate the same at once to you immediately you accept my terms I may add that I am not employed in the Dockyard but am in touch with the principals in the supplies branch, and this information is not got without cost; therefore, by getting the information from me it does not interfere with the conditions of your contract. Of course this must be kept strictly private. Again, I may say there may be some other goods you manufacture you could get contracts for. If you accept my offer I will send you a schedule of goods the Government are now purchasing for shipment to South Africa, together with average current prices. In haste, awaiting your decision, I remain, yours faithfully, Fletcher. Messrs. Sturton Bros., Cambridge."—The information in that letter is correct and could be obtained by the prisoner from the same source as the other.—I also saw this letter: "28, New Road, Woolwich, May 28th, 1902. Dear Sir,—Yours to hand this morning re the two mistakes Price of present Contract it was a misunderstanding between my informant and myself. I understood him, to say your present contract was 9d. under the last one. Instead of that it was 9d. increase, consequently your present contract stands at 10s. 3d., which price I will take as a base to work on any increase of price from that 10 per cent, re the amount of bill, I cannot say the amount I stated your bill was in my first but, to convince you I am getting copy (Office) of your last bill and forwarding it on to you, so you may see the information is reliable, as no one but myself could get in possession of them this, of course, I am trusting your honour to return at once the amount of the two bills that have been passed to War Office are as under: Original Bill sent by you was £712 13s. 2d, amended Bill passed for payment 17,724 tins, 633 cases, £701 11s. 6d. Passed to W.O. for payment 16/4/02. The following is a copy of your letter pinned on the front of the Bill:—' 11 April 02. Dear Sir—We enclose corrected Bill for 7,907, and trust the same will now be found in order. We will include the ten cases with our last delivery.—We are, yours truly, Sturton Bros.' Reference No. A.B., 531/02 The last Bill, which I will forward copy as stated on receipt, 56,784 tins, 2,028 cases, £2,247 14s. Passed to the War Office for payment 12 May, 1902. Your last contract, 53 Cape 6978, 72;000 at 10s. 3d. to deliver 18,000 per week. This should be sufficient to satisfy you re the reliability but if you will promise to send back copy of bill, I will forward copies of other Firms' Bills to guarantee correctness these Bills are initialed by Colonel in charge of supplies. When checked reply at once as time is important.—In haste, Yours truly, G. FLETCHER."—The document referred to is the copy I have already seen—no clerk is allowed to send copies of an account out of the office—I would not part with one myself without getting a receipt for it, and then only to a proper authority—I am acquainted with the prisoner's writing—in my opinion these letters and this envelope are in the his writing.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was sent to me as engaged and for employment—he came to me with a good character—I believe he served six years with the colours and six years with the reserves, and was again
called out for two years and served till 1902—he was then serving as a colour-sergeant—Sturton's bills had been passed to the War Office for payment—what the prisoner did was wrong, because he improperly parted with an official record—the lowest tender is not always accepted, but it is the regular thing in my experience—Maconochie tendered for the same class of goods as Sturton and their price was higher than Sturton's, and they got a larger order than Sturton for the same quality of goods, but there was a reason for that—if the Government want ten millions of a thing and the big contractors can only supply nine, then the other million must be got at a higher price—each clerk has a separate locker and key—I do not think all the keys were alike—I cannot say if the prisoner's key would open all the lockers in the room, but I should not think so, because I know when clerks have mislaid their keys they have been unable to open their lockers with other keys—I know the meaning of the Official Secrets Act of 1889—I have seen many copies of it posted up in Government offices—it was no part of my duty to have any conversation with my subordinates about that account—when the prisoner was sent to me I did not say to him, "Re-member, documents in front of you are confidential," or that it is an offence to communicate anything official—no notice to the effect was posted up in my room, but my office is only a temporary one.
Re-examined. My office is within the dockyard—I do not know if notices are posted up in the dockyard, I have never seen any—no man would be employed in the prisoner's capacity unless he had an excellent record.
RICHARD STURTON . I am a member of the firm of Sturton Bros., wholesale grocers and potted meat manufacturers in Fitzroy Street, Cambridge—we have contracted for the War Office for about four months—in the beginning of this year we tendered to the War Office—that was our first tender—we received an order for meat and vegetable rations—after we had delivered the goods we sent in our bill—this (Produced) is a copy of it—on May 22nd I received a letter, signed G. Fletcher, and written from 23, New Road, Woolwich, making suggestions to me—I acknowledged its receipt, and on May 24th I received another letter, signed in the same way, and dated from the same place—I took that one to the chief constable at Cambridge, and, after consulting him in the matter, I wrote another letter—this (Produced) is substantially a copy of it—(Read) "There are two inaccuracies in your first letter, you do not know the price of our first contract and you do not know the amount of our first bill. Can you satisfy us that any information you would give us would be trustworthy and accurate?"—that was written at the suggestion of the chief constable—I received another letter from "Fletcher," explaining what I had alluded to, and the copy of our bill came by the same post, but in a separate envelope—I showed the letter and the bill to the chief constable, and then returned them by registered post—I received this letter dated' June 3rd (This acknowledged the return of the bill, and asked if the writer might give the price of the contracts, as he was sure it Would be of financial benefit to the witness's firm).
Cross-examined. I did not know what to do when I received the letter
of May 21st—my partner was away, and I did not know whether to send the letter to Woolwich Dockyard, to the War Office, or to the police, so did nothing—I had made up my mind not to accept the proposals—when the second letter came I decided to go to the police—I thought it ought to be communicated to the authorities to clear myself—I was requested to write to the man as if I was going to enter into the scheme, and I thought it right to do so, and I thought it right to get him to commit the offence and get him punished—I have made no money out of the information I received, but I could have done so on a subsequent tender—I could have advanced my price—when I send in a particular price I do not know if I shall get the contract or not.
Re-examined. If I knew the prices at which other contractors were contracting, it would enable me to revise my own prices on the next estimate—directly I consulted the chief constable I left the matter entirely in his hands.
SIDNEY HARRISON . I live at 28, New Road, Woolwich—that is a newsagent's shop and I manage it—we take in letters for a small payment—some time in May an old man came and arranged that letters should be taken in—he gave the name of Fletcher—I remember two ordinary letters, and then a registered one coming addressed to G. Fletcher—the old gentleman called for the first letter and the prisoner for the second—I knew him by sight before that—the old gentleman called for the registered letter—I had been spoken to by then, and I got this receipt for it—(Produced.)—it is signed by the old gentleman—the prisoner came two or three times afterwards, and I afterwards picked him out as the man who had called.
Cross-examined. I knew him by name for about four years—I did not know at the time where he was employed—I heard afterwards—he never asked me to keep this quiet or say nothing about it—I gave him the letters, and I knew him when he came for them.
Re-examined. I knew him by the name of Doe.
GEORGE FLETCHER . I am a pensioner from Woolwich Arsenal, and live at Rosaria Cottage, Lower Road, Belvedere—the prisoner is my sonin law—he and his wife and children were living with me—in May he asked me if I would mind him writing two or three letters in my name and asked me to go and call for them—I had no idea that there was anything wrong, and I went and got two of the letters, which I gave to the prisoner.
Cross-examined. I gave a receipt for the registered letter, and after that the prisoner told me not to go for any more letters—he has got six young children—his wife is alive—they all depend on him.
JAMES STOCKLEY (Inspector New Scotland Yard). On June 16th I saw the prisoner at Woolwich Dockyard, in the Supply Depot—I told him I had a warrant for his arrest—I read it to him and explained that it was in connection with certain letters which he had written to Messrs. Sturton—he made no reply at that time—I handed him over to a constable for a time—when I rejoined him he said to me, "I did not think I was doing anything wrong, I did not give them any information except their own,
did I?"—he was charged—I searched his locker—I found the bill amongst 100 other documents of a similar kind.
JAMBS ALSE (Police Constable, Woolwich Dockyard). I know the prisoner very well—I know the paper shop at Woolwich—I had seen him call there twice—he was handed to me by Inspector Stockley on June 16th—the prisoner said, "I did not know I was doing wrong, is it a serious matter?"—after he was charged he said that his wife's mother and father lived in the same house with him, but that the old chap knew about the contents of the letter he fetched for him—when he asked if it was a serious matter I said I did not know the facts of the case, therefore I could not say—he said, "I only wrote to the contractors and gave them their own prices."
Cross-examined. I made a note of what the prisoner said. (Produced.)
MR. SYMMONS submitted that there was no evidence of attempting to communicate information, as the prisoner had only asked to be allowed to give it, and the section did not say "anyone who shall 'offer' would be guilty of the offence."He referred to Beg. v. Edgerton, Deardsley, page 515, and Rex v. Maddox, Sessions Paper, Vol. cxxxi., page 421, and further submitted that the prisoner had not done all that was required to complete the offence, and that he had not made profit by that which he did.
MR. JUSTICE DARLING ruled that there was evidence of the attempt, and that the case must go to the jury
The prisoner received a good character. Discharged on recognisances.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
Before Mr. Recorder.
518. DANIEL STEVENS (21;, EDWARD MAXWELL (21), LAWRENCE WATSON (27), and EDWARD Mc SWEENEY (21) , Robbery with violence on John Skinner, and stealing from him two watch-keys and 3 1/2d., his property.
MR. SHERMAN-TURNER Prosecuted.
JOHN SKINNER . I am seventy years old—about 8.20 p.m. on May 31st I went into the urinal attached to the Gloucester Arms, Walworth—I had no sooner got in when the door was thrown violently open, and I was nearly knocked down—two men rushed in, and I was seized by the beard, my he head was twisted round, and banged against the wail, and I was butted in the stomach, my two pockets were turned inside out and I lost 3 1/2 d. in copper and two watch-keys—I identify Watson as one of the men—he (caught me by the beard—I was again struck two or three times when I
got outside—I am suffering from nervousness, and have been unable to follow my employment since.
Cross-examined by Watson. I identified you on the following Monday, at Rodney Road Police Station.
FREDERICK WILLIAM HOUGH . I live at Mason Street, Old Kent Road—the prosecutor is my father-in-law—I was with him on this night—I waited in the Gloucester Arms while he went out, and as he was rather a long; time in returning I went to the urinal and saw Stevens and Watson pinning him up in the urinal by the whiskers—I said, "Don't hit the old man"—they said, "Do you know him"—I said, "Yes, he is my father-in-law," and I then received three blows on the face from Maxwell.
Cross-examined by Stevens. I did not shove you in the urinal.
CHARLOTTE GILLAM . I am a married daughter of the prosecutor's—I was with him on this night, and suggested to my brother-in-law to go and look for my father as he was rather a long time returning—my brother-in-law came back and said father was in trouble—I went to where he was, and saw Stevens strike my father with his fist, and I caught hold of him—I saw the other three there, and I know Stevens, Maxwell, and McSweeney by sight—while I held Stevens I heard Watson say "Stick into him Dan."
Cross-examined by Stevens. You attempted to strike me, and I struck you in the left eye—you did not have two black eyes.
Cross-examined by Maxwell. You were behind me outside the urinal, when I held Stevens.
Cross-examined by Watson. I did not see you hit the prosecutor.
SUSANNAH JANE HOUGH . I am the wife of Frederick William Hough, and a daughter of the prosecutor—I went to see what was the matter, and saw my sister holding Stevens and Maxwell trying to strike my husband—I also heard Watson say, "Stick into him, Dan"—I did not see McSweeney do anything.
SUSAN BRENTON . I live in Mason Street, and am married—on this night I was looking over my garden wall and saw all four prisoners talking together—I saw the prosecutor go into the urinal, and presently Stevens went in, followed by Watson—Maxwell and McSweeney stood outside—I do not know what took place inside, but on their coming out there was a general fight, and I saw that the old man's trouser pockets were inside out.
HERBERT MILTON (Detective Sergeant L.) I saw Stevens and Watson, and told them I should arrest them for being concerned with others in assaulting and robbing an old man in Little Mason Street, Old Kent Road—Stevens said, "I have never been in Little Mason Street; I do not know where it is"—Watson said, "I expected you were coming for me; I assaulted the old man, but did not rob him."
FREDERICK PEACHEY (Detective L.) I arrested Maxwell for this offence—he said. "I admit I was there; Stevens and another man pinned the old man in the urinal; I and another man stood outside; we could not rob him because he had nothing on him."
admit I was there when the fight was going on; I never hit the man; it was Stevens and Watson who went into the urinal with him; Maxwell and me stopped outside."
Stevens, in his defence, said that he went into the urinal, followed by Hough, who shoved him, and then there was a struggle.
Maxwell, in his defence, said that there was a fight going on with Stevens and another man, and Hough struck Stevens, and he, Maxwell, struck Hough.
Watson, in his defence, said that he went into the urinal with Stevens, and Hough came in and shored Stevens, and then there was a fight, and after that he went home.
McSweeney, in his defence, said that he saw Watson and Stevens fighting with others, and knew nothing about the robbery— NOT GUILTY .
Stevens, Watson, and Maxwell GUILTY .
Stevens then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction for felony at the North London Sessions on May 15th, 1891, in the name of Heron, and two other convictions were proved against him. One previous conviction each was proved against Maxwell and Watson. STEVENS— Three years' penal servitude and twelve strokes with the cat; WATSON— Eighteen months' hard labour and twelve strokes with the cat; MAXWELL— Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. LUCAS Prosecuted.
HENRY MILLS . I live at No. 1, The Chase, Clapham Common—on June 13th, at 9.40 p.m., I was passing through Chatham Street, Walworth. With my umbrella up and a bag in my other hand, when I suddenly received a terrific blow at the back of my head with some hard instrument—before I had time to realise that I was being attacked I received another blow—I immediately faced my assailant, and he said, "You struck my father"—he ran away—I recognised the voice as that of the prisoner—I knew him as being the son of one of my tenants—I was collecting my rents on this day, and had about £20 in my possession—I went to a friend in Old Kent Road, and he called in Dr. Pain, who dressed my wounds—I was in bed for four days—I gave a description of the prisoner to the police—he was arrested, and I identified him at the police station—I have no doubt about him whatever—another man was with him, but I could not swear to his identity.
CHARLES BEARD (Detective Sergeant). I arrested the prisoner on the 15th, also another young man named Baverstock—they were charged at the station, and Gardener said, "You have made a mistake"—he was placed down in the cells, and he sent for me and said. "Mr. Beard, it was not me struck Mr. Mills, it was Baverstock; I admit I was there"—at the Police Court he said. "That is not the tool it was done with at all," pointing to this chisel (Produced)—I found this chisel in the prisoner's house—it was used as a poker—the mark in the prosecutor's hat corresponds with the point of the chisel—after he made the statement about Baverstock I took him
into the presence of Baverstock and told him to say what he had to say so that Baverstock could hear him, and he then said, "It is no use for two of us to suffer for this, who struck the blow?"—Baverstock said, "I don't know; I never."
ALFRED PAIN , M.D. I live at 146, New Kent Road—I was called to the prosecutor and found him bleeding from three wounds in the head and face—there was a star-shaped lacerated wound immediately at the back of his head, a punctured wound to the right and an incised wound across the face—in my opinion the chisel produced would cause those wounds.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he went to bed at 7.30 p.m. and stayed there till next morning.
Evidence for the Defence.
GUILTY. He received a good character. Recommended to mercy by the Jury. Eighteen months' hard labour.
MR. A. HUTTON Prosecuted.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy, by the Jury. Two months' hard labour.
MR. DAVIES Prosecuted.
JOHN WILLIAM MURCUTT . I am a cork cutter, and live at Lambeth—on May 5th, about 7 p.m., the prisoner came to my house and said, "Mr. Murcutt, I have a letter I wish you to read, it is one I have received from our paymaster in reply to one I have written to him, asking him to send me on some money"—he had only been introduced to me three or four days previously—he then said, "By that letter no money is due to me until the 1st of the month, when I shall have £30 15s. to draw; can you let me have £1 till then"—I refused, and said I could not let him have any money unless Mrs. Cooper would be a security, she is a neighbour; I said, "Are you in a hurry?"—he said, "I want it in half an hour's time to buy some civilian clothes with to start a situation in the morning"—I said, "You had better return in half-an-hour's time and see Mrs. Cooper in the meantime"—he returned and said he had seen Mrs. Cooper, who said it would be all right—I said, "You had better come upstairs and give me a receipt"—I wrote out an I.O.U for £3 because I had given Mrs. Cooper £2 before for him, which made the £3—I then suggested he should leave the letter which he had brought with him with me; he did so and left the house with the money—he asked for it for himself.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I only had one transaction with you.
By the COURT. I think he had only been home from the war a few days—I do not know what regiment he was in.
ADELINE COOPER . I am the wife of James Cooper, of 64, Oakley Road—the prisoner came from Cork last April—he and my husband were both in the King's Royal Rifles—the prisoner came to my house and stayed for three weeks—he arranged to pay some money—I got somebody, to lend him, £1, 15s., and 5s.—after that he got £1 more—he had £2 sent him for clothes—he went away to change the money and never came back—the money was not borrowed for my use.
Cross-examined. We went to see my husband off at Paddington, and you said. "Let me have 10s. and you can give your husband 10s., and I will stand for it"—I pawned your shirt, but you had the money.
JOSEPH BAKER FARROW . I am a clerk in the Army Pay Corps, Gosport—this letter (Produced) was sent from our office—the date in the centre of the letter has been altered from July 1st to May 21st, and the words "As you are entitled to £30 15s." were not there when it left us—it read then, "You are entitled to no reserve pay until July 1st. If you have not been settled with by the officer commanding your company, you should apply to the officer commanding the battalion, Cork"—he was entitled to £1 15s. 6d., which would have been posted on June 30th—he was transferred to the Reserves on April 21st—I do not know if he returned from foreign service.
FRANCIS WILLIAMS . I am a colour-sergeant in the King's Royal Rifles Corps, serving in the 14th provisional battalion—on May 20th, 1902, the prisoner was discharged to the Army Reserves—the battalion is a new one, formed from the different battalions of the King's Royal Rifles in South Africa—the prisoner was out there in the early part of the war—he was invalided home—when he was transferred to the Reserves he had £9 7s. 2d. owing to him—on his discharge he received £5, £2 was sent to him on May 20th, and the remaining £2 7s. 2d. was sent to him on June 20th—he has nothing to come from us now.
Cross-examined. You do not get a week's pay at 1s. 11d. a day for every month that you are mobilised.
BENJAMIN MORGAN . On June 17th I saw the prisoner detained at Peckham police station—I showed him the altered document and said, "In consequence of a complaint we have received from the military authorities at Cork, you will be charged with forging and uttering this document and obtaining £1 from Mr. Murcutt on or about May 5th"—he said, "I did not forge it, it was like that when I received it; you are mixing it up for me; this is what you get for being a soldier for some years"—he was charged and made no reply—at the back of the court next morning he said, "Who is prosecuting in this case?"—I said, "Mr. Murcutt, the man you defrauded"—he said, "I cannot see the fraud; you cannot commit forgery without signing a name, and I have not signed anything."
The prisoner, in defence, said that he had lent Mrs. Cooper money from time to time; that he did not get the £1 without her permission, but that she proposed herself that he should borrow it from her, and that he would net have gone to Mr. Murcutt if he knew he had done wrong. He received a goad character.
GUILTY of fraud; recommended to mercy by the Jury. Two days' imprisonment.
MR. BROMLEY Prosecuted.
JOSEPH JAMES ADAMS . I keep a coffee-house at 22, Blackfriars Road—on June 10th the prisoner was in my employ as a nurse—about 11.30 a.m. on that day I heard a call rushed upstairs—the prisoner told me the hoys' room at the top of the house was on fire—I went upstairs, and with the assistance of my waiter extinguished the flames—the room was full of smoke—I thought the waiter and the kitchen porter had been smoking—at 1.20 I was again called upstairs—I rushed to the top of the house—I could not see anything then, but on the second floor I found a chair on a bed and some girls' things and bedding were all alight—that was in the waitresses' room, the prisoner's room was next to it—I went to the police station and Inspector Pipe came to my house in the afternoon—I asked the prisoner if she had seen anybody go upstairs, and she said no—after dinner I asked her to fetch her matches down—two days afterwards she said she did not know why she had done it, and she was very sorry—at the time of the fire there were about 100 customers in the shop—about £25 worth of damage was done.
GEORGE WATERS (Detective Sergeant). On June 10th I saw the prisoner in the presence of her master"—she denied all knowledge of the fire—there was another servant in the room at the time, and the prisoner said to her, "Did not you say you would have revenge against your master?"—the other girl went into hysterics, and the prisoner said, "It is true, I set the beds on fire, forgive me"—I took her to the station, where she made a, statement which was taken down in writing (Read)—"I am a nurse in the employ of Mr. Adams, coffee-house keeper, 22, Blackfriars Road. On Tuesday morning, the 10th inst., I took my mistress's children to school in Stamford Street. I returned to 22, Blackfriars Road at 9.40. I went upstairs to the top-floor back-room and set fire to the corner of the room with a match; that is where the waiter and porter sleep. I ran out of the room. The maid rushed downstairs and shouted out, 'The house is on, fire.' My master came rushing upstairs to where the fire was. I went up and saw the fire had been put out. At 12.25 the same day I fetched the children from school. About 12.40 I went up to fetch the children's aprons. I went into the second-floor front and set the bed on fire with a match. I came down to the dining-room and went down afterwards into the shop. I cannot say why I did it, I am sorry, for I had no spite against anyone in the house. I make this statement quite voluntarily. I have read it over, and it is quite true."
The prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "I am very sorry I done it."
The prisoner's defence. I am very sorry I done it, I did not wish to kill any of the witnesses.
GUILTY of the attempt.
The police stated that a fire had occurred at a previous situation of the prisoner's, and that she had been discharged from employments several times for thefts and cruelty to children. Dr. Scott, the medical officer at Holloway, stated that he could find no signs of insanity, that she would give no explanation of the conduct, and that she had had no hysterics whilst under his care. Three years' penal servitude.
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JULY 21ST, 1902.