CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
FIRST SESSION, HELD NOVEMBER 17TH, 1902.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY
MESSRS. BARNETT AND BUCKLER.
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
SESSIONS I. TO VI.
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, November 17th, 1902, and following days,
Before the Right Hon. SIR MARCUS SAMUEL , Knt., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAM, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH COCKFIELD DIMSDALE, Bart., M.P.; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir GEORGE F. FAUDEL PHILLIPS, Bart., G.C.I.E., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir JAMES THOMPSON RITCHIE , Knt.; Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knt., HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Esq., and DAVID BURNETT , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; ALBERT FREDERICK BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; LUMLEY SMITH , Esq., K.C., Judge of the City of London Court; and JAMES ALEXANDER RENTOUL , K.C., M.P., LL.D., Deputy Judge of the City of London Court, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Teminer, and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
Sir THOMAS HENRY BROOKE-HITCHING, Knt., J.P.
ALFRED PERCY DOULTON, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
SAMUEL, MAYOR. FIRST 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 and Tuesday, November 17th and 18th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
1. JOHN GOODFELLOW (40) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering an acceptance to a Bill of Exchange for £500; also to forging and uttering two letters purporting to be the writing of Thomas Pink, with intent to defraud. Three years' penal servitude. —
(3) THOMAS REGINALD HATTON (36) , to obtaining by false pretences from Llewellyn Jones £1, from Albany Petch £1, and from Frank Rowe 10s., with intent to defraud, having been convicted of felony at Liverpool on November 27th, 1897. Nine months' hard labour. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(4) WILLIAM THOMPSON (42) , to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £15; also to stealing a necklace and other articles, the property of Francis James Pearse, his master, having been convicted of felony at Lewes on August 4th, 1891. The prisoner was stated to be a most dangerous man, and a member of a dangerous gang of criminals. Seven years' penal servitude as an habitual criminal. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(5) EDWARD PERRY (20) and ALFRED HOY (23) , to stealing a watch from the person of Arthur Simons, Hoy having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on May 7th, 1901, another conviction was proved against him. Three previous convictions were proved against Perry. HOY†, Three years' penal servitude: PERRY†, Eighteen months' hard labour. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(6) ALEXANDER WILLIAM POLLOCK , to stealing, whilst employed under the Post Office, a post letter containing a florin, a 6d., and ten stamps, the property of the Postmaster General. He received a good character. Nine months' hard labour. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(7) GEORGE EDWARD HANDLEY (30) , to obtaining by false pretences £2 2s. from Frederick Hall, and £1 1s. from William Thomas Cook A previous conviction was proved against him. Nine months' hard labour. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(8) JAMES ALBERT CHAPMAN (16), SIDNEY CHARLES AVERY (14), and WILLIAM SOUTHION (14) , to forging, and uttering two bankers' cheques of £70 and £53 5s. with intent to defraud. They received good characters. CHAPMAN, Eight months in in the second division. AVERY and SOUTHION, Judgment respited. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(9) FREDERICK RICHARDSON (27) , to attempting to break and enter the dwelling house of Thomas Burton, with intent to steal therein: also to feloniously sending to John Lewis a letter demanding; money with menaces. Six previous convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour on the second indictment. No sentence was passed on the first indictment. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
(10) JESSIE WHITEHEAD (19) , to forging and uttering an order, knowing it to be forged, for the payment of £5 with intent to defraud. Discharged on recognisances. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. HAZELL Prosecuted.
RICHARD JAMES . I am a tobacconist's packer, and live at 42, Peacock Street, Newington Butts—early on the Sunday morning of October 25th I was going along Kennington Road—about half a dozen fellows sprang out on me and took me into a doorway—they said they would murder me if I made any noise—they sat me down and took my coat and boots off and my watch and chain away, and a gold signet ring off my finger—I was so frightened I ran home—I did not catch sight of any of their faces—they were rather rough—I had only a scratch on my arm—this (Produced) is my coat and my watch—in the coat there was a pouch of tobacco and a silk handkerchief—they were not in the coat when I got it again—I live about ten minutes' walk from where this took place—I communicated with the police on the Sunday morning and gave a description of the property I had lost.
ALFRED LONG (Detective Sergeant L.) The prosecutor made a complaint to me, and in consequence I arrested the prisoner on November 3rd—he was wearing this coat—I told him I should arrest him on suspicion of stealing this overcoat, a watch and chain, a pipe, tobacco pouch, silk handkerchief, and other articles, from a man outside the Lambeth Baths on the early Sunday morning of October 26th—he said, "That is not my game; I suppose you got the information from somewhere; I bought this coat down Petticoat Lane a fortnight before for £1 1s."—there was nothing in the coat when I arrested him.
HENRY HILLMAN . I know the prisoner by sight—I have not known him very long—I knew him before October 25th—I only know him by going into a coffee-shop—on October 27th he offered to sell me this watch—I bought it from him for 4s. 6d.—he did not say where he got it from—that was in the coffee-shop.
The prisoners statement before the Magistrate. "No violence used—on October 25th I had been to the Crown concert, Albert Embankment—when it was closed me and some friends walked slowly towards Kennington Baths. All left me bar one. We stood there and had a cup of coffee While standing prosecutor came up He was absolutely drunk. We took
off his coat and threw it on the side of the stall and walked off towards Brook Street. I took it home. Last week when I said I bought it in Petticoat Lane I was in drink. The chap I sold the watch to was the brother of the fellow with me, but he had nothing to do with it. I "kept them myself. I have no witnesses to call."
The prisoner's defence. "If the prosecutor was not drunk, do you mean to say he would not make his report to the police until the afternoon of the next day?—if I had not taken his coat from the stall someone else would—the watch was in the pocket of the coat with a silk handkerchief and a pipe."
Evidence for the Defence.
GEORGE HILLMAN (By the COURT). I live at 31, Broad Street, Lambeth Walk, and am a van boy—I was at the coffee stall having a cup of coffee—the prisoner came up while I was there, then the prosecutor came up helplessly drunk, he could hardly stand on his feet—he threw off his overcoat and put it on the side of the coffee stall—he said to the prisoner, "You can have that"—he started taking his boots off, but fell on his head—the prisoner picked him up and asked him where he wanted to go, and the prosecutor said, "Penge"—I knew the prisoner when he was working as a potman—I was not one of the six men who the prosecutor says robbed him.
Cross-examined. I am the brother of the other witness named Hillman—I do not know when the watch was sold to my brother—I have not seen the watch—I have not been given any money to come here to-day—£1 has not been sent to me or to my mother—when the prosecutor began taking off his boots there was a friend of mine there named Sam Whiting—the boots were not put on the coffee stall, the coat was—I do not know what became of the boots—I did not give evidence at the police court, I was not there at all—after the prisoner was arrested and brought up to Rochester Row, Sergeant Long and another gentleman came to me—I had never seen the prosecutor before this night—I have not seen him since till yesterday—he was about fifteen minutes taking his boots off—I cannot say if he did take them off—he was stooping down—then he got up and fell over, and the prisoner picked him up—I did not see if he got his boots off, because I was in the middle of the coffee stall and the prosecutor was the other side—I did not see him without his boots—I do not say that they were ever off—when I last saw him he was going towards Kennington Road—he had his boots on then—I went away then—the prisoner did not put the prosecutor's coat on—I did not see him do anything with it—I do not know the name of the coffee stall keeper—the stall is outside the Lambeth Baths—I think he is there every night—I am not a friend of the prisoner—I did not tell my brother about the story of the coat and the watch—he did not tell me he had purchased the watch—the prisoner did not tell me where he found the watch—I was not in his company that night.
SAMUEL WHITING . I am a caster—I work at the British Syphon Company, and live at 103, Tower Street, Lambeth—on this night I was having a cup of tea at the coffee stall with my friend the last witness—the prisoner came up and had a cup of coffee—then the prosecutor came up and took his overcoat off and placed it on the coffee stall, and said to the prisoner, "Here you are, you can have that"—he started taking off his boots, and he fell over-the prisoner picked him up and asked him where he wanted to go—he said, "Penge," and he walked away into Kennington Road—me and my friend left—I cannot say if the prosecutor had got his boots on when he left—he left his coat behind him.
Cross-examined. I did not give evidence at the police court—I was there with my friend—I was not in the police court—the detective went to see my friend on the Saturday night, and my friend told him who I was, and I was told I was to go and give evidence as well—this occurrence took place on the 25th, which was a Saturday—I am not certain of the time—I did not know the prisoner before—I had never seen him before—I was there for about fifteen minutes—the prosecutor was not there the whole of the time—I do not know how long he was there—as soon as he came up he went away—he was there about five minutes—he was very drunk, he could hardly stand on his feet—when he started taking off his boots he fell—I did not pick him up—I had seen the prisoner that afternoon for the first time—I next saw the prosecutor yesterday morning—I did not recognise him for certain then—I am sure of him now.
By the COURT. He started taking his boots off—I cannot say if he took them off—I was the other side of the stall—I have not been to the coffee stall since, that was the first time I had been there.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was at the coffee-stall when the prosecutor came up speechless drunk; that he took off his coat and threw it on the coffee stall and said, "You can have that"; that he went into the road and started taking one of his boots off; that he asked the way to Penge; that he had his boots on when he went away, but left his coat on the stall, so he (the prisoner) picked it up; that it was not true that he had bought it in Petticoat Lane; that the watch, the handkerchief, and the pouch were all in the pocket of the coat; that he sold the watch to Hillman and gave the other things away, but he did not remember who to; and that he did not do any work, but got an allowance from his mother and other people.
Evidence in Reply.
RICHARD JAMES (Re-examined.) On this evening I had been all round the West to see the sights—it was Procession Day—I was sober—I did not go to any coffee stall that night—my mother was at home when I returned—she was in bed, but she heard me come in.
MARY ELIZABETH JAMES . Jam the prosecutor's mother—I heard him come in on October 26th—I did not notice anything unusual in his tread—a pair of his boots were missing next morning—he is a good and sober son—he was 21 last June—I have never seen him drunk or the worse for drink—he always carried his watch in his waistcoat pocket.
10 p.m. to 2 a.m. on October 25th—a coat was not placed on my stall on that night—a coat might be placed on the wheel without my seeing it, but not on my stall—a man did not come up to my stall speechlessly drunk—the wheels of the stall are close to the kerb and close to the stall; the counter turns on hinges, it does not touch the wheel at all—a coat could be put between the wheel and the counter—I did not see a man fall down outside my stall—I have never seen the prisoner or the prosecutor before.
By the Jury. The counter of the stall stands off about six inches from the wheel—there are two wheels.
WILLIAM ENWRIGHT . I am a packer, and live at 40, Turner Buildings Westminster—I know the prosecutor—I saw him twice on October 25th—at 12.15 that night I left him at the corner of Parliament Street, which is about ten or twelve minutes from the Kennington Baths—he was perfectly sober—I had been in his company since 11.30—he came to the West End Theatre where I am employed, and I saw him then—I was on duty till 11.50, and I remained with him till 12.15—he was talking rationally to me.
Cross-examined. I was not here to give evidence yesterday.
GUILTY .† He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at South London Sessions on October 9th, 1901, and another conviction was proved against him. Seven years' penal servitude.
The Recorder ordered the police to report the case to the Commissioner, so that the facts should be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor, in case he should think it proper to prosecute the witnesses for the defence, for perjury.
12. SAMPSON MORGAN (48) , Unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning the Electrician Printing and Publishing Co., Ltd., and of the directors of that company.
MR. MUIR Prosecuted; and MR. YOUNG Defended.
Mr. Young applied to quash the indictment as it was bad, as the defendant was indicted for libelling a publishing company, but only the directors were named in the indictment and not the whole of the company, and referred to Reg. v. Gathercole (2 Lewin, page 237), and submitted that there was no connection in the letter written to Sir John Pender, a director, and the company; THE RECORDER held that the indictment was good, and declined to quash it. The prisoner thereupon withdrew his plea and PLEADED GUILTY to publishing a libel of and concerning Sir John Pender, and the Jury returned a verdict to that effect. Discharged on recognisances.
NEW COURT.—Monday, November 17th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. MUIR and MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted, and MR. WRIGHT Defended BERTRAM GEORGE JAMES BRANWIN. I am assistant manager to Robert
Phillips and others who trade as the Gresham Publishing Co., London—the prisoner was a canvasser employed by them—it was his duty to obtain orders in writing for publications issued by the firm—his commission was 20 1/2 per cent., 16 per cent on account, and the balance, at the end of the time, usually at the end of each month—on August 30th I saw him in the office and he produced these four orders—(These were orders from, W. O. G.; W. R. Thornton, and Silas Shales, for books, upon which the first deposit was paid, stating that they were still the company's properly until the whole amount was paid, and were signed E. P. Prince.)—that is the prisoner's signature—I believed them to be genuine, and paid him. £4 7s. and took this receipt from him—in the usual course I handed these orders on to be enquired about, and I think Mr. Watson did so in this case—we wrote to the prisoner, "Without you are at this office to-morrow morning, we shall instruct our solicitor"—the next day would be September 5th—the prisoner did not come and I went to his address, which was on our books—he had gone away, leaving another address—I went there and saw him; I said, "You know what I have come about?"—he said, "I expected you, I know I have done wrong; I am sorry"—I said, "You will have to come at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning and see the manager"—he said, "Yes; I can't take you in, because my wife knows nothing about the matter—he came on Saturday, the 6th, and the conversation was addressed to Mr. Watson, who said, "What explanation have you to give?"—he said "I have done wrong, I am very sorry"—Mr. Watson said that he could not entertain any proposal from him—Prince had offered him £10 not to prosecute him, and Mr. Watson declined—I spoke to Prince—he said, "Two are fictitious and one is not"—we had not then verified these orders—I asked him if the former orders he took were good or bad—he replied that two of them were wrong or fictitious and one was genuine—Mr. Watson said, "If you have anything to say put it in writing and I will advise my solicitor," and the prisoner wrote something and handed it to Mr. Watson—this is it (Exhibit 4)—he then left—he came once or twice afterwards, and I saw him—on September 30th a warrant was applied for against him in respect of these four orders.
Cross-examined. I have been in the company's service since March, 1881, except for a time—I was also in their service when Mr. Le Barr was manager—he asked me to resign, and paid me a month's money—the signature should be that of the person giving the order—I know the prisoner's writing perfectly well—I doubt whether the signatures to these four orders are all in the same writing, and that writing the prisoner's—my impression is that they are not, and I do not think they are all in the same writing—we send a great many orders away before the collector calls to see whether they are genuine—I made no attempt to induce the prisoner to offer money to settle the matter, nor had I the power to take it—I had ascertained by September 24th that they were bogus orders—he was in the employ of the Caxton, and I asked him to come into our service after he had written to me—I suggested that he would he deprived of money by the people he was serving—I knew on September 4th that these were bogus orders, and yet no warrant was issued till October 3rd, because we
were making inquiries about orders he had taken previously at Dover—I had no difficulty whatever in finding his address—Mr. Whitcott's name was mentioned as being the company's solicitor, and Mr. Watson telephoned to him to see if he was there, I think—Mr. Watson told the prisoner to go to Mr. Whitcott's office and make an appointment—I do not know whether that was done to see whether the £10 would be taken—I went to Mr. Whitcott and explained the matter—I gave the prisoner Mr. Whitcott's address, 110, Cannon Street—I know of no case of publishing companies permitting bogus orders to be sent in by the travellers and replaced by genuine orders—I have been prosecuted, and convicted and fined—the prisoner was in my service at one time—I never had bogus or forged orders in my possession—this (Produced) is a book which I make entries in—they are in my writing the year before last—I have written "Forgery, no order" against the order of Mr. Ridge by one of our canvassers—I could not afford to prosecute in that case—I do not remember allowing a good order to be substituted for that, and paying the commission—I do not remember the case of Davis on December 8th, 1900, or writing "Forgery" against it—I believe such was the case, but I had thousands of orders, and I do not remember—I have possibly written the word "Bad" there—the word "Forgery" is written against an order given to Branwin on November 16th, 1901—I have not prosecuted in any of those cases—I did not receive the money back in all of them—the word "Forgery" in my writing is against the name of Peel on January 12th, 1901—those sums are all by the same canvasser—this order of Kelly's is marked "Not known at address," and Marshall's is marked "Not known at the George address"—we had travellers named Wood, Chivers, McDonald, Jones, Barcough, Barnes, and Simmons, temporarily in the employ—I cannot remember whether any of them delivered forged orders—we had not many fictitious orders brought by our travellers—against Williams' name is written "Not known at Old Kent Road Station," that is the address given by the canvasser—(Other names marked "Not known" or "Gone away" and "Denied giving order" were read to the witness.)—Wood's order is marked"Under age, no use"—during this time the prisoner was in our service—James Sidney Malcomb was in our employ—I was not in the employ in Mr. Marsham's time—I do not know a man named Bridger who was there—the prisoner did not tell me that he could not get the £10 and ask for further time—he asked me about it, and I referred him to my solicitor—I had no power to arrange it—I am not prosecuting.
Re-examined. I had no power to decide whether a man was to be prosecuted or not—it was in January, 1898, that I was prosecuted—I was lined £5—I was then in the service of my present employers, and I was taken back the next day into the same employment, and am still in their service.
CHARLES HENRY WATSON . I am the London district manager of the Gresham Publishing Company—the first I had to do with this matter was receiving the report from Champion—I saw the prisoner in my office on the Saturday and spoke to him about this—he said that he was sorry, that they were forgeries, and pleaded that he was not responsible, and that
he would make reparation—I told him I could do nothing without legal advice, and that anything he had to say must be put in writing—I did that to get rid of him—I saw him two or three times after that and he still pleaded—I reported the matter to Mr. Phillips the first time he came, and it was left to him to advise what was to be done.
Cross-examined. I will swear he used the word "Forgery"—I was not asked about it before—when the £10 was mentioned I altogether refused to entertain the suggestion of compromise—our sending him to our solicitor was a device for getting rid of the man, and to get rid of him Mr. Branwin and I went to Mr. Whitcott on the matter—we did not meet the prisoner downstairs and tell him to go up and see Mr. Whitcott—no application to prosecute was made till October, because we had to satisfy ourselves—we got the evidence before we prosecuted—we did not give the prisoner time to get the money—we afterwards went to another solicitor.
GORDON CUMMING WHITCOTT . I am a solicitor of 110, Cannon Street, and usually act for the Gresham Publishing Company—I saw the prisoner about September 7th or 10th—he said that he wished to pay £10 if the prosecutors would take him back into their service—I did not make him any promise that I would advise my clients to accept money.
Cross-examined. I had two or three interviews with him—the question of payment was not discussed on each occasion—I did not get instructions to take £10—I saw Mr. Watson and Mr. Branwin, but not Mr. Phillips or Mr. Blackie.
ROBERT JOHN CHAMPION . I am a collector and exhibitor for the eastern district of the Gresham Publishing Company—it is part of my duty to enquire into the ability to pay of persons giving orders—it may be a day afterwards or it may be by rotation—these four orders were handed to me on September, and I went round next day by special instructions—in one case there was no such name in Bow Lane, and the second case was not known—Thornton was not known, and there was no such number in the road—I reported accordingly—I left the orders with a lady, a school teacher, and I had not found them when I gave evidence before the Alderman—I found them the following day.
Cross-examined. It was well known in the office that persons in my position were wont to call to see if the persons were responsible—it might be a month or it might be a day or two afterwards—I do not know that many bogus orders or forged orders have been given and the travellers kept on afterwards—I have been there nine years—I was satisfied that these orders were fictitious and made a report to the company on September 2nd—I cannot suggest why no proceedings were taken before October—I had made an exhaustive inquiry on September 1st or 2nd.
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I have been an expert in handwriting for many years—I have seen Exhibit 4 and also the four orders which are said to be forged, and assuming Exhibit 4 to be the prisoner's writing, I believe the four orders to be his writing; the signature to one is not his ordinary writing, but it is his—the others are in his natural writing.
Cross-examined. The difference is that one is a little straighter than the other; it is in the same writing as the other part of the order.
JOHN WISE (City Detective-Inspector.) I arrested the prisoner on a warrant charging him with obtaining £2 15s. 3d. by false pretences from Mr. Branwin—I read it to him—he said, "I have tried to square it for £10"—he took five letters from his pocket and handed them to me, and sent his wife upstairs for another.
ROBERT PHILLIPS . I am a partner with others in the Gresham Publishing Company, and exercise control over it—I have known of bogus orders being given without a prosecution, but it is so long ago that I forget; it was three or four years ago, but we do not permit the handing in of bogus orders; we invariably prosecute.
Cross-examined. If I had my books here I could tell you of five or six cases in which we prosecuted—there was one at Nottingham, and the result was eighteen calendar months—I do not take an active part in prosecutions, I leave them in Mr. Watson's hands.
GUILTY — Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
GEORGE PRIDE (Police-Sergeant G.) On the night of September 25th I was with other officers in Wentworth Street, Spitalfields, and kept observation on 107, Wentworth Street, and saw the shadow of a man and woman on the blind of the second floor front room—I went away for assistance, and returned and went up to that room; the door was closed but not fastened—I there found Harriet Summers who was tried and convicted last Session (See Vol. 136, page 993)—I found this mould on a table—there was a fire in the grate—I also found a spoon with molten metal in it quite hot, sixteen florins, hot, on a shelf, a small piece of antimony, and some plaister of Paris—I arrested the prisoner on October 29th and told him the charge—he said, "I do not know anything about it; I know the woman, but I was not there"—going to the station he said, "How did Harriet Summers get on?"—I told him, and there was a conversation; he was taken to the station and charged.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I got into the room about eleven o'clock—the mould had a wet bandage round it—I do not know how long the mould would take to set before it was taken out—I found the metal alongside the fireplace, but not on the hearth.
ANDREW KYD (Police-Inspector G.) On the night of September 25th I was in Wentworth Street and saw the prisoner near the middle of the street, opposite No. 107—Pride and other officers were there—I did not enter the house till later—I saw the prisoner behind the two officers; he stopped to look, and I saw him pass, and when they had gone he walked down a side street, and I saw nothing more of him that night.
Cross-examined. I am sure you are the same man; I know you by your dress and by your features.
about eleven o'clock with other officers, and before they entered the house I saw the prisoner in the middle of the street, and as they entered he stopped to look at them, and then walked away—I did not see him again that night—I saw him last Tuesday week at the police court with other men and identified him.
Cross-examined. You were walking down the centre of the road—I did not see you in Great Eastern Street on October 21st, and therefore did not arrest you.
CATHERINE HANDS . I live at G. Colesworth Street, Spitalfields, and am deputy lodging house-keeper—on September 26th I let a room to Harriet Summers at 7s. a week—none of the things were then in the room.
Cross-examined. There was no light in the passage of the house—there is no door to open to go upstairs—there were only a few pictures belonging to an old lady in the room.
HARRIET SUMMERS (In custody.) I am undergoing a sentence of six months' imprisonment in Holloway Prison on my conviction last Session—I have known the prisoner three months and have lived with him as his wife at three lodging houses—we went from a lodging-house at Bloxham Street to Lexham Street, and back to Spitalfields on the Monday night—I took a room at 107, Wentworth Street on September 25th by myself between two and three o'clock, and went away and returned about five o'clock with the prisoner—I then went out to get some coal, leaving him there sitting in a chair—I went out again to get some tea and sugar—I saw nothing done while I was in the room with him—he was not there when the police officers came and found the things—I went out at nine o'clock and came back a little after eleven, and he was not there—I had not seen him while I was out—I received a letter while I was at Holloway—I do not know the prisoner's handwriting—I have never seen him write.
By the COURT. The prisoner is the only man who was with me at 107, Wentworth Street.
Cross-examined. I never saw you doing anything wrong—if you cleaned the spoons with silver sand I should not have to clean them.
Re-examined. I was not in the habit of going to the room—Summers never allowed me to go in; if I sent for my rent she came and paid me—the rent was 6s. 6d.
Cross-examined. The mould would take about an hour to dry, but if you made it too hard it would possibly split—(The letter to Summers was read at the prisoner's request; it was signed"Bill," and said "I saw the detective go to the house the night you were arrested; I could not have done you any good if I had gone upstairs; they did not want you, it was me they wanted. I sent you out while I did the work.")
Prisoner's defence. I know nothing about that letter—I suspect it is
from the same people who gave information to the police, and I know nothing about the goods found in the place; the woman says she left me at 9 o'clock and it is almost impossible for anybody to make a mould in that time—I have been in trouble for this sort of thing, but am not guilty now—the man who did it sent me away on a fool's journey while he did it.
GUILTY .—He had been convicted at Worcester Assizes of a like offence, after a previous conviction, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, nine months of which were unexpired , and three other convictions were proved against him all connected withcoining.— Five years' penal servitude.
NEW COURT.—Tuesday, November 18th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
16. MORRIS FELDMAN (28) , Unlawfully disposing of certain property obtained on credit, within four months of his bankruptcy and not paid for, with intent to defraud his creditors. Second Count, Unlawfully transferring certain property with intent te defraud. Other Counts charging other offences under the Debtors Act.
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted; and MR. CLARKE HALL Defend d.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger of the Record Office of the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file in the prisoner's bankruptcy—the petition was presented on October 9th, 1901; the Receiving Order was made on October 14th, and the adjudication took place on November 6th.
THOMAS LAIDLAW . I am an examiner to the Official Receiver in bankruptcy—I conducted the proceedings in the prisoner's bankruptcy—these are the notes of the public examination signed by the prisoner—the value of the timber belonging to him up to September 18th was stated to be £2,473 17s. 5d.
JOHN GREIG . I am clerk to Arthur Charles Bouner, the trustee in the prisoner's bankruptcy—the liabilities are returned by the debtor at £4,842, of which £4,614 10s. 1d. is described as in respect of unsecured creditors—he describes his net assets as £2,240 10s. 6d., being a deficiency of £2,601 15s. 11d—of these assets I have realised only £149—£633 of the assets are described as good book debts, but I have only recovered something under £2 in respect of those—with regard to the five pianos and organ mentioned in his assets, I went to his place of business at 22, Commercial Road, and on demanding them I was informed that they were included in the sale of his business—in his preliminary examination he stated that one Gaverin held a share in his business at 22, Commercial Street for a consideration including bills for £350—I did not get those—I got £115 from Gaverin in discharge of those bills—that was part of the £149 which I recovered.
Cross-examined. I do not know what goods were transferred—I know
that it is the subject of this charge, and that they were transferred for the sum of £600—in addition to the £115 paid by Gaverin, he also paid £45 for costs—the book debts are considerable, but the majority of the people are not there to sue—I called upon a Mr. Cotton, whose name was in the books, and as a result he gave evidence at the police court on another charge, but the case broke down on his evidence, as it was different from what he told me at the interview—we have not proceeded against him for the debt, because the trustees are advised that they cannot prove delivery of the goods—in the case of Metzic, whose name also appears as a debtor for £394 7s. 9d., he is a bankrupt, and the trustee's claim against him was rejected, as we were unable to prove the claim.
Re-examined. I have endeavoured to realise the prisoner's estate to the best of my ability.
FREDERICK ARMITAGE . I am a solicitor of Monument Station Buildings—in September, 1901, I received instruction from Joshua Levy to prepare an agreement between him and the prisoner for the sale of timber at Spital Street; this is it, (Read) "October 1st, 1901, between Morris Feldman of 18a, Spital Street, and Joshua Levy of 2 and 4, Albert Workshops, Great Pearl Street. The vendor shall sell, and the purchaser shall purchase for the sum of £550 all the timber and other stock in trade of and belonging to the vendor, in connection with his business as a timber merchant, as the same is now carried on by him at 18a, Spital Street, aforesaid"—that agreement was executed by both parties in my presence—I also prepared an assignment of the lease on the same day—the purchase money was £600, £550 for the business, and £50 for the lease was paid at my office—I saw the money pass, and endorsed the receipt on the back of the agreement—I noticed that there was a bankruptcy clause in the lease, and pointed it out to both parties, and I asked the defendant if there was—any likelihood of his becoming a bankrupt, and he shrugged his shoulders, as if it was too ridiculous to mention.
GEORGE LANSBURY . I am a Director of Burton, Brine, and Reed, timber merchants, of 32, Rivington Street—they were creditors for timber in the prisoner's bankruptcy—on October 8th I called at Spital Street and found that the name of "Feldman" was no longer up; there was "Spitalfields Timber Company instead"—I had had no notice from Feldman that he was disposing of his business—I looked around and formed the opinion that there was from £1,000 to £1,200 worth of timber there, wholesale price.
Cross-examined. On August 7th I received a bill drawn by Mrs. Feldman for £60 to be handed to Messrs. Levy when recovered—the object of that was to secure payment for some goods that Messrs. Levy had had from us, so that they could pay us for a parcel of walnut wood which is still in the docks—they gave me the bill to collect for them, and about £33 was to come to us for goods which we had supplied to Messrs. Levy, and which is still at the docks—a writ was issued for the money, but it was withdrawn at Messrs. Levy's request.
By the COURT. We were to bring an action for all parties concerned who were interested in the bill.
Re-examined. Messrs. Levy asked me to take the bill in payment for the
goods we had supplied them with—it had nothing to do with the prisoner.
HENRY CHARLES HUDSON . I am managing director to Turner and Hudson, Limited, of 31, Ivy Street, Hoxton—we were creditors in the prisoner's bankruptcy—on August 2nd, 1901, we supplied him with timber valued at £13 10s. 10 d.; on the 12th with timber valued at £170 6s. 2d, and on the 15th with timber valued at £149 14s. 9d.—we received bills in respect of that maturing after the bankruptcy—we have never been paid—on October 7th I went to 18a, Spital Street, but could not find the prisoner—I looked round and saw about £1,200 worth of timber including £100 worth of our goods.
Cross-examined. I believe a Mr. Mount joy valued the timber at £180, but that estimate was absurd.
EDGAR ALFRED SMITH . I am a traveller to William Pharoh, a timber merchant, of 108, Bishopsgate Street Within—on August 2nd we supplied the prisoner with timber, value £43 12s. 11d.—we were not paid for that—we were creditors in the bankruptcy for £375 13s. 1d., but that was the last transaction we had with him—in October I went to his premises, but could not see him—we had had no notice of the transfer of his business—the value of the timber in the yard was over £1,000—that included about £20 worth of ours.
Cross-examined. During the time we did business with him, about three years, we supplied him with between £4,000 and £5,000 worth of timber.
Cross-examined. I went to the Victoria Restaurant and inquired of the manager there, but he said he could not remember a gentleman of that name having stayed there.
HARRY SMALE (Detective Sergeant.) On October 3rd I saw the prisoner at Floria Street, Spitalfields—I told him I held a warrant for his arrest—he said, "All right, I will go with you"—at the station I read the warrant to him, and he said "All right."
GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT, Tuesday, and
FOURTH COURT, Wednesday, November 18th and 19th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
17. JAMES WALTERS (61), WILLIAM HUGH O'FALVEY (45), GEORGE SLINGSBY (62), SLINGSBY SCOTT (33), and PERCY DOWNING SEYMOUR (43) , Conspiring to obtain from Isabella Tudor Frere and others, cheques for £30 and other sums and a bill of exchange, with intent to defraud. Other counts for unlawfully converting the proceeds of cheques.
ELIZABETH TUDOR FRERE . I live at Thornlands, Netley Marsh, Hampshire—in January last I received this circular from the "Whitehall Exchange," 31, Charing Cross (Exhibit 32a), signed"J. Walters, Secretary," recommending cheap priced shares in the Klerksdorp, Transvaal, and South African Exploring and Cold Storage Companies—I replied that I would purchase shares on the condition that I was liable for the sum invested and no more, and that the profit would accrue in a few days—I enclosed a cheque for £30, which was paid by my bank in due course—I afterwards received Exhibits 85 and 86, offering more shares at 5s. 6d. to 6s. a share, and signed"J. Walters, Secretary," and enclosing sold notes for £32 with commissions—at the bottom of the notes was printed, "It is distinctly understood that you incur no further liability beyond the amount of cover"—I sent £32 for investment and £2 14s. charges, by this cheque to J. Walters, crossed The Royal British Bank, my bankers being the London and Provincial Bank at Liss, and received acknowledgment, Exhibit 91, signed J. Walters, also Exhibit 92, dated February 14th, for more shares at 12s.—I sent a wire, and afterwards a letter, enclosing a cheque for £30—I afterwards received the circular as to 150 Niekirk shares at 14s. 10 1/2d., £112 10s., and 4s. cover—I did not know what cover meant—I received the contract note—the cheque was paid by my bank—the correspondence produced ensued, in which I expressed disappointment, and in which Walters states on February 28th that "owing to the weak Bull Account" there had been delay, that the average would be £21 17s. 6d., and that there would be a "carrying over"—I did not know what the terms meant-in reply to Walters' advice in Exhibits 105 and 106 I sent my cheque for £21 17s. 6d. for the purchase of the four different kinds of South African shares named—I did not know what they were—I had seen the terms "Charters" and "Rhodesians" in the papers—the writing on several of the circulars and letters sent to me was in the same hand, including the letter signed "M. Walters," which states that Walters was seriously ill, that even his life was despaired of, and said, "I cannot give information respecting his business," and those promising settlement, one "as soon as possible"—one letter states that to ask for money on a postcard was an indictable offence, but I did not write such a postcard—in Exhibit 122 he asked me to accept this bill of exchange, which I accepted, believing it was a promise to pay me money which I was going to accept—[This was on the London and Provincial Bank for £35, and dated London, June 11th, 1902, at three months, and signed "Geo. Slingsby," which was obliterated, and the three months was altered to six weeks; it was endorsed, but the name appeared to be scratched through.]—I had no recollection what name was on it—These directions came with the bill: "Accepted, payable it [blank] Bank, I. T. Frere,' write across, putting in name of your bank"—I received Exhibit 123a from the Whitehall Exchange, offering 150 hares—I replied and stated that in my letter of the 18th I had made the alteration to six weeks, as I considered the three months that had already assed might have been enough—I wanted the money at once—I do not know what I meant, but I used a word not applicable—I altered the bill of six weeks because I wanted my money sooner, but something I remember
writing has not been read—I also received Exhibit 125, offering shares in the "Toilette Requisites Company," and this second Bill of Exchange and the other correspondence produced followed in Exhibits 126 to 130, making excuses for delay, and asking me not to send postcards—I received Exhibit 131, signed Clement G. Scott—I had seen the prisoner Scott while staying in London—[This was headed"Clement Scott and Co., Outfitters, 101, Brixton Road," and offered large interest on money invested.]—I answered that, and received a letter enclosing a reference to Dr. Ullathorne, 63, Queen Victoria Street, to whom I wrote, and got a reply—I received Exhibit 135 from Clement G. Scott, stating, "I have just had an offer of goods for the spring trade," and asking for £25—I sent this cheque for £26 10s., which has been paid by my bankers, and is endorsed"Clement Scott"—Exhibit 137 is the receipt—I saw Scott by appointment in the Brixton Road, for him to take my measure—I was thinking of employing him as a dress tailor—at the time I parted with my cheques to the Whitehall Exchange Company I believed they were carrying on a genuine business as stock brokers, and that the shares referred to had been bought and sold to me.
Cross-examined by MR. O'CONNOR. I have sent another man named Scott some money to invest in the City—I have never seen him—he paid me with a good profit for what I first sent him, the second transaction is still pending—I believed Scott to be an honest man—I employed his wife to do some millinery for me—I never gave Scott the order for the costume; he simply took my measure, as I do not live in London, and I said, "If you will come and see me where I am staying I shall be glad for you to take my measure so that you may have it at a future date if I should want a costume"—that was several weeks before I advanced him the money—that was not the consideration for the money—I understand "carrying over" to mean instead of paying as promised, say, in the middle of April you pay at the end of it—I have not now nor since this case been instructing brokers; I thought this was enough for the time.
Cross-examined by Walters. This was not my first transaction—I did not expect the shares to be delivered to me—I expected the profits to be sent to me and my money returned intact—you said in your letter that you were going to settle, and then in another sentence asked me to accept a bill for £35—I thought that was part of what you owed me—I knew the shares were valueless, and that if I did not get money I should not get anything—I refused to accept them.
Re-examined. The Scott I previously did business with, so far as I know, had nothing to do with the prisoners—this is the second bill I received from. George Scott and Son, and is for six weeks instead of three months.
RICHARD HALLETT TAMSETT . I live at 19, St. Edward's Road, Southsea—I look after my wife's business matters—I received the letters produced as exhibits from the Whitehall Exchange, offering shares at £11 10s. and £11 5s. in "Henry Denny and Sons, Limited," and signed"J. Walters, secretary"—I sent the cheque for £169 17s. 6d. in payment for 200 shares and fees—that has been paid through my bank and endorsed"J. Walters"—the correspondence produced followed, including that signed by"J. S.
Slingsby"—there were various excuses stated; one was that Walters had been knocked down by an omnibus—I never got any part of my money back—I fully believed the statements in the circulars and letters sent.
Cross-examined by Walters. I instructed my solicitor to apply for shares, and they were in negotiation at the time of your arrest.
Cross-examined by MR. O'CONNOR. My solicitors sued the Whitehall Exchange Co.—they requested the return of the money at the time that the police interfered—they asked for the Denny shares or the money—the security of Armstrong was suggested, but it was worthless, and I refused to accept it—my solicitors advised me to prosecute.
ERNEST VICTOR BROWN O'BRUCE . I am a clerk in the registry office of Henry Denny and Sons, 3, Lothbury—I have part charge of the register of shareholders—I have no knowledge of the Whitehall Exchange nor of J. Walters producing any transfer of shares in the company, nor of their having held shares in it—the name of Tamsett is on the books.
GEORGE PARKES . I am a timber merchant of 4, The Ashes, Chester Road Birmingham—I replied to this telegram, Exhibit 11, to Seymour of Temple Gardens—after further correspondence I agreed to take from Mackenzie, of the Shares Bureau, 31, Charing Cross, twenty-five ordinary and twentyfive preference shares at 22s. 6d. each, in William Jameson, Limited—I received this telegram, signed Mackenzie, "Will send transfer as soon as executed," and after a letter I sent a telegram to Mackenzie asking for the transfers—after further correspondence I got the name of the transferor as James Murray, 101, Brixton Road—I sent this cheque for £56 5s.—it has been paid by my bank—I received this letter of August 2, signed P. D. Seymour, stating that he was trying to find a buyer—I wrote for the shares and got the replies signed "P. D. Seymour"—I never got the shares—I sent the transfer to Jameson's office—that was returned to me with a communication—I communicated with the police—I had no knowledge of William Mackenzie nor what he had to do with Seymour, nor that Seymour was connected with the Whitehall Exchange—nor of the connection between Walters and Mackenzie.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I did not know that O'Falvey or Mackenzie was negotiating the shares—I would not have complained of James Murray being the transferor so long as he had the shares.
Cross-examined by Walters. I had no communication or dealing with the Whitehall Exchange.
DAVID WILLIAMS . I am manager of the Islington branch of the Royal British Bank—Mackenzie, who is O'Falvey, had an account there—I produce a certified copy of it; also of that of J. Walters and of that of"G. Scott and Son," which the prisoner Slingsby had, on the credit side of which is entered on August 2nd a cheque for £50—this is the cheque endorsed "John Mackenzie" and "George Scott and Son"—on the debit side five cheques are drawn out in the names of Slingsby £3 17s. 6d. Mackenzie £5, Williams £5. Self (Slingsby) £10, and Seymour £26, making £49 17s. 6d.—another 2s. 6d. would make the £50.
Cross-examined by MR. O'CONNOR. The £50 cheque was paid in about
closing time on Saturday—Slingsby had no benefit, he only changed the cheque for the others.
ALEXANDER CHARLES PETERSEN . I am cashier at the Royal British Bank, 6, Duncannon Street, Charing Cross—O'Falvey banked there, under the name of John Mackenzie—a cheque book was supplied him—I produce a certified copy of his account—it was opened by a payment in of £19 which the bank advanced on shares deposited on July 19th—on August 1st there was 5s. 6d. to his credit—we took that for charges—his cheques since have been dishonoured—we communicated that fact to him twice—this cheque drawn by John Mackenzie in favour of O'Falvey is the last one we honoured—it was paid through the London and County Bank.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. After our first letter I think we sent one cheque back within one or two days.
JOHN COBURN MACDONALD . I am a cashier at Parr's Bank, Limited, Charing Cross—I produce a certificated copy of the prisoner Percy Downing Seymour's account there—he went under the names of Percy Downing Seymour and Percy Downing—I find on August 7th on the debit side a payment to the Royal British Bank of £30, and payments to O'Falvey on 16th £2, and on 21st £1; on August 8th I find "Notes £20" on the credit side and cash £3—the numbers of the notes are 21441—4, of June 9th, 1902.
Cross-examined by MR. FITCH. I first knew Seymour as Percy Downing Seymour, trading as Percy Downing—the account is still open—the total amount paid in from the end of November, 1900, to the end of the year appears as £645, and up to the end of June this year as £921.
JOHN HAMPDEN WHITE . I am clerk to a company at 66, Victoria Street, which has the letting of Temple Chambers—Seymour was a tenant of rooms there at £105 a year—we distrained in June last—we got part of the rent—the quarter to Michaelmas is still owing—the tenancy is not cancelled—this is the agreement for the tenancy from November 5th, 1901.
FREDERICK PICKETT . I am lift porter at Temple Chambers, where Seymour had offices—the name of "P. D. Seymour" was put up, and afterwards "Watson, Armstrong, Wade and Co."—I have seen O'Falvey there—he asked for Mr. Seymour—he came three or four times a week.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. There are a good many people in the Temple Chambers—I work the lift and answer inquiries—I am on the ground floor.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. O'Falvey might not come every week—I do not think he was away a month—I should not call him a regular visitor.
Cross-examined by O'CONNOR. I never saw Slingsby or Scott to my knowledge.
ALFRED GEORGE PEACE . I am manager of the Charing Cross Branch of Parr's Bank—I produce a list of cheques returned on Percy Downing Seymour's account at that branch—the second cheque is dated May 9th, 1902, to Harrington for £52, which was returned marked, "Not provided for."
Cross-examined by MR. FITCH. There was an account of Percy Downing Seymour and of Percy Downing—the same man drew on both—he traded
as Percy Downing—I knew him first as Percy Downing Seymour—I cannot say whether the turnover was £5,000 in a year, but we regard an account from the balance point of view—one cheque was returned because the endorsement was irregular.
Re-examined. I stated before the Magistrate that the balance averaged £75 to £100.
SARAH HANNAH SUDBURY . I live at Lawn House, Oak Wood, Wakefield—on August 19th, 1902, I received the letter signed John Mackenzie, asking the price of 260 shares in Jamison, Limited—I sent the letter to a friend—I wrote agreeing to sell 150 shares at 25s. a share—this is a copy of my letter—a few days afterwards I received this letter, signed P. D. Seymour, of Temple Chambers, offering to sell 200 shares in Jameson, Limited, at 22s. 6d. each—on August 24th I got this letter, signed P. D. Seymour, inquiring the name of the person who was selling the shares at a lower figure than he was offering them—I heard no more of Mackenzie.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I was and am willing to part with 150 shares—I heard indirectly that Mackenzie was in custody.
JAMES DOOLEY . I live at Glen Villa, H edge End, Botley—on August 19th I received this letter signed, John Mackenzie, asking me to sell shares in Jamison, Limited, at 25s. a share—I replied and got this letter from P. D. Seymour, Temple Chambers, stating that he was instructed to sell 200 shares in Jamison, Limited, at 22s. 6d., of which company I am a shareholder—I replied stating that I had only preference shares.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I offered to sell preference shares—I knew nothing of the prisoner's arrest.
MALCOLM GEORGE HORTON . I am manager for Mr. J. Quinton, a tobacconist, of 31, Charing Cross Road—that is Old Scotland Yard—I have an office on the ground floor—in May, 1891, Walters and Slingsby came to look at offices there—I received an agreement signed by Slingsby to take part of the premises—I know O'Falvey—I also know Scott as Mackenzie—I handed him letters—they had one room—there was furniture in it—I do not think it was there in August, 1902—O'Falvey paid me the rent once in the shop—when they were not in the office I knew they were to be found in the public houses just at hand—Slingsby told me who Mackenzie was when a letter came for him.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. O'Falvey came to Charing Cross about twice a week—letters came for Mackenzie just about Quarter Day—the name John Mackenzie was a little smaller and was put on the top over the name "The Whitehall Exchange ": "The Mines Bureau" was added, also Scott's name on paper—that might have been in June—I have a separate side door to the shop, and did not see them go in to the office.
Cross-examined by O'CONNOR. I have known O'Falvey this year—I knew him by appearance about Christmas time—I first heard his name in a public house about the beginning of this year—Scott came when the place was taken in 1901—he came every day—I discovered his name in November, when letters came into the shop for Mackenzie, and I took them in the office and asked Slingsby about them—before the premises were engaged by Slingsby they were used for a tailoring business for about
nine months—Slingsby had a part partitioned off as an office by a low partition across the room—it was not afterwards extended to the ceiling.
Cross-examined by MR. FITCH. I never saw Seymour at the office.
GEORGE REEVES . I am a clerk to Messrs. Clutton, who act for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—Nos. 67 and 101, Brixton Road, are part of their property—No. 101 was taken from August 11th by Walters—the references he gave were C. F. Ellis and Co. and G. and S. Scott—Slingsby came with Walters—Scott's reply was that he had known Walters some years, that he was highly respectable and quite capable of paying his rent—an agreement was entered into and Walters took possession—at Christmas, 1901, Scott took the house 67, Brixton Road, giving as references Mr. Wood and Mr. O'Falvey—in consequence of replies from both references the premises were let to Scott and were adapted and opened as a shop—the rent to Lady Day was paid through the Sheriff—we received no rent since that—there are still curtains in the windows and somebody may be living there, but the water is cut off.
THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting, of Holborn Viaduct—I have examined the documents in this case with the proved signatures and writings of the defendants—Exhibits Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7 have Walters' signature; also five endorsements to Tamsett's cheques—the signature "J. Walters pp. J. S." is Slingsby's. (This stated that Mr. Walters had been thrown down by an omnibus.) Also the initials in No. 10—I spent a great many hours in examining about 100 documents—I am looking at a duplicate copy of my notes—these are the actual notes I made at the time—the signature, to Nos. 12 and 13 are Seymour's—the signatures to Nos. 13, 14 and 17 to the letters signed"John Mackenzie "are O'Falvey's writing—there is a signature like Walters' writing across a stamp which is difficult to decipher because it is written "Waters"—I do not know the signature "James Murray, 101, Brixton Road"—the body of the document is in O'Falvey's writing—Nos. 23, 24, and 25 are in Seymour's writing—Nos. 82 to 85 from 7, Whitehall Exchange, to Miss Frere are typewritten—the sold note, No. 87, has the signature of J. Walters—the endorsement on the cheque for £2 14s., No. 90, and No. 91, the acknowledgement of the cheque, and No. 92 are Walters' writing—No. 96, the sold note of the Niekirk shares and the endorsement on the cheque for £30, and Nos. 101, 102, and 104 are Walters' signatures—No. 105, "J. Walters pp. W. W.," is not Walters'—the cheque No. 107 for £21 17s. 6d. is endorsed by Walters—the sold note, No. 108, is signed by Walters—No. 109 is not Walters' writing, but the signature to No. 114 is—No. 118 is all in Slingsby's writing, and No. 119, which states that Walters is suffering from brain fever, is the same writing—I am not certain about No. 120, the letter signed "M. Waters"—No. 122 is type-written—in No. 123 the writing underneath looks like Slingsby's—the endorsement is Slingsby's—the endorsement "Scott and Son" on the second bill is similar to Scott's writing—No. 125, as to toilette requisites, is type-written, and the writing
of the initials is not clear—No. 125 is Slingsby's writing—£130 is typewritten—the endorsement, "Clement Scott," in No. 131, is Slingsby Scott's writing, also the signatures on the cheques Nos. 122 and 125, 136 and 137—No. 140, signed"Jackson," is back-handed—I do not know it—I found several letters in the same writing—that is very often effectual in disguising writing.
ROBERT FULLER (Police Inspector A.) In consequence of information I received, I kept observation on 31, Charing Cross, Whitehall—Seymour used that place—I have kept the place under observation for about twelve months—I obtained a warrant for his arrest on August 29th—I went to Temple Chambers on that day at 3.15 p.m.—I found the names of P. D. Seymour and Armstrong Wade and Co. on the door—a boy was in charge—I did not find Seymour there—at 8.30 p.m. the same day I went to Upper Richmond Road, Putney and saw him—I told him I had a warrant for his arrest for being concerned with O'Falvey in obtaining money from Mr. Parkes—I showed him letter No: 151, and said "This is your signature which you admitted to me in 1900 was yours, and it is similar to the signature on a letter to Mr. Parkes, and I shall arrest you on suspicion"—he said "Yes, but I did not intend to defraud Parkes; it is the last thing I should do, 'evil communications corrupt good manners'; the shares that Mr. Parkes' father had he got rid of through me."—I saw Walters on August 23rd in the Golden Fleece wine bar, Queen Street, City—I said, "I am Inspector Fuller, I hold a warrant for your arrest for being concerned with Slingsby and others in defrauding Mr. Tamsett"—he said, "That has been dealt with by my solicitors"—Scott, who was with him, said, "I know nothing about the Tamsett matter; I admit I had the money, but that is a debt; I am not Mackenzie"—I found some letters on him addressed to John Mackenzie—he said he was going to take them to John Mackenzie—they were taken to the station and charged—they did not say anything in answer to the charge—I have kept observation on 31, Charing Cross, from time to time—I have seen Walters, O'Falvey, Slingsby and Scott using the place—I went there after the arrest and searched—there was no furniture there—there were a lot of books, papers, and circulars of the Whitehall Exchange there—I found letters from Miss Frere and Mr. Tamsett there, but none from Mr. Parkes—the letters were lying about on some benches—the place had been divided into two rooms—there were also some old books headed with some tailoring business, showing that an order had been booked from O'Falvey for a suit of clothes, and one for Walters—there were some books relating to Stock Exchange matters, and two or three entries in the name of the Whitehall Exchange—there was the International Courier there with an advertisement of the Whitehall Exchange in it, also Walters' pass book—on Walters I found a letter and envelope from Mr. Sudbury, addressed to John Mackenzie, 31, Charing Cross—I also found on Walters a letter addressed to G. Slingsby, and some blank cheques, and a diary for this year—there was something about a fall from a 'bus in it in June, and there were some notes showing payments to O'Falvey and Scott, and to Slingsby, and Clement Scott, and also showing the receipt of a cheque
from O'Falvey—there is a note on December 13th of Seymour's name and his address at Putney—that is in Seymour's own writing—at Charing Gross I found a draft document signed J. Jackson, addressed to Miss Frere, and also a draft letter said to be in Slingsby's writing and signed "F. Walters"—all Miss Frere's letters and the replies to them were on a file—I also searched Temple Chambers—I found a number of circulars there elating to William Jamison, Limited, a draft letter to Mr. Parkes, and a County Court summons at the instance of Cope and Co. for electric fittings.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I never saw Seymour at the Whitehall Exchange—he does not appear in the cases of Miss Frere or Tamsett at all, only in the case of Parkes—I should doubt that Seymour dealt in 2,000 shares during the nine months before his arrest—I do not know Mr. Church—I made inquiries of Mr. Billingham, the managing director of the Company.
Cross-examined by Walters. The letters to Mackenzie were in the outside part of the office at Charing Cross; the Whitehall Exchange letters were mixed up with the other letters; most of the recent papers were in the inside office.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. The name of Mackenzie was in different type on the door—the letters addressed to him were opened before I saw them; I did not open them—I did not find that Mackenzie had dealt in 3,000 shares during the last year—he may have done his correspondence at his home at Mitcham, and merely used the office as an address, but I saw him at the office daily in the company of the others—they did not spend much time in the office; they were always in and out—I cannot say if I found any of Mackenzie's writing at the Whitehall Exchange—some unpaid cheques were found on him—they may have been taken up by him—I am not aware that there was a transfer of thirty fully paid shares in the Watson, Armstrong, Wade Company found on him.
Cross-examined by O'CONNOR. When I arrested Scott, I think he said. "I know about Tamsett"—I also charged him with defrauding Miss Frere—he said, "I had the money, but I did not intend to defraud her"—the letters found in his possession were about shares, and had been addressed to 31, Charing Cross—when I arrested Walters I charged him with defrauding Miss Frere and Emil Rimbod, and I mentioned several other matters to him—Rimbod was defrauded of £10 7s. in connection with advertisement frauds—Scott said it was not fraudulent—I had been investigating Miss Frere's matter long before the arrest—I went to 31, Charing Cross, disguised once in connection with complaints which had reached me—I think I only saw Slingsby then—he consulted Walters on important matters—their office was only three or four doors from mine,—I had a lot of information from my own officers, and I had complaints daily—there was only one book there in reference to any tailoring business.
WILLIAM WOMACK (Detective-Sergeant.) New Scotland Yard is close to 31, Charing Cross—I arrested O'Falvey on August 23rd, at midnight, on Mitcham Common—he lived near there—I asked him if he knew me, he said, "Oh yes, very well"—I told him I held a warrant for his arrest
for obtaining various sums of money from different persons—he said, "I do not know anything at all about it"—I mentioned Walters and Slingsby—I went with him to his house—I found some documents on him.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I had seen him at Charing Cross on numerous occasions—I cannot contradict his statement that he only used it as a postal address—when I charged him on August 23rd I mentioned the Parkes' case to him—I do not know if it is mentioned on the warrant—I searched his house—I handed the papers I found there to Inspector Fuller—I cannot say if there was anything referring to the Tamsett and Frere cases—I found at his house letters addressed to 31, Charing Cross—I do not know if he did his writing at home—I found some letter paper there headed 31, Charing Cross—he did not make any difficulty about my seeing anything.
JAMES BERRETT (Detective.) I have kept observation on 31, Charing Cross since about August 31st—at first I saw Walters and Slingsby frequently at that address—"The Whitehall Tailoring Company" was up at first—I next saw Scott there about two months after the others, and then O'Falvey about five or six months later—they used to go there and stay sometimes an hour or two, then go to the neighbouring public-houses, leaving a paper on the door saying, "Return in ten minutes."—latterly the office was not kept open at all—it was visited by Scott for letters—he was there for about two minutes in the morning and then went away again—on July 3rd I went to the office—I saw Slingsby and Walters there—I was with Baxter—I said to Slingsby, "You know us, don't you"—he said "Yes,"—I said, "We have called about a commission obtained from a man by an swering an advertisement in the Whitehall Exchange"—he said, "Oh yes, the firm have received a letter from Mr. Dounie; the matter is all right, and the letter has been answered; I deny any responsibility; a Mr. Wright and I, met a man named Snell in the Clarence; Wright gave an order, I have seen the advert in the paper; I have never caused any advert. to be inserted in respect to any business or property; the adverts. Kent, Scott, and Son, and Madam Elsey, 67, Brixton Road, are not mine; I have nothing to do with the business, and know nothing of the advert you speak about"—he then pointed to Walters at the end of the room—I went to him and he said, "I repudiate all knowledge of the advert."—A copy of the International Courier was there—he picked it up and showed me an advertisement of the Whitehall Exchange, and said, "You do not think I should accept this; 'Whitehall' is spelt without the 'h'"—I saw Scott there, I said to him, "I want to speak to you Mr. Mackenzie," because I thought his name was Mackenzie—he said, "I deny I am Mackenzie; you know better than that, Madam Elsey is my wife; I take all responsibility for her and myself; she is not living with me now; it is only a debt, let them sue me in the County Court; I have nothing to do with the people here, you know, the Whitehall Exchange"—on August 26th, at 7.30 p.m., I arrested Slingsby at 101, Brixton Road; he was ill and I did not take him into custody; I read the warrant to him—he said, "We have had no money from the man Rimbod"—he was kept under observation at his house, and was also under the care of the divisional surgeon for about
three weeks—on September 11th he was taken to Cannon Row Police Station, and charged with being concerned with the others in the Whitehall Exchange frauds—he made no reply.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. O'Falvey went to the Whitehall Exchange Offices about six months after they were opened—he went there about June, 1901—I did not know that his name was Mackenzie, the difficulty was to find out who Mackenzie was—I never saw O'Falvey at the offices when I called there, but I have seen him when he was coming out with the others, and I have seen them divide money about 10 p.m., all pretty well drunk and rowing with each other about money—I know now that Mackenzie and O'Falvey are the same person—I saw O'Falvey use this office before Mackenzie was put on the door.
Cross-examined by O'CONNOR. I got suspicious of the Whitehall Exchange when first I saw the name up—the Whitehall Tailoring Company was up first—I noticed "Whitehall Exchange" up about a month afterwards—it was posted on the top of the Whitehall Tailoring Company and concealed it—there was also a letter-box on the side of the door, with Slingsby's name on it, spelt "Slingsbie"—that was also removed—the Whitehall Exchange and the Whitehall Tailoring Company were not being carried on at the same time, because the name of one was covered by the other—I did not call there every day—I often had a look at the door when the prisoners were out—I saw them daily and hourly in the public-houses, they knew me quite well—I saw O'Falvey dealing out the money and then leave the others, and then wait for the last Brixton 'bus—I saw him giving money to Slingsby, Scott, and Walters—I only saw that occur on one occasion—I do not know the date, it was in the street, and about a couple of months before the offices were closed.
Cross-examined by Mr. FITCH. I did not see Seymour there on that occasion.
Re-examined. We watched 31, Charing Cross in consequence of the shady customers that Slingsby used to be with, and from enquiries, we knew for a positive fact that he had been bound over for fraud.
By MR. TUDOR. That was long before the Whitehall Tailoring Company was up.
ALBERT YARE (Detective). On August 22nd, at 9.45 a.m., I saw Scott coming from 67, Brixton Road—I followed him to 31, Charing Cross—he went into the office, where he remained about a minute—he came out and went to several places, including the Woolpack public-house in Fore Street, City—he came out and was joined by Walters—some papers passed between them—they waited about 15 minutes and then went into the Woolpack—I saw them together again the same evening in St. Martin's Lane—on August 23rd I saw Scott go from Brixton Road to 31, Charing Cross—he went into the office and stayed a minute or two, and then went to the post office in the Strand, then to Farringdon Street, and then went into the King Lud, in Ludgate Circus, where he remained about a minute and came out with Walters—they went to the Golden Fleece—on the way there I saw papers pass between them—at the Golden Fleece they were arrested by Inspector Fuller.
Cross-examined by MR. O'CONNOR. They were together the whole time on the second day after they left the King Lud—I could not see what the papers were which passed between them.
CHARLES GOODACRE (333 D.) On July 16th I arrested Walters in the name of Davy, on a committal warrant for the non-payment of a fine and costs, imposed at Bow Street Police-court on April 9th and he was imprisoned for six weeks—I arrested him in the office at Charing Cross; Slingsby was with him—when I told Walters what I was going to do he took a cheque-book out of a drawer, wrote on the cheques, and then put it back in the drawer, and said to Slingsby, "You can be getting on with those."
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I have not seen O'Falvey in the office.
WILLIAM JOHN ROBERTS . I am examiner to one of the Official Receivers in the London Bankruptcy Court—I have here the file in the bankruptcy of James Walter Davy in 1889—the receiving order was made on April 16th and the adjudication on May 13th of the year he was adjudged a bankrupt—his liabilities were £2,553, and his assets were £50—no dividend has been paid and he is still undischarged—on the file there is a reference to a bankruptcy in 1877 at Exeter—I do not think there was any discharge from that bankruptcy—the liabilities were £8,549 and the assets £3,249—he was also adjudicated bankrupt on May, 9th, 1902, the receiving order is dated April 22nd—I went to Brixton Prison and saw Walters, and he admitted he was James Walter Davy, and said he had used the name James Walters, and he also admitted his previous petition in 1889.
Cross-examined by Walters. In the last bankruptcy the petitioning creditor is Walter Leslie Gibbs—he is a stockbroker—his return is for £142 9s. 4d., the amount of a judgment recovered against you in the King's Bench Division, on February 11th, 1902.
T. H. GURRIN (Re-examined). The signatures in documents 152 and 153 are in Seymour's writing—I think 153a is in O'Falvey's writing—118a and 119a are in Slingsby's writing—156 is in O'Falvey's writing.
Cross-examined by MR. TUDOR. I should not recognise the name of Parks on this list of names as being in O'Falvey's writing—I think No. 144 is in his—writing.
Cross-examined by MR. O'CONNOR. I do not recognise the writing in Exhibit 120—the writing in No. 118a looks like Slingsby's writing, but it is not in his usual writing—I may have made a mistake—I think that Nos. 119, 121, and 22a are all in Slingsby's writing.
The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. O'Falvey says: "I submit there is nothing in the evidence to associate me with the charge as to the advertisements, and as to the rest I reserve my defence." Scott says: "I have had nothing to do with the share transactions nor with any business with the Whitehall Exchange, and I submit there is no evidence to the contrary."
Slingsby says: "I had nothing to do with the Whitehall Exchange except under Mr. Walters." Walters says (Part read only):"The other matters are merely matters of account which were in course of negotiation with the solicitors. You would not have heard of that, Tamsett's case, but for the fact of the advertisement charge being placed against me.
This Frere's business, the cheques were sent for cover on Stock Exchange dealings. I did not act as a broker, but dealt in stocks and shares as a principal. At Easter Miss Frere's cover had run off There was, however, an amount of £30 which had been guaranteed by myself that she should be repaid whether the stocks went against her or not. As a matter of fact the stocks she dealt in were all South African, and no person could guarantee how the market would go. I intended to pay her the £30, and for that reason, I suppose, that bid for £35 was drawn that she should have the 150 West African shares, West African Corporation, which had stood at 14s. each and as high as 18s., and I should have sent them on to her but she refused to receive any shares. As concerning the Bill afterwards, I scarcely know anything else."
T. H. GURRIN (Re-examined). To the best of my belief Exhibit 143 is in Slingsby's writing—I do not know that it is quite in his ordinary writing—this letter I believe to be in Slingsby's writing and signed by Walters.
Walters, in his defence on oath, said that he had had no intention to defraud; that he had not had any transactions with Seymour except trying to raise money for him, and had only seen him three or four times; and had no transactions with O'Falvey except lending him money.
O'Falvey, in his defence on oath, said that he never had anything to do with the Whitehall Exchange; that he traded as Mackenzie; that he never participated in any money paid by Tamsett or Miss Frere; that he was a dealer in the shares of William Jameson, Limited, to the extent of some thousands; and that he had no intention to defraud.
Slingsby, in his defence on oath, said that he took 31, Charing Cross to carry on a tailoring business; that he divided the place off into two compartments; that Walters occupied one, and they were distinct; that he had nothing to do with Miss Frere's affairs; and that he did not know anything of the Tamsett matter, or with the Whitehall Exchange.
Scott, in his defence on oath, said that he took 67, Brixton Road, to set up a tailoring business; that he had nothing to do with the Whitehall Exchange; that he had never had any of Tamsett's or Parkes' money; that he called at 31, Charing Cross, in order to take Slingsby up to town and home, as he was ill; that he did not pass as Mackenzie, and that O'Falvey had never given him money.
WALTERS, GUILTY .— Twelve months' imprisonment.
SCOTT, GUILTY .
The Jury recommended him to mercy on the ground that he was influenced by the other prisoners. Six months' hard labour.
O'FALVEY, GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in June, 1890, and another conviction was proved against him. Two years' hard labour.
SEYMOUR, NOT GUILTY ; but the Jury censured him for indiscretion. SLINGSBY, GUILTY . Two convictions were proved against him. Nine months' imprisonment.
18. GEORGE DIGBY PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining 18s. from Henry Burgoyne Matthews by false pretences, having been convicted of conspiring to defraud at this Court in June, 1898. To enter into recognisances.
OLD COURT.—Wednesday. November 19th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. A. GILL Prosecuted, and MR. BIRON Defended.
LOUISA EMMA INSOLE . I have known the prisoner over eleven years; he came to lodge at my house—the deceased came with him—she was about 33 years old when she first came—she had a child about six months old—I did not know who was its father—she always called the prisoner father, and I understood she was his daughter—the baby was sent to an asylum at Dartford—the deceased had another child born at St. George's Infirmary about twelve months' ago; it only lived a short time—the prisoner and the deceased lived alone for about twelve months—during that time they quarrelled a great deal—they lived upstairs on the top floor; I lived downstairs—I was only in their room about six times, but I heard them—I had no idea they were living as man and wife—on Friday, October 10th, about 8.30 p.m., I saw the deceased come home—I heard a noise outside my front room; I saw the prisoner trying to push the deceased upstairs—at the top she cried, "Someone go for the police, he-will murder me"—he had beaten her before that—I sent for the police; they went upstairs and spoke to the prisoner—the deceased came down to me—she left about 9.15 with another young woman, a friend of mine—I did not see either the prisoner or the deceased again that night—on October 16th a police officer left a summons for the prisoner about 10.30 a.m.—the prisoner came in two or three minutes afterwards and I gave him the summons—he said, "What is this for?"—I said, "I do not know"—he then opened it and said. "It is for an assault"—I said, "It might be through that affair on Friday night"—I saw him on October 17th at about 11.30; he seemed very much upset and was crying bitterly—he said, "I have lived with you over eleven years; you think you know Emily but you don't; she is a false cat; she has deceived me from top to bottom"—I said, "Emily is old enough to take care of herself, and you must try and get some work and do the best you can"—he paid me 3s. rent on that day; Emily had always paid it before—she worked very hard and the prisoner very little—he said he would sell off the home and go into the workhouse—I saw him again that night at 8 o'clock—I did not see him again until he was in custody—I heard him go out the next morning at 6.50; I heard him say"Good morning "to my daughter.
Cross-examined. Before October 17th I had never seen the prisoner cry during the eleven years I had known him; he seemed very much upset after the summons came—he appeared to be crying because she had gone away—he said. "What have I done for her to go away like this?"—I said I did no know—he appeared to be very fond of her—on the occasion of the assault I saw him trying to push Emily upstairs—I did not know he was a sailor; he worked as a labourer at the docks sometimes.
HENRY LORYMAN . I live at 39, Marsham Road, Bermondsey—I knew Emily Barrow; she used to work at the same place as I did—I believe sh earned 12s. a week—I left that place about August last—I never saw her
between that time and October—on the evening of October 10th I saw her at Millwall—I accompanied her near to Red Lion Street, where she lived—I saw the prisoner there—he said, "Who are you?"—I said, "A friend," and walked away—I had never seen him before.
JEAN CORKER . I am the wife of Frederick Corker of 7, Wapping Wall—I knew Emily Barrow fourteen or fifteen years before her death, and also the prisoner—I understood them to be father and daughter—she came to my house about 10 o'clock on Friday night, October 10th, and remained there until the 18th, the day she died—I saw the prisoner on Saturday, October 11th, outside my house—he came up and asked for his wife—I said, "There is no wife of yours here, Mr. Barrow"—I told him to go away, and he went—about 7.50 I left home to go to Fish's, where Emily Barrow was employed; the prisoner was outside—he followed me all the way grumbling about Emily—after going to the factory I returned home, and he again followed me—I went with Emily Barrow to the Thames Police Court the same day—he came again to my place at night, asked for Emily, and tried to force his way in—I resisted him and called my son, who got him out—he came again on Sunday morning, October 12th, and said, "Will you ask Emily to give me the key of the room door?"—I said, "You have a key of your own"—he said, "In the scuffle yesterday I lost it"—I said, "You will find the key at home; Emily sent it to Lizzie Dye"—the next week Emily Barrow went to work; on Saturday, October 18th, she left home at 10 minutes to 8, and I did not see her alive again.
Cross-examined. The prisoner was quite peaceable when he asked for the key—the scuffle he referred to took place on the Friday evening the week before.
EDWARD SAMUEL CORKER . I am a warehouseman and live at 7, Wapping Wall—on Friday, the 11th October, I was at home—between eight and nine o'clock there was a knock at the door; my brother James answered it—he came back and said Mr. Barrow was at the door, and I went and saw him—he asked me if he could see Emily—I said that she was out—he then asked for my mother, and I told him she was out—he wanted to wait and see her, and I told him to wait outside—he then wanted to speak to my father, but my father would not see him—he then tried to force his way in and I threw him out—he came back and shouted through the keyhole that we should all know of it before twelve o'clock to-morrow.
JOHN CHAMBERLAIN . I am an engine driver and live at 31, Wapping Wall—about 8 a.m. on October 18th I was in Glamis Road—I knew Emily Barrow by sight—I saw her on the opposite side of the road going the reverse direction to me—I passed her—the prisoner was running behind her—he was about 100 yards away, and before he reached her he began to walk—I passed them and then heard a scream—I turned round and saw the deceased with her hands up—she appeared to be on the half turn Facing the prisoner—he was in the act of striking her with a knife—the blow was in the direction of the upper part of her body—I should say the knife produced was the knife—I immediately ran towards them; another man had already seized the prisoner—I seized the wrist of the hand in which he had the knife, and called to the other man to take it out, which
he did—when the woman was first struck she ran across the road pursued by the prisoner, striking her as they were running—I saw about three blows—They fell together—while I was picking her up the prisoner said, "She is my wife; she is a false woman"—I took her to the hospital—the police had not then arrived.
Cross-examined. From the time I heard the scream I saw everything that happened—before the Magistrate and Coroner I said I believed the blow cut her hand—that was the only blow I saw struck.
EDWARD TAYLOR . I am a dock labourer of 5, Bruton Street, Ratcliff—on Saturday morning, October 18th, I was in Glamis Road about eight o'clock—I saw there a young woman whom I now know as Emily Barrow—she was on the opposite side of the road to me but going the same way, about fifty yards in front—the prisoner was running behind her—when he got within twelve yards of her he slackened up into a walk—he struck her in the back with his right hand and she half turned round—I could not see if he had anything in his hand or not—she ran across the road with her hands up, screaming, and just before she got to the kerb he struck her again in the right side—I rushed up, and a seafaring man there handed to the witness Dodkin a knife—at that time the prisoner and the woman were on the pavement—I held the prisoner down—he kept saying that the woman was his wife—we then went to take him to the station, and on the way met a police officer—at the station the prisoner said, "I did it, I did it; you do not know all."
Cross-examined. I did not see the knife until I got him up—she was trying to get away from him, stumbled, and fell, and he fell also—I cannot say if he fell on top of her—I cannot say positively if the blow I saw struck hit her; if she had her hands behind it might have struck them.
Re-examined. She fell face downwards.
THOMAS DODKIN . I am a labourer of 30, Gill Street, Limehouse—on October 18th, about 8 a.m., I was at the corner of High Street and Glamis. Road, Shadwell—I heard a cry from the woman I now know as Emily Barrow—She was running across the road pursued by the prisoner—he had a knife and struck her in the back and she fell face downwards—I ran across to where she fell—this is the knife (Produced)—I took it to the police station.
Cross-examined. I saw the knife before I ran across the road—the prisoner struck her with it—there are no railings where she fell—at the time the blow was struck the prisoner was between me and the woman—I was about forty to forty-five yards off—when I got there the prisoner was being held on the ground by other people, and the woman was on the pavement, but I cannot say the exact spot—I saw the prisoner run across the road—I did not see him fall.
By the COURT. I am clear that I saw the prisoner strike the woman in the back—there was no one between me and them to prevent my seeing that—I then saw her fall.
there about eight o'clock on Saturday morning, October 18th; she was then dead—I made a superficial examination of the body at the time, and found two wounds at first, one in front of the chest between the first and second ribs on the left-hand side, and another in the back to the right of the spine—she was left until Dr. Grant, the police surgeon, came, and together we made another superficial examination—we found five wounds—in the afternoon, by the Coroner's order, I made a post-mortem examination; there was one wound in the front of the chest on the left-hand side between the first and second ribs, on the surface of the skin, about three-quarters of an inch long; it was a punctured wound, and we traced it down to its end in the main artery and heart, which it had wounded—from this wound there had bled into the chest about two pints and a-half of blood; there were two wounds behind, one about the level of the third rib just to the right of the spine, which had entered the right side of the chest apparently without wounding the lung—it was of the same character as the one in front, and there was about eight ounces of blood in the side of the chest—there was another small punctured wound behind just above the left buttock, quite a superficial one—there was a wound above the left ear, where the ear joins the scalp, of a similar character, as far as its appearance on the skin went, as the one on the front of the chest; and the upper two wounds behind it passed down for about one and a-half inches—there was lastly a superficial wound on the back of the left hand which laid bare the tendons—the wounds were such as would correspond with the knife produced, and might very well have been made by it—the wound in, front of the chest was the cause of death.
CHARLES GRAHAM GRANT . I am police surgeon of division—I examined the body of the deceased with the last witness—I have heard his evidence—in all essential particulars I agree with it—after the injury to the chest, in my opinion, it would have been possible for the woman to have run across the road—the knife was handed to me by the police; it had been newly sharpened and was covered with oil—there was a moist, red stain upon, it having the appearance of blood; on testing it I found it to be so—the knife fitted the wounds and corresponded to the incisions; in the body.
Cross-examined. It would be an unusual thing for a woman to be able to run across the road after such a wound had been inflicted in her chest; if there had been no evidence of the time or method in which it was inflicted, I should have expected it to have been inflicted after she crossed the road and before she died.
Re-examined. In my opinion it was quite possible for her to have crossed the road after the wound was inflicted.
GEORGE CURTIS (30 H.R.) I was on duty at Shadwell Police Station on Saturday morning, October 18th—I received a message, and on going out found the prisoner in custody of some men—I arrested him, took him to the station, and charged him—he said, "This will end it all now; all I want is a rope round my neck"—on searching him I found a summons and a note book.
THOMAS DIVALL (Police-Inspector H.) On October 18th I saw the prisoner at Shadwell Station at 9.30—I told him he would be charged with the murder of Emily Barrow—he said, "Yes, thank you," then paused, and said, "Yes."
FREDERICK WENSLEY (Police-Sergeant H.) On October 18th, about ten o'clock, I received the prisoner in custody at Arbor Square Police Station—he said, "This has been brought about by another woman who wanted to get her away from me; we had a quarrel, she left me, and then summoned me for assualting her; I am sorry it has happened, but she is out of trouble now, and I shall soon be the same."—he afterwards said that her name was Coates.
Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisoner—at one time he was in the Navy, but was invalided out on account of varicose veins—he then joined the merchant service, which he left in consequence of some accident, resulting in his losing three fingers of his left hand.
Evidence for the Defence.
JAMES SCOTT . I am medical officer at Brixton Prison—I have had a large experience in seeing prisoners in cases of this kind—on Monday, November 17th, I saw the prisoner there—he told me that at times, owing to illness, he was confused and scarcely knew what he was doing; that he suffered a great deal at times from varicose veins, which, he said, caused him great pain (he also suffers from an affection of the stomach); that at times he suffered from severe pains in the head, and when he was harassed or had pain, or worry, or trouble, he became very confused in his mind, and lost power over himself—I think he said he had a sunstroke some years ago when in the Navy, and that when a boy he fell down a well fifty feet deep—I made inquiries whether he had any family history in relation to insanity—he said his brother was for some time in an asylum, but he could not give me any particulars or dates, and that his mother had been out of her mind, but he could not give me any definite particulars of that either—he said that when he committed the crime he did not know what he was doing—he handed me a written statement in which he stated that he had bought 14 lbs. of charcoal with the intention of committing suicide; that he had ignited it in the room, but had not closed the apertures sufficiently, and that had made him more confused in his mind.
Cross-examined. It was not until Monday last that he made the statement with regard to his mother and brother—when he mentioned about the charcoal I asked him if the fact had come out at the previous inquiries, or if he wished any witness called to prove it—he said he did not know how it could be proved unless the police had information of its being found in the house—apart from these statements I have seen nothing in his condition or manner upon which I could form the opinion that his mind was affected—I saw no symptom of mental aberration—in my opinion he is absolutely sane—I saw nothing to the contrary.
By the COURT. I saw nothing in his state to indicate that he did not Know right from wrong.
GUILTY . DEATH.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, November 10th, 1902.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. HARDY Prosecuted.
WILLIAM FOSTER . I am junior clerk to Messrs. Field and Co. at Peninsula House, Monument Yard—I heard a crashing of glass on Friday last about 6 p.m.—I went on the roof—a lad came with me, but he ran back again—I saw two men looking out at a window—I asked what they were doing there—they said they were only looking round—Tyler jumped out at the window—I claimed him and tustled with him—he kicked me and broke away and got through a wall—then I caught Tomlins—we struggled; he got away—I saw Tomlins the same night in the cells—I have no doubt about him.
Cross-examined by Tomlins. I did not stop you in the street.
BERTRAM BROWN . I am one of the firm of Field and Co.—last Friday I was in my office about 6 p.m.—I heard a crashing of glass—I went into our warehouse and called one of the men back whom I saw between the office and the lavatory in the basement—I asked Foster to go on the roof with another lad, and went to the back, as the only way of escape for anyone to drop off there—I noticed that a man had dropped from the fence—I chased him as far as from this Court to St. Paul's, and into an empty building—he fell on his back and started kicking—I called to a young man to give me a hand—Tomlins is the man—I never lost sight of him.
ERNEST DELAMORE (864 City). I was on duty on Friday last about 6.15 in Hart Lane—from information received I took Tomlins to the premises of Messrs. Petre, where I saw Tyler—I sent for another constable—the prisoners were taken to the police station and charged—Tyler said, "Very good"—Tomlins made no reply.
GEORGE STAINER (City Police-Sergeant 39.) I examined Mr. Petre's premises shortly after 6 p.m. on Friday—I found ah entry had been effected by climbing the fence from Lower Thames Street and breaking a pane of glass about 4 feet square; an attempt had been made to force a drawer—I found this iron in a revolving shutter and this knife on the roof—both had been used; the knife to open the window—the window-sash was closed—the putty was removed with the knife, and the glass, 4 feet square, taken out—half of the glass had fallen inside and half outside.
FREDERICK BESANT . I am manager to Mr. Petre—I left the premises about 5 p.m. on Friday, having closed the place—when I went back the next morning I found a window pane out, and that a drawer had been tampered with which contained van tickets which are used by the porters to get goods from the vans—Tyler was in our employ about 2 1/2 months.
Tomlins statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing about
this affair, and I know nothing about this man whatever." He repeated this in his defence, and said that he was never there at the time.
TOMLINS. GUILTY .— Twelve months' hard labour each.
22. JOHN NICHOLLS (35) and JOHN GARRETT (39) , Stealing 189 lbs. of dead fish, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company Mr. J. P. GRAIN and MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted; MR. MOSES appeared for Nicholls; and MR. LEYCESTER for Garrett.
DAVID WARDER (Chief Detective-Inspector, Great Northern Railway). On October 9th, I was with other officers in the neighbourhood of Royal Mint Street Depot at 4.40 a.m. in consequence of information I had received—I entered truck 8784 which had arrived from Grimsby during the night—it is described as a box truck, because it is closed in, and has a door—I and the other officers rushed to it—the door was open—the prisoners were in the truck—Nicholls was taking fish from the top of one kit and throwing it into another kit, which we afterwards seized—Garrett stood with a wooden hoop in his hand the hoop is placed over the canvas to secure it—I noticed a plaice on the floor of the truck alongside the kit—I said to the prisoners, "What are you doing here?"—Nicholls said, "There is one loose"—Garrett said, "Nicholls asked me to help him"—I told them that I should detain them for stealing a quantity of fish from various consignments, the property of the Great Northern Railway Company—they came out of the truck then—Nicholls said, "This kit is unentered," referring to the kit we had seized, and into which he had thrown the fish—it had a label addressed to G. W. Hooker, Fishmonger, St. Luke's, E.C., Mint Street Station—I told him that it could not be unentered, because three kits were consigned to Hooker there—I sent for the waybills—I examined the kits in truck 8784—under the address on the label was "From G. E. Pegg, fish and ice merchant, Grimsby"—the kit would go back there in ordinary course—that kit was dry—on the top was plaice—it was weighed by another officer in my presence—there were 189 lbs. of haddocks and 27 lbs. of plaice—I examined the other kits in truck No. 8784—I found nineteen of the kits consigned to Hitchcock—two of them had the canvas cut, two were loose or slack, that is not full, apparently some had been taken out and the canvas replaced—haddock had been taken out—fish coming to the Mint Street Depot is the property of the Great Northern Railway until it is delivered to the proper consignee.
Cross-examined by MR. MOSES. The truck was the last but one at the arches end of the platform, and the third from the office end—I began to watch about 4 a.m.—the trucks were then in position—I did not see Nicholls till we rushed into the truck—there are three checkers, Nicholls, Garrett, and How—they come on duty for a month at a time—they have other duties in connection with this particular fish—we were watching outside the station opposite the bank—there is a policeman's box in the station at the entrance gate and about 30 yards from the public way—there is always someone on duty there, and at different parts of the station—the checker goes into the truck with a light hand-lamp, and sorts the packages
to the different consignees, but that is not difficult, they are generally packed together, and he has another man in the truck, to put them on a barrow—there is a man in charge of the truck, and he has what men he wants—30 or 40 men may pass by the trucks—the delivery of the fish is hurried as much as the men can—the fish trains are late sometimes—the checker's duty at Grimsby is to shut the truck, and anybody going in would probably be caught—I know that all Hitchcock's fish were haddocks, but there was plaice in the truck—I only saw that one plaice and that was put there almost instantaneously—the checker moves the fish if he cannot get help, but the kits move easily on their heads and do not want pulling—hoops and canvases come off: it is the checker's duty then to replace the fish and to secure the kit—I swear it was a plaice and not canvas in Nicholl's hand—there were plaice that morning consigned to Samuel Isaacs in boxes which could be easily prized open.
Cross-examined by Leycester. If the kit got damaged or the canvas got torn it was Nicholl's duty to mend it—there was no impropriety in Nicholls asking Garrett to help him—there are policemen to watch so that no fish is smuggled out, and if a man goes out and appears bulky the police would rub him down—Garrett has been with the Company thirteen years—up to about August he was not suspected—in August we suspected the prisoners—Garrett has borne a good character.
Re-examined. We serve a number of fishmongers—Mr. Grudgington comes nearly every day to pick up his consignment—a number of our vans also deliver to consignees—a pass is required at the gate for carts other than those of the Company—the consignments to Isaacs were in boxes—they were all plaice—Garrett's employment that morning was in another part of the yard—the empties are returned to Grimsby without, altering the label—the consignments to Hooker that day were three kits of skate.
GEORGE ROBUS (Detective Office, Great Northern Railway.) On October 9th I was watching with Warder about 4.40 a.m.—I rushed with him into truck No. 8784—I saw Nicholls when we entered, throwing a fish from a kit which had the canvas cut across the top of a consignment of haddock into a kit on his left with no canvas on, but which had Hooker's label with the consignor's name, Pegg, of Grimsby, on it—Warder said to Nicholls, "What are you doing here"—Nicholls said, "There is one broken"—Garrett had a hoop in his hand—Warder said, "What are you doing?"—he said that Nicholls had asked him to lend him a hand—I examined the canvases in the truck—three had been torn—I weighed the fish from the kit—there were 189 lbs. of haddock and 27 lbs. of plaice—this is the label in Hooker's name on it—Nicholls said it was a kit for Hooker—I turned the waybills up and found three kits invoiced to Hooker, and going back to the bank I found those had been taken from the truck,—and placed on the bank intact—I said to Nicholls, "There are only three kits entered to Hooker here, they are on the bank"—Nicholls examined the labels and satisfied himself that there were three kits for Hooker and made no further remark—I told Nicholls that the fish he was throwing into the dirty kit with Hooker's label on it, were stolen fish, and that he was
making the kit up, that the label was old and the kit was a returned empty—Garrett stood by and heard what was said—he said nothing.
Cross-examined by MR. MOSES. Occasionally kits are in the van which are not entered in the waybill—then it is the checker's duty to enter them—he has to go through the van to find out whether there are any kits unentered—I began to watch at 4 a.m. outside the station—I saw Nicholls go into the second truck from the arches, No. 8784, about five minutes before we made the rush—I cannot say how many kits were in the truck—I found nineteen kits of Hitchcock's fish, besides other fish—I do not think there were fifty; possibly there were twenty to twenty-three, or more, I did not count them.
Re-examined. I found this iron on the bank opposite the truck—it is not the company's property; it is used to open cases—a hammer would answer the purpose—no package was broken to allow the fish to fall on the floor—there was dry dirt on the kit—when the kit comes from Grimsby it is wet and clean—Isaac's fish had been taken away.
WILLIAM BLACK I am in partnership with G. E. Pegg, fish and ice merchant, of Grimsby—on October 8th I consigned to Mr. Hooker three kits of skate weighing 45 stone—that was all I sent him that day—I consigned no haddock or plaice to him.
NATHANIEL CHASE .—I am a checker on the Great Central Railway Company at Grimsby—on October 8th I received from Mr. Pegg three kits of fish consigned to Hooker, Royal Mint Street Station—I made out the consignment note—they were placed in van 9527.
GEORGE WILLIAM HOOKER . I am a fishmonger of 128, Lever Street, St. Luke's—on October 9th, I received from Mr. Pegg three kits containing 45 stone of skate—I had no plaice or haddock consigned to me that day—the label was similar to this produced—my address is at the bottom and the empty is returned without alteration—we do not trouble to take the label off or put another on—I receive consignments from Pegg two or three times a week in kits.
ALFRED HITCHCOCK . I am a fishmonger, of 79, New Road, Bermondsey—on October 8th Mr. Crawford, of Grimsby, invoiced to me nineteen kits of haddock of 13 stone each, which I received on October 9th—five or six were in a slack condition—I had the fish weighed—there were 13 stone short—the kits were about half full, you could see where they were taken off.
Cross-examined by MR. MOSES. I did not weigh all the fish—they had to be delivered at four different places.
EDWARD GEORGE CRAWFORD . I am a fishmonger at Grimsby Docks—on October 8th I consigned to Mr. Hitchcock nineteen kits of haddock addressed to 97, New Road, Bermondsey, London—the kits were all bran spanking new and covered with new canvas on the top—the kits were full.
Cross-examined by MR. MOSES. The fish are packed in ice—when the ice melts the canvas gets slacker.
to Hitchcock in van No. 8781—I also loaded nineteen other boxes of fish—they were in good condition.
CHARLES KENT (776 City.) I was called and took the prisoners into custody on October 9th—on searching I found £25 in gold and 18s. 8d. in silver and bronze on Garrett, and on Nicholls 5s. 8 1/2d. and some small articles.
Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I found some papers on Garrett—I have not got them, they are at the Minories Station—they related to bets—(The witness was directed to get the papers.)
DAVID WARDER (Re-examined.) A checker's wages are 27s. a week—the men are paid on Friday—October 9th was a Thursday—I get that information from our staff officer—I do not know that Nicholls has a tonnage payment of about 8s. a week.
Nicholls, in his defence on oath, said that the canvas and the hoop came off the kit, and it was a piece of canvas and not a plaice that he had in his hand when the detective rushed in and said, "Drop it," and that he did not bring the empty into the van, but asked Garrett to help him. And had no intention to steal the fish.
Garrett, in his defence on oath, said that Nicholls asked him to give him a hand, and he did his duty by doing so, as he was not busy; that he had no intention to steal, and that he was his own banker and gained money by betting, as his papers which the police took from him would show.
CHARLES KENT (Re-examined.) I find that Garrett had the whole of his property returned to him, and that he has signed for it in this book—the entry is "John Garrett: Purse containing £25 18s. 8 1/2d., seven keys, two pocket knives, seven pencils, one pipe, tobacco box, and racing slip."
NOT GUILTY .
THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, November 19th, 1902.
23. THOMAS COLLINS (73) . PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining from Frank Mayle, credit to the amount of £46 7s., 9d. without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt. He received a good character. Four months in the second division. —And
(24) HARRY MOSS (19) , to burglariously breaking out of the dwelling house of John Alfred Howland, having been convicted at North London Sessions on June 4th, 1901. Nine months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
MR. BIGGS Prosecuted, and MR. STEPHENSON Defended.
There being no proof that the prisoner had seen or heard of her husband for seven years, the COMMON SERJEANT held that there was no case to go to the jury.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. RODERICK and MR. DICKENS Prosecuted, and the evidence was interpreted to the prisoner.
LOUIS TRIEBEL : I keep a private hotel at 114, Leman Street, Whitechapel—on October 25th the prosecutor left a box at my place—the prisoner was carrying it for him—on October 28th in the afternoon the prisoner brought me this letter and asked me to give him the box: "Please give the bearer my box, London, 28th October. Hugo Loftier"—I did not open the letter—I said, "I shall not give you the box; let Mr. Loffler come with you"—he then went away, and shortly after he came again with the letter with this written outside the envelope: "As I am now busy with my cases, I cannot get away; please give my box to the bearer"—I again said to the prisoner, "I shall not give you the box"—he said, "Give me back the letter"—I said, "No, the letter belongs to me; I will keep it, and let Mr. Loffler come."
HUGO LOFFLER . I live at 99, Charlotte Street. E.—I know the prisoner—he carried a box for me to Mr. Triebel's restaurant on October 25th—after that, I had nothing further to do with him—I never gave him any authority to apply for my box at Mr. Triebel's—this letter is not in my writing—the contents of the box were worth £9 or £10.
Cross-examined. I have talked with you about going to South Africa, but I never gave you authority to fetch my box away from Mr. Triebel's—I stated at the police court that the contents were worth only £5 or £6, but I have made a list since, and the value is £9 or £10.
JOHN ROBINSON (Dock Constable.) On October 29th, at 1 p.m., I was on duty at St. Katharine's Docks—I heard cries of "Police," and saw the prosecutor and the prisoner having high words—I asked what the matter was, and the prosecutor told me that the prisoner had written a letter trying to obtain a box of clothing belonging to him—I took him into custody.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he did not write the letter, but was asked to deliver it by somebody else whose name he did not know.
GUILTY of uttering. Six months' hard labour.
OLD COURT.—Thursday and Friday, November 20th and 21st, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
THIRD COURT.—Thursday, November 20th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
GUILTY, upon which the Jury found that verdict. Discharged on recognisances.
FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, November 20th, 1902.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. HUTTON and MR. JENKLNS Prosecuted.
GUILTY . Eighteen months' hard labour.
MR. CAMPBELL Prosecuted.
LOUIE PENCE . I am a married woman of 18, May Street, West Kensington—on the afternoon of August 24th, outside the Mansion House, I asked a policeman the way to the tube railway station; the prisoner came up and asked to be allowed to show me the way, as he was going that way—I consented, and went with him to the Post Office Station in Newgate Street—we travelled together to Shepherd's Bush, and in the train he asked me if I could give him change for a sovereign—I gave him 17s., and said I would give him the other 3s. when we got out—the sovereign had two heads—I said, "I do not like this sovereign; "he said "New Man. It is all right since the King is crowned"—I thought it was one of the new coins—at Shepherd's Bush he disappeared—I showed the sovereign to two people at Shepherd's Bush and to a policeman, and was told that it was not a sovereign—I have not got it now, I have lost it—I next saw the prisoner in October outside the Bank—he came up to me and asked me how I was, and if I was living close by—I saw a policeman on the opposite side, and made an excuse that I was going by one of the omnibuses across the way—he asked if he might come with me—I consented, and when I got to the opposite side I gave him into custody.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I have lived for some time in France—you spoke to me sometimes in French—I did not speak to you first.
MARY ANN SOPHIA DENMAN . I am single, and am housemaid at 168, Haverstock Hill—on October 22nd, about 1.30 p.m., I met the prisoner outside the Vaudeville Theatre—he lifted his hat and said, "Good afternoon"—we got into conversation, and he said he had brought some horses over from New York, and that he would want some money and was going to send a cablegram to New York for £9 10s.—he asked me to go with him to Charing Cross Post Office, which I did—he went inside and presently came out and asked me for 6d., as the cablegram cost more than he had—I had not 6d., but gave him a sovereign, and he gave me back the change—he said he should have to wait forty minutes for the money, so we went to the matinee performance at the Strand Theatre—we had two 2s. 6d. seats, for which I gave him a half sovereign, but he gave me-no change—when we came out we went again to Charing Cross Post Office—he went inside, and presently came out and said that they had told him he was to go to the General Post Office—we went there—he went inside and came out and said that he had to pay 17s. 6d. for the cablegram, and would I give
him back the silver that he had given me—I did so, and he said he was 6s. short—he then persuaded me to let him pawn my watch and chain for 6s. to make up the difference—he did so and gave me the ticket—we then went back to the General Post Office—he went inside and I waited outside for over two hours, but saw no more of him that day—I gave information to the police—I saw him the next day at about 10.30 p.m. at Snow Hill Police Station, and identified him from eight or nine other men.
Cross-examined. I am positive you are the man.
WILLIAM CHARLES BATTERSBY . I am assistant to William Battersby, a bawnbroker, of 80, Newgate Street—the pawn ticket produced is one of our firm's—I produce the watch and chain referred to in it—to the best of my belief the prisoner is the man who pawned it—he gave the name of Harrison.
Cross-examined. The man who pawned the watch and chain resembled you in every way—it was pawned on October 22nd for 6s.
CHARLES GREENOUGH (City Detective.) I saw the prisoner at Snow Hill Police Station at 11 p.m. on October 23rd—he was placed with ten other men, and Miss Denman at once identified him—he was charged and replied, "I have never seen the lady before, I only came out of hospital on Wednesday"—that would be the day before—he gave an address at Chipstead Street, Brick Lane, but on inquiry he was not known there—on him I found 5s. 10 1/2d., sixteen pawn tickets, two keys, a comb, and a memorandum.
Cross-examined. You said you were a waiter—you did not say anything about having consignments of cattle from New York—you said you had come out of the hospital on Wednesday, about 12 o'clock.
FREDERICK HUNTER . I live at 78, Chesant Road, Fulham, and am booking clerk at the Shepherd's Bush station of the Central London Railway—on Sunday, August 24th, Mrs. Pence showed me a coin—I examined it and found that it was a Coronation souvenir—it was of no value.
Cross-examined. I have never seen you with Mrs. Pence—I first saw you at the Guildhall Police Court—I did not say there that it was in October when the lady spoke to me.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that on the dates mentioned by the prosecution he was in the hospital.
GUILTY . He then
THIRD COURT.—Friday, Saturday, and Monday, November 21st, 22nd And 24th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. BODKIN Prosecuted;
MR. C. F. GILL, K.C., and MR. CHAS. MATHEWS.
The prisoner received an excellent character.
NOT GUILTY .
FOURTH COURT.—Friday, November 21st, and Monday, November 24th, 1902.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
33. JAMES MORLEY (72) and GEORGE HALL HALL, Conspiring to defraud James Smith Joyce, by inducing him by false pretences to execute a mortgage of his life interest under a certain will and codicils thereto; and unlawfully inducing the said James Smith Joyce to execute the said mortgage with intent to defraud: and conspiring and agreeing together to obtain from Henry Clarkson certain banker's cheques with intent to defraud; and obtaining by false pretences from the said Henry Clarkson banker's cheques for £23 19s., £200, and £54, with intent to defraud.
MR. LEYCESTER and MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL Prosecuted; MR. HORACE AVORY, K.C. and MR. BIRON appeared for Morley, and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS for Hall.
JAMES SMITH JOYCE . I live at 66, Rattery Road, Brixton—I have no occupation—under my mother's will I succeeded to a life interest of £100 per annum—the corpus was £3,000—I had a power of appointment by will, of my share—previous to my mother's death I was short of money and went to Hall to obtain a loan, but did not succeed—about a month after her death I obtained a loan of £60 from a Mr. Collyer—I have known Morley about twelve years—I told him I had a life interest of £100 a year under my mother's will—on January 24th, 1901, I received a letter from him, asking me to call upon him in Gray's Inn Passage—I called the next day, and he asked me to lend him £250 on some spirit warrants, and then proposed that I should invest £500 in a business called Mason's Stores, and I agreed—the office of Mason's Stores is in Gray's-Inn Passage—I saw Hall at the office, and he drew up a charge for £500 and a bill for £400, both of which I signed and left with Hall at Morley's suggestion—I was going to borrow money from Hall to lend to Morley—with the bill I was to lend Morley £250, pay off £60 which I owed to Mr. Collyer, and the balance I was to invest in Mason's Stores—later on I found out that the spirit warrants were not worth £250, and I wrote to Hall for the return of the bill and the charge—the next day I was in Morley's office when Hall brought the two documents in—he put them down upon the table for me to take up, but Morley took them up instead—I asked him for them, but he would not give me them—I told him I would consult a solicitor about it, and I consulted Messrs. Finny, Thomas and Co. of Chancery Lane, but a few days after, at Mr. Morley's suggestion, I wrote to them instructing them to take no further proceedings—on February 5th, 1901, I wrote to Mr. Hall, asking him to obtain an advance for me, and later on I executed a mortgage to a Miss Payne for £150—out of the money I paid Mr. Morley £61 3s. 1d. on account of Mason'—I got £10 and the dock warrants out of the
transaction—the dock warrants were afterwards mortgaged to Mr. Barron—Hall rendered me an account showing how the money had been disposed of—in March, 1901. I executed a mortgage for £350 to a Mrs. Close, out of which £69 4s. 5d. was paid to Morley on account of Mason's Stores—I saw it handed to Morley—out of Mrs. Close's mortgage Miss Payne's mortgage was paid off—on March 9th, 1901. I executed another mortgage to Miss Payne for £150, out of which £99 (5s. 1d. was paid to Morley on account of Mason's Stores—in the same month I executed a mortgage for £600 to James Mason Stores, Limited, which was afterwards charged to Mr. Barron to go into the Stores—Mason's Stores at Gray's Inn Passage was a bottle business—they had a grocery branch at Bromley—about March I became a Director of the Company—very little business was done at Gray's Inn Passage—in June, 1901, Mr. Morley told me that a Mr. Doig owed Mrs. Morley £686, and he asked me to take over the debt and execute a charge on my life interest for £586 in favour of her—I was to make £100 out of the transaction—I executed the charge, Exhibit 9, in Mr. Hall's office—he put it into his safe and said he would fill in the date and get it stamped—on July 15th, 1901, I executed a mortgage for £300 to Mrs. Charlotte Elizabeth Denning—that was given by me to Mrs. Denning as a security for a debt due from Mason's Stores—in August I executed another mortgage for £20 to Miss Payne—she was trying to sell my life interest, and I gave her that to stop her—Mr. Morley was to pay the interest on the original mortgage to Miss Payne, but it was not paid, and that is the reason she was trying to sell my life interest—it was eventually sold—in September, 1901, there was a mortgage for £160 to the Legal General Investment Company, Limited—Mr. Hall was acting as my solicitor in respect of all these transactions—proceedings have been taken against me in respect of some of the bills I signed with regard to Mason's Stores.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. The only complaint I made at Bow Street was that I was induced to execute a mortgage for £586 on my life interest on the understanding that Mr. Doig owed £686 to Mrs. Morley—that is the only charge I make now—I make no complaint with regard to any of the other mortgages I executed; they are all in order—I should not have taken any action at all only I was frightened into it—my mother died in December, 1901—I was in debt at the time—as soon as she died I set to work to raise money on my life interest—I was under the impression that I should be able to get the corpus, £3,000, and not merely the income—I took legal advice on the subject of Mr. Priest, and he said he would take Counsel's opinion—later he told me that, in Counsel's opinion, I should succeed in getting the £3,000 distributed to me—an application was made to the Court, but was refused, because there were some infants interested with regard to the mortgage of June, 1901, Mr. Morley told me that Mr. Doig owed the £686 in connection with the Tivoli Music Hall, Bristol; Mr. Doig had entered into a contract to purchase the music hall, and that Mrs. Morley had advanced him £500 to pay the deposit—it was in conesquence of Mr. Doig's statement that he did not owe the money that I made if this charge—I do not know that Mr. Doig in December, 1897, had commenced
an action to recover that money which had been paid on his behalf—I was shown the counterfoils of two cheques, one for £100 and one for £400, with which the deposit had been paid—I was told that the balance between the £500 and the £686 was made up of costs and other expenses which Airs. Morley had paid—I do not remember the dates of the cheques—the cheques produced correspond with the counterfoils that were shown tome—they are drawn in the name of a business which Mrs. Morley was the proprietor of about that time—I have known Mr. Morley twelve years, but I have not known Mrs. Morley all that time—I have occasionally visited at their house in Brompton Square—I was told that Mrs. Morley had advanced the money to Mr. Doig out of her own separate property—if Mr. Doig had owed her £5001 should have nothing to complain of.
Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. I was not first of all introduced to Mr. Hall by Mr. Morley—I had been to Mr. Hall before with a view to his obtaining a loan for me on my life interest, but he did not do so, and I went to Mr. Collyer—he got me a loan of £50—Mr. Hall had nothing to do with that transaction—the next time I saw Mr. Hall was on January 25th, when I was taken to him by Mr. Morley—I had the conversation with Mr. Morley about the spirit warrants before going to Mr. Hall—I had not got the £250 to lend to Mr. Morley, and he suggested that I should give a charge on my life interest, and suggested going to Mr. Hall to put the document into proper legal form—Mr. Morley explained to Mr. Hall in my presence what he had agreed with me, and asked him to draw up the necessary document, and then it "was that Mr. Hall wrote out the promissory note for £400 and the charge on my life interest to secure it—I gave the charge in order that £250 might be borrowed upon it from somebody—Mr. Hall was to get the money; if he got £250 he was to pay to Mr. Morley what remained after paying the debts that had been previously incurred, and this was done—he rendered me an account of how the money had been disposed of—I had nothing to complain of—the 63 3s. 1d. was paid to Mr. Morley on my instructions—the money was handed to Mr. Morley by Mr. Hall in the presence of Mr. Hayworth and myself—as only £61 3s. 1d. had been paid to Mr. Morley, I suggested to Mr. Hall that he should try and get some more money advanced, and he discovered Messrs, Bloomer—before they would agree to lend any money they wanted a written undertaking from me to pay them twenty guineas, their costs—I gave it, and they advanced £350—out of that Messrs. Collyer and Miss Payne were paid off; Messrs. Bloomer and Mr. Hall were paid their costs, and the balance of £69 4s. 5d. was paid to Mr. Morley—Mr. Hall rendered me an account of that transaction, Exhibit 33—that transaction was perfectly regular, and I understood it—the same day, March 6th, I wrote a letter to Mr. Hall asking him to get me some more money from Miss Payne—he did so—it was in respect of that £150 that I ultimately sold my life interest—that was a second charge; she came in after Mrs. lose—the other mortgage for £20 that she had was given to her to stop her selling my life interest—that was executed while the proceedings in Chancery were taking place—that transaction was carried out by Mr. Hall—it was a proper thing to do in my interest—Mr. Morley suggested
the mortgage for £586—I understood that transaction—Mr. Morley gave me a receipt; I instructed him to take it to Mr. Hall for him to prepare the necessary documents—I had not previously discussed it with Mr. Hall—up to that time he knew nothing about the arrangements made between Mr. Morley and myself—when I went into Mr. Hall's office he was engaged in preparing the two documents, and he finished them in my presence—before I signed them Mr. Hall read them over to me and told me that the assignment would require a £3 stamp—I did not expect him to pay the £3 out of his own pocket; Mr. Morley was to give it to him, he knew I had not the money—I got the document back from Mr. Hall undated and not stamped—I did not take any steps to have it stamped.
Re-examined. I have had some business experience—I was a brewer for six years—for some years I have been a commission agent, but I did not make a living out of it—I have never done any business to earn a living—I am fifty-six years old—the paper I wrote out before I went to see Mr. Hall on June 6th was written at Mr. Morley's dictation—when I saw Mr. Hall I understood him to say that I should get my money from Mr. Doig—out of all the mortgages I have only had about 170—about £230 has gone into Mason's Stores—Mrs. Morley has the charge of £380 on my life interest—I have the debt against Mr. Doig and the spirit warrants.
JOHN DOIG . I lived at 4, Hardwick Place, N.W., and am a secretary of companies—I have known Morley and his wife since 1895 or 1896—it is not true that I owe Mrs. Morley £686; I do not owe her a penny—in 1897 I entered into a contract to purchase the Tivoli Music Hall at Bristol as a nominee of Mr. Morley and at his request—the reason why it was done in my name and not his was because he had been bankrupt—he was carrying on business in his wife's name—he said it was for the benefit of the family—I provided £100—at that time he was indebted to me—the transaction was never carried out—the letter of September 13th, 1897, written by me to Mrs. Morley, was written at Mr. Morley's dictation—neither Mr. Morley nor his wife have ever taken steps to recover the £686 they say I owe them.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I am licensee of the Three Tuns, in Aldersgate Street—I was there in June, 1901—that is a very valuable property—I am not interested in any other licensed houses in London, but I have been—I signed the contract for the purchase of the Tivoli Music Hall—under that contract £500 was payable as a deposit, I think Mr. Morley paid it; he arranged the whole thing—I was only the nominal purchaser—I paid £100, I did not pay a further £400—I cannot recollect whether I said at the police court, "I paid £100, Mrs. Morley did not pay the rest"—Messrs. Fedman and Goodman were acting for the vendors—I believe the action to recover back the deposit was brought in my name—I cannot recollect whether I gave an acceptance for £3,000 to carry out the bargain—the action was also to restrain Messrs. Fedman and Goodman from parting with those bills—it was brought on the ground that I had been induced to enter into the contract by misrepresentation, but it was subsequently withdrawn—although it was brought in my
name, I had nothing to do with it—I swore an affidavit in the action—that affidavit was true—the £3,000 was not paid, and the contract went off—it was sold to somebody else, and the £500 deposit was forfeited—until I saw my affidavit at the police court I never suggested that I was Mr. Morley's nominee, I never dreamt anything about it—I said at the police court that the profits were to be divided into three parts, one for Mr. Harris, one for his wife, and one for myself; that was true.
Re-examined. In the action that was brought with regard to the Tivoli at Bristol, Mr. Brown was acting as Mr. Morley's solicitor—I never gave him any instructions—I cannot recollect who drew up my affidavit—I was Mr. Morley's dupe, and as such I made myself responsible to Mrs. Morley by giving the bills by which I promised to pay her the £500—I have never been in a position to meet the bills—the Three Tuns, Aldersgate Street, is not worth £20,000—I should not like to say the lowest price I would take for it—I am not the freeholder; it belongs to the City Corporation.
HENRY CLARKSON . I am a solicitor, of 9, Ironmonger Lane, E.C.—I know Abraham Robinson; he has occasionally introduced business to me—I remember him bringing Mr. Morley to me on August 2nd, 1901—he said, "I have a gentleman here who wants to borrow some money," I think he said £300,. "upon some property, he has the deed with him; I had better leave him to give you the information about it or tell you what he wants"—Morley then produced a mortgage deed; he said his wife had advanced Mr. Joyce £586 upon his share in his mother's estate; that the parties had agreed to make an application to the Court to have the estate divided at once; that Counsel's opinion had been obtained that that could be done; that the trustee was willing, but wished to be protected by the Court; that his wife had expected the application to be made before the Long Vacation, but that it could not come on; that she was a lady of property; that she had two mortgages of £3,000 each, but that she could not get the money in at once as it was all locked up; that she had bought a provision business and paid a deposit, and had to complete the purchase in a few days, and that she wanted to borrow £300 on the security to enable her to complete; he said that if she did not complete it then she would lose her deposit and also the business, which was a valuable one; that Mr. Hall, of Warwick Court, knew all about the matter; that he had prepared the deed, and if I saw him he would explain the whole matter to me and give me any information I required—I told him I could probably get the money at the beginning of the following week, it was Bank Holiday week, and I would see Mr. Hall and make the necessary inquiries and let him know if I could do it—he then said that his wife was an invalid, and that he held her power of attorney and he could do the whole business—I said I should not allow any client of mine to advance money unless I had the deed executed by the party herself—he said she suffered from her heart or something of that kind, but if that was so he would get her to come down to my office—he then produced a bill for £25 and asked me to discount it—I refused, and told him that was not my business,' and that I was not in the "habit of discounting bills—he pressed me to do so and
offered me a guinea for my trouble, and said that it could be taken as part of the £300, and left the mortgage with me as security—I then gave him a cheque for £23 19s.—that is all that passed at that interview—the same afternoon I went to see Mr. Hall—I produced to him the mortgage and told him that Mr. Morley had been to me to obtain an advance upon it, and that he had referred me to him for the necessary information—he gave me the information I required—I asked him if the £586 had been advanced all right, and he said yes—the next day I went to Somerset House to see the will—on August 6th, Mr. Morley and his wife called again—Mr. Robinson was present then—Mrs. Morley produced eight bonds of £25 each in Mason's Stores, Limited, and said, "I have to settle my purchase to-day; I have brought these debentures, they are good, they pay 6 per cent. I will leave them with you as well as the mortgage if you will let me have £200 pending the completion of the mortgage for £300"—she pressed me to do it, and I, having enquired into the matter, gave her an open cheque for £200, payable to Mrs. J. Morley—it is endorsed J. Morley—the next day, August 7th, I went to see the solicitor to the first mortgage and got particulars of the different charges—on the 8th I went to see the solicitors to the trustee, and discovered that there was another charge of which I knew nothing—the same day Mr. Morley called upon me; I said, "I find from the trustee that Mrs. Denning has given notice of a charge"; he said, "She has a security, and my wife will no doubt leave her security with you as an additional security"—I was satisfied with that—the next day he called again with Mrs. Morley, and the mortgage was executed in my presence, and I gave Mrs. Morley a cheque for £54, being the balance of the £300 less twenty guineas my costs—I gave notice of the mortgage to Mr. Joyce and to the solicitors for the prior mortgagees, and the trustee—about the end of September or the beginning of October, 1901,1 searched the file at Somerset House in reference to Mason's Stores and on December 20th I issued a writ against Mrs. Morley for the principal and interest—I could not serve the writ, and applied for substituted service, but could not get the order, consequently that action never came to anything—on February 6th, 1902, I wrote to Mr. Hall, Exhibit 15, and got a reply on the 7th—on the same day, the 6th, I wrote to Mr. Morley and got a reply on the 9th—on February 20th I again wrote to Mr. Hall, and to that I got a reply on the 21st—I never succeeded in getting any of the money back.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have never taken any proceedings against Mr. Morley either civil or criminal—my application for substituted service of the writ against Mrs. Morley was refused—this prosecution had been going on at Bow Street about a month before I was summoned as a witness—I have since entered into an arrangement with the purchaser of the life interest by which I hope to get my money back—if the Judge in Chancery had made the order no doubt there would have been money enough to meet everybody.
Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. No statement as to Mrs. Morley's means or about her in any way was made by Mr. Hall except that the money was advanced—my principal security was the life interest—my
only other security was my right to sue Mrs. Morley upon her covenants—before I went to Mr. Hall I read the mortgage and noticed that it was subject to prior encumbrances to the amount of £1,100—Mr. Hall did not say to me "You must not rely upon me as to prior encumbrances"—I made some inquiries, but Mr. Hall gave me information about some of them—it was not until the 8th that I found out about Mrs. Denning's mortgage.
ABRAHAM ROBINSON . I am a furrier, of 84, Newington Green Road, Canonbury—on August 2nd, 1901, I was outside the offices of Messrs. Robinson and Fisher, King William Street—I saw Morley, he asked me if Messrs. Robinson's offices were upstairs—I told him there was no one in—he said, "Oh, bother, I promised to get £300, and now the man is not here"—I said, "What security have you got?"—he said, "I have got a security like a bank note"—I then took him to Mr. Clarkson—I said, "Mr. Clarkson, here is a gentleman who wants to borrow some money, he says he has a first-class security," and Morley took out a mortgage for £586 and a bill in he name of Joyce—he said he wanted £300 at once, as his wife had bought a provision business for her grandson, and she wanted £300 to complete the purchase—he also said that his wife had plenty of money, but it was all out in mortgages—Mr. Clarkson said, "If it is all right I can let you have the money; I will make enquiries"—Mr. Morley then said he must have £25 at once, and asked Mr. Clarkson to discount a bill, which he did—I was also present when Mr. and Mrs. Morley were at Mr. Clarkson's office—Mrs. Morley said, "I must have the money or else I lose the deposit I paid on a provision business that I have bought for my grandson; I have got plenty of money, but I cannot get it in; I have lent here £586," referring to the mortgage—on a subsequent occasion Mr. Morley took me to Mr. Hall's office about the mortgage for £600, and a conversation arose about the £586, and Mr. Hall said that it had passed over in his office.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have known Mr. Clarkson over twenty years—I introduce business to him if I can—I did not expect to make anything by taking Mr. Morley to him—I did not say at Bow Street that I took him to Mr. Clarkson to-get my commission of 2£ per cent.—I expected something from Mr. Morley, but I never got anything—when Mr. Morley asked for the £300 I did not hear Mr. Clarkson say that he would have to see the trustee and make enquiries.
Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. Mr. Morley took me to Mr. Hall's office several times—the first time was because Mr. Morley wanted to raise some money on the £600 mortgage.
Monday, November 24th.
ARTHUR GEORGE CLARKSON . I am a solicitor, and a son of Henry Clarkson—I assist my father in his business, at 9, Ironmonger Lane—I was present at an interview on August 2nd, 1901, between Mr. Morley, Mr. Robinson, and my father—Mr. Robinson introduced Mr. Morley to my father, and said, "I have brought a gentleman who wants an advance on a certain mortgage"—Mr. Morley produced a mortgage of a life interest of a Mr. Joyce—he said he wanted £300 on it; it was a mortgage given to his—wife; she was a wealthy lady, and had two mortgages out, of £3,000 each,
but she could not get them in in time; that she wanted the money quickly because she had signed a contract for the purchase of a business, and it was necessary that the matter should be completed the following week; she had paid the deposit, and she would lose it and the business if the matter was not settled then—he also said that he had a power of attorney from his wife and could sign any security we wished on her behalf—my father said that he could not take a mortgage executed under a power of attorney, but that Mrs. Morley must come up to his office—Mr. Morley said he would bring her—I was not present when Mrs. Morley came.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I heard my father say that he must make enquiries into the security and inquire of the trustees before he agreed to advance the money—certain information was given to him to enable him to make inquiries—I cannot say whether the name of the trustees' solicitor was mentioned—I did not hear anything mentioned about the prior charges that were already upon the security.
THOMAS SMITH BENNETT . I am a musical instrument dealer, of 8, Red Lion Square, W.C.—about three years ago I was carrying on the, business of a bottle merchant at that address—in the August of that year I advertised it for sale and got an answer in the name of Morley—I cannot remember the Christian name—Mr. Morley called upon me and said he had seen the advertisement and asked for particulars of the business—he said he wanted it for a friend named Mason—I told him I wanted £200—he said he had not got money enough to pay for it all, but that he had great expectations, and if I was inclined to take part of the money in cash and part in bills, he would be glad to make arrangements with me—he said he had a power of attorney to act for Mr. Mason, and he would see that the bills were met—I agreed to take £100 down, and the other £100 in four bills of £25 each—the bills were drawn up and the £100 paid in Mr. Brown's office, a solicitor in Bedford Row—Mr. Brown handed over the money, I think—Mr. Mason was present—I have only received £18 15s. on the bills—I have applied many times for the balance, but have not succeeded—the business was afterwards transferred to 5, 6, and 7 Gray's Inn Passage—when I sold the business it was making a profit of £250 a year.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I sold it because I was getting too old to work it—it is not true that I sold it because it had come to grief—Mr. Morley made full inquiries into it before he agreed to purchase it—my son-in-law continued in the business after it changed hands until it was sold up in October or November last year—he was in Mr. Morley's employment.
JAMES COSTA MASON . I am an accountant—Mr. Bennett's business of a bottle merchant was bought in my name by a Mrs. Harris—I acted in the matter at Mr. Morley's request—Mrs. Harris is Mr. Morley's daughter—I did not find any money for the purchase, Mrs. Harris did—after the business was purchased I acted as traveller at 12s. a week—I had no share in the profits—Mr. Harris, the husband of Mrs. Harris, and Mr. George conducted the business—I remained in the business until it was turned into a company in October, 1900—I do not know how long the business went on—I was given £165 in shares, no cash—I did not pay anything for them
—I received no dividend on them—I personally paid the £100 to Mr. Bennett—it was handed to me by Mr. Morley—the money paid to Mr. Bennett on one of the bills came out of the business—I had nothing to do with the handing over of that money—the £600 mortgage of Mr. Joyce was in my name, but I had nothing to do with it—I did not advance any money on it.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. The business was perfectly genuine, bringing in a profit—after some time a grocery branch was opened at Bromley—that was before the business was turned into a company—I believe it was the branch at Bromley that came to grief and brought the business to the ground—it is quite true that when the business was purchased in my name in 1899 I had expectations from an uncle.
Re-examined. It was not my business—I was acting as nominee.
EBENEZAR CHAPMAN . I am a clerk in the department of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file of James Mason's Stores, Limited—the statement of the nominal capital was presented for registration by Mr. George Hall Hall, solicitor, of 3, Warwick Court, W.C.—the nominal capital was £500, divided into 100 £5 shares—Mr. Hall was acting in all respects as solicitor in the formation of the Company—I find on the file particulars of a mortgage dated November 21st, 1900, for £.3,800, issued upon the whole property and undertaking of the Company, including its unpaid capital; and debentures to a total of £1,625 have been issued on that mortgage up to date.
ALFRED POTTER . I formerly resided at 54, Brompton Square, S.W.—I know Mr. and Mrs. Morley—they lived next door to me—they left about three or three and a half years ago and Mr. and Mrs. Harris then came to live there—I did not take particular notice when they did leave.
FRANK KNELL (Detective Sergeant E.) On September 5th, I saw Morley in custody at Bow Street—I had a warrant for his arrest—I read the warrant to him, and he replied, "I never had the money; it is nothing to do with me; it is simply a case of blackmail; Joyce will swear anything for twopence; my wife had the money and not me"—the same morning,. I arrested Hall at his office in Warwick Court—I read the warrant to him, he said "Yes"—on the way to the station, he said "I have a copy of the deed, the original is in the hands of the mortgagee; of course Morley had the charge for the purposes of the mortgage; I simply acted as solicitor"—I produce certain office copies bearing the seals of the respective Courts at which they were issued of judgments obtained against Mrs. Morley—most of them are in 1898—there are two in 1902.
ARTHUR JOHN PINNEY . I am a clerk at the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice—I produce the original depositions of Mrs. Julia Morley in an action of Thomas May, as judgment creditor against James Mason's Stores, Limited.
The COURT considered that there was no evidence to go to the Jury against HALL.
NOT GUILTY .
JOHN DOIG (Re-examined.) I contracted to buy the Tivoli Music Hall as Mr. Morley's nominee—the arrangement was that the profits were to be divided into three parts, one part to go to his son-in-law Mr. Harris, one
part to Mrs. Harris, and one part to myself—I did not know then that Mrs. Harris was Mr. Morley's daughter.
----HANDCOCKS (Detective-Sergeant E.) On September 5th, I arrested Morley—I saw Mrs. Morley the same day—she seemed to be in good health.
Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have not a good medical knowledge—I do not know the look of a person who has had a fit of apoplexy—I was with Mrs. Morley two hours, searching the house.
Morley, in his defence on oath, said that it was not true that Mr. Doig was simply a nominee in the purchase of the Tivoli Music Hall; that Mr. Doig borrowed £500 from Mrs. Morley to pay the deposit, and that he owed her altogether £1,000, the other £500 being the profits on the Lyric Hotel, Shaftesbury Avenue, and the Red Lion, Fenchurch Street, in which they were jointly interested; that Mrs. Morley also paid £186 in law costs for him, making Mr. Doig's indebtedness on the Tivoli transaction £686; that he was constantly asking him for the money, but could never get it; that as he had known him for a long time and was friendly, he did not like to sue him, and therefore sold the debt to Mr. Joyce for £586, giving him the benefit of £100; that it was untrue that Mr. Joyce agreed to lend £250 on the spirit warrants, but that he agreed to buy them for £350, and that the money he received from Mr. Joyce was on this account and was not for the purpose of Mason's Stores; that it was not true that he said anything about his wife's means to Mr. Clarkson; that he went to Mr. Clarkson to raise money on the mortgage, and gave him all the information he required and asked for.
MORLEY, GUILTY of the obtaining;
NOT GUILTY of conspiracy. Two previous convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour.
OLD COURT.—Saturday November 22nd,, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
34. ALBERT EDWARD BUSTARD (31) , PLEADED GUILTY to indecently assaulting Dora Emily Allen and Emily Florence Allen, girls under the age of 13 years. He received a good character. Discharged on recognisances.
MR. HUTTON, for the prosecution offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. ELLIOTT Prosecuted.
GEORGE GASTON . I live at 5, Grove Road, Tottenham—on October 1st, between 3 and 3.30, I was at home at work, and saw a cart driven by I believe Brandon—Dewey was by his side, hitting the horse with a whip or a stick—they were going as fast as the horse could gallop—I first saw them between the church and the recreation ground—I saw them before they came to cross Norman Street—it appeared to me that they were racing another cart which was going along Ironmonger Row, because they were halloaing out—they seemed to try to turn into Norman Street, but could not do so, because the horse was going at such a pace—they had to pass another van almost opposite No 45, on the near side—they passed the cart, and went to the end of the turning and turned to the right—the road bends there, and they came to the back of the houses, and then back to Norman Street—I saw the child just after the wheel passed over it—that was long before they got to Norman Street—I saw the wheel leave the child's body—I went over, and ran after the cart a quarter of a mile—Dewey was in it, but Brandon had left the cart.
Cross-examined. I had come into Helmet Row from Old Street, and had gone about a quarter the length of the road when first my attention was attracted—I think there is a man-hole by the jeweller's shop, and another to the right—the child was knocked down almost immediately after I heard the cart approaching—the man was sitting on the edge of the cart—I did not see any children—Iwas twenty or thirty yards from the child when I first noticed it—I know Dewey pretty well; he was not racing when he passed me, but he was afterwards.
CHARLES MONYPENNY . I live at 25, Radnor Street, St. Luke's—about 3.30 on October 31st, I was in Helmet Row, between the footpath and the burial ground and saw a cart laden with rubbish—one man was driving, and the other had the whip and stood up—they were going twelve or fourteen miles an hour—when they got within twelve yards of Norman Street, and before they crossed it, they shouted "Wish "to the horse, they then crossed Norman Street, and on the near side there was a van in the road, and they pulled round it to avoid collision, and I saw the child fall.
Cross-examined. They seemed to have lost control of the horse, and shouted "Wish "to it—it seemed to me that from that point they were doing their best to pull it up.
Re-examined. I mean that the horse got out of their power and there was no chance of stopping it.
By the COURT. There is a dead wall there, the horse seemed to have turned round there as they did not want it to graze itself.
ISRAEL ROOTS . I live at 24, Popple Street, Bethnal Green, at the corner of Norman Street—on October 24th, about 3 o'clock, I heard shouts of "Stop the cart"—I opened the window and saw a two wheel cart with brick dust, passing my door, and the wheel went right over the body of a child which I had not seen before it was knocked down—I ran out, and the driver came up, though the cart did not stop—I saw one man in the
cart, I ran after it; he was galloping all the way; and was stopped by a constable at the corner of Popple Street.
Cross-examined. I shouted to him to stop, but the horse went on at a gallop.
MRS. JONES. I live at 44, St. Paul's Buildings—on October 21st about three o'clock I was at the corner of Homer Road, and saw the cart coming and the child knocked down, and the left wheel go over it.
Cross-examined. The impression on my mind was that the horse had taken fright—I saw the other little ones get out of the way.
ELIZABETH GARDNER . I live at 2, Panton Street—on October 21st I was standing at the corner of Homer Road and Norman Street, and saw a brick cart dashing along—I did not see the child run over—Dewey was standing at the horse's head; I said, "Are you aware you have run over a child?" he said, "Good God, Missis, have I?"I said, "Yes, will you stop there till I come back?" but I did not go back.
GEORGE HATT (Policeman) On October 21st I was in Panton Street and saw a brick cart being driven along—I stopped it; the man got off the cart, and I told him I should take him back while inquiry was made, and I did so.
CHARLES COOPER (31 P.) I am in charge of the City Road Police Station—on October 21st Dewey was brought in and I cautioned him—he said, "The horse overpowered me, and when I found what I had done I was mad with fright and drove away"—he was quite sober.
HENRY KENNA (Detective Sergeant G.) On October 21st, about five o'clock, I went to Brandon's employer's and asked Brandon to go with me to the station—I cautioned Brandon—he said, "I met Dewey near the railway station about twelve o'clock; we had a drink and went from there to Bridgwater Square and had a pot of ale; I drove the cart; I saw three children, and shouted to them, but the other chap touched my arm."
Dewey in his defence upon oath stated that he had been in the employ of Stephen Liddiard five years, driving his carts, and this was the first time an accident had happened; that the horse shied at a man hole, for which he struck him twice with the whip; that it was a quiet horse, and one which he was accustomed to drive, but after being struck he went off at a trot; that he saw three children, but had, not got the reins; that one child was run over; that he (Dewey) got frightened, and waited for a constable to come up, and somebody struck him; that the horse was about nine years old, and had shied before; and that he only struck it to chastise it; and that there were about 24 cwt. of bricks in the cart.
Brandon, in his defence upon oath, stated that he also had been in Messrs. Liddiard's service five years, and had been in the habit of driving, but had never driven this horse; that there was a van on the near side of the tree', and three children sitting there: that he halloaed out "Heigh," but one of them was run over, and he pulled up the horse directly.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended.
HENRY WHITLNG . I am coachman at 14, East Cottages—on October 16th I was in the Victoria beer-house, East Finchley, and heard the prisoner in another compartment—he was very drunk and they refused to serve him—he came into my compartment and said "There have been several hay stacks set on fire round about, and to-morrow there will be several more by Wobbles"—he is a tailor.
Cross-examined. He said that as loud as I am talking now—no one else was there—I am in Mr. Haynes' employ, of Manor Farm, and am known as his coachman—the prisoner walked 'close up to me—I know Mr. Stanfield—I did not see him that evening—I heard next day that he was there and saw him outside the same public-house next day, Sunday the 19th, the day after the fire—I spoke to him first—I knew then that he had been at Delamore's on the 16th—I said that I had heard him say that Wobbles would set the stack on fire—he said, "I heard nothing"—I did not reply that several people heard him as well as me, nor did I say"You dare deny my words on Wednesday," or "You come up with me on Wednesday, and you will be well paid"—all the conversation between me and Stanfield was "Did you hear Wobbles use those words"—there was no one else in that compartment that night.
Re-examined, Stanfield is a gentleman's son—he is employed nowhere present—I have met him in public-houses—I have known him for ears—no one has paid me anything for giving evidence.
SAMUEL PINDER . I am foreman at the Manor Farm Dairy, Highgate, in the Company's employ—they had some hay-stacks at Bishop's Avenue in a paddock, enclosed with wire fencing—the road runs alongside he paddock—the stacks were sixty or seventy yards from the road—there an iron gate into the paddock—a man can climb over it—on October 17th at 10 a.m. I saw the stacks safe and went away to the lower part of the farm—I went back about 11 a.m. and two of the three stacks were a fire—they had been lighted from the windward side, the farthest from, he road—I got assistance—the fire was got out at 12 next day—the damage as about £400—I know the prisoner—I saw him on the Saturday morning between 10 and 11 in the road, looking over the fence at the men—the, stacks were so situated that if one had been lighted the wind would drive the fire to the other.
WILLIAM JOSEPH EMMERSON . I am an omnibus attendant at the Bald Faced Stag—the public house is opposite—on the left, and the 'buses stand on the right—I know the prisoner as Wobbles—he passed me on Friday, October 17th, between 10 and 10.10 a.m.—I was on the 'bus stand, giving the horses feed—he was going towards the railway station—he said, "Good morning Stick," and I said, "Good morning"—I saw no more of him—I saw nothing the fire, but I heard of it half an hour afterwards—you could walk my stable to the stacks in six or seven minutes.
Cross-examined. I was at the yard on the day after the fire, Saturday,
but did not see Wobbles go by that day—I have been there three years last August—the last time I saw him was a month or five weeks before—I have never seen him in front of the Bald Faced Stag for about an hour; I should notice him if he was there, because so many of them stand there and speak—I did not see him in front of me on the day before the fire.
Re-examined. We do not have fires every day.
THOMAS AYRES (Policeman S.) I received information about this fire, and went to the prisoner's house in Stanley Road, New Southgate; that is about a mile and a half from Bishop's Avenue, twenty-five minutes' walk—he was not at home—I then went to the yard, and found him inside the garden, looking at two burning ricks—I called him out and asked him to account for his whereabouts yesterday—he said, "I left home at nine yesterday morning. I went to the Flag Staff beer-house and had a half of ale; I then spoke to John Page, of Eaton's Villas, Sidney Road, New Southgate; Page was at his front gate; I was speaking to him about half an hour. I then went to Mr. Press', Royal Oak, and had half of ale, and spoke to Mr. Press about hay-cutting for Sanger's Circus people. I left there about ten and went home and peeled some potatoes. I was in doors about twenty minutes, and then went out."—I asked him where he went to?—he said, "I went to Mr. Worral's, the Alexandra Arms, and had a half of ale"—I said, "What time would that be?"—he said, "About ten minutes past twelve; some workmen were there having their dinner"—I then told him I should take him in custody on suspicion of firing the two ricks—he said, "That is a bit more of it"—I took him to the station—the Flag Staff is on the freehold, about five minutes' walk from the prisoner's house—the villas where Mr. Page lives are in the City Road, and Mr. Worrall's is about three minutes' walk from him in Pembroke Road—if he was going from home or from the Alexandra Arms his nearest way would be to pass the Bald Faced Stag.
Cross-examined. I saw him in his cell in consequence of a message by another officer, and he told me he had seen a constable standing by the Flag Staff that morning, who he should know again—he said that he saw a girl at work at the Flag Staff, and saw a sweep in Pembroke Road, and had seen two men working at some tar palings opposite Mr. Page's—he told me to go to the Flag Staff and enquire there, and said. "I saw the landlord's son; if you go and see Mr. Press, his married daughter came into the bar when I left"—I do not know her, or whether she is here.
CHARLES BRYANT (Station Sergeant.) I was on duty when the prisoner was brought in on October 18th—I asked him if he knew why he had been brought in there—he said, "Yes, I think so"—he made a statement, which I took down in writing, and he signed it of his own accord (Beading): "I left home at 9 a.m., and spoke to John Page, Deacon's Terrace, Sidney Road, New Southgate, for half an hour; then to Flag Staff, was served by a girl (9.30), stopped half an hour, was served with half of ale (10); spoke to the landlord's son. I then went home, remained indoors twenty minutes (10.20), and then went to Mr. Worral's (Alexandra), had half of ale, was served by the barmaid, remained fifteen minutes (10.35), went home, and stopped there till this morning. In Worral's during the dinner
hour,—while the men were having dinner, and arrived home at 12.30 p.m. I only went into Mr. Worral's once."
Cross-examined. He said he was not at East Finchley on that day.
CHARLES ALBERT WORRALL . I keep the Alexandra public house, New Finchley—I saw the prisoner in my house about 12.14 on the day before he was arrested—that was the dinner hour—he did not have his dinner there—people do have dinner there—he had not been in the house before that day.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he and his four brothers were hay tyers; that he left home at 9 a.m. to go to work at Fry son Manor, but the wind was too high for work, and he went to the Royal Oak, and stopped ten or fifteen minutes, and the landlord served him, and when he came out he saw two men at work on the footpath, and stopped to look at them for ten minutes, and Mr. Page came out of his villa and stood speaking to him for half an hour; that he then walked to the Flag Staff, three or four minutes' walk off, where a young woman served him, and stopped there nearly half an hour, and then went round towards the urinal, and saw a constable, who he was quite sure was not Taylor; that he saw a young woman in black without a hat come in for some ale in a jug; that Mr. Press, the landlord, served him at the Royal Oak with a glass of ale, and they conversed about cutting some hay, and he was there till about 11 o'clock; that a young man with a had and shovel came in and was served; that he then left and went towards Muswell Hill, and saw Bowden, a sweep, go into a house in Sidney Terrace; and that he then went home for twenty minutes and peeled some potatoes, and came out and went into the Alexandra about twelve and stopped there quarter of an hour, and then went home, and did not come out again till the next morning; that on the night before he fire he was drunk, and did not remember being at the public house the right before the fire; that he saw Stick outside the place the next day, but did not know whether Stick saw him; and that he had always been on friendly terms with Stick; that he was at work tying hay for Mr. Lane when he had the last fine two years ago, and earned about ten shillings a day.
Witnesses for the Defence.
WILLIAM GEORGE PRESS I keep the Royal Oak, Sidney Road, New Southgate—on the, Sunday following the haystack having been set on fire, saw Porter in my house—on Friday, October 17th, close upon 10 a.m., when I came downstairs, having had a sprained wrist from having been thrown out of my trap, he was in the tap room when I went into the bar the people in the room were speaking about "Sir"George Sanger's saw coming to Muswell Hill—my wife and daughter were in and about the house—the Bald Faced Stag is about two miles from my place—I only saw Porter once that day—the police came and spoke to me on, I think, the Sunday week after the fire.
Cross-examined. The prisoner seldom used my house, because his work another way—the police called my attention to his visit about half an hour afterwards, and on the Sunday week.
fetch my sister's housekeeping money from her husband on Friday, October 17th, about 9.45 a.m.—I remember the day from seeing my sister and going to her husband for her—Porter stood leaning his back against the tap room door-post as I went in—I stayed about an hour.
Cross-examined. My children have to get to school by nine o'clock—I sent them about 8.55—then I had to clear up and wash myself, and go and ask how my sister was, to let her husband know—I reckon the time from that—I was not asked about this before the following week, when mother asked me if I remembered seeing Porter in the bar, and I said, yes.
Re-examined. Mother told me the police had been inquiring—that was the reason of her inquiry.
JOHN PAGE . I am a labourer, of 2, Deacon's Villas, Sidney Road, South-gate—I heard of the burning of the haystack on October 18th—I saw Porter on the 17th outside my gate, about ten o'clock—I conversed with him about ten minutes—my wife was looking out of the window—I could not say which way he went, I went about my business and he went about his—I went along Colney Hatch Lane, away from the Royal Oak—he did not come that way—the police called upon me on Sunday morning, the 19th—my attention was not called to the matter before that Sunday.
Cross-examined. The police, asked me what time I had seen Porter—I said about ten o'clock—my son asked me about it—the time was not 9.30, because I was in bed, and Porter never came to my bedroom to talk to me—I did not say at the police court that it was 9.30—I did not look at the clock.
SABAH PAGE . I am the wife of John Page—I remember looking out of my window and seeing Porter talking to my husband on October 17th, and the police seeing him and me about Porter the following Sunday—Porter and my husband were talking about twenty minutes.
ANNIE SCARF . I live at 5, New Crown Road, New Southgate—in October I lived next door to Mrs. Page at 1, Deacon Villas—I did not hear of the fire till the following Wednesday—I saw Porter on the Friday before that, at about 9.55, leave the side entrance of the Royal Oak when I went for a glass of beer—when I came out Porter was strolling up the other side of the road—he went up Walmer Road—he said "Good day" to some men with a roller, and then stood by a fence talking to Page—I saw Mrs. Page looking out of the window—I came out a quarter of an hour afterwards and Porter was still there talking to Page—that was about 10.20—he had his back to me, but he turned and faced me when I got up to him—I looked at the clock and found it was 10.25 when I got in doors again; the clock had stopped, and I went to the next garden and asked the occupier there the time, and he said, "ten to eleven"—as I was speaking I heard somebody coming along, and turned and saw Porter again—I stood a few minutes looking at Page's back garden, then he went towards the "Flag" public-house—I can get to the Flag Staff in five minutes—I remember the time because I put the clock right, and ten minutes afterwards I heard the Asylum clock.
Cross-examined. I was in and out that morning—I was very busy—I had to get my husband's and son's dinner at twelve—the clock that
stopped is on my kitchen mantel—I have another clock upstairs—I did not go upstairs to look at that because my neighbour always has the correct time—he keeps a watch—I have asked him the time on-several occasions—this time he was at the top of the garden—Porter crossed the road to speak to Page—it could not have been ten o'clock when they parted—they only met at ten.
JOHN BOWDEN . I live at 3, Albion Cottages, East Finchley—I am employed by Mr. Price—I heard on the Saturday morning after the fire, of the fire at the farm—the day before that I was out with my cart in the Pembroke and Sidney Roads about 9.45 a.m.—I went to Mrs. Smith's, in the Sidney Road, about 9.45, and came out about 10.45.
WILLIAM CLARKE STANSFIELD . I am a gauger, of 11, Muswell Rise, Muswell Hill—I was in the Alexandra public-house on Saturday, October 17th, from nine to ten, and heard of the fire—I was in the little private bar—I saw Porter in the public bar—he was not sober—I went to get some stamps for some correspondence, when the proprietor, Mr. Delamore, asked me to persuade Porter to leave the house without calling a constable—Porter waited till the constable took him away—I did not hear Porter threaten to fire the haystack—I saw Whiting at the Alexandra on the Sunday previous to the prisoner's appearance on the Wednesday—Whiting beckoned for me to come outside, and we went to the back with Martin—Martin said, "You heard Wobbles say he set the stacks on fire?"—we call Porter Wobbles—I said, "No, I did not"—he said, "Other people were there as well, and they heard him, and they won't open their mouths, you know you heard it"—I said, "No, I did not"—he said, "You know you did; you come up to me on Wednesday, you know you will be well paid"—I said, "I did not hear the man say so"; he said, "You dare deny my words on Wednesday"; I said, "I have no interest, Mr. Martin, in the case at all."
Cross-examined. I did not go into the bar where Porter was—I went co the door and beckoned to him to come and speak to me—I have known him all my life.
Be-examined. If he had said anything about the fire I should have leard it.
WALTER DELAMORE . I keep the Alexandra public-house, East Finchley—I remember Porter being in the house on the night before the fire and asking Stansfield to get him out—Stansfield was in the private bar, and I said to him, "You know Wobbles, if you coax him he will go out without the aid of the police"—Stansfield went to the door of the public bar and beckoned to Porter, and said, "I want to speak to you," and Porter went out—Stansfield came into the private bar for some stamps—I went through the partition into the other bar—I was about two yards from the door Wobbles went out by—Wobbles said, "I won't go unless you fetch a policeman, you know that"—he did not say anything about the fire.
Cross-examined. The constable came and spoke to me on the Saturday out this—he asked me if I heard Porter's words—I did not tell him that was a little hard of hearing—I am only hard of hearing when I have a old in my head—the constable asked me if I heard anything about the
fire, and I said, "No"—I cannot swear that I did not tell the constable that I was a bit hard of hearing—Whiting was in the bar when the prisoner came in; in the same bar as the prisoner—the prisoner was making a good deal of noise.
Re-examined. He spoke very loud—he was making good use of his voice.
NOT GUILTY .
FOURTH COURT.—Saturday, November 22nd, 1902.
Before Mr. Lumley Smith, K.C.
MR. NICHOLSON Prosecuted and MR. LEYCESTER Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
39. SAMUEL HOFFMAN (42) , Obtaining by false pretences from Siegfried Levy £65 and three cheques for £16 3s., £3 8s. 4d, and £1 3s. 6d., with intent to defraud: he was also indicted for that he, being a partner with Siegfried Levy, did steal the said moneys and cheques belonging to the partnership.
The prosecutor refusing to appear, MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FISHER Prosecuted, MR. ARNOLD appeared for Clark, and MR. GREEN for Hailes.
THOMAS SULLIVAN . I am a labourer, of 21, Caledonian Street, Islington—on Saturday, October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was outside the Duke of York public house—Hailes came up to me and snatched at my watch and chain, "breaking the chain—Clark then struck me in the face twice and once in the stomach, knocking me down—he then kicked me on my shoulder—I was unconscious for a minute or two—when I came round I missed 18s. in silver from my left trousers pocket—I was taken home by a Mr. Barnes—I suffered from my face for eight or nine days—on Monday, the 27th, I gave information to the police—I saw the prisoners at the police station week later—I immediately picked them out.
Cross-examined by MR. ARNOLD. I am in regular employment, and earn 23s. a week—I had been into the Duke of York public house, but only lad one glass of bitter; I was quite sober—I did not see Clark in the public house—I have seen the two prisoners hanging about Caledonian Street—I know them by sight, but I have never spoken to them—I was kicked on my shoulder twice—I have not been attended by a doctor.
Cross-examined by MR. GREEN. I am sure I had 18s., because I had just—come out of doors and had looked at my money—it was the day of the Procession, and I did not get up till 10 o'clock—I only saw the two prisoners and two other men outside the public house—Hailes did not strike me at all.
BERTIE FIELD . I am a kitchen lad, of 13, Netherland Place, Caledonian Street—on October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was outside the Duke of York public house, and saw four men attack Sullivan—the prisoners are two of them—I saw Hailes snatch at Sullivan's watch chain, and heard him call Clarke to assist him—Clark then came up and struck Sullivan in his face and in his stomach, knocking him down—I did not see Clark kick him, because a crowd gathered—I heard Hailes say, "You have done for him Albert, away," and the prisoners then ran off—on Sunday, November 2nd, I was called to the police station and identified Clark—I identified Hailes the following day.
Cross-examined by MR. ARNOLD. I cannot say whether any of the other men from whom I picked out Clark were clean shaven—I distinctly saw Clark strike the prosecutor—I have often seen Clark hanging about the Duke of York.
Cross-examined by MR. GREEN. Clark was wearing an overcoat—when the crowd came up the prisoners were running away—I did not chase them, because I knew I could pick them out—I did not see Hailes strike the prosecutor—I have not seen him hanging about.
GEORGE FREDERICK BARNES . I am a railway porter, of 3, Caledonian Street—on October 25th, about 3 p.m., I was looking out of my window—I saw Clark and another man walking sharp down the street—I had suspicions, and turned my head to—the left and saw the prosecutor being picked up—I did not see the assault—I told the prosecutor to mention my name, as he was going to the police—on November 2nd I saw Clark at a coffee stall in the Euston Road—I pointed him out to the police, and he was arrested.
Cross-examined by MR. ARNOLD. The prisoners were walking away from the prosecutor—I have known Clark about sixteen years—Clark was putting on his overcoat as he passed my window.
Cross-examined by MR. GREEN. I have many times seen Clark and Hailes together.
WALTER SELBY (Detective G.) On October 27th the prosecutor made a complaint to me—in the evening of the same day he brought Barnes to the station, who gave me certain information—in consequence of that information Clark was arrested at 1 a.m. on November 2nd—I did not arrest him, I saw him at Praed Street Police Station—J told him I should take him to King's Cross Road Police Station on suspicion of being concerned with three other men not in custody in assaulting and robbing a can in Caledonian Street on Saturday, October 25th—he made no reply—conveyed him to King's Cross Road Police Station, and later in the day he was placed with seven other men and at once identified by the prosecutor and Field—he was then charged, and made no reply.
JOHN FRANKLAND (241 G.) I arrested Hailes at 9.20 p.m. on Sunday, November 2nd, in the Duke of York public-house, York Road—I told him should arrest him on suspicion of being concerned with several other men in an assault on October 25th—he replied, "I do not know anything about it"—he was taken to the station, and the next morning placed
with seven other men, and positively identified by the prosecutor and Field when charged he said, "I never struck the man at all."
Cross-examined by MR. GREEN. He did not say, "I never struck a man in my life."
Cross-examined by MR. ARNOLD. I did not see Clark or Hailes that afternoon—I heard no row in the bar.
Clark, in his defence on oath, said that he was in the Duke of York having a drink with a Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, and Mr. and Mrs. Cooper began quarrelling, when Sullivan interfered; that he told him not to interfere with a man and his wife; that one word brought up another, and that they went outside and had a fair fight.
Hailes, in his defence on oath, said that he was not with Clark on October 25th, but—was selling bananas in Kentish Town.
GUILTY . Clark then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on May 14th, 1902, and Hailes to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on July 18th, 1899. One other conviction was proved against Clark and ten against Hailes. CLARK, two years' hard labour; HAILES, three years' penal servitude.
OLD COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, October 24th and 25th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
ABRAHAM HARRISON . I am a tailor's presser, of 30, Brunswick Street, St. Georges—the deceased was a shopman, and about twenty-four years old—he lived with his wife at 56, Buxton Street, Whitechapel—on Saturday, October 4th, about 2.30 p.m., I met him coming out of Plumbers Road by Black Lane Yard—I went with him to a cook shop in Church Lane—before—we got there, we met Moses; he was coming from Commercial Road; he was alone—I knew him by sight—I had never spoken to him—I went into the cook shop with the deceased, there were several people there—after I had been there a little time, Oreman came in; he is always called Monge; I knew him before, he used to sell fish—another man whom I knew came into the cook shop; his name is Cooksey Lewis—Monge said to Cook-sey, "Now is the time I should have a fair fight with you"—Cooksey said "No," he did not want to fight—the deceased said to Monge. "If you do want to fight, fight one your own size"—Monge said, "I don't want to fight anybody, I have only got the needle with Cooksey"—he meant that he
was only vexed with Cooksey—the deceased said, "If you don't want to go away without fighting, or if you exactly want to fight, my duty is to take his part, because he is a countryman of mine"—he meant take Cooksey's part—Monge said to the deceased, "I don't want to fight you now, but for taking his part, I shall watch you, and whenever I get hold of you I shall Kill you"—Monge then went down the steps and out of the cook shop—I could see through the window; Max (Moses) was downstairs with two or three more, and they all went away together—one of the other men was named Charles Green—the deceased and I did not remain in the cook shop very long; we left together, and parted outside—I went towards my home, and he went towards his—I next saw him the same evening in the hospital, dead—next day I went to the Arbour Square Police Station, where I saw Max—later that same day I was at the Thames Police Court, and picked Monge out from fourteen others.
Cross-examined. I have known Max ten or twelve months—I was not friendly with him—I was not a friend of the deceased, but we came from the same town, from Vilna—I liked him—I do not know if I disliked Max or not; I did not know him—I had no ill-feeling towards him—I went into the cook shop to have a cup of tea with the deceased—I do not know if the man who keeps the coffee shop is named Selvitzky—I have always seen a woman there—there were three or four of my countrymen in the shop on that afternoon—I do not know their names—I have never been in there before—I have been in London about thirteen years—I am a member of a society, not the Bessarabian Society, or the Odessa Society—I have heard of the Bessarabian Society—I cannot say if it is composed of Polish Jews—"Cooksey was not sitting at my table in the cook shop—I do not know who was sitting at Cooksey's table—Monge was not sitting at all; he went up to Cooksey; there was no quarrel between them—Monge said he wanted to fight him, Cooksey did not ask what for.
COOKSEY LEWIS . I am a baker of 11 Boyd Street—on Saturday, October 4th, I was at a cook shop in Church Lane—I knew the deceased and Harrison—I saw them while I was in the shop; they did not come in together—I know Monge, I saw him in the cook shop, he came in after the other men—he said to me, "I want you for a fight"—I did not say anything to him—the deceased said to him, "There are no fights at present; if you will fight him, I will take his part"—Monge said to the deceased, "I don't want to fight you, and if you take his part I will watch you and kill you"—Monge then went out—I was sitting at the window—I saw him descending the stairs—he met Max, and they went away together—I only knew Max by sight.
Cross-examined. I come from Vilna—the deceased and Harrison were not friends of mine, only countrymen—I have never quarrelled with Max—I was at the York Minster Music Hall on the Saturday before the deceased was killed—I did not see Max there—I was prosecuted by the police because I was present at a drink at the music hall—I was not prosecuted for smashing a window in the music hall bar—will swear that I did not break a window in the bar—I was fined 10s. 6d. by the Magistrate—the police did not state before the Magistrate—that
Max and I had a quarrel, and that I took out a knife—I was drunk, and the Magistrate fined me for that—Max did not make my nose bleed on that Saturday.
HYMAN COLMAN . I am a painter of 79, Plumbers Row—I knew the deceased—on Saturday evening, October 4th, I and my brother Israel, and the deceased, went to the York Minster-Music Hall—there is a passage there which leads up to the pay box; as we were going up to the pay box the three prisoners came downstairs; when I went to pay the money at the pay box the prisoners started to fight us—I cannot say who started first—they did not speak then—I cleared out into the street—they followed me, and Max said to me, "Are you here?"—I said, "What have you got to do with me? you have not got anything to do with me; why interfere?"—I then went home—I knew Max before, but only by sight—I have known Barnett (Broziskersky) about two years—I had never seen the three together before this occasion; I have seen Barnett and Max together.
Cross-examined. I had a quarrel with Max about three or four months ago—I come from Vilna—I was a friend of the deceased—I knew Harrison, when I came to London about five years ago—I know Cooksey Lewis, he is a countryman of mine—we are not all members of a society—I have heard of the Bessarabian Society—I do not know what it is; it is composed of Russians, I believe—I know Selvitzky, he keeps the cook shop in Church Lane; he does not come from Vilna—I have heard he is now in prison—I have known him about a year—I have been to his shop once or twice—I did not go there and meet my friends on this Saturday—I was with my master till 3.30, then I went into a public house and played bagatelle till six o'clock—I did not do anything after that till I went to the music hall—I know Lewis Miller—I do not know that he keeps a cook shop in Back Church Lane—I know the shop—I did not go about-6.45 to the shop with the deceased or Selvitzky, or Krovesky, or Shamos, or Tanenbaum—I had not got a bottle—I do not know if the other men had weapons because I was not there—I do not know if the deceased had a piece of iron up his sleeve with the end of it projecting—my brother was not outside with me—at 6.45 I was in the public-house or at the corner of the street—that is the proper place for me because I am a painter, and there is a paper shop there, and I meet my friends there—I did not hear the deceased go into Miller's shop and say to him, "Where is Max?"; or Miller say, "Why?" or the deceased say, "Because we are going to kill him to-night"—I got to he music hall about 7 or 7.30—I went with my brother; the deceased, and another man—the prisoners started fighting us in the passage—that was before the play commenced—I never got further into the music hall than the pay box—I ran away—I went into the Whitechapel Road, and about 8 p.m. I heard of the deceased's death—I did not go back to the music hall—I did not go into the music hall bar at all that night—I cannot remember if I went in or not, but I never spoke to anyone—I do not know a man named Shalinsky—I did not say to Shalinsky, "Are you one of the mob?"—he did not say, "Why?" and I did not say, "Because there will he murder to-night"—I had not got a ginger-beer bottle with me—it is
not true that I and my brother, and the deceased, and forty or fifty others went into the music hall, all armed.
ISRAEL COLMAN . I am a painter of 27, Norfolk Street, Shoreditch—on Saturday, October 4th, I met my brother Hyman in Plumber's Row, and shortly afterwards we met the deceased—we all went to the York Minster Music Hall—we went towards the pay box, and had got near the stairs leading from the hall when I saw the three prisoners coming down the stairs—Max hit the deceased in the front of his face with his fist—I went towards the street; the prisoners came into the street—I saw a knife in Max's hand, it was open when he took it out—I ran away then to Plumber's Row—Monge and Barnett were with him—I ran through Field gate Street by the back side of the London Hospital, Philpot Street, and Oxford Street—I stayed away ten or fifteen minutes—as I was returning I met Max at the corner of Settle Street—he was alone—he said, "Are you following me?"—I said, "Me? No"—he got me by the shoulder and took out an open knife—I pulled away from him and ran up Plumber's Row again—I do not know if he followed me, he did not catch me—I saw no more of him that night—I saw him next day at the police station, when I picked him out from a number of others—On October 14th I saw Monje at the station, and picked him out—I did not see Barnett till he was in the dock at the police court.
Cross-examined. I come from Vilna—the deceased was a pal of mine—I have never had a quarrel with Max, nor has my brother to my knowledge—at 6.30 p.m. on October 4th I was in Plumber's Row—I then went to the music hall—I was not with fifty or sixty other men going down Back Church Lane—I had not got a bottle or piece of iron with me, nor had my brother or the deceased—I know Lewis Miller, who keeps a restaurant in Back Church Lane—I did not call there with my brother, and Cooksey, and Harrison, and many others on my way to the music hall—I did not go into the restaurant with my brother and the deceased, and say, "Where is Max?"; Miller did not say"Why," and the deceased did not say, "We are going to kill him to-night"—I did not see any men armed with bottles that night—I did not see a fight going on in which 200 people were taking part—I did not see a policeman draw his truncheon to protect himself, at the corner of Turner Street and Varden Street—I did not see any bottles thrown—I saw Max strike the deceased—I did not see the deceased strike him—I do not know how many men were taking part in the fight—I saw the deceased strike Max with his hand, that was after Max had struck him—I saw Prior there—I did not see the deceased with a knuckle duster—I did not see anything in his hand—I did not see a crowd throw Max to the ground—I only stopped for about two minutes—I was—not running after Max—I did not go back to see the performance at the music hall, because I was afraid—I did not take my ticket to go into the music hall because I did not get the chance, as I did not get as far as the pay box.
Re-examined. I was afraid of Max when he started to fight—he struck the first blow, then the deceased struck him, and then I saw the knife.
Minster Music Hall to see the Jewish play—I remember being in Philpot Street, outside the music hall—some people came out, Monge was among them—the people who came out ran up the street, and were fighting continuously to the corner of the street; there were a great many people in—the street—I saw Monge holding the deceased, and I saw another man, who I think was Max, but I am not quite sure, delivering blows at him—I cannot—say with what because I was too far away—the deceased called out, "Oh, you have given me a blow; Max, you gave me a blow; Oh, Max, you have Jailed me"—Max and Monge ran away in one direction, and the deceased ran towards the White Hart—about ten minutes afterwards—I was going home, and I passed the public-house, and I saw the deceased—there—the door was a little ajar—as I was passing, four or five people ran out—I saw the deceased lying on the floor on his right side, with his hand up to his face—I did not go into the public-house—next day I went to the police station—I saw a number of men there, and picked out Max.
Cross-examined. I come from Russia—I have been in England about a year, and am an under-presser—I did not know the deceased or the Colmans—I knew Selvitzky, but he is not a friend of mine—at 6.45 p.m. on. October 4th I was in James Street at the house of a countryman of mine—I was not in Back Church Lane—I have seen Lewis Miller, but he is not the owner of a cook shop, he is a grinder—the deceased did not run into Miller's shop with me about 6.45 and say, "Where is Max, we want to kill him"—I did not know where Back Church Lane is—I was with fifty or sixty people in Rack Church Lane—I saw a great many people outside the music hall—I had not got a bottle—I went to the music hall to see the play, but I did not see it—I did not go there to create a disturbance—I saw some bottles thrown at the people who came out of the music hall by the people outside—perhaps fifty or sixty or seventy people were there, but not many bottles were thrown—I was standing about twenty or thirty steps from the deceased when he was struck—I do not say that it was Max who struck him—I did not see anybody in the White Hart besides the decease.
SIMON TANENBAUM . I was in Philpot Street on October 4th—I saw a number of people run towards Varden Street—I went into Varden Street—I saw Monje holding the deceased, and I saw Max draw an open knife from his right jacket pocket—then Monje left the deceased alone, and also drew a knife—I then received a blow with a bottle which Barnett—threw, and I could not see any more of it—I heard someone say, "You have stabbed me"—I was running and calling for the police—I went to the London Hospital and had my wound dressed, and then I spoke to the police—about 9 or 10 the same night I went to Arbour Square Police Station and picked Barnett out of ten others—I was at the station till 3 or 4 a.m., and on Sunday I went there again and picked Max out from about ten others.
Cross-examined. I did not know Max before this—I had seen him at the music hall about a fortnight before—I did not go to the music half on the Saturday before this with Cooksey Lewis to create a disturbance—I have never been to a place called Wonderland—I have been in England
about three years—I know Selvitzky—I do not know where he is now—I am not a Bessarabian, nor is. Selvitzky—I went to the-music hall to see the play, but I did not see it because I saw people coming out and I ran away—I did not hit Barnett over the head with a bottle—I did not have a bottle—I did not see any bottles—I did not see fifty or sixty people throwing bottles outside the music hall—I did not try to strike the policeman—I did not see a crowd of 200 people round him—I did not see a policeman.
SIMON KROVESKY . I am a presser, of 35, Brantridge Street—I remember being near the York Minister Music Hall on a Saturday night—I do not remember the date—I saw the three prisoners—Max had a knife in his hand, and when I got near he lifted his hand with the knife—I ducked and suddenly felt that I was bleeding from the back of my head—Monge and Barnett were near by—I said to Max; "What have you against me?'—I only knew him by sight—Barnett then struck me with something hard on my jaw and I fell down—they ran away—Barnett was the last to run—I wanted to intercept them, but could not—I went to the hospital "to have my wound dressed, and the police took me from there to the station, where I saw Barnett and picked him out—next day I picked Max and Monge out.
Cross-examined. I come from Vilna—I did not know the deceased—I and Hyman Colman did not have a quarrel with Max two months before this—once at an entertainment I was drunk and I was assaulted by Max—it was long before the Saturday previous to the death of the deceased—since that assault I was afraid of Max, and did not speak to him—I was told afterwards that the fighter from Wonderland had been fighting with me—I had not been to Wonderland to see Max box—I was going to the music hall on this Saturday night to see the play, but did not go inside the music hall.
ARTHUR PRYOR (145 E.) On Saturday, October 4th, I was on duty at the York Minster Music Hall—I saw Max and Monge in the sixpenny seats—Monge was sitting by a female—Max was standing up with his foot on a form—he said to me, "I expect a bit of a fight here to-night from the mob that was here last Saturday night"—I said, "All right, if any of them come in here will you show me who they are?"—I did not know him then, but I thought he' was one of the hall officials—a little later I was standing in the doorway leading into the street—Max came down the stairs with several others—I did not see either of the other prisoners then—they all went straight across the road into Varden Street—another body of men came up from Newark Street, and when they all got half way up Varden Street they started fighting—Max and his friends did not seem excited when they left the hall—I went up with Thompson, another constable, to where they were fighting—we dispersed the crowd—Thompson went towards the White Hart, and I went down Turner Street towards Commercial Road—I was following a body of men then—I went to the corner of Nelson Street and they started fighting again—I attempted to stop them—I recognised Barnett in—the' crowd—he made a blow at me with his fist and I struck him with my truncheon—I was rejoined by Thompson at the corner of Nelson Street and Turner Street in the
centre of the crowd—we went towards Varden Street and along Turner Street—there was no crowd then at the corner of Varden Street—I heard cries of murder proceeding from the direction of the New Road—I went down Varden—Street and found Samuel Pelowitzch covered with blood—he was holding a man named Abraham Steinberg by the collar, who I took to the station.
Cross-examined. I believe the performance at the music hall is supposed to commence at 7.30—the ticket office is on a level with the pavement—there is a flight of steps leading into the auditorium—there are no boxes or stalls there—when I saw Max in the auditorium the performance had not commenced—he was quiet, and waiting for the performance to commence—Monge was not sitting next to him—I do not recollect seeing Barnett there—I do not know if there had been p row on the previous Saturday, I was not on duty then—when Max came downstairs with the other men they were quiet—there was nothing approaching a disturbance on their part—they walked through the passage into the street—I saw no disturbance of any sort in the passage—I saw Israel Colman in the passage—I did not see a knife in Max's hand as he came towards me in the passage—he was not preventing people from taking their tickets—a hostile body of men was standing outside—there were about fifty or sixty there—they did not present a hostile appearance at that time—Max and the others joined that party and the whole lot started fighting—only about fifteen men came out of the music hall, but they mingled with the fifty or sixty, and others joined them till there were about 200—there was a free fight and yells and shouts—I tried to take on the 200, it was my duty to do what I could—the people did nothing to me at first, then they said, "Let's out him," which I should say meant kill me if they got the chance—I did not recognise Shamos as one of the combatants—I cannot say what took place in the scrimmage—when I saw Israel Colman at the ticket office he was with about eight others, and when he arrived Max had already paid his money and gone in—I have been in this division nearly five years, but I have been to the Front for 2 1/2 years—I have seen a good deal of fighting in the East End on Saturday nights—I would rather be in South Africa than in a fight like this one where I was not sure of my back—I saw no blow dealt with a knife.
Re-examined. The only wounded man I saw was in the New Road—I did not give my attention to the Turner Street corner and Varden Street—my attention was not called to the deceased—I did not know then that a man had been struck with a knife or that he went to the White Hart—I could see down the whole of the passage of the music hall—I was looking up the passage, but nothing attracted my attention in it.
ISAAC THOMPSON (425 H.) On October 24th, I helped the last witness to disperse the crowd—I first observed the crowd in Philpot Street, and I helped to disperse it at the corner of Varden Street and Turner Street—I saw the people fighting at the corner of Nelson Street and Turner Street, and I helped to disperse them again—I then went with the last witness to the New Road, where we found a man stabbed in the head.
Cross-examined. I should say close upon 100 people took part in this
fight—I saw about fifteen people crossing from the direction of the music hall—I was not on duty at the music hall on the previous Saturday.
Re-examined. I did not see the fighting begin in Philpot Street.
By the COURT. It is not usual for large crowds to assemble outside the music hall.
HENRY CHARLES GROSE . I am a carman, of 48, Waldon Street, Mile End—on October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was playing at bagatelle in a side room of the White Hart, when I heard a rush and someone call out—I ran out and into the public bar, where the deceased was lying on the floor in the corner—he was not bleeding then—rather a lot of people came in from the street, and amongst them Max—I saw a knuckle-duster lying upon the ground about a foot from the deceased—Max then pushed past me and picked it up, saying, "I will give you india rubber mob"—I do not know what he meant by that expression—he then went out into the street and joined Barnett and some other men—I followed them to Back Church Lane—I left them there and came back to the White Hart—I went into the bar again, and then saw blood coming from the deceased's body—I saw Inspector Pickett there, and informed him of what I knew, and went with him to Back Church Lane—at the corner I saw about twenty people, among whom was Barnett—I seized hold of him and the rest of the crowd ran away—I left Barnett with the inspector and followed those that ran away, but did not come up with them.
Cross-examined. Max was wearing a Raglan coat and a bowler hat—a number of other people came into the bar at the same time as he did—I did not see Flerty in the bar—I did not hear what he is supposed to have said—I saw no struggling in the bar—the first I heard was the proprietor, who said, "Come on, old chap, we cannot have you lying here; you will have to get outside"—the deceased said, "I cannot, I am stabbed."
JOSEPH HAIMOVITCH . I am a cabinet maker, of 24, Bedford Street—on Saturday, October 4th, I was in Philpot Street and saw three men running towards Commerical Road—I know Turner Street and the White Hart, public house—I heard Max say, "It is done"—I do not know where they were running to—on October 6th I identified Max at Arbour Square Police Station.
Cross-examined. I come from Russia—I do not know Max—I have never been to Wonderland—I have known Hyman and Israel Colman about six months—I do not know that they are enemies of Max—I have only known Harrison since this case began—I have never spoken to Barnett or Monge, and do not know whether they can speak English—Max said, "It is done" in English—he was about ten feet from me at the time—I saw the deceased in the bar of the White Hart public house, and saw blood near his head—I did not see anybody else in the bar—I had known the deceased four or five months—I am not a member of the Bessarabian Society—I was not with fifty or sixty other men in Back Church Lane
at seven o'clock that evening—I did not kick Max, nor did I see anyone else kick him—he was wearing a short coat.
EDWARD AMBROSE I am a registered medical practitioner, and practise at 1, Mile End Road—on the evening of October 4th I was called to the White Hart public house—inside the bar I saw the deceased—he was alive, but he died six or seven minutes afterwards—I examined him, and found a wound on the left side of his head and one over-the lower end of the breast bone—he was bleeding from both—I dressed the wound in the thorax—I afterwards assisted in the post-mortem examination—in the abdomen I found a clean-cut wound seven-eighths of an inch long and six inches deep—it penetrated the pericardium and the liver—in my opinion, the wound in the heart was the cause of death—terrible force must have been used—it could have been caused by a knife—the wound in the head was probably caused by a fall.
Cross-examined. The wound in the abdomen might have been caused by a knife with a four-inch blade, it depends upon the strength of the blow—a wound penetrating the heart may not cause instantaneous death—a man so injured might live a quarter of an hour if lying down—I cannot say whether he could run fifty yards—I have not known of such a case.
Re-examined. His clothes were swamped with blood.
FRANK GIRDLER (Detective E.) When Max was in custody on October 5th I stripped him of his clothes, and gave them on the 6th to Dr. Graham Grant—I noticed a stain on the right wrist of the shirt—it seemed to me like blood—he was not wearing an overcoat—Tannebaum came to the station about ten o'clock and remained till four o'clock the next morning.
Cross-examined. The witnesses made their statements through Mr. Cohen, who acted as interpreter—all the witnesses stayed till 4 a.m.—Tannebaum had been to the hospital before he came to the station—I did not search Max's house; I do not know who did.
CHARLES GRAHAM GRANT (Divisional Surgeon H.) On October 4th I examined Tannebaum, and found that he had a wound half an inch deep on his left temple in an upward direction—it could have been inflicted with a knife—I also saw Krovesky—he had a wound on his jaw, but of no gravity—on the 6th the police brought some clothing to me to examine—on the right sleeve of the shirt on the fore-arm I found a blood-stain—an attempt had been made to wash it out—on the 13th another set of garments was given me for examination, and I found a small blood-stain on the lining of the right sleeve of the coat—I should not attach much importance to that stain.
Cross-examined. The clothes given me on the 6th belonged to Max—I was not given an overcoat—there was no blood upon the suit—the bloodstain on the shirt was up to the level of the elbow—it was as big as the palm of my hand—there was no wound on Max's arm corresponding with it—I examined Max, Krovesky, Tannebaum, Steinberg, and Barnett—Barnett was smothered with blood—he had a trifling wound on his head and a cut on his thumb—the wound on the head might have been caused with a bottle—Steinberg was covered with blood, but had no injury at all—I have not seen him since I examined him.
Re-examined. A man stabbed in the heart might be able to run fifty yards—the wound on Barnett's head was not consistent with a blow with a truncheon.
JOHN PICKETT (Police Inspector H.) On October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was in Philpot Street and saw some people running in Turner Street—I made my way to the White Hart public-house—just inside the public bar door I saw the deceased lying on his back bleeding from a wound in his chest—he was insensible—I saw Grose there, who gave me information—in consequence I went with him to Back Church Lane—I saw a number of men standing at the corner—Grose pointed Barnett out to me, and I said to him, "I shall take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned in stabbing a man in Turner Street"—his left hand was in bandages, and he held it up and said, "This is what I got through trying to take a knife from a man"—I obtained assistance and took him to Arbour Square Police Station—he made a statement there through an interpreter.
Cross-examined. Neither Steinberg nor Pelowitzch were called as witnesses at the police-court—I have not seen Steinberg since October 6th—I saw Pelowitzch at the inquest on October 6th—I did not take any of the men to the hospital.
FREDERICK WENSLEY (Detective-Sergeant H.) On October 5th I went to 33, Wharfedale Road, King's Cross, where I saw Max—I said "I am a police officer, and shall arrest you for the wilful murder of a man in Turner Street, last night"—he said, "I was there, but I did not kill him"—he afterwards said, "Last night I was with some pals at the York Minster Music Hall; someone told me the Bessarabian Mob was outside; I went out; someone threw a bottle at me; I had a fight and went away; one of my pals is in the hospital; the row was all over me; if that man had not died £15 would have squared it"—he was then taken to the station—I know Barnett and Monge—I have frequently seen them with Max.
Cross-examined. I searched Max's house—he was at home when I got there—I do not know whether he slept there the previous night—I did not find a Raglan overcoat in the house—Max's statement was made in English—he speaks very good English—I do not think I should have much difficulty in finding Steinberg or Pelowitzch.
JAMES COLE (73 H.) I was on duty outside Leman Street Police Station at 2 a.m. on October 13th, when Monge came up to me and said, "I want to give myself up; the boys say the police want me about the fight the other night; I am Sam, they call me Monge"—he was taken inside and detained.
SAMUEL COHEN . I live at 17, Surrey Street, Finsbury Square—I know Yiddish perfectly—on October 4th I was called to Arbour Square Police Station to act as interpreter—I there saw Barnett—I told him that he would be charged with others' with wilfully and maliciously wounding Simon Tannebaum and Samuel Krovesky—he said, "Are you sure I have had a bottle in my possession?" I did knock Krovesky about, but not Tannebaum"—I had not mentioned any weapon—on the 14th I saw Monge at the same station—I saw the three prisoners at the police-court—I told them that they would be charged with the wilful murder of Henry Brodovitz,
on October 4th, between seven and eight, in Varden Street or there abouts—Monge said, "I reported myself after hearing that I was wanted concerning this murder"—Moses made no reply—Barnett said, "I know nothing at all about it; I had a fight with Krovesky, but I do not know anything at all about the murder"—I also told them that they would be charged with wounding Tannebaum and Krovesky, and they made no reply.
THOMAS DIVALL . (Detective Inspector H.) On the morning of October 14th I saw Monge at Leman Street Station—he was taken to Arbour Square Station, and put with the other prisoners, and charged with the wilful murder of Brodovitz.
Cross-examined. It was ten days after the murder that Monge surrendered himself.
HARRY APPLEBAUM . I live at 9, Bristol Street, Stepney, and am interpreter and manager at the York Minster Music Hall—on October 4th the doors were opened about 7.15—the prisoners came to the hall together—they took Is tickets and went upstairs—about fifteen minutes afterwards they came down—I cannot remember if they took pass-out tickets or not, but they crossed over to the other side of the road—that is all I know.
Cross-examined. The performance commenced at 7.30—the doors opened at seven—the prisoners were quiet when they arrived at 7.15—I was sometimes upstairs and sometimes down—at the police-court I said, "They took pass-out tickets," but I am not sure-if a man takes a pass-out ticket he has the right to come in again—he would not be allowed in again without a pass-out ticket—I saw the prisoners go down the passage into the street—there was no disturbance as they were going out—I do not remember seeing Israel or Hyman Colman there that night—there was nothing to prevent them taking their tickets if they desired to do so—I did not see any knife in Max's hand as he went down the passage—I did not see the deceased in the passage, or anyone else except the prisoners—I did not see where the prisoners went to when they left the music hall—there had been a disturbance at the music hall on the previous Saturday—the authorities charged several people, and locked up the man who smashed the window—I do not know what charge was made at the police-court—I did not charge the man—I was not there—I did not see the man who smashed the window—I do not know the man who was prosecuted—I did not see any of the witnesses for the prosecution engaged in the disturbance.
Re-examined. I spoke to the constable who was at the hall on October 4th—the prisoners had been to the hall on the previous Saturday with two or three others—on October 4th they came with three others—I do not know if they were the same men who had come on the previous Saturday—I made a statement to the police, which was taken down, and I signed it—I said, "I saw Moses, Barnett, and Monge, and three other men all of whom I know well by sight, come in, and they each took tickets for the Is part. They went upstairs, and I seated them"—that is right—I saw six men come in—I do not remember if I said that I had spoken
to the constable, and told him that I was afraid, as the men had gone out without taking pass-out tickets, that there was mischief brewing.
By the COURT. When the prisoners went out I was standing near the ticket-box and opposite the door of the bar.
Evidence for the defence.
ABRAHAM NEIMANN . I am a tailor—I have been in England twenty-three years—I did not know the deceased—on October 4th I left the Synagogue, in Cannon Street, Commercial Road, about 7.5 or 7.10 p.m.—I was going to my home in Berkley Street Buildings, I passed the corner of Backchurch Lane, and saw a mob of fifty people at the corner—I saw the Colmans there—Hyman had a big knife in his hand, and Israel had got a chisel—I saw Shamos and Lewis were there, Lewis had a round piece of iron in his hand—Tannebaum was there—I could not see if he had anything in his hand, because he was running—Hyman Colman said. "Where is Monge and where is Max? To-night will be the end of them"—Lewis was dancing, and said, "To-night I will be happy, there will be a joyful event "—I know Selvitzky—I do not know if he keeps a coffee shop, he said he was a presser—I saw him there, he had a knife in his uplifted hand—I could not see what sort of a knife it was, I only saw the blade—I saw Steinberg coming from the Commercial Road—he had a knife in his hand—he said to the crowd,"What do you stand here for? Come along, Monge and Max are in the play"—I saw Haimovitch and Krovesky there—Krovesky had a knife in his hand—all the men ran towards the music hall—I did not go with them.
Cross-examined. I can swear there were fifty people in the crowd outside Miller's—at the police court I said twenty or twenty-five people, and that Cooksey had a small open knife in his hand—he had not got a piece of iron, that was another man—before the magistrate I did not say anything about Haimovitch being there—I said that Krovesky had a knife—I did not say anything about Tannebaum—I did not see two policemen in Back-church Lane at 7 o'clock on October 4th, outsider Miller's shop.
GEORGE GREEN . I am a fishmonger, of 68, Wenton Street Buildings, Spitalfields—on October 4th, between 2.30 and 3 p.m., I was in a restaurant at 1, Union Street, Commercial Road, having some food—I knew the deceased by sight—he came into the restaurant with eight more—he asked a man sitting by my side where Macoy was, that is Max's nickname—the man said, "He is not in"—the deceased said, "I will give it Macoy, if I get hold of him there will be nothing left of him"—Krovesky was one of the men with him—I know Max by sight—I have been to Wonderland at the East End National Sporting Club—I have seen Max boxing there, he has the reputation in that part of London of being an expert boxer—I know Monge, he used to work for a gentleman and buy fish—I do not now Barnett.
Cross-examined. I have known Max three or four years—I do not know him very well—I have had no transactions with him—Max Macoy is his boxing name—I have seen him box two or three times at Wonderland—I have known Monge about nine months—he worked for Mr. Roother,
and my stall was next his—I did not hear what Harrison said at the police court before I gave my evidence—I was outside the Court, nobody told me what he said—I did not hear what Cooksey said at the police court, and no one told me what he said—I read a newspaper report of the inquest—I did not read Harrison's evidence—I read some of the other evidence—I read some of Harrison's evidence, but I do not quite remember what I have read—the restaurant in Union Street is kept by a man named Wolwel—I do not know that the deceased is said to have been in the cook shop in Church Lane at 2.30 on this day—I did not notice that in the evidence of Harrison—the two-shops are only about two minutes walk apart.
Re-examined. I did not say that it was exactly at 2.30 that the deceased was in the restaurant in Union Street—I said between 2.30 and 3.
HARRIS SHALINSKY . I am a painter of 120, New Goldsmith Street—I have been in this country about twelve years—on October 4th I went to the York Minster Music Hall, at 7 p.m.—before the performance commenced I went downstairs with a friend named Isodore Shor to have a drink in the bar—we both took pass-out tickets—Hyman Colman came into the bar—he said to me, "Have your drink and go home"—I said, "Why?"—he said, "Because I am a friend of yours; go home—" I said, "Why should I go home?"—he said, "Because there is going to be murder to-night"—I said, "Who are you going to murder?"—he said, "Don't ask no questions, but go home"—I had my drink and went up into the play again, and saw the whole of the performance—I saw Max and Monge in the music hall—they are not friends of mine.
Cross-examined. I may have met them in the road before—I have seen them together sometimes—I said before the magistrate, "I knew them as friends to one another"—very likely that is true, but I did not know them—I do not know how many times I attended at the police court before I gave evidence, it was several times—I did not know what Hyman Colman said in the witness 'box.
ISODORE SHOR . I am a traveller in drapery, of 24, Godfrey House—I have been in England about seven years—on October 4th I went with Shalinsky to the York Minster Music Hall—we went into the bar outside—Hyman Colman came in—he said to Shalinsky, "Harry, we are going to have a fight, don't mix up, go home because there will be murder"—Shalinsky said, "Why murder, what do you mean?"—Colman said, "Don't ask questions, take my advice and go home"—he went away—I saw the performance after I had seen the fight.
Cross-examined. The conversation was in Yiddish—I did not see Colman in the passage of the theatre—I saw him later on in the street taking part in the fight—I saw eight or ten people go quietly from the theatre into the street—Max and Barnett were among them, it was a few minutes after that that the row began.
MORRIS GOLDSMITH . I have been in England about eighteen years, and have been a Hebrew teacher fourteen or fifteen years—I know a little English, but I cannot speak to gentlemen—I knew the deceased, he was a countryman of mine—on October 4th I saw a number of people running in Philpot Street—the deceased was with them—he was holding an iron
or a bar—I asked him what he was going to do with it—he said, "I am going to kill"—I said, "Where are you running with that piece of iron in your hand? you may kill somebody with this iron"—he said, "I am going to kill him, I have a good number of people with me"—he did not say who he was going to kill—I followed the people—they went into Varden Street and Turner Street—I saw Max on the ground being kicked by the people—as I knew him I said, "Max, you had better run away, you can see all the people have weapons and irons"—he got up and made his way towards Whitechapel—I went to my house—Max had not got a weapon in his hand—I saw a cap and a jacket on the ground near him—Krovesky was kicking Max—Israel Colman was kneeling on him and kicking him, and Hyman Colman was also kicking him—I cannot identify anybody else who was kicking him—I may have seen Barnett but I do not know him or—Max and I were neighbours.
Cross-examined. I have known Max about four years and the deceased six or seven months—I do not know if Max had any bruises on him—he was on the ground while I was having this conversation with him.
LEWIS MILLER . Up till recently I kept a coffee shop in Back Church Lane—I am now undergoing four months' imprisonment for keeping a gambling house in the City, but I was really convicted for telling the truth of what I have seen—I knew the deceased; I saw him on October 4th in my restaurant at 7 p.m.—he said, "Where is Max?"—I said, "What do you want him for?"—I saw in his sleeve a thick piece of iron—he said, "I want to kill him"—he came in alone, but outside there were about sixty people—I said to him, "Max is not here," and said that he had gone to the music hall—the deceased said to the people outside, "Come along, and we will go along and kill him there"—I knew some of the people outside—I saw Krovesky there; he had a lemonade bottle in his hand—I saw Hyman Colman there; he also had a bottle—Cooksey had an iron poker about three-quarters of a yard long—Shamos had a bottle and also Tannebaum—when the deceased said, "Come along, and we will kill him there," the crowd all ran away with him.
Cross-examined. I said before the magistrate, "I know Tannebaum; I saw him inside my shop about 12 o'clock after the fight," but I made a mistake; there were three persons in my shop and one was similar to Tannebaum—I have not since heard that he was at the station from 10 p.m. till 4 a.m.—the deceased did not use my restaurant—a raid was made on my house on Sunday, November 9th, and I was sentenced to four month's imprisonment by Mr. Mead the following Thursday—I gave evidence on my own behalf before the Magistrate on November 13th—I did "not know my house was being watched by the police on October 4th—it was after the trial at the police court that I found that I was wrong in thinking that Tannebaum had been at my house.
MAX WEIR . I am at present in prison—I was sentenced to fourteen days, for aiding and abbetting Miller in keeping a gambling establishment in the East End—I have been in prison twelve days—before that I was a hairdresser—I have been in England nine years—on October 4th, about 6.45 p.m., I was in Commercial Road at the corner of Cannon Street, White-chappel
—I saw thirty or forty people running; some of them had lumps of iron and bottles—I knew the deceased by sight—he was the first one who passed me—he had a lump of iron up his sleeve; the bottom of it was showing—I had not seen the deceased earlier in the day—I saw Krovesky Tannebaum, Cooksey, the Colmans, Shamos, Haimovitch and Harrison among the people; the crowd was coming down the Commercial Road—I followed it—they went to Philpot Street, where about twenty-five more people joined them and then they divided into two parties, one stopped outside the music hall and the other went to the top of Varden Street—I stopped in the street outside the music hall to see what they were going to do—about eight people came out of the music hall, Max and Monge were among them—I am not sure if Barnett came out with them, but one of the crowd ran up to him and struck him over the head with a lemonade bottle—Barnett tried to defend himself, and another man ran up to him with a knife—Barnett tried to get hold of his hand and got his own hand cut—about twenty men rushed at Max—one of them kicked him when he was on the ground and the others rushed in—I saw the deceased among them with his bar of iron in his hand—a policeman came up and Max ran towards Whitechapel, the other men separated—I did not see a knife in Max's hand or in Barnett's or Monge's—when I went back to Philpot Street and Varden Street I saw a man named Pelowitzch lying down bleeding—that was after Max had run away—I have seen Max boxing at Wonderland.
Cross-examined. I did not keep the door at Miller's—I only went there to have a cup of tea with him—he is a countryman of mine—I was not employed by him—the charge against me was that I was his door man at the gambling club, but that was not true—when I saw the crowd it was three streets away from Miller's shop—I did not see any crowd outside his shop that night—I have known Max about three years by sight—he was not a friend of mine—I do not know Monge or Barnett—I have a brother named Joseph—I do not know if he is a friend of Barnett's and of Max's—I said before the Magistrate that Krovesky struck Barnett on the head with a bottle—I saw the deceased with a lump of iron in his hand rush up to Max when he was on the ground—I cannot say if he used it on him, because as soon as Max was touched by a fellow a lot of people surrounded him—I do not remember if I said before the Magistrate that Krovesky kicked Max—I do not know who kicked him when he was on the ground—Colman threw a bottle at him as he lay on the ground—it missed him—the deceased attacked Max before he was on the ground—I did not see anybody there with a knife—I will swear that Max had no knife—I did not see Monge during that time—I did not see Max after the fight, so cannot say if he received any injuries.
Re-examined. I was not in Backchurch Lane at all; I have no doubt that it was Krovesky who struck Barnett on the head with the bottle.
HARRIS GOLD . I am a shoe maker of 36, Cambridge Villas, Mile End—I have been in England twelve years—on October 4th, about 7.15 p.m., I was at the York Minster Music Hall—I paid sixpence admission—I know the three prisoners—I saw them all in the hall—I was one row behind them
—shortly afterwards someone came in and told Max there was a big mob waiting for him outside—five minutes later he went out followed by ten or twelve others—I followed about ten yards behind—the passage was clear when I went out—I saw them walk across Walden Street to the corner of Walden Street and Nelson Street, where they were met by a big mob and started fighting—I believe Max got knocked down—there was a big crowd round him—I did not see any knife in his hand—I saw a lot of bottles thrown about, but I cannot say who threw them—the Bessarabian Society has been in existence about two years, and fights go on every week—it is a society of liberty takers and blackmailers—a man named Selvitzky is the ringleader—he is now in prison.
Cross-examined. I cannot say if the prisoners are members of the Bessarabian Society.
LOUIS LATINSKY . I am a glazier—on October 4th I went to the York Minster Music Hall—I saw Max speaking to a policeman—I took my seat and then went out for a drink—outside I saw the Bessarabian mob—there were about sixty or seventy men—they had their hands in their pockets—the Bessarabian Society is a society of blackmailers—I am not a member; I have been one of their victims.
HYMAN CLAINOVITZ . I am a peddler—on October 4th I was at the York Minster Music Hall—before the performance commenced I went out for a drink—coming out of the public-house I saw Max coming out from the music hall—people then began coming from all sides and throwing bottles—I saw Max fall, but cannot say whether he was knocked down or fell down—when he was on the ground somebody kicked him—I did not see any knife in his hand—later in the evening I saw him going away towards Whitechapel.
ABRAHAM STEINBERG . I am a polisher—I know Hyman and Israel Colman—on October 4th, about 6 or 6.30 p.m., I went with them to the York Minster Music Hall—the deceased afterwards joined us—I did not go inside because when I got there I saw a number of people coming out—these people began at once to attack the people outside—I ran away, and coming back I saw three men fighting, and one of the three held me saying that I was one of the attacking party—he was bleeding from his nose and forehead, and whilst he was holding me I became covered with blood as well—I had no wounds—I was not called as a witness at the police court.
Cross-examined. I did not know the three men who were fighting.
JOSEPH FLERTY . I am barman at the White Hart public house—on October 4th, about 7.30 p.m., I was in the bar, washing glasses and heard a commotion in the middle compartment—I went to the front and saw two men struggling in the corner—the deceased was one of them—he was lying with his back up against the form—the other one was standing over him aiming blows at him with his fist—I did not notice whether he struck him or whether the deceased was bleeding—I shouted, "Get outside if you want to fight"—two other men entered the bar and joined in the struggle—then one of the customers who was in the bagatelle room came running into the next compartment and looked over the partition and said, "How many on to one?"—one of the other men replied, "He has been using a knuckle
duster"—some of the customers then came round and the three men ran out and left the deceased lying on the floor—Mr. Bryon then sent me for the police—I did not notice anyone come in afterwards, pick up something, and go out again.
Evidence in reply.
Cross-examined. I should have seen them if they had been there—I was in plain clothes—Sergeant Wensley saw me there twice—I did not go into the public house opposite—I did not give evidence at the police court.
Cross-examined. Miller's premises were kept under observation for police purposes.
DR. GRANT (Re-examined.) I saw Max at Arbour Square Police Station on the morning of October 6th—I asked him if he had anything to complain of, and he said "No."
GUILTY of manslaughter. The Jury recommended Barnett to mercy. One conviction was proved against MOSES, ten years' penal servitude; MONGE, five years—penal servitude; BARNETT, six months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, November 25th, 1902.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
Mr. J. P. GRAIN and Mr. KERSHAW Prosecuted; Mr. GREEN Defended.
JAMES BRUSEY . I am a fish salesman at Grimsby Dock—I had consigned fish to the prisoner—on October 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th I consigned to him daily one kit of fish only at Mint Street Station, to be called for.
Cross-examined. I have consigned fish to the prisoner for twenty years, and have always found him an honourable and straightforward dealer.
HENRY COOPER HOWARD . I am a checker in the employ of the Great Central Railway Company at Grimsby—on October 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th I received one kit of fish addressed to the prisoner—these ((Produced) are the consignment notes.
JOHN THOMAS GOODLIFFE . I am a clerk in the employ of the Grest Northern Railway Company at Royal Mint Street Depot—I keep a book showing the consignments of fish and the amount due on each consignment—upon a person coming and claiming his fish I receive the amount due and obtain his signature for the kit and give orders for a kit pass to issue—on October 6th I found one kit consigned to the prisoner—4s. 2d. was to be paid for it, which I received from the prisoner, and he made a cross in this book (Produced), and I gave orders for a pass to issue—that was the only kit
for the prisoner on that day—on October 8th I find another entry of one kit to the prisoner—1s. (3d. was the amount paid—the prisoner has signed the book in that case—there was no other consignment of fish to him on those two dates.
Cross-examined. The pass would entitle him to get out of the depot with his fish—the passes are given up to the policeman at the gate—I believe the policemen keep them for a time, and they are ultimately returned to the office—if the passes issued by us were not delivered up there would be an enquiry about them.
Re-examined. It is the gatekeeper's duty to demand a pass from everybody going out at the gate.
By the COURT. If a man had two kits consigned to him and he asked us to make out a pass for one, we should not do it without disputing his word—we always look at the waybills to see what amount of fish is due.
FREDERICK WILLIAM KIPPING . I am a clerk in the employ of the Great—Northern Railway Company—I do similar duties to Goodliffe—on October 7th there was a consignment of one kit of fish to the prisoner—he paid the amount due, 3s. 11d., and I signed the book for him in his presence—I then gave orders for a pass to be issued to pass out that one kit.
Cross-examined. The depot is open on Sundays, and fish is given out on Sundays if anyone calls for it.
CORNELIUS KANE . I serve out the passes—on October 6th I received instructions from Goodliffe to issue this pass (Produced) for one kit of fish to the prisoner, and I issued it: "Great Northern Railway Company, Goods Department: pass Crudgington one kit fish"—I did the same again on the 7th and 8th.
Cross-examined. If a man is not provided with a pas? he could get his fish, but he could not get out at the gate.
ARTHUR LAMBERT (Constable G.N.R.) On October 6th I was on duty at the Royal Mint Gate, and at about 8 a.m. the prisoner handed to me this pass—these are my initials on it—he had a van with one full kit and I think two empties in it.
Cross-examined. There are a good many vans passing through every morning—I could only tell how many kits there were by looking at the pass—we do not give a pass for empties—when a van passes through the gate it goes up to the bank, where the fish is put on to it.
THOMAS HENRY RIMER . I was on duty at the gate on October 7th and 8th—I took these passes (Produced) from the prisoner on those dates—I initialled them—he had a van driven by himself, and he took out one kit, and one kit only, on those dates.
Cross-examined. There would be between fifty and sixty vans passing through in the morning—it is my duty to count the number of kits as they go out—I am quite prepared to say that the prisoner's van went co the bank on the morning of the 8th, because it came in empty, and look one kit out—I said at the police court that the prisoner had come in with empties, but not on that morning.
By the COURT. If a man slipped out one day-without giving up his
pass and handed it to me the next day I should find it out because the date would be wrong.
FREDERICK PLUMM . I am a carman in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company—I have a delivery sheet for each load I take out—these (Produced) are my three delivery sheets for October 6th, 7th, and 8th—on neither of those sheets is there a kit to be taken for the prisoner anywhere—I know the prisoner's fish shop in Victoria Road, Hackney Wick—that is on my round—if necessary I collect any money there may be due for carriage—on October 6th I saw the prisoner in the depot near the bank about 8 a.m.—he came up to me and said, "Are you going my way?"—I said, "Yes"—He said, "Would you mind running my kit of fish home for me?"—I said, "Yes, I am going your way and do not mind taking it for you"—I then put the kit on my van and took it to his place in the Victoria Road—it was addressed to the prisoner—when I put it on my van the prisoner went away—my van-boy joined me as I went out of the gate—I placed the kit in the road at the back of the prisoner's stall, which is in front of his shop—I did not take any receipt for it, I just put it down and drove off—on October 7th I saw the prisoner again near the bank at the depot at about the same time in the morning—he came up to me and said, "You might drop that kit for me," pointing to one standing on the bank addressed to him—I said, "I am going that way and I will take it for you"—I took it and delivered it in the same way as I had done the day before—on October 8th, about the same time, I saw him again at the bank, and the same thing occurred—I dropped the kit at the same place as I had done on the two previous days—I have not taken anything for him since—I have been doing another round since then.
Cross-examined. I am still in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company—the prisoner gave me the price of a cup of coffee for what I did—I do not suppose I should do it for nothing—if I took it home for him it would not be necessary for him to pay the carriage—I did not think there was any harm in it—he asked me to take it home early, and I did it as a favour—if he had asked for it to be sent through the depot he would have had to pay the carriage for it—it would not have been good for me if the Company had known—the kits I took home had the prisoner's name on the labels—he told me he was going to the market and he wanted the fish got home quickly—I never saw his van, and do not know whether he had any empties on it on those days—he always had empties on it whenever I did see it—on each of those mornings when I got to the prisoner's shop he had not arrived.
FREDERICK JOHNSON . I am a van-boy in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company—I went with Plumm on October 6th, 7th, and 8th, and saw him deliver a kit of fish at the prisoner's shop on each of those mornings.
Cross-examined. They were placed outside the prisoner's stall, where anybody could see them.
MR. WARNER (Chief Detective Officer G.N.R.). All fish that comes to the Mint Street Depot is the Company's property until it is delivered to the consignees—I do not know what time the fish trains arrive in the morning.
WILLIAM-MILLER (City Police Sergeant.) I arrested the prisoner on this charge.
Cross-examined. I have made enquiries with regard to him—I cannot say anything against him.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had asked Plumm if he would take his fish home for him so that he could get to the market, and his man at the shop could get on with the business; that it was perfectly true he received passes on the dates in question, and he gave them up to avoid confusion, and went out at the gate with empties only on his van; that he had never taken out any fish other than that consigned to him; and that when Plumm was not there he had had it sent home by the Company's vans and paid the carriage for it. He received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, November 25th, 1902.
OLD COURT.—Thursday; November 26th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
For the case of John Downham, tried this day, see Essex cases.
OLD COURT.—Thursday; November 27th, 1902.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. HUTTON, Prosecuted.
AUGUSTUS WOODS . I live at 105, Collingwood Street—I was present at the birth of Mrs. Brown's baby, which died on September 5th—it was a nice healthy child, a nine-months child—I was there three weeks—I was there one fortnight, and I went there for another fortnight to do the washing—I did not see it again till after it was taken to the Bethnal Green police station in November—I was taken there by the police, and the father wanted me to take it and bring it up because she was about the streets, and it had very little clothing, only a bed-gown—it was very dirty, and it was so at the station—I did not call every day after the first fortnight, but I saw it in the street twice or three times—I remonstrated with the mother for not keeping it clean, and she called me a dirty owl and a dirty woman and said that I took her big child home—this was in October and in November I saw it at the station—I was sent for in February—Mrs. Brown came and asked me to come round, as the baby was dying—I went there and saw it, it was very dirty—I told her what a state it was in, and she said that she could not wash it, it was so thin—I told her I would come and wash it myself, and I did so for a fortnight—it was not too thin to be washed—I washed it morning and night for a fortnight, and also gave it medicine and milk and made her have a-doctor to the-child Dr. Brown of
Brady Street, who prescribed medicine for it, and I gave it some of it, I cannot say what became of the rest; I gave it because I said to her, "You are not giving the baby the medicine"; she said, "Yes, I am"—while I was there the child looked better and cleaner, but it did not get fatter—I attended her in May in a miscarriage, the child was then very dirty and much thinner—during those days I fed it from the bottle, and it kept the food down—I did not attend there at all till the day of the child's death on October 15th—it was dead when I went, and I washed the corpse—one part of the buttocks was very black and one part was all wounds—I believe the eldest child, Alice, is eight and another is three—I have known the man thirty years, he is a respectable, hardworking man—neither of them drank.
Cross-examined by the male prisoner. I have never seen you come home drunk.
By the COURT. It never occurred to me that the father or mother were wilfully starving the child or I should have informed the authorities—I believe the father did everything he could for it—I am not a regular nurse, I go when they cannot afford to have anybody else—young babies are sometimes thin and sometimes they die—they sometimes suffer in this way, probably because they cannot digest their food—the father slept upstairs in the same room when he was at home—there were three children there, not four—the baby slept in the kitchen—the mother was very dirty at times, but not the other children—they could wash themselves, but the little child, not the baby, was always dirty—Dr. Brown is not here—they made no difficulty about sending for Dr. Graham—he said that the baby was very ill—it was ill in February, and it remained ill till October, when it died.
GEORGE LOWDON . I am employed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—on October 19th at 9 p.m. I went to the prisoners' house with the coroner's officer and saw the dead body of a child on the table—it had been washed and the room partially cleaned—the parents pointed out the cradle—I examined it, the only covering was a flannelette overall and a small petticoat, which were wet with urine and covered with filth, and there was a small frock and a pinafore all wet with urine—the small sheet was partially wet—the bed was a rough sack filled with straw, which was partially wet and smelt like urine—there were no bed clothes except the flannelette—the man said, "I am the husband of Alice Elizabeth Brown, and have for thirteen months lived with her; I rent a three-roomed cottage at 6s. a week. I work for a baker of 9, Cambridge Road; I have been four years there. My wages are 26s. a week, a loaf of bread a day, and half a quartern of flour. I allow my wife 24s. a week.' We have three children living, Alice aged eleven, Edwin eight, and Alfred three. The child now dead is Florence Rosetta, thirteen months old; three others have died. There have been no inquests before. I cannot remember dates, but I know my wife has been put away four times because of her head. When her first child was born her father got her into Dartford and afterwards in Hoxton House. She was on another occasion in the Infirmary in Bancroft Road, and transferred from there
to Colney Hatch. About November, 1901, she was for a month in Bethnal Green Infirmary, having been found in the street by the police; the baby was with her, it was then about two months old. I let the baby go to the infirmary with her. About a month or so after she came out, on two days before December: about a month or two after I went to the relieving officer, and he told me I had better get Dr. Graham, of Brady Street, to see the child."—the wife then said: "He came there and saw It three times."—the man agreed, and said: "It was also taken to the London Hospital."—the wife said: "It was just after the June Coronation holidays"—the man agreed, and went on, "I did not see anything specially wrong. The child cried sometimes. I am out from midnight to 2 p.m. The child was insured in the Prudential. After it came out of the infirmary, about the end of February. I told the gentleman I was poor, and asked him to make the amount 2d. instead of 1d., as it would come in handy if the child died. The other children I insured for 1d. The child ate ravenously; my wife told me the other three died from consumptive bowels, and I thought she said that Dr. Graham said this child had the same. I know it had three tins of Nestle's milk a week—sometimes large tins"—the man continued: "I do not know if my wife left the child down stairs all night, I thought she took it up stairs. I know it died in a cradle, I generally saw it there. My wife always seemed upset. I have done my best."—on October 23rd he told me: "I am not to blame for this. When I cleaned the cradle out about three weeks ago I advised my wife to take the child to the doctor; I said she would get us into trouble. There were maggots and dirt in the cradle."—on October 15th the female prisoner said: "Dr. Graham told me he thought the child had consumptive bowels. The child usually sleeps alone downstairs because my hushand objects to its wetting the bed upstairs. I got 24s. a week from my husband, one loaf a day, and half a quartern of flour. I pay 6s. a week. At midnight before it died I gave the child some Nestle's milk and left it in the cradle; at 11.30 I went upstairs to bed.; when I came down at 7 a.m. this morning I found the baby was dead. I sent for Mrs. Woods to call in Dr. Bate. The child never had diarrhoea."
By the COURT. The coroner's officer called on me, and asked me to go there—it is the coroner's practice to call in aid this society in cases of neglect of children.
JOHN BATE . I am a physician and surgeon of 6, Victoria Park Square—on October 15th at 10.30 a.m. I was called to see the dead body of this child—the room was very filthy, it nearly made me sick, and I had to go out of doors—the child had been dead over three hours; it was lying on a canvas sack stuffed with straw in a very filthy condition—the child was very dirty—I should say that it had not been washed for a week—I made a post mortem examination the next day, externally there were no marks of violence, but the buttocks and the private parts were red, swollen, and raw, excoriated by want of cleanliness—that is not a common thing to that degree, it is an extreme case—the child weighed 7 lbs. 2 1/2 ozs.—in the right lung there was a patch of pneumonia, all the organs were very pale and in an anamic condition—that might be induced—the whole intestine
was empty, the pneumonia had been running three or four days, and was the immediate cause of death—the emaciation was due to starvation—I forgot to say that in the stomach and the small intestines there were half a dozen small pieces of coagulated milk—I should not expect a child in that condition getting pneumonia to recover—I could find no cause for reducing it to that state.
By the COURT. I was sent for by Mrs. Woods, about 10 a.m., after the child was dead—I made the post mortem by the Coroner's order—I found in the stomach some lumps of coagulated milk, which I suppose had been there only an hour or two before death, so rightly or wrongly somebody had been giving the child food two hours before its death—that was not the food to give it—no food was found which had been given to the child—I found some Nestle's milk—milk sometimes coagulates more at one time than at others.
The prisoner Brown's statement before the Magistrate: "I got Mrs. Woods, my sister, to look after the child: my wife takes up the tongs and a knife to me and says, 'Don't you inferfere with my work.' They are all bad women. I am afraid to speak to her. I often have to do the washing myself. My wife used to sit in a melancholy state, with her face down and dirty, and little Alf. used to run about naked. I said, 'Why don't you cheer up?' I have had a terrible life with her. I call no witnesses. I have kept this to myself. Five years ago I worked for Mr. Harris. One day I came home from work, and my wife sold my home and left the child in the street."
Alice Brown's defence. "I tried to do my duty, I could not do no more, it was always ailing and always having doctors."
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, November 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th; and
OLD COURT, Friday, November 28th, and Monday, December 1st, to Saturday, December 6th, 1902, inclusive.
Before Mr. Recorder.
44. EDWARD BEAUCHAMP ROGERS, HENRY NORMAN EVERARD ROGERS, RANSOME WALLIS, ALGERNON WALLIS, SHEPPARD JAMES RANSOME, ARTHUR JAMES RANSOME, JOSEPH JOHN ROLLS SHORT , and RICHARD MARTLAND NEWTON, Conspiring to obtain money and securities from persons and corporations, with intent to defraud, and attempting fraudulently to obtain credit from the same by other frauds. Other counts, for obtaining securities by fraud and false pretences.
SHORT and NEWTON refused to plead, and a plea of
NOT GUILTY was entered for them.
MESSRS. MUIR, BODKIN, and A. E. GILL Prosecuted; SIR JOSEPH LEESE and MR. ELLIOTT appeared for E. B. and H. N. E. Rogers; MR. DICKENS, K.C., MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS, and MR. BOYD for R. Wallis; MESSRS. WALLACE and LYNCH for A. Wallis; MR. J.P. GRAIN for S. J. Ransome; MESSRS. DISTURNAL and TANGYE for A. J. Ransome;. MESSRS. WARREN and PAGE for Short; and MR. KERSHAW for Newton.
MR. KERSHAW submitted as regards Newton that the indictment did not comply with sections 1 and 2 of the Vexatious Indictments Act, and cited the cases of Beg. v. the Lord Mayor of London, 16 Cox 77, and Reg. v. Knowlden. MR. MUIR contended that the Counts were good in law, and cited Reg. v. Brown, tried before Mr. Justice Darling in this Court THE RECORDER held that, though the fiat was probably intended to meet the case of a defendant being added after others had been committed, nothing was shown to limit the fiat of the Attorney-General, and overruled the objection, and a plea of not guilty was entered for Newton. MR. GRAIN submitted that the first Count was too vague, and should be quashed, first, as no overt act was set out over a period of five years; second, that no persons were specifically set out as having been defrauded; and, third, that it was embarrassing to the defendants. THE COURT overruled the objection.
EDWARD BOARDS KNIGHT . I am one of the firm of Wontner and Sons, solicitors, 19, Ludgate Hill, the solicitors for this prosecution, and who are acting as agents for the Director of Public Prosecutions—after the discharge of the prisoners Newton and Short, at the Manison House Police Court, papers were placed before the Attorney-General, who gave us the instructions produced for preferring indictments against them, and the indictment to which that fiat of the Attorney-General refers is the one before the Court.
EDWARD EBENEZER PRICE . I am a chartered accountant, and one of the firm of Viney, Price, and Goodyear, 99, Cheapside—I have known Edward and Norman Rogers about ten years—I audited their books from June, 1890—their partnership commenced in March, 1898—I saw the partners from time to time, and prepared a balance-sheet of that firm's affairs up to December 31st, 1888, from the firm's books—it showed assets after all liabilities were accounted for of £1,916 16s. 3d.—that was their capital—I also prepared this balance-sheet for six months to June 30th, 1889—that shows £1,153 2s. 1d. assets after liabilities had been provided for—the capital had come down about £800—the next balance-sheet I produce is up to December 31st, 1889—that shows the partnership assets after liabilities as £725 6s. 1d.—the next balance-sheet prepared by me shows those assets to June 30th, 1890, £342 10s. 3d.—in October, 1891, I found the balance to June was £42 10s. 3d., and I sent them a letter calling their attention to the items—there was no balance-sheet to December, 1890—I also had a conversation with Mr. Edward Rogers, and consented to make up balance sheets at a reduced fee of 25 guineas—in July, 1892, I wrote reminding them that their balance-sheets were a long way in arrear, and received their instructions to do no more work for them.
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. I was not aware that E. Rogers possessed a house at Barnet, and that both possessed other property, nor that they had an interest under their father's will.
Edward Rogers, of Norman Rogers, of Wallis, Sons, and Co., of Ransome Wallis, of Algernon Wallis, of S. and E. Ransome and Co., of Sheppard Ransome, of Arthur Ransome, of Joseph John Rolls Short, trading as Thomas and Short, and of Richard Martland Newton.
JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT . I am senior examiner of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, under whose directions I have investigated the affairs of all the defendants in bankruptcy—I was assisted by Mr. Moore, a clerk to Mr. Child, a chartered accountant, Mr. Moore being the trustee of the estates of Rogers Brothers and of S. and E. Ransome and Co.—this statement of affairs of Rogers Brothers is signed by both the defendants Rogers, and sworn to as correct—I know their writing—the date of their bankruptcy and adjudication is November 21st, 1901—the gross liabilities are £186,630 18s., their net liabilities £73,94015s. 9d., net assets £9,293 4s, 10d., showing a deficiency of £64,647 10s. lid.—those are their figures after taking as credit their balance sheet of December 31st, 1899. in accounting for their deficiency—the summary of Edward Rogers' separate estate shows gross liabilities £21,518 11s. 1d., net liabilities £19,329 7s. 2d., assets £1,600, deficiency £17,632 18s.—in Norman Rogers' separate estate it is gross liabilities £17,040 14s. 9d., net £14.456 15s. 11d., net assets £627 12s. 10d., and deficiency £13,829 3s. 1d.—those are sworn to be correct—this balance sheet of Mr. Price shows a credit balance of Rogers Brothers of £42 in June, 1891—I examined that with a list of creditors and debtors, and from the explanation the Rogers gave me I came to the conclusion that the firm was insolvent in June, 1890—they admitted some, and the debtors' accounts were their own under other names, and represented losses on speculations in goods—I took the preliminary examination of the debtors, which is Exhibit 381—among the debtors to the firm I find A. Hows for £667 16s. 10d.; H. Jackson £936; T. Thorne, £510 9s. 7d.—the debtors said they held stock against some of the debtors to them, and that the balance partly represented stock in hand; as to others they were losses which they shared equally or in varying proportions—I have been through the firm's books and prepared a balance sheet (Exhibit 383) to December 31st, 199, which was checked by Mr. Moore and another clerk, and which shows a deficiency of £30,844 14s. 10d. as against a surplus balance in Exhibit 3 of £31,574 12s. 1d., or a difference of £63,000—I showed that balance sheet to the defendants Rogers after I had prepared it in January or February—they said they had no doubt the books showed those figures, but that the books were wrong—they challenged the absence of stock—they pointed out that in Exhibit 3 there was a considerable item for stock, but none in Exhibit 383—that stock the property of Rogers Brothers was represented by Jackson's debt, and that they estimated that at £3,000—subsequently I found a list of stock, and that was substituted to the value of £5.000—I had given them full credit for stock—I found very little trade between Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. of late years—the accommodation bills in 1900-1 averaged £18,000 to 20,000 a year—at the date of the Receiving Order the balance on loan was £10,600—I do not know of any trade bills—there was no trade between Rogers Brothers and Ransome and Co in
1900-1, but there were £50.000 to £60,000 a year of bills, and there was current at the date of the Receiving Order £13,000—the trade between Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Short in 1900-1 was about £11,000—the exchange cheque account showed about £161,000 including accommodation bills in the two years—the trade between Rogers Brothers and Newton between 1897 and 1901 was about £16,000 to a considerable extent done by trade bills, but there was in addition about £15,000 in accommodation bills from October, 1897, to March, 1901—between April, 1899, and September, 1901, there was about £50,000 in exchange cheques—both the Rogers initialed their answers on each page and signed Exhibit 381 at the end as being correct—(Passages from this Exhibit were then read.)—I also produce a statement of the affairs of Wallis, Sons and Co.—the Receiving Order is dated October 11th, 1901—all the bankruptcies were within four or five months of each other except that of Ransome Wallis—Algernon Wallis' own statement, he then being a member of Wallis, Sons and Co., shows gross liabilities £153,885 9s. 84, net £14,977 8s. 2d., and deficiency £62,726 4s. 4d.—the Receiving Order of Ransome Wallis was on March 4th, and the adjudication March 11th, 1902—his statement shows gross liabilities £34,578 3s. 10d., net £23,925 3s. 104, net assets £307 18s. 44, and-deficiency £23,617 5s. 6d—there was very little trade between Wallis, Sons and Co. and Ransome and Co., and in 1900-1 practically none; but there were accommodation bills to about £30,000—at the date of the Receiving Order on October 11th the accommodation bills outstanding amounted to £2,792—between Wallis, Sons and Co. and Newton during 1900—1 there were a few transactions in bristles in March, 1901—there were accommodation bills—there was no trade between Wallis, Sons and Short during those two years—there were accommodation bills—preliminary examination of Algernon. Wallis is Exhibit 444 in Vol. III. of the Exhibits—that was taken by me and signed by him as correct—(The relevant passages were then read.)—referring to the statement of S. and E. Ransome and Co., the gross liabilities are given as £42,412 13s. 1d., net£33,381 5s. 44, net debts £3,133 16s. 7d, and deficiency £30,247—I have merely the assets of the separate estate of S. Ransome, which are returned at £158—the statement of Arthur, Ransome shows net liabilities £1,000, and assets £132 10s.—the trade between Newton and Short in 1901—I was about £2,000—Short's preliminary examination was taken at Manchester—I produce it—it was signed by him and each page is initialled—on the first page he describes himself as a bristle, horse hair and carpet merchant—(The relevant passages were then read from Vol. III., p. 614, of the Exhibits.)—one "bill described as a trade bill is that of Atkins, dated June 17th, 1901, for £669 9s. 84, drawn by Thomas and Short upon Rogers Brothers—the others are described as accommodation bills in the statement of affairs—they were all dishonoured and are in the schedule—from the books I find that the exchange cheques current in September, 1901, between Rogers and Wallis amount to £95,025 8s. 84, and between Rogers and Newton to about £50,000—the total exchange cheques between the defendants, including bills, amount to £161,866 2s. 1d.—
many of them were on shipments on the bristles accounts—Newton's were on carpets and goods of that character—the payees in the books were not genuine—the cheques were marked—in 1901 there was no trade between Ransome and Short, and I think none between Ransome and Newton, or very little, if any—there were accommodation bills between Ransome and Short, and Ransome and Newton—I received a private ledger from the Ransomes which shows a yearly deficiency, subject to the correction in the examination—they treated the debts due to the partners for drawings over profits as good debts—the correction turned the surplus into a deficiency—(Passages from Exhibit 446 were here read.)—the Receiving Order against Short, trading as Thomas and Short, was made on November 2nd, 1901—his statement shows gross liabilities £43,795, net £26,623, assets £1,112, and deficiency £25,511—Short's preliminary examination, Exhibit 447, was read to him and signed by him as correct—(Portions of this Exhibit were also read.)—Newton's Receiving Order is dated November 22nd—his statement shows gross liabilities £28,313 16s. 8d, net £24,221 4s. 7d., net assets £5,649 9s. 8d., and deficiency £18,571 17s. 8d.—as to paper for genuine trade transactions there are the questions and answers in the preliminary examination 'of Rogers Brothers in Exhibit 381 with reference to them (Read.)—the correspondence with Rogers Brothers is in Exhibit 400 (Read.)—the letters come from the defendants' possession—with regard to loans on warrants I find from Rogers Brothers' books that on February 21st, 1899, they owed the London City and Midland Bank £39,585—these were valued in Rogers' books at £36.720. a difference of £2,865—according to the usual custom there should have been a margin in excess of loan—that would make the deficiency £10,000 to £12,000—the account with the City and Midland Bank was closed in February, 1899—the preliminary examinations with reference to these loans is in Exhibit 381, Vol. II., page 405, and Exhibit 446, Vol. III. page 589, and the correspondence in Exhibit 398, Vol. II., page 482—(Read.)—the writing is that of one or other of the defendants—I have traced the cheques, and the result is shown in Exhibit 443—of the proceeds of the Norwich Union cheque, £1,297 1s. 10d. went to Kevorkian and £1,044 1s. 5d. to Newton, £1,225 10s. 7d. to Thomas and Short, who paid it to Glynn Mills—there was also an acceptance of £251 4s. 9d. of Rogers Brothers drawn by Thomas and Short, and a cheque for £286 8s. 4d., which with other sums make a total of £2263 8s. 8d. of proceeds which went to Thomas and Short—£383 16s. 10d. went direct to Newton—the total he received from the Norwich Union cheque was £1,427 17s. 10d.—Rogers Brothers paid off four loans to the London and Westminster Bank amounting to £1,007, and there were sundry other payments amounting the £2,718 16s.—a small balance remained in their private account—the total repayments amounted to £3,725 between February 21st and the end of February—the payments could not have been made without the credit of the Norwich Union cheque—the defendants, except Newton and short, acknowledge liability to the Yorkshire Insurance Company, either as principals or guarantors of £2,000—that is dealt with in the examination of Ransome Wallace in Exhibit 445, Vol. III., page 563,
and Exhibit 446, Vol. III, page 569—(Read.)—and the correspondence in Exhibit 515, page 682, and Exhibit 519, page 685, which I found amongst Ransome's papers—(Read.)—the result of my investigation is in Exhibit 442A—the cheque, Exhibit 442, was paid at Martin's Bank to Algernon Walks' account on September 19th, 1901—his balance was then £209 10s. 7d., and on that day there was paid in £1,800 2s. 3d., including an amount of £1,796 7s. 6d. received from the Yorkshire Insurance Company, and on the 20th there was a further payment in of £1,490 10s. 5d.—£568 9s. 5d, £285 10s. 7d, and £433, and discount £35, and £237 16s. 8d. are entered to the bills payable account on September 19th, all in respect of liabilities of Wallis Sons and Co—the total is £1,130 19s. 9d., and on September 20th a further sum of £250 is entered—Rogers Brothers were paid £500; Mills and Sparrow had £393 5s. 9d.—they were creditors of Wallis, Sons and Co.—on September 25th the London and County Bank received £650, And Algernon Wallis and S. and E. Ransome £181 3s. 9d., and there were sundry payments—these are referred to in Algernon Wallis' examination, Exhibit 477, page 662 Vol. III.—(Read.)—Exhibit 458, Vol. III, page 648, is a letter written in three hands on a memorandum form of Wallis, Sons and Co.—it is addressed to Rogers Brothers, and dated August 25th, 1899—the first part is written by Mr. Moxam, the cashier to Wallis, Sons and Co.—the next part is Norman Rogers' writing, and the other part the writing of Algernon Wallis—it comes from the possession of Rogers Brothers—"Dear Sirs,—Will you very kindly let bearer have the three drafts sent for your acceptance yesterday, and much oblige, yours truly, Moxam, Sons And Co.; J.M."—then written across the memorandum is, "As you have so many unusable in your safe, why do you want these three there?" in Norman's writing; then Algernon writes at the side, "Because, dearest Sirs, we have an appointment with two rank outsiders for Saturday, which may gives us the chance to plant two papers; one is Mr. McCall and another Mr. Salton, and if we miss the chance it will be bad for all of us, do you see?"—(The examinations and correspondence in Exhibits 396 to 491 were then read.)
CHARLES WILLIAM HOLLAND . I am a clerk to Messrs. Wontner and Sons, solicitors—I made a copy of the letter of September 19th, 1901, Exhibit 491a, from a letter-book of the London and County Bank, and examined it with the manager—(This stated that the bank would not in future pay against Kevorkian and Co.'s cheques until cleared.)
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. I adhere to the figures I have given—the chief item in the debit balance of Edward Rogers' estate is the Norwich Union loan of £12,147—there was also the £2,016 of the Yorkshire Insurance Company—the £1,000 guarantee in the Palatine Bank was a joint liability—the liability was £14,163—there were £1,696 assets—the £19,000 was reduced to £1,696—the £19,000 was his own statement—the £14,446 liabilities of Norman Rogers, £12,147 is Norwich Union, and £2,016 Yorkshire Insurance, or £2,000 in his statement of
affairs—the total is £14,140. and liabilities £14,456—apart from his obligations as surety and guarantor, Norman Rogers' private account, stands reduced to about £456 liabilities and £627 assets, shoeing a small surplus excluding the sureties—I cannot give the Rogers' drawings because they are not adjusted in the private ledger—they exceeded £1,200—I heard at the Mansion House that the balance-sheet of December 31st, 1899, was asked for by the manager of the London and Westminster Bank—I had a copy of it from Mr. Brett within a month of the adjudication—I prepared the balance-sheet. Exhibit 38.3, in January because I could not understand the other one—I was concerned with Rogers Bros.' condition in 1889, because the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 directs investigation of the bankrupt's affairs—it was not done with the express intention of a prosecution—the recommendation of these proceedings did not lie with me alone—the debtors make out that they are entitled to a credit of £31,000 in December, 1899—my balance-sheet of December, 1899, shows a debt of £60,000—the balance of the alleged loss from over-valuation was £55,000—the amount of loss according to the statement of affairs was £85,000—I understand that £45,000 is the amount alleged to have been obtained by overvaluations from the London and Westminster Bank, and that the goods realised £14,000—cheques were obtained in favour of Rogers Bros, from the London and County Bank of £4,244, from Lloyd's £7,474, from the London and Westminster £1,633 and £2,393 in further bills—the £4,786 is Wallis—£6,200 was Glyn Mills, and £669 Atkins—the Palatine Bank £1,900, and the Mercantile Bank £1,300—the total is £73,000 since December, 1899—£64,000 was deposited by Rogers Brothers to December, 1901—between the balance-sheet of December, 1899, and September, 1901, there must have been £34,000 deposited to make up the £64,000—the £12,000 from the Norwich Union and the £2,000 from the Yorkshire Insurance Company appear in all the accounts whether separate or joint—if one of them paid them off those debts would disappear, subject to the right of contribution, but to multiply the accounts, by the eight defendants is an exaggerated view—there were a good many cheque transactions between Rogers and Newton; all of them were met, also the bills with Thomas, and Short—those cheques and bills amount to about £60,000—Rogers accounts with the City and Midland Bank have been closed—I understood so from Edward Rogers—Rogers Brothers adopted the names of Howes, John Dent, and F. A. Went—I have not the Official Receiver's Report, but I have no doubt Rogers Brothers did make profits and brokerage, and that they did a large legitimate trade.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. If it had not been for the Norwich Union Loan, certain bills of Wallis, Sons, and Co., amounting to £1,096 3s. 7d. could not have been met—I find £1,580 paid into their banking account from Rogers Brothers, and that is the only way I have of tracing the sum—I find a bill of three months drawn by Wallis on November 18th, and accepted by Rogers—if it were for Wallis' accommodation he could discount that bill and provide funds to meet bills due at that date—I cannot agree that Wallis's books show that the bills for £300, £496, and £300 were provided for by Wallis irrespective of the Norwich Union sum
of £10,580—the books of Rogers Brothers, of which this document is only an extract, show that the first bill of £300 was accepted by them and finally was for their benefit—the discount was £3 17s. 3d.—the other two were apparently for the benefit of Wallis—the cash book at folio 39 shows cheques of £600 and £194 10s., on February 23rd, of Wallis, and discount £1 13s. 1d.—I cannot say that that was for those two bills, there was a batch of other bills discounted at the same t-me which were due the day before those two—I find bills receivable on February 24th at three months, for £476 3s. 1d., £796 3s. 1d., and £794 10s., with a deduction of £1 13s. 1d. and cheques entered in the ledger, but I do not know that they were provided for these bills—the figures appear to be so if you are right in your deduction from the sums—the books of Wallis, Sons, and Co. contain all these accommodation transactions, but I cannot say clearly—I can discover no appearance of disguising or concealing them—of the Yorkshire loan £1,796 was paid into Algernon Wallis's bank—the cheque is entered in the ledger—Bowden had two or three shops and traded with bills—an old debt is standing of his—he left London in 1900—Wallis's father was in the firm till he died in 1900—the firm did considerable business, they imported largely from abroad—they used to accept against delivery orders, from the bankers who held the shipping documents—they sold produce in the provision and allied trades and paid partly by acceptances—there was a great deal of paper on both sides—they lost seriously in 1894 in consequence of forward shipments in cheese—their turnover was between £200,000 and £300,000 a year—their best years were in 1896-7—from June to November, 1896, it was £158,000—Ransome Wallis was well backed by the banks, and by Mr. John Cobb, his father-in-law, and by John McCall in 1894—between £5,000 and £6,000 was put in the business, Roberts, Appley, Wilson, and Beaumont backed them—Algernon was seriously ill during part of the time—in 1889 Mr. McCall put £3,000 into the business upon which he paid interest—that was a gift to his daughter, Mrs. Ransome Wallis—£5,000 more put into the business is included in the liabilities, but does not rank—those amounts were released—upon the execution of the deed of dissolution of partnership Mrs. Wallis's trustees paid in £6,000, and a covenant was entered into by Ransome Wallis to pay £6,000 more within six months—the amount paid in was about £14,000—all the bills except four were met before the bankruptcy—the bills of Newton and the Palatine and Mercantile Banks were not met—another bill was drawn as from June 1st—I am not sure that one bill is not dated May 31st—the others are between June 1st and 18th—both Wallises say they had delivery orders on Newton for bristles in respect of them—Ransome Wallis got an indemnity from Algernon on condition of his paying £6,000—there were small sums due in the marriage settlement of Ransome Wallis that account for his deficiency—the Norwich Union by payment of premiums is a diminishing debt—I think Wallis, Sons, and Co. were well acquainted with Short, and that they had dealings with Newton—this is the first I have heard of delivery orders held as security for advances, being kept back by Rogers—the lease of the farm and factory at Tadworth was valued at £15,000, and in the compensation under the Market Gardens Act the total was, I think,
not £30,000 but £21,000—the security of Rogers Brothers was held for Wallis amongst others for what it was worth.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. Wallis, Sons and Co.'s books were well kept by Algernon up to the time of the bankruptcy—he was extremely frank in speaking of these matters—during the four and a half years his private drawings were between £300 and £(500, including a payment on his policy of about £100 a year.
JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT (Re-examined by MR. GRAIN.) Mr. Moore is the trustee of Mr. Child, the trustee for the Ransomes, who had been in business fifty years before their failure in 1901—I believe Mr. Moore has—access to all the papers—the business was founded in 1832 by the father of Sheppard, and Arthur Ransome—they banked at the London and Westminster Bank for a larger portion of that time at the head office at Westminster, and for a short period at the Temple Bar Branch—the whole of their acceptances were accepted at their bank—the whole of the bills embodied in this enquiry were accepted at the head office—Arthur Ransome's assets at the time of the failure amounted to £644 12s. 8d.—that was handed over to the trustee—his book debts were estimated at £1,632—I "would rather you ask Mr. Moore what was realised, and details—leaving out unsecured creditors the liabilities of the firm upon bills, etc., included £12,000 to the Norwich Union and £2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Company—the total is £33,381—Arthur's portion was £13,808—from an examination of the firm's pass book and bankruptcy accounts since 1897 I find there was always a credit sufficient to meet cheques—I find none dishonoured—the books of the firm were well kept—I find no entry of their having received money in respect of their certificates of values of warrants—except as to £2,700 or £2,800 their bills had all run off before the failure—their deficiencies were in 1893. £693; 1894, £826; 1895, £1,671; and in 1896, £970 apparently, but no balance sheet was taken out for three years—in 1898 the deficiency was £1,736, in 1899 £539, in 1900 £1,709, and in 1901 £418, without taking account of sundry liabilities—they had assumed that certain overdrafts of the partners were available and proper assets—I do not find that they were borrowers upon warrants deposited as securities—Sheppard Ransome's drawings were, in March, 1898—9, £302; March, 1899-1905, £375; March, 1900—1, £373; and from March, 1901, to the date of the Receiving Order, £458; the drawings of Arthur Ransome's were respectively £634, £1,033, £827 and £493—in the examination both Ransomes were present when I put the formal questions, and asked questions which occurred to me of each; I found no hesitation or reticence in their answers, which they signed—I agree with Mr. Grey's answer to you at the Mansion House that both the Ransomes gave me every assistance—they handed me these nine answers to trade inquiries of London trading associations as to Rogers Brothers, Wallis, Sons and Co., and others—(These were dated from January, 1894, to May, 1891, and were favourable references.)—with regard to the Scottish Union, Ransome's books show that out of a cheque for £2,051 0s. 10d., apparently payable to Kevorkian, they received £1,297 1s. 10d.—that went to meet bills of Rogers Brothers—cover was given by Rogers for
bills for a year or two, I think, but the cover was not always sufficient—there was full cover for a short time and then it gradually fell off—there was some small cover at the date of the Receiving Order—it was a very small amount; the trustee can speak as to the value—the correspondence shows that Rogers Brothers were asked for cover and did not give it—it was admitted in the examination that the cover ceased latterly altogether—at the time warrants or receiving orders were held by the Ransomes, deposited by Rogers Brothers some time previously—they realised a small sum—after March, 1900, the Ransomes never drew or discounted any bill.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. There are adjustments in the accounts between Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. and Short—I do not suggest that any commission was received by Short in these transactions—in 1900 the Shorts' turnover was approximately £28,000—I find no proof nor any correspondence between Short and Cobb—Wallis and Co. and Short were personally acquainted—there is no correspondence between them in 1900 and 1901 to my knowledge—Short told me that the only way he dealt with Wallis and Co. with regard to bills was through Rogers Brothers, who told him they were trade transactions—the same answer applies to the Ransomes—Short said that he received assistance from Rogers in bills, and that he gave bills in exchange—there was accommodation—Short said that he advanced enormously on hops in 1896—I believe it was 75 per cent.—there was a heavy fall in the market—he held over hops for a better market, but I cannot tell you whether it was for two seasons—I have no doubt he sold at a Joss—the American consignors, the hop growers, were indebted to him about £3,300—after the fall in the market he wrote to Rogers Brothers for assistance to tide over the difficulty—another factor was that the firm who had financed him previously did not go on financing him—that was early in 1897—up to that time his business had been going on fairly well—his income in 189G was larger than in 1897—he employed Down and Co. to recover his debts—they are mercantile agents of New Street, Cheapside—he told me that they had offices in the United States, Canada, and Australasia—he said that in 1899 he visited America with the object of enlarging his business credit and to reduce the loss, and again in the summer of 1900, at the instance of Rogers Brothers, to increase his business and to collect debts—I do not agree that in 1900 he was looking to realising these debts—I do not remember his telling me that on August 15th. 1901, he had a letter from Down and Co. advising him to consider the American debts as bad debts—he said he got the value of the warrants from Rogers Brothers—I should say it was extraordinary for him to rely upon their certificates—he had freehold property at Weymouth, subject to a mortgage—there was a surplus—he valued some furniture at £35—when he filed his petition a number of his bills had not matured—he had called a meeting of his creditors—he filed his petition on their recommendation—this is the-first I have heard of his drafting a statement with regard to Rogers Brothers' loans—he handed me a pocket book which is here—before his bankruptcy several creditors had issued writs against him—two of them are here—one is by the London and County Bank and one is by Mr. Judd—his books were fairly kept by himself and others—he has
given some information—he has reserved the truth—he handed me books and papers—he has been in business forty-three years—nothing has been found against him apart from these proceedings.
Cross-examined by MR. KERSHAW. I knew that Newton had carried on business as a bristle and horse hair merchant since 1868, and I believe previously as a brush maker at Stockport either by himself or with his mother, that the business was founded by his father, who died about 1855, and was carried on till the time of the bankruptcy proceedings—his trade with Rogers Brothers was about £16,000 since 1897, and their bills, amounted to about £15,000—he had doubled his business before 1897 by dealings with Rogers Brothers, which began in 1888-9—his gross liabilities, £28,000, and net liabilities, £24,000, include the Norwich Union £12,000 and the bills then due—the accommodation cheques between Rogers. Brothers and Newton amounted to £50,000—some had been met at the date of the Receiving Order—he called a meeting of his creditors and signed his petition on November 23rd—the cheques for £2,610 between them were an exchange transaction—all the transactions referred to here were posted in the books.
Cross-examined by SIR J. LEESE. On February 10th, 1901, there was a credit balance of Rogers Bros., at the London and Westminster Bank, of £2,093—cheques were paid in which brought it up to £3,124 seven days before the £10,000 was paid in—the exchange transactions amounted to £2,051 0s. 10d.—Kevorkian paid £1,297 1s. 10d. to Ransomes—I have never seen Kevorkian's name in connection with any trade transactions in Ransome's books—there is a payment to Kevorkian of £2,151—of the £3,339, Ransomes received £1,297—there were trading transactions between Kevorkian and Rogers Bros.—Rogers Bros.' turnover with the London and Westminster Bank was very large—at the date of the loan there was £600 or £700 to their credit at Lloyds Bank—there was a private account open for the purpose of meeting their obligations to the Norwich Union—I believe it was opened with £100 from E. Rogers' private account—it reached £1,000—trial balance sheets were taken out—this one is my writing—there is no credit for stock—it would have been possible to have ascertained their position if the figures had been correct.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. Wallis, Sons and Co.'s account with Martin's Bank was very large—possibly there was £25,000 in three months' bills before 1899, or £100,000 a year—it is very difficult to distinguish the bills—there were transactions in cheese and butter.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. There were large advances to Wallis, Sons and Co. on warrants—I do not know that the warrants realised more than the advances—I heard from Algernon, that cheques marked by Martin's Bank were marked by Mr. Buegg—that would make the cheque as good as a bank note practically.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Martin's Bank discounted £15,366 of Ransome's acceptances—at the time of the failure about £620 was outstanding.
Re-examined. One reason for my making out a balance sheet of Rogers Bros. was that they put the credit balance at £33,000—I asked for papers to
show that, which were not produced—that was the object of the investigation in bankruptcy, and not with a view to a prosecution—the firm's liabilities and those of their separate estates were not repeated—the total credit, starting with the balance on February 20th, and including all sums paid in between that date and February 27th, was £15,218—that included £10,000 from the Norwich Union, but not the £500—the bills outstanding could not have been met but for the £10,000—those were allocated and paid out of the London and Westminster firm's account—I traced the allocation in Wallis and Sons, and Rogers Brothers' books—in Wallis and Sons' books it appears by red ink figures—they are arbitrary figures—about the same time there was a fresh batch of bills—from 1894 to 1896 Wallis and Sons lost £14,000—their turnover was large—if there was a profit the larger the turnover the larger the profit, if a loss the larger the loss—I ascertained from Algernon that the warrants for the bristles were produced the same day as the letter from the London and Westminster Bank was written, to satisfy the Bank that Newton's bills were secured—I asked the defendants about the transaction with Hodson, and they all know of Hodson's letter of April 30th, 1901, which discusses what is to be done with regard to his liabilities—many bills of Ransomes' with the London and Westminster Bank, run off before September, 1901—that Bank declined to discount any more of them after March, 1900—Ransomes received the proceeds of the bills afterwards, to the extent of about £1,000; the actual figures are in the statement—Ransomes' capital decreased during the last three years—during that period they received £500 to £600 commission on bills—their gross income from all sources was £2,200 and net £800, apart from commissions—these trade reports refer to "Rogers Brothers and—others"—I did not know of three Rogers carrying on business together, only the two—both Edward and Norman told me they were the only partners—with regard to Wallis, Sons and Co., the trade reports extend from 1894 to 1901—the Wallises are cousins of the Ransomes—the cover by warrants of Ransomes from Rogers Brothers ceased within twelve months of the bankruptcy; they could not get any warrants for twelve months, and as they say in their examination, they ceased to apply for them—(The correspondence between Newton, and Rogers Brothers in Exhibits 406 to 418 was then read.)
HAROLD JOHN MOORE I am a chartered accountant and clerk to Mr. Child, the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendants Rogers Brothers, and with regard to their separate estates; also of the firm of S. and E. Ransome and their separate estates—I have examined the books with the witness Mr. Broughton Knight—I was present at the preliminary examination of the bankrupts—I assisted Mr. Knight in preparing the balance sheet, Exhibit 383, which shows the state of Rogers Brothers' affairs to December 31st, 1899—it is correct according to their books—the defendants Rogers. Brothers have had copies supplied to them and have criticised the figures—they accepted the amounts as correct, but said the books were incorrect—the separate estates have been realised, but the joint estate has not—the joint estate up to the present time realised £1,115, and there are a few warrants which may realise another £2,000—
the separate estate of E. Rogers realised £1,769, and that of N. Rogers £682—the whole assets total £5,560—the liabilities proved are £79,936, and there is a further £35,000 outstanding, making an approximate total of £115,000 for the joint estate—the separate estates include debts to the Norwich Union and the Yorkshire Insurance Co. of £14,000—the total against E. Rogers is £23,800, and against N. Rogers £15,600—the total liabilities are £139,000 as against £5,560 assets—Ransome and Co.'s assets are £1,868 and a possible £500 to come; S. Ransome's assets £197, and Ransome's assets £174, the three estates totalling £2,739 of assets—the liabilities of Ransome's firm are £25,339, and a further £3,000 outstanding, which makes an approximate total of £28,500 against the joint estate—on the separate estates the £14,000 comes in twice—eliminating that I make the proofs £14,000 against the separate estate of S. Ransome, and against Ransome £15,119—that makes the joint and separate liabilities of the Ransomes £43,000 odd against total assets of £2,739—I heard a portion of Mr. Knight's evidence coming in and out of Court, and agree with it.
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. The Rogers' attitude was this, "We do not doubt the balance sheet is correct, but the books themselves are not accurate"—there was £4,000 guarantee to the Norwich Union—the loan was £10,580—the books show considerable trading between Rogers and Kevorkian—E. Rogers' statement shows that he is debited with £12,147 to the Norwich Union and £2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Co.—the figures are duplicated in the statement of affairs—the Pallatine Bank £1,000 is not scheduled—in the statement of affairs the money receipts are not accurate—his account is charged with £5,000 to the Commercial Union—that is £19,000 excluding the Pallatine—his own statement is £31,000, net, £19,300—the claim against Kevorkian is scheduled as £6,800—that may rank as assets if the claim is good.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have read the books and papers relating to Ransome and Co.—their books were well kept—I found £20,000 liabilities on sixty-six bills, of which £15,808 is expected to rank—there is also a liability of £12,000 to the Norwich Union and £2,000 to the Yorkshire Insurance Co.—we shall realise the whole of the doubtful £500 assets or none—all S. Ransome's assets have been realised—his statement was substantially correct—the same answers apply to A. Ransome—both Ransomes attended for their examination when required, and answered the questions put by me.
Re-examined. The Kevorkian cheque is purely an exchange cheque transaction—the trustee is investigating the account in reference to Rogers Brothers' claim against Kevorkian, and Kevorkian's claim of £3,000 against Rogers Brothers.
ARTHUR FREDERICK ATKINS . I am an insurance broker and bill discounter, of Imperial Buildings, Leicester—I have discounted for the defendant Short, acceptances of Rogers Brothers, and Hodson, drawn by"Thomas and Short"—(The correspondence with regard to these acceptances was read from Exhibit 10, dated January 19th, to 'Exhibit 20, dated June 22nd, 1901.)—when I discounted those bills I believed they were genuine trade bills representing goods sold, drawn by the acceptors on Thomas
and Short, and that Rogers Brothers always met bills at maturity without assistance.
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. I have never had any direct transactions with Rogers Brothers.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I do not remember seeing any "account sales"—these produced are partly printed with blank spaces for names and particulars—the words "public sale" and "ex" are printed—I did not pay particular attention to that—I took this to be an account of transactions between the two parties to the bill—I did not trouble about the technicalities on the top—the words "Lot money" is in writing—and one per cent." for brokerage—I advertise for bills to be discounted—I did not apply to Short, he applied to me—I may have written him occasionally—I was introduced to him—he complained of my high charges—he gave me references—I made inquiries about the acceptors in addition to and independent of the consideration on the bills—I took the bills partly on the references, and partly on the statements as to the transactions—there were six bills—they were all paid except the last—inquiries about the last made me suspicious—subsequently to the last bill maturing I issued proceedings—I have been a bill discounter for twenty years—I have never prosecuted, nor threatened to prosecute—yes, I did prosecute one person for forgery at Northampton many years ago—I always understood that prosecution does not destroy the civil remedy—I issued a writ after seeing Short—I got judgment—that was stayed under the bankruptcy proceedings—I instructed solicitors—I put pressure on Short to get paid.
Re-examined. I would not have discounted the last bill if I had known that it was an accommodation bill.
EGERTON SPENCER GREY . I am Official Receiver in Bankruptcy—I have investigated the books and documents of Thomas and Short, and of Rogers Brothers, with reference to Atkins' bills—looking at the bill book, I find a bill for £611 12s. 6d. discounted with Atkins on January 22nd, 1901—it is referred to in exhibits 10 and 11—the books show that it is an accommodation bill, and it remains till this day in the books—I found Exhibit 564 [A memorandum showing the proceeds of the bill and a balance to Rogers Brothers of £207 14s. 4d.] amongst Rogers Brothers' papers—it refers to £669 9s. 8d. received by Thomas and Short from Atkins—the net proceeds of the bill are £645 6s. 6d.—the original paper is headed "Exchange Account, 22nd June, 1901"—[MR. KNIGHT: The writing is Howard Short's]—it is the writing of Short's son—it is addressed to Rogers Brothers, is initialled "T. and S." and shows that Thomas and Short account to Rogers Brothers for the proceeds of the bill—Rogers Brothers get the benefit of it—if it had been a genuine trade transaction, the drawer should have had the benefit—this is the cheque for the balance, "Pay Delhi (London) Bank or bearer £207 14s. 4d.," that is signed Thomas and Short, and is dated June 25th—it is Short's writing—[MR. KNIGHT: The cheque is Howard Short's writing, the signature is Short's writing]—Exhibit 564a is the pass book of Rogers' account at the Delhi Bank, which shows the receipt of that sum—it is credited at the bank the
same day—in the exchange cheque account of Thomas and Short it is entered as an accommodation transaction—the entry in Rogers Bros.' books shows by deduction that it is accommodation—other entries treat it as the proceeds of the sale of goods—it is entered after October 3rd, but bears date July 8th—first at page 631 is a credit, Thomas and Short's account, £669 9s. 8d., June 22nd, by acceptance Atkins £669 9s. 8d., and then June 17th, folio 624, same account, by cheque £669 9s. 8d. crediting Thomas and Short—in Thomas and Short's books it is carried to goods account—there are four or five of those transactions—the first entry is McCall, exchange cheque account, which is the account through which accommodation bills exchange cheques were passed, he credits the account with the net proceeds of the bill, and debits it with payments to both of the Rogers—it is set out in the exchange account at folio 388, in the green or sold ledger—the dates run June 22nd, then June 21st, it is balanced on June 30th, then the account goes to July 20th, and on July 31st the account is credited "Discount in error £645 6s. 6d."—that is interlineated in small figures as there is no room for it—it has not been written in since the total £9,802 1s. 5d., which is cast correctly—the next is a journal entry at page 73, carried through to the exchange goods account, and there is the double transfer of the net proceeds, and the discount charges, making up the gross amount of the bill, and debiting Rogers Brothers in the goods account under an entry of July 31st of 11s. in the name of Myer from the sold ledger after August 30th, therefore the transfer to Rogers Brothers' account must also have been made after that date—there invariably is a space at the end of the month in the journal—it also shows that the next entry on the same date was made after October 8th, 1901, although it appears at the date of July 31st; I find that by reference to the sold ledger of October 8th—therefore, assuming all the entries of July 31st were made at the same time they were made after October 8th, when this book transfer to Rogers was made, and certainly after August 30th—the practical stoppage of payment was on September 26th—I can refer to other entries if necessary—I traced the principal items to Thomas and Short's stock book on June 30th—I found a press copy of Exhibit 18 gummed in the press copy account sales book of Rogers Brothers—it is not indexed, but the sheets before and after it are indexed—it is indistinct and blurred, and written in to make it clear by indelible pencil, in Howard Short's writing—the tissue paper has been folded up in folds to put into an envelope—[This was a memorandum as to a four months' acceptance, dated" 20/10/01" for £076 7s. 2d.]—I cannot explain the items £615s. 2d. £1 17s. 6d. brokerage, and 2s. 4d., and lot money at 9d. a lot—it is in the invoice book as an invoice of goods—the number on the sheet has been torn off one sheet—the invoice purports to be a sale to H. Jackson—a loose sheet has been torn out of another book—the brokerage and allotment is charged in both firms' books—the sale purports to have taken place on June 17th of dog-skin robes, which formed the chief item of goods pledged with Frith, Sands and Co. on June 13th for a loan which has never been repaid—the goods were sold by Frith, Sands to recover their mortgage—
the record of that sale is in Rogers Brothers' ledger, at folio 624, after an entry October 3rd.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. There were goods answering the description in the account sales—I have traced them all, except the last small item—there were eighteen cases of Calcutta bristles—on June 15th two bills drawn by Rogers Brothers on Thomas and Short were running—the first is dated April 29th, 1901, which was due and payable on August 1st, 1901, for £422 13s. 7d.—that was discounted by the London and Westminster Bank—the second bill is dated May 1st, was due November 4th, for £547 3s. 4d., and was Exhibit 126, left in Richardson's hands as security for their acceptances—in Mincing Lane some firms improperly act both as merchants and brokers—the horsehair was purchased by Thomas and Short in the ordinary way of business—I do not suggest that that was an improper transaction—the same answer applies to the bristles—to obtain an advance, the ordinary course is to deposit warrants with a merchant banker to the value of the goods, or to substitute others to release them—the goods can be sold subject to the lien—the goods changing hands would not make it an accommodation transaction between the merchant and the broker.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. Short delivered up his books and papers, and answered the questions in his examination—he read from this pocket book, and I asked him to hand it to me—it refers to bristles—I am satisfied that the eighteen cases of Calcutta bristles existed at the time they were pledged to the London and Westminster Bank—there were various pledgings of those bristles—I put 8,000 or 9,000 questions to the defendants, and cannot remember particular ones—what was present to my mind was that these goods which had never been delivered, had been sold by the mortgagee—it is for the purchaser to take delivery, but goods are sold over and over again by brokers without being delivered—Short was dealing with Rogers Brothers—the purchaser would be liable for the wharf charges while he owned the goods or the warrants—the wharfinger looks for his charges to the person who deposits the goods, because he knows nobody else—Short did not clear the goods—they remained with Frith, Sands and Co. till they sold them after the bankruptcy—the contract between Frith, Sands and Short was valid on June 17th—there was a loss on the goods—they were sold to the mortgagee—I have produced the note showing the amounts were handed to Rogers Brothers—the account rendered to Rogers Brothers was headed "Exchange account," and the transaction was carried through the Exchange cheque account—that is accommodation—there would be adjustments between the firms—the exchange cheques run all through the accounts—the books give no details, but merely say "To cheque," then "cheque," and then there is a long string of items—the £2,000 is entered on the credit side at the date of January 21st, 1901, "By account A. L. and Co."—that shows that on January 21st Short received from Arbuthnot, Latham and Co. £2,000 on loan—on the face of them, none of the entries appear to be of exchange cheques—you never find items corresponding in amount—without a knowledge of the accounts you could not say this was an accommodation
account, except from its heading—considerable financial transactions appear between Rogers Brothers and Short as distinguished from trade—there is no objection to Short handing over sums, the result of discounted bills of Atkins and others, in payment of accounts between him and Rogers Brothers, but that is directly contradicted both by Short's and by Rogers Brothers' books—if the sale of June 17th was bona fide, the proceeds would have been applied to the release of the goods—Short failed on September 26th—he may have made payments as late as October 11th, but once Rogers Brothers stopped, Short's account stopped—the dog-skin robes were, when first purchased, the subject-matter of dispute between Short and Rogers Brothers as to the amount of cover.
FREDERICK HAMILTON SMITH . I am manager of the Mercantile Bank of Manchester, at Manchester—the Defendant Newton called upon me about October 11th, 1899, to open an account—I had known him previously by reputation as a bristle, horsehair, and carpet merchant—he required an ordinary current account and facilities for discounting bills—I asked him, and he told me that his capital was about £3,000—he gave me a list of firms whose acceptances the bank was to discount—I have been unable to find it—there was a large number of names in his own trade, and I inferred those were the names of persons whose bills would come into our hands—I agreed to open the account—between October, 1899, and April, 1900, we discounted acceptances of Rogers Brothers to the extent of £2,186, of Thomas and Short from November, 1899, to August, 1901, £2,500; of S. and E. Ransome between May, 1900, and February, 1901, £1.500; of Wallis, Sons and Co., between February and July, 1901, £1,274; and there were others—Exhibits 27 and 28 are two bills, of which Newton is the drawer, and Wallis, Sons and Co. the acceptors—one is for £282 11s. 1d. of May, 1901, and one £2,822 of June, 1901—the majority of them were for odd amounts—I inferred from that, that they were trade bills—if I had had any intimation that they were accommodation bills, I would not have discounted them—about July, 1900, it came to my knowledge that there were cross-drawings between Rogers Brothers and Newton—on July. 9th I asked Newton to explain that—he said that Rogers Brothers sometimes bought and sometimes sold for him—he produced invoices which bore out what he said—I told him I was satisfied as far as his transactions were concerned that the business was bona fide, but as he was doing that class of business, I could not discount the paper of Rogers Brothers or any other firm's where there were cross transactions, that one amount should be taken from the other, and the bill drawn for the difference—I discounted no more bills of Rogers Brothers—on January 30th, 1901, I had inquiries whether Newton was a good surety for a £12,000 loan—I saw Newton about it—he said it would be to his advantage in business to become one of the guarantors—I told him that my view was that in many cases the guarantors had to pay the money, and that so long as he had this liability over him I should refuse to give him any credit without full security—he said he did not apprehend the seriousness of the position, and thought that he would only have his proportion of that guarantee to pay; and that the
liability would be distributed over the guarantors—on February 1st he showed me a telegram from Rogers Brothers withdrawing him from the guarantee—I understood that he had written to them—I did not take the telegram in my hand, but I fully believed him—he said that matter had ceased so far as he was concerned—I continued to give him discount facilities—I believed he was a man of his word—had he not given me this assurance I should have adhered to my refusal—at the time of his failure the five bills scheduled in Exhibit 26 amounting to £1,331 15s. 6d. were in my hands under discount—the acceptor's names are Thomas and Short, Wallis, Sons and Co., and the Welch Grape Juice Company—all his subsequent bills were dishonoured.
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. When I discovered the cross drawings I ceased to discount Rogers Brothers' bills—our bank has lost nothing through Rogers Brothers' acceptances—we have lost on the firm's account, still I think we have security.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I had no direct communication with Thomas and Short—the results of our agent's inquiries was satisfactory.
Cross-examined by MR. KERSHAW. I have known Newton quite twentyfive years—he had banked with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bank—his dealings were satisfactory, all of them were what I considered business transactions—I knew him as a bristle and horsehair merchant in Manchester—I casually said to him when he came in 1899 about the account that the bills,"I suppose they are something like the bills we used formerly to discount?"
WILLIAM LLOYD POPPLE . I am manager of the Palatine Bank of Manchester—on June 21st, 1900, Newton called to open an account or facilities for discounting—he gave me the list of customers on Exhibit 22, which includes the names and extent of discounts of Rogers Brothers, £1,500; Ransome, £750; Thomas and Short, £750; Camm and Co., £500—I did not then know that Camm and Co. was connected with Newton—I drew Newton's attention to the fact that some of the names were not in the same trade as himself—I mentioned Ransome, and Wallis, Sons and Co. particularly afterwards, as we discounted bills on Wallis—he said that these bills came from Rogers Brothers, who guaranteed them, that they were continually doing business with him, and that the bills were to satisfy their indebtedness to him—Rogers Brothers were produce brokers—two or three weeks later he said that Rogers Brothers would guarantee a proportion of bills up to £1,000—I asked him what inducement they had to do so—he said, "Oh, they always have goods to greater value of mine than the amount of the guarantee, and I make up my mind to assist them in order that I may do more with them—I discounted Rogers' Brothers bills, and afterwards those of Wallis, Sons and Co.—between, August, 1900, and July, 1901. I discounted acceptances of Wallis, Sons and Co. amounting in round figures to £2,300, of S. and E. Ransome £2,000, of Thomas and Short between August, 1900, and May, 1901, £1,500, and of Camm and Co., between June, 1900, and September, 1901, £1,900—in June, 1901, I noticed that the number of bills was high and increasing and spoke to him about it—he said his position was good, his capital was £7,000, of which £3,000 or
£4,000 was in J. Camm and Co.—that was the first I had heard of his recollection with Camm and Co., as far as I recollect—at the time of New ton's failure I had the bills in my hands which I had discounted, shown in Exhibits 23 to 25, amounting to £2,059 (is. 5d. (I make it £2,200 in round figures), of which S. and E. Ransome. Wallis, Sons, and Co., the Welch Grape Juice Company, and John Camm and Co. are the acceptors—they were drawn for odd amounts, such as £394 0s. 4d. and £297 13s. 5d.—I inferred from that they were the amounts on the invoices of goods supplied and were trade bills—if I had known that they were accommodation bills I would not have discounted them—I discounted one bill after my interview with him—that was on July 15th.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Rogers Brothers' guarantee was £1,000—Newton informed me that they were responsible for unpaid bills, and we have letters to that effect—we had no acceptance of Rogers Brothers.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. We had no direct communication with Wallis, Sons and Co.—our inquiries in the ordinary course of business were satisfactory.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. All Thomas and Short's bills have been paid.
Cross-examined by MR. KERSHAW The information about Camm and Co. came from Newton himself.
JOHN BRETT . I am manager of the Mincing Lane Branch of the London and Westminster Bank—I know Edward and Norman Rogers, who carried on business as Rogers Brothers, 21, Mincing Lane, as Colonial brokers—they have been customers of ours since March 28th, 1898, when they opened an account with the bank, in the course of which acceptances would be discounted and advances made on the production of warrants—the limit of the discounts was fixed at £10,000—they mentioned their own bankers, the City Bank, but they wanted further facilities as they had reached the limit of the City Bank, which was £40.000, and I was referred by them to the City Bank—the result of our inquiries was perfectly satisfactory—I agreed to open an account and took their signatures—I also went to their office in Mincing Lane and saw both partners there—I asked hem to give me a balance sheet—they demurred to my request, but ultimately put it into the hands of an accountant named Thompson, who drew out a rough balance sheet showing their capital at about £30,000—it was made out in my presence from books and accounts—after he had drawn it out it was seen by the partners, who saw she result of what he had done—we were altogether—the balance sheet satisfied me that they had money in their business, coupled with their exceptionally good references, and I agreed to give them discount facilities to a limit of £10.000—the account remained open until their failure on November 21st, 1901—in that period we discounted acceptances of S. and E. Ransome, Thomas and Short, Richard Newton, and John Camm and Co., A. and E. Richardson, Kevorkian, Taylor and Co., the Welch Grape Juice Company, A. J. Hadler and Co., W. Hodson, and others—Exhibit 33 is a summary of the bills discounted by my bank on Rogers Brothers account up to November,
1901—they include bills of S. and E. Ransome from April, 1898, to November, 1900," for £31,651; Newton, from April 28th to March, 1901, £10,645 18s. 1d., and Camm and Co., £320 7s. 6d.; Thomas and Short from April, 1898, to March, 1900, £3,057, and A. and E. Richardson, from May to September, 1901, £2,098; a total of £49,441—almost all of them were for odd amounts, from which I took them to be ordinary trade bills—I believed they were trade bills—if I had known that they were accommodation bills I would not have taken them—from time to time I communicated with the head office, where S. and E. Ransome had an account—I learned from the head office that Ransomes were drawing bills with a Mr. Hodson, and that Mr. Hodson was drawing on them, in consequence of which in November, 1900,1 went to Rogers Brothers' office—I saw one of them and referred to the bills drawn by them upon Ransomes—he told me they were trade bills on both sides, that they sold goods for Ransomes as brokers, and to Ransomes as merchants, and there was business done on both sides—I suggested that bills might be drawn for the balance—h said that would be inconvenient, and that the whole business was quite convenient—as from November, 1900, I discounted no more bills drawn by Rogers on Ransomes—I refused to do so on instructions from my head office—I had several conversations with Rogers Brothers' about Newton's acceptances—in consequence of a conversation with them I ceased to do Newton's bills in March, 1901—I asked Rogers Brothers what the bills were for—they told me Newton was doing a large business with them—the amount of bills was increasing beyond the reference which I had got from the bankers, and I inquired more about Newton from Rogers Brothers; I did not want to go so far as they wanted to—after the conversation I discounted some of Newton's bills, but not all—Rogers Brothers complained to me about my restricting their business and said the business was all good business, but I said I could not go beyond the banker's reference—I had Rogers Brothers assurance that Thomas and Short's bills were really trade bills—later on I heard unfavourable reports and communicated with Rogers Brothers—I told them what I had heard—they said the reports were not true—I thought they were sufficiently authentic for me not to do business—I did not discount any more bills—in March, 1901, I heard adverse rumours with regard to Newton—I asked one of Rogers Brothers how Newton was going on, as we had several bills running—he told me he was doing very well, and he had a very good business, that the rumours were incorrect, and that they were themselves protected by some deeds which they had in their possession covering the bills; that they had collected security on the bills which were drawn for goods—I said, if they would lodge the collateral security with me, I would take bills to a larger amount, considering they were trade bills—they said they had agreed not to part with the deeds—they did not give them to me—the total amount I discounted was £10,645—towards the middle of 1900 I received instructions from my directors, in consequence of which I called upon Rogers Brothers—I saw Mr. Edward, and subsequently both—I asked them for a balance sheet, as we had made such large advances we should like to know how much of their own capital they had in the business
ness—they said it was a very good business, and they prepared a balance sheet—Mr. Edward gave me Exhibit 3, which is a balance-sheet, which shows a surplus of assets £31,574 12s. 1d. on December 31st, 1899—for the preceding half year beginning in June—I was satisfied, and continued to discount acceptances for them, and to grant loans—in the course of the account, I had the acceptances of A. and E. Richardson for discounting—they were first brought by Mr. Terry, a clerk of Rogers Brothers—he gene rally came with the bills, unless they came themselves—Thompson was away ill—seeing that Richardsons were new people, I asked, "What are these people? Are the bills all right?"—he said they were good bills, I could refer to bankers, and that Richardsons were in a good way of business—the name of the bank was on the back of the bills—I made enquiries—then I discounted several acceptances of A. and E. Richardson—they were all for odd amounts—I looked up directories, and found that Richardsons were stick people—I believed the bills were trade acceptances by Richardsons, drawn by Rogers Brothers—four were left on our hands at the date of the failure—the total amount of the four bills left is £1,633 0s. 9d.—the total is £2,398, as shown in Exhibit 33—the bill for £457 2s. 2d. has written upon it "against canes," which is a clear indication that it is a trade bill—amongst other customers at our bank were Wallis and Sons, consisting of Ransome and Algernon Wallis, at the Mincing Lane Branch—that account was opened in June, 1899—they were described as whole-sale provision merchants of 5, Tooley Street—both the Wallises came—they said they had banked at Martin's Bank, to whom they referred us—they said they had reached their limit at that bank, and that they wanted further discount facilities—I agreed to open the account, subject to the reference being satisfactory—I received a satisfactory report, and conesquently opened the account—in June, 1901, I received an intimation that the partnership was dissolved, and that Ransome Wallis had retired from the business—the account remained open till October 4th, 1901, the firm remaining the same—during the currency of that account, I discounted acceptances of Rogers Brothers, William Hodson, Thomas and Short, S. and E. Ransome, Taylor and Weaver—the amounts and particulars are in Exhibit 34—the total is £54,240—those of Rogers Brothers were £44,385, Hodson £4315, Thomas and Short £1,819, Taylor and Weaver £1,347, S. and E. Ransome £2,372—the total of the bills discounted amounted to £227,991, from June, 1899, to October, 1901—the majority were for odd amounts—I believed they were trade acceptances—I inquired particularly of Wallises as to Rogers Brothers, because I did not see the connection between the two firms—Ransome Wallis told me they were all cheese warrants, lodged with Rogers Brothers for sale, and he offered, if I did not like the bills, to have securities which were with Rogers Brothers placed in our hands against the loan—when L heard that Newton was drawing on Wallis, Sons and Co., I saw Algernon Wallis, who told me he would refer to his books and Jet me know—I received this letter of August 30th, 1900. signed Wallis, Sons and Co., that the bills drawn by R. Newton amounting to £1,251 7s. were "against goods which we hold as security"—the Exhibit shows ten bills discounted from June 25th to August 27th, accepted by
Rogers Brothers in nine cases, and by Taylor and Weaver in the tenth for £250 14s. 2d.—they were all dishonoured—the figure £3,296 14s. 10d. represents the loss on those bills which our bank suffered—at the time we made the advances, I believed they were trade acceptances.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Rogers Brothers referred me to the City Bank—the result of my inquiry was satisfactory—they wanted a larger loan limit—I did not look upon Rogers Brothers' demurring to produce a balance-sheet as a serious matter, but rather as if they suggested that "Why should you suspect us?"—probably you are right that Rogers Brothers.' turnover was £128,000—at the time of the failure there was a net balance of £2,100 to their credit on current account—the account was profitable—the interest was over £6,000—I put the figure at a third—Edward Rogers showed me some deeds with regard to Newton, which I did not go into—I said if he lodged them with me, I might do something more in the way of bills—he told me he could not part with them, as he held them as cover for Newton's liability to him—Newton's, Thomas and Short's and Camm's bills had been met at maturity—in June, 1900 he brought me the balance-sheet to December 31st, 1899—I do not know Abberfield's writing, but I take it he was a clerk of Rogers Brothers—I discounted bills of Kevorkian—there was one at the time of the failure, which has been paid since.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. I was informed that the firm of Rogers Brothers was of the highest standing—previous to Wallis, Sons and Co. opening account, we had a customer named Morton Down and Co., bill discounters—we made independent inquiries with regard to each firm—both were satisfactory—we discounted £250,000 of Morton and Co.'s paper, £60,000 of Wallis, Sons and Co.—£50,000 were ordinary transactions—about £80,000 may have been for even amounts, including thirty-six bills of Wallis, Sons and Co.—they were dealing with well-known firms in the commercial world—at the time of the bankruptcy £2,000 was standing to their credit at the bank—I have marked cheques for Mr. Ruegg of the London and County Bank—some were from Rogers Brothers, and some, I believe, from Wallis, Sons and Co.—that would make them practically as good as a bank note.
Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. Four-fifths of the total acceptances of S. and E. Ransome and Thomas and Short were those of Rogers Brothers, being £44,000 out of £54,000—Rogers Brothers banked with us about fifteen months before Wallis, Sons and Co.—I never said to Wallis, Sons and Co., "Oh, Rogers Brothers' are all right"—I preferred to have Rogers Brothers' bills—I preferred to have two names to the warrants—the majority of bills discounted upon which we made our ordinary profit were before June, 1901—I believe no bill was left on our hands before Ransome Wallis retired from the firm on June 17th, 1901—the first dishonoured bill was June 24th.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Before opening the account with S. and Ransome I received satisfactory reports that they were of good standing, and with a business of considerable magnitude—I never saw either of them
—all their bills referred to in Exhibit 34 that we discounted, amounting to £2,372, had run off.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I frequently saw Thompson in connection with Rogers Brothers' business—I have not seen him since the failure—I have not spoken to Terry—I saw him at the police-court—cheques are drawn in favour of names, and sometimes of numbers—we pay no attention to the payee—I made inquiries as to all bills of Thomas and Short before taking them—my answers with regard to Rogers Brothers and Wallis, Sons and Co. apply also with regard to Thomas and Short.
Re-examined. Referring to Exhibits 34 and 35, our losses are: Rogers Brothers £1,633, Wallis, Sons and Co. £3,296, and upon warrants of Rogers Brothers £21,972—the total is £26,900—this balance-sheet was handed me by E. B. Rogers in June, 1900—this is the first bill of Richardson's which was brought me by Terry—I believe the writing is that of one of the partners of Rogers Brothers.
AGNES RICHARDSON . In April last I was in business with my brother Edward as stick manufacturers in the Globe Road, Mile End—before that we had bought canes from Rogers Brothers for our business—we always paid by cheque, never by bill—the amounts varied from £20 to £100—on April 29th, Rogers Brothers' clerk, Terry, called, and asked us, "Will you do Messrs. Rogers a turn "I said, "We don't mind doing anybody a turn, so long as we do not suffer by it"—my brother and I took him up stairs—my brother said, "Why have Rogers Brothers sent here?"Terry said, "Because he has known you some years," and he asked if we would sign some bills in exchange for which he would give us others—we said that we would—he came again with letter Exhibit 124 and four bills—in the letter, signed Rogers Brothers, the firm offered to pay our expenses, and we held the bills Exhibits 125 and 126 as security—[MR. KNIGHT: This letter is in Norman Rogers writing.]—we also received the statement Exhibit 27, setting out the bills—the names on the bills are Hadler, Ransome, Thomas and Short, and Newton—we accepted bills amounting to £902 7s. 4d. and £1,668 15s. 4d.—Terry said, "Will you sign these as well?"I said, "If Rogers does not meet them himself, we shall never be able to meet the bills, because we have only started a little time, and have not got much money"—Terry said, "Don't worry, Miss Richardson, Rogers Brothers will meet the bills; you will be all right"—about May 6th I got the further bills and statements in Exhibits 128, 129. and 130—we accepted two of Newton's bills for £400 and £511 17s. 7d. in exchange for bills for £911 17s. 7d.—in consequence of a visit from our bank manager I wrote to Rogers Brothers, Exhibit 131, of May 21st, of which I produce a copy (Enquiring if the bills were all straightforward.)—Terry called the next afternoon and said there was nothing whatever to worry about, that Rogers Brothers would provide fresh bills to meet them, and added, "Don't mention it to anybody else"—we said, "No"—Rogers Brothers picked up six of the bills—we got another statement and another batch of bills on August 21st—we became liable for £1,618 0s. 6d. in bills—on August 29th Rogers Brothers gave us a cheque, five bank notes, and a lot of silver and coppers and the Statements Exhibits 133-4—the letter was handed in by a clerk
at the door—it contained £360 in all—Exhibit 134 relates to £2,584 in bills, and Exhibits 1.34 to 141 contains the bills left on our hands as security at the time of the failure—Ransomes £218, Newton £483 and £579, Thomas and Short £200—Exhibit 143 shows bills of ours outstanding at the time of Rogers Brothers' failure amounting to £3,473 0s. 6d.—we accepted bills for about £70 less—a neighbour who had lent us money came in when I was looking over Rogers' bills he said, "What is that, do you deal in bills"—I said "No, only doing a turn for somebody"—he said, "All right"—he sold us up—the Exhibits 2 and 2A bear our signatures—the words "Against canes" were not on them when we signed those two bills—I am positive of that.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Mr. Wilson was the man who came into the shop—he does several businesses—he had lent us £1,000—we put it in the business—he came in October, 1901.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I had no correspondence with Short—only with Rogers Brothers—on the Saturday after the failure we had a letter from Glyn Mills asking us to pay bills of Thomas and Short—we never heard of Short except when we secured his bills.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Messrs. Rogers paid us at the rat of 1 per cent, for our trouble—it was about £20—it may have been £30—I do not think it was £40—I never paid any bill—I signed for Rogers.
LOUIS JESSE RUEGG . I am manager of the Tower Bridge branch of the London and County Bank—on April 1st Algernon Wallis came to open an account in the name of Wallis, Sons and Co.—he asked me and I agreed to give him discount accommodation to the extent of £5,000—he said he had been banking at Martin's Bank, and referred me to them—he told me they had been having bills discounted by Morton Dyer, a bill broker, who had introduced him to the London and Westminster Bank—I asked him upon what firms he was going to draw upon—he gave me the list No. 5, on which are the names of Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Short—the limits, of these firms are £2,000 and £1,500—the names include people in the provision trade, some in the immediate neighbourhood—I made inquiry at Martin's Bank, and on April 2nd opened the account—a day or two later Ransome Wallis called and signed the book, and I had a long conversation with him with reference to the account—he said they were general produce importers and merchants—in the course of the account we discounted bills to the amount of £27,000—some were accepted by Rogers Brothers—I noticed those bills were increasing, and I told Algernon that the amount was getting larger than the figures he had given me, £2,000, and I wanted an explanation—he said they were doing a larger business with Rogers Brothers, that they were trade bills, I need have no fear of the account, and that Rogers Brothers were making a very large profit in their business, £30,000 a year—I believed his statements—amongst the bills some were accepted by Ransomes—those exceeded the amount he gave me in the list of £1,000—"he told me they were ordinary trade bills
—during the currency of the account I discounted acceptances amounting to, Rogers £6,470, S. and E. Ransome £4,300, and Thomas and Short £4,034—the bills in this schedule are not met-the total is £5,700 in round figures—a number of cheques were paid into the account drawn by Rogers Brothers—some by Thomas and Short, and some by the Ransomes—Wallis's cheques were drawn to numbers—in September, 1901, I noticed that Messrs. Wallis were paving in day by day cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers in small amounts at first, reaching about £2,000, then it increased to £6,000, £7,000, and then £8,000—Wallis, Sons and Co. drew cheques against them almost as soon as they were paid in, still to numbers—the cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers were bearer cheques—in the names of different firms of wharfingers and so on—up to September 24th, 1901, the credit balance of Wallis, Sons and Co.'s account was £4,019 13s. 3d.—on that day cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers were paid in amounting to £3,314 14s. 2d.—in all cheques were paid in amounting to £6,928 18s. 5d., including a number of Rogers Brothers' cheques—the same day cheques were presented for payment drawn by Wallis, Sons and Co. to the total amount of £6,795 1s. 1d., or £2.775 2s. 8d. more than stood to their credit—similar things had occurred several times, and in consequence I sent for Algernon on September 20th—I told him that I could not take up Rogers Brothers' uncleared cheques unless Wallis, Sons and Co. gave me security—I asked for an explanation why they were receiving so many cheques from Rogers Brothers—he said that large quantities of foreign provisions were coming in, and documents presented to them for which they had to give their cheques to meet the sudden demands, and that the cheques were drawn in favour of the persons where the goods were originally lodged at the different wharves, and that Rogers Brothers were the payees, because the documents were received from the different wharfingers, and that they made the cheques payable to them, because the goods were originally lodged there—I believed his explanation and went on paying the cheques for a few days—looking at Schedule 29 I find a list of cheques drawn by Rogers Brothers with the names of different wharfingers in the neighbourhood as-payees, and all drawn to bearer—the total of the cheques paid on September 24th and 25th was £4,244 14s. 2d.—they were not met—I saw both Rogerses and Algernon Wallis the same day, November 26th or 27th—I asked for the money for the cheques and when they were going to meet them—Edward Rogers said the cheques were only given for Wallis's accommodation, and they could not meet them—I said they would have to do so—he said that Wallis, Sons and Co. would have to provide for them—Algernon Wallis shrugged his shoulders—I placed the matter in the hands of our solicitors, Messrs. Bayley, Adams, Hawkes, and Noble I should say the next morning—after that the two Rogers called and made various propositions to me—one was that if we would allow time they would deposit dock warrants to cover the amount of the cheques—I referred them to our solicitors—those documents were never lodged with us, nor any other security—we took proceedings and recovered judgment—by that time the firm had stopped payment—on September 26th we stopped payment of Wallis, Sons and Co.'s cheque—at that time there was a
balance to their credit of £1,687 14s. 3d.—against that was the £4,244 14s. 2d. which had been credited to them on cheques of Rogers Brothers, but which turned out to be worthless, leaving a debit of £4,250 in round figures—another cheque drawn by Hadler for £485 6s. 4d. was dishonoured subsequently—£3,043 was the loss to the Bank on cheques—I should not have paid the cheques had I known they were accommodation—Wallis told me they were given for value received—I believed him—the bills were for odd amounts from which I inferred that they were trade bills, and in that belief I allowed them to be discounted.—[Mr. Muir put in a medical certificate that Rogers Brothers' clerk, Thompson, was too ill to attend.]
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. The cross-cheque transactions began about the beginning of September, 1901—a marked cheque is a cheque payable to some account sent to the bank upon which it is drawn, and marked by that bank, when it becomes a first charge on the credit balance at that bank—I took that precaution on several occasions, by sending cheques by a messenger to the London and Westminster with cheques which were marked—I do not think any were marked at Lloyds—I sent on one occasion, when the messenger was told by a clerk that the manager was out, that the cheque would be all right, there was plenty of money to meet it, but they could not mark it—we do not keep a record of cheques we pay to other banks.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I found that Wallis, Sons, and Co. had banked at Martin's for over thirty years, and that it was a good account—I sent a clerk, I do not make inquiries personally—the result was that the Wallises were doing a large business—I was informed that Rogers Brothers were colonial brokers and merchants—at the time of the failure £10,000 was outstanding in bills—I received the notice of dissolution of partnership between the two Wallises.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. We had opened our new branch previously to Algernon Wallis calling to open the account on April 1st—we had issued a circular—I think Algernon Wallis referred to it—he said he had received it—he asked a limit of £5,000 to £10,000—I agreed to do £5,000 on April 1st—on April 11th I agreed to another £5,000 if necessary—I do not remember his writing this list in our office—the name of Bilson was not on the list he sent me—I never heard of any other list—I had several conversations with Wallis, Sons, and Co., as to bills, but I cannot give dates—I have no record of them—Algernon brought bills on one or two occasions—I saw Algernon about September 20th, 22nd, or 25th, about the change cheques—I asked for security—he gave it—then I agreed to cash his cheques as before—the Wallises gave me some grape juice warrants—they told me Hodsons was to be turned into a limited company—accountants were referred to, and the result was that debentures in Hodson's were to come to us—there were £3,000 in debentures and £3,000 in preference shares.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. Short made no representation to me, I never saw him—I inquired as to the position of Thomas and Short at their bankers'—I was satisfied with the answers I received, both with
regard to Thomas and Short and with regard to Rogers Brothers—I have no experience of accommodation bills—I discounted one years ago—a bill given for produce lodged is a legitimate transaction—some bills were for even amounts.
Re-examined. I fix the date of September 20th from the letter, Exhibit 491, written by our bank on September 19th to the Wallises—491a is a letter written by Wallises to Rogers Brothers, enclosing letter from the London and County Bank, in which was the expression, "awful pity," also by the fact that on September 20th I gave notice to the Cold Storage Company, and received a delivery order—I sold the grape juice for about £257—I never got Hodson's debentures nor preference shares.
JAMES BINGLEY YOUNG . I am manager to Williams Deacon, bankers, at St. Mary Axe—I was introduced to Rogers Brothers in September last year—on September 19th I saw them both at the Bank, when they called to open an account with discount facilities up to £10,000, and accommodation loans on warrants from £10,000 to £15,000—they mentioned the firms of Anderson, Peek Frean, and others, and showed us their nine months' balance-sheet to December, 1899—Exhibit 3 is a copy which I took—I believe it is a true copy—it shows a surplus of assets over liabilities of £31,574 12s. 1d.—I made inquiries as to their standing—I received favourable reports—I agreed to take approved bills up to £5,000—I called and saw Edward Rogers, and told him what I have here said—coming out of the office I met Norman Rogers, and mentioned what I had said—I sent back their balance-sheet later in the day—they said the account would be no good to them on those terms.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. We did not open an account—I do not recollect their offering an independent valuation of their affairs.
HENRY SMITH . I am manager at the head office of the London and Westminster Bank—S. and E. Ransome and Co. and their predecessors have had an account at our bank fifty years—from July, 1897, to the beginning of 1900 we discounted for Ransomes' bills accepted by William Hodson, Wallis, Sons, and Co., Thomas and Short, and Richard Newton—Exhibit 379 is a schedule stating the amounts and the dates on which they were accepted, for three years—the bills accepted by William Hodson discounted for Ransomes represented £13,800, on Wallis, Sons, and Co. £17,905, Thomas and Short £743, and Richard Newton £1,056—shortly before March 29th, 1900, I had a conversation with Arthur Wallis with regard to bills accepted by Hodson—I thought the amount was running up too rapidly, and questioned him—he admitted that they were not all for goods—I said I should take no more of them, and the account must be closed so far as Hodson's bills were concerned, and that I did not car about taking Wallis's name, and that I did not like cross drawings between Wallis and Ransome—the next day I wrote Exhibit 507, giving Wallis, Sons, and Co. notice to discontinue' the facilities—I received Exhibit 506 from S. and E. Ransome, of March 29th:"We have received your favour of even date, and note your wishes, and shall have much pleasure in conforming therewith"—about that time I saw Arthur Ransome about his capital—I said that we had had certain inquiries, and I asked him what
their capital was—he said he would go and ask his partner—I asked him to let me have his balance-sheet—he said theirs was an old-fashioned firm, and that he had not got one—I heard no more, and closed the account—the bills ran off—up to March, 1900,1 believed the bills were trade bills.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I never had any direct communication with Messrs. Rogers—I never saw them—I never sent for them, but I believe our Mincing Lane manager sent one to me—I saw Thompson.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The Ransomes transterred their account to our Temple Bar branch, but came back to us in 1893—the account has always-been in credit—an account was opened at our Temple Bar branch in 1866 as Eyre and Co.—Thomas Eyre was a partner—I told you at the Mansion House that the credit was £1,200 to £1,500—it was a very fair account—at the time of the failure there was £644 to the credit of Ransomes on current account—they could have drawn it out—they handed it over to the Official Receiver—I only saw Ransome Wallis—he answered my questions in a free manner—inquiries came to me about the Norwich Union soon after seeing Arthur Ransome.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I never had any intercourse with Short.
BENJAMIN GEORGE WILMER . I trade with Mr. Ives as the Ashton and Green Iron Company—we are merchants and manufacturers—our firm discounted for Messrs. Wallis, Sons, and Co. the bills shown upon Exhibit 332—they are acceptances of William Hodson, S. and E. Ransome, Rogers Brothers, J. Anderson and Son, Charles Button, Taylor and Weaver, and Dexours Parry and Co.—the total amount is £3,181 14s. 9d. between March 25th, 1900, and July 30th, 1901—all have run off and been paid—[Exhibits 334 to 347 and 357 were read in reference to these acceptances.]—I had a conversation with Ransome Wallis in reference to bills on February 19th, 1900—I asked him if these were genuine trade bills on Hodson, Anderson, and Rogers—he said yes, and told me that the bills for Rogers were acceptances for produce they had for sale, supplied by Wallis to Hodson, or Button, or Anderson, as grocers, and that Hodson accepted the bills—we discounted them as trade bills—they are spoken of as customers' bills by Algernon Wallis.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I was not asked before the Magistrate about my conversation with Ransome Wallis—Bills were guaranteed by McCall in the first instance, but not afterwards.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I discounted some of Ransome's acceptances—I never came in contact with them—I discounted the bills because I thought they were good trade bills—they were all met.
Re-examined. I gave a proof to Mr. Knight, in which I mentioned my conversation with Ransome Wallis.
EGERTON SPENCER GREY (Re-examined.) I have investigated the defendants books to see how acceptances were met—Rogers Brothers kept a diary in which the acceptances of all the defendants were kept—Exhibit 560 gives an example—the proceeds of the bills are split 'up and passed to their private accounts—in no instance was the money provided by the drawer direct to the bank of the acceptor—there is a list of acceptances of
Ransome's drawn by Rogers Brothers, with dates when payable—to meet these bills at maturity Rogers Brothers are credited in Ramsome's books with remittances on the dates stated of different amounts, totalling the same amount as the bills—there are twelve cheques for £6,882 8s. 9d., which total the amount of ten bills—those twelve amounts credited in Ransome's books are made up of various smaller amounts, the details of which are given in this Exhibit—one cheque for £798 17s. 7d. is made up of a cheque of Ransome's for £394 7s. 5d., a cheque of Steer for 16s. 8d., a postal order for £1, and a cheque of Thomas and Short for £402 3s. 6d.—other items are made up in a similar way as shown in the exhibit (Exhibit 560 was then shown and explained by the witness to the Jury.)—that is a fair sample of the way bills were met—I know of no business book-keeping reasons for treating remittances in that way—Exhibits 561 to 563 are slips forming a similar document found amongst Rogers Brothers' papers—they show similar transactions to those shown in Exhibit 560—they are in various writings—some are in Newton's, and some in the clerk Terry's—they show the general exchange of cheques between the parties.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. There were other book-keepers besides Terry—there was nothing in the nature of secret books—it is usual to enter a bill at the due date for reference.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. It is suggested that the different persons named in Exhibit 560 sent cheques to meet bills—when a bill of Ransome's was coming due, say for £700, Ransome Wallis sent a cheque to help to meet it—that is not inference—I find the entries in the bill books produced of the bills and the amounts you give from them are right.
Re-examined. I say these bills were met by arrangement between Wallis, Sons, and Co., and Rogers Brothers—that is shown by Algernon Wallis's letters, the books, the slips, and the examination of Wallis, who said that he had been daily one or two hours in Rogers Brothers' office with the two Rogers arranging how the cheques were to be drawn, how acceptances were to be met by other cheques, and for what amounts, and the Exhibit shows the method by which it was done. (Portions of the bankruptcy examination of Algernon Wallis and the correspondence between the defendants, including exhibits 561, 563, 457, 461, 462 were here read.)
HENRY IVOR BEVAN . I am one of the firm of Frith, Sands, and Co., merchant bankers—we have advanced moneys by way of acceptances upon the security of warrants for goods with Rogers Brothers since 1898—on their failure we had eleven contracts outstanding—Exhibit 183 summarises them—the total amount on loans outstanding is £15,254—the goods were valued at £17,927—that gives our margin of 15 per cent—our broker's valuation was £6,638—they realised £6,631—the difference between Rogers Brothers' valuation and the sale proceeds is £11,298—we accept the valuation of the persons who produce the warrants—we estimate our loss at £8,623—the original loan to Rogers Brothers was fixed at £5,000—they a little time afterwards asked us to increase it—we agreed—at that time there was £12,000 credit running—Mr. Terry asked us to increase the loan in September, 1901—I said that we preferred £10,000 to be the limit, and should charge extra commission—the memorandum A
as to warrants between Rogers Brothers and Thomas and Short, in October, 1900, in Exhibits 185 and 186, was the first I heard of any connection between those firms—on August 22nd, 1900, Short came and asked us to advance him money on terms similar to those with Rogers Brothers on the deposit of warrants—I asked him, and he stated his capital to be £5,000—I asked him who his bankers were, and he said Glyn's—I believed him and made him an advance amounting to £3,875 upon goods which he valued at £4,552, but which our brokers valued at £2,381, and which were sold for £2,280—the difference between Thomas and Short's valuation and the sale proceeds was £2,264—our loss was £1,387—Exhibit 184 shows the warrant numbers, the description and the quantities of the goods which were included in our loan contracts—they were nearly all Rogers Brothers' goods—I think there are two items of Short's—when I went to the wharf to get delivery there were no goods represented by the warrants—the goods had been parted with under a guarantee from Rogers Brothers—the declared value at Smith's wharf was £832—we advanced £1,600 on those goods—I told Terry that we preferred having goods valued by an independent broker—he replied that that was the usual custom of firms they did business with—I proceeded at once to get a valuation made by Messrs. Barber—that was a long business—we sent them a list before we knew anything of the failure, but we did not receive the complete valuation till afterwards—I saw E. Rogers on October 14th at his office—I do not think he had publicly failed—we had a long conversation about the state of his firm, and he seemed very confident that they would be able to tide over any difficulties they were in—I asked him whether the values of the goods were correct—I had been to Mr. Brett at the London and Westminster Bank, who had an appointment with Rogers, and he told me that he believed we should find the valuation of Rogers Brothers substantially correct—Rogers said the valuations were perfectly correct, subject to the market laws and nothing more, and he asked me whether I should be prepared to extend the date of the new bills running, and see them all right—I told him it depended upon the value of the goods how far we should be able to help him, and that we could not extend the credit five or six months till we knew the value of the goods was correct, and that we could get the money for them—he objected to Eastwood as the valuer, and suggested Barbers—I told him that Barbers was the firm I proposed to go to; then Barbers gave the carpets to Eastwoods to value, as—they considered they knew most about them—Edward said his brother Norman was responsible for their own valuations, that he himself did the finance part of the business and his brother the valuation of goods—two or three days afterwards I saw Edward Rogers as to the sable robes which were valued at £65 each—Messrs. Barber valued them at £19 each, and they were independently valued by Thorpe and Co. at within £2 or £3 of £19 each—they sold at £19 and were valued at £23—I picked that out as an instance which appeared to me very flagrant—Edward Rogers said he considered they were worth £90, and that a lot had been sold as high as £90, and that they had been put up at a public auction twice before, when £22 and £23 had been bid for them—in Exhibit 176, 166 lamb skin crosses are put into the
contract as being worth £1,155—they were sold for £139—he allowed that that was an over-valuation, but said that his brother Norman Rogers did not value them himself, that he was out of England when the robes came—he admitted that the goods pledged with Rogers Brothers by Short were Rogers Brothers' goods—he gave as a reason that they wanted further credit, and that Mr. Short was more likely to get it on his separate account—I saw Short at his office on October 20th—I asked him about the state of his firm and for information about values—he said he was entirely dependent upon whether Rogers Brothers failed or not, that whether he met the bills or not depended entirely upon the solvency of Rogers Brothers—I think it was the following Monday when I asked him about his capital—he admitted that his capital was nil—he had represented it as £5,000—I remarked that I supposed he knew what it meant, or what the conesquence was of getting money by false pretences—he said, "I know what you mean"—I either said "money" or "credit"—in parting with the advances to both Rogers Brothers and to Thomas and Short I believed they had stated the true market value of the goods, and that the goods were in the warehouses which were named in the warrants—I also distinctly believed that Short was dealing on his own account, and that he had a capital of £5,000.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. We did continuous business with Rogers Brothers from 1898 to the time of their suspension—one commission at 1 per cent, on four months bills, and 1 1/4 per cent, would be I think, about £400 a year—we did not have independent valuations of goods before the advances, no firm does when they know people—the wharfingers were responsible for the values Rogers Brothers gave them when they took away the goods—to take up an independent valuation would cost more than the commission—we were insured in respect of these transactions—we have not recovered upon our policies; we are waiting till this case is over—we have been out of £10,000 for one year—Edward Rogers did not say that Barber had the reputation of slaughtering goods—he brought a bundle of invoices.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Our firm is 100 years old—I presume all the goods described in the warrants are at the wharf—the warrants are transferable when the advance is repaid—when samples are taken the number of them are written off the warrant—the warrant bears the amount taken away and they are deducted from the total.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I have been a partner in the firm of Frith, Sands and Company six years—if an advance has been made against the goods the person should tell us they are not his—Short got the advance on the natural inference by me from his producing the warrants that the goods were his own—Short said the goods belonged to him—that was the first question I asked him—he said that his capital was £5,000—I should not have done business without knowing his capital—there were only two bills running of Short's when he failed—he sent the warrants by post first of all—I never suggested that Short should take a partner to increase his capital—he never mentioned the firm of Rogers Brothers.
Of Messrs. Baring Brothers, merchant bankers—about May 10, 1901, I received a call from somebody representing Rogers Brothers, and afterwards got a letter, No. 49, in respect of a loan of £5,000 by acceptances against dock warrants representing China produce up to 80 per cent, of their value—I replied by letter No. 50, agreeing to loans up to 70 per cent of the value—Exhibit No. 51 represents the issue of the credit—from that time we made advances to Rogers Brothers on various contracts contained in Exhibits Nos. 52 to 58, 58 being dated October 4th, 1901—each contract has a schedule attached of the goods for which warrant would be deposited with us and the values—in addition we had Messrs. Ransomes' valuation, and on No. 52 there is, "We have inspected these goods and confirm the values, S. and E. Ransome"—that is written longways on the margin of several of the valuations—believing those valuations we made the advances shown in Exhibit 59—the amount of £9,850 was outstanding at the failure—the valuation of those goods certified by Ransomes was £14,079—the margin was 30 per cent, when the failure came—the goods were sold and realised £4,137 6s. 3d., which left a difference of £9,941—£6,712 is the actual loss—we employed Messrs Barbers, the brokers, to value the goods prior to sale—they put the value as £4,106—a further advance of £5,000 was requested by letter, Exhibit 60, of August 8th, 1901—we also received letter, Exhibit 62, of September 3rd, 1901, from Rogers Brothers, asking for an advance against bristles—we did not agree to give further credit—Exhibit 58 is a contract of October 4th, 1901, by which the balance of £1,240 was available for Messrs. Short to draw upon us for—on that day that document, together with the warrants for the goods mentioned in the schedule to it, was lodged with us and further credit was given—by Exhibit 58a Messrs. Ransome certify the prices—the goods referred to are 1,670 monflon skins, valued at £1,419—they were subsequently sold for £213—the next is 200 lambs' skin crosses valued at £350—those were subsequently sold for £97—I implicitly believed when the particulars were handed to me that the values were the true market values, and that the certificate of Ransomes was a true certificate of the market values of the goods they purported to certify.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Before we made the advances we did not value for ourselves, we took the values given us by Ransomes and Rogers Brothers—we are merchants and bankers—we do not deal in these goods personally—I have no personal knowledge of the value of goods, we employ Messrs. Barber—I believe some of the goods were sold by private treaty and some by auction.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. We trusted to the Ransomes' declaration of value and bona fides; they were our principals—we inquired as to the financial position of Messrs. Rogers—I never saw the Ransomes.
ARTHUR BOWDEN SMITH . I am one of the managers of the credit department of Baring Brothers, Limited—a credit was opened on April 16,1901, by the defendant Short as Thomas and Short for £2,700 against warrants for goods—in August 1901, a new credit was arranged—Exhibits 144 and 145 are the contracts—the total value of the warrants is £3,180, less
15 per cent: the amount is £2,703—I required the prices to be confirmed, which was done by Rogers Brothers by their signature being put at the foot of the schedule, "We confirm the prices to be correct., Rogers Brothers"—when I accepted the drafts, and parted with them, I believed the prices in Exhibit 147 were the current market prices of those goods, and that Rogers Brothers had made an independent valuation of them—on August 28th a further sum of £300 was advanced on similar terms—Exhibits 148 to 152A show the position of affairs at the time of the failure of Thomas and Short—the total advanced at the time of the valuation was £2,680 to Thomas and Short, and £3,172 to Rogers Brothers—our broker's valuations were £1,316, the price realised was £1,584 15s. 2d. a difference of £1,587 4s. 10d.—our actual loss was £1,098 5s. 10d.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. By the contract we rely upon the broker's valuation in addition to the statement of value by the pledger—Rogers Brothers' was an independent valuation.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. For their confirmation we did not pay Rogers Brothers anything—that is not uncommon—I had no application from Short's son to redeem the goods for the £300 loan for £300—I have no knowledge of it, nor that those goods were sold and realised over £300.
JOHN BRETT (Re-examined.) The total amount of advances to Rogers Brothers outstanding at the failure was £36,339—the value of the goods stated by Rogers Brothers was £45,515—our margin is 20 per cent.—at the date of the failure we had the goods valued by Messrs. Barber and Sons, brokers—their valuation was roughly £13,000—the price realised by the sales was £14,367—the loss to the bank was £21,972—at the time I made the advances referred to in Exhibit 35 I believed that the value put by Rogers Brothers was the market values of the goods—the Thibet crosses valued by Rogers Brothers at 49s. each or £1,269 were sold for £317.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I have been to Smith's wharf with Rogers Brothers—they did not show me the invoices there, they showed me the goods—I was not a sufficient expert to know whether they were worth the money—I saw valuable furs at what seemed a very large price—I have seen the invoices, but not on the occasion of going to the wharf—we instructed Mr. Barber to sell the furs—we left the prices to his discretion, as he was an expert in these matters, and we did not impose upon him any reserve, but the sale was delayed till it was the proper time to sell.
PERCY RICHARDSON . I have charge of the Commercial Credits Department of Brown, Shipley and Co., merchant bankers, of Founder's Court, Lothbury—we have done business with Rogers Brothers since June, 1900—I received applications from them for advances against merchandise—we required an independent valuation, wrote them to that effect and received the letter, Exhibit 64, of June 7th, after an interview with them, that Thomas and Short were agreeable to check the valuations—we agreed to make advances to Rogers Brothers as shown in Exhibit 65, to the extent of £5.000 against warrants up to 85 per cent, of the value of the goods—I called upon Short to inquire if he had actually seen the goods; I saw his
son—Short afterwards called and told me that he had seen the goods and valued them—I have not the dates, but these transactions were between June, 1900, and April, 1901, and Exhibit 79 refers to an advance of £1,000 on the security of warrants for goods specified in that schedule—the certificate states, "The present market value of the said goods is £1,177"—that is signed, "Rogers Brothers"—on the same document is "We confirm the above prices, Thomas and Short"—Mr. Short continued to act as independent valuer after May 17th, but in consequence of his continued application to us for credits on his own account we declined because we knew of the business he was doing with Rogers Brothers—we required another valuer; "S. and E. Ransome" were substituted; and their certificates appeared as the valuers—at the foot of the certificate, Exhibit 85, dated September 22nd, with reference to £2,200 on loan, the specified market value of the goods is £2,585—that is signed, "Rogers Brothers," and at the foot is, "We hereby certify the above as correct"—that is signed "S. and E. Ransome and Co."—in the schedule is 1,687 lambs' skins, at 16s. 6d., valued at £1,391—those were eventually sold at 5s. 3d. to 5s. 4d., making a total of £485—we made an advance on April 12th on two bills of Richardson of £500 each—one bill was for £1,200 and the other of £1,000—Exhibit 87 shows the amount of loans outstanding at the date, and the failure of Rogers Brothers as £5,912 5s. 9d.—the independent valuation of S. and E. Ransome and Go in respect of warrants deposited by Rogers Brothers was £7,067, and in respect of Ransomes £6,999—our loss was £2,966—our valuations were £3,159—the amount realised was £3,862, or less than half the amount of their valuation—at the time I accepted the drafts I believed the values in the schedules of the loan contracts were the real market values of the goods—looking at Exhibit 88 I find goods valued by Thomas and Short were re-valued by Ransomes—some of the goods were pledged again.
Cross-examined by SIR JOSEPH LEESE. I have not added up the figures, but the loans were about £16,000, and the amount outstanding was about £5,900—the first loan of £1,000 run off—Barbers sold the goods for us—we did not give them a reserve, but told them to sell to the best advantage they could—eight rugs were sold amongst the clerks at the broker's valuation of £8 each—we advanced £15 on them.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. After the receiving order I called on the Ransomes—both the Ransomes were out—Arthur Ransome called upon me subsequently at my office—I knew they had failed and spoke to him about the certificates of values upon which we had lent money, and generally—he gave some explanation and I said, "I shall prove against—your firm's estate," or words to that effect—I held them liable as having but their names to the values of these goods—we did prove for the full amount—the statement at the Mansion House that Ransomes' first deposit was on June 12th, 1900, and that from May 17th the goods were certified by Thomas and Short, that Ransomes certified some of the goods previously certified by Thomas and Short, and that they adopted the valuations on the dock warrants or documents of title is correct—when we made inquiries at Smith's wharf we held warrants for the goods.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. The loans in respect of goods certified by Thomas and Short were paid off—Short told me that he had seen the goods and valued them, and I believed him—I am not quite sure that he said that he had seen the goods, but he satisfied me that he had valued them.
WILLIAM SINCLAIR . I am cashier to Arbuthnot, Latham, and Co., merchant bankers, 33, Great St. Helen's—in November, 1900,1 saw Short in reference to making advances on deposits of warrants for goods being acceptances—on November 20th he told me that his capital was £1,000—by Exhibit 2281 agreed to advance up to 75 or 80 per cent, of the invoice value of the goods at 1 per cent, commission on four months' drafts—Exhibit 229 was written after a conversation with Short to put on record his statement that the capital put in his firm was £10,000—in Exhibit 230 we agree to advance up to £3,000 against goods—Exhibit 231 is the memorandum form for the advances—in pursuance of these arrangements we advanced from time to time by way of acceptances about £4,000 against deposits of warrants—at the time of the failure the three contracts were outstanding, referred to in Exhibits 232-3-4 and 235 is a summary of those contracts, showing loans against those three contracts amounting to £3,754, and the values put upon the goods as £5,728—also the amount we received for the goods, £1,209—the difference between the amount realised and the values placed upon the goods by Thomas and Short being £4,519—the difference between outstanding loans by us of £3,754 at the time of the failure and the gross price realized of £1,209 is £2,545, which represents our loss on the three contracts—on August 2nd, 1901, the value placed on goods was £1,382—25 per cent, was deducted—that gives £1,037 as the value less the margin—the acceptance in respect of that contract was £1,007—at the time of the acceptances I believed that the values given were the market values of the goods deposited—after the failure of Thomas and Shortwe had the goods in our hands valued, after which I wrote the letter Exhibit 236 to Thomas and Short, asking for an explanation of the discrepancies between their valuations and those of our brokers—the letter, Exhibit 237, of December 5th, 1901, which is signed by Thomas and Short, states that the valuation was made by Rogers Brothers, who were the leading brokers for valuing Thibet crosses and things of that kind, and that if there was any over-valuation it did not originate with them—I had no further communication from Thomas and Short—I never heard from Rogers Brothers—the brokers we employed to value were Messrs. Goddard.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. I did receive Thomas and Short's letter of January 13th, 1902, which states that they had twice written to Rogers Brothers for an explanation of their valuations, but had not received any reply—I did not know when I made the advance that Rogers Brothers were the brokers of Short—the goods were sold after the failure—no reserve was fixed upon the sale.
SAMUEL PARKER SMITH . I am one of the firm of W. M. Smith and Sons, wharfingers, of Cross Lane, St. Dunstan's—we have had dealings with Rogers Brothers for some time, and have lent them money against warrants for certified values of goods on loan contracts referred to in Exhibits 121
to 123—at the time of their failure the outstanding loans were £1,697, the valuation of goods for them was £2,267, the price realised was £938 10s. 7d., the difference between Rogers Brothers' valuation and the amount realised was £1,328 9s. 5d., and the amount of our actual loss was £758 9s. 5d.—in Exhibit 21 is an item of 24,500 partridge canes—at the time of the failure we found that two bales of 2,500 canes were not at our warehouse, although we had the warrants—in Exhibit 122 another item of 3.900 canes had all been delivered—the 5,000 black bamboo canes in Exhibit 122, valued at £83, realised net £5 12s. 8d., and gross £6 10s.—prior to the failure 6,000 were delivered from the warehouse on warrants which we gave up on application, for value lodged without any application to us for the warrants—I believed the valuations in the loan contracts were correct—I had no experience of the value of canes—of the ginger contracts I had some knowledge, because we handle those goods—looking through those contracts and comparing the valuations with the prices realised I found them fairly correct—I have allowed goods to be withdrawn from the warehouse without the production of warrants under circumstances of special urgency, for instance after a public sale, when buyers come asking for delivery; but then I received from Rogers Brothers the declared value of the goods in cash, with two exceptions—I have prepared a schedule showing the instances where I have delivered goods in response to Rogers Brothers' delivery orders without the production of warrants—the 238, in Exhibit 180, crosses in the loan contract of September 30th on a deposit of £52 were removed on September. 16th and 23rd, or prior to the loan contract of September 30th—the 3,000 hair skins were removed on September 6th on a deposit of £75—one case of bristles was removed on October 5th on a deposit of £22, Exhibit 192—two cases of bristles were removed on October 14th, on £14 being deposited—1,687 Thibet skins were removed on September 3rd and 13th, the loan contract being September 20th, on a deposit of £446—400 moufflon skins included in the contract of October 4th with Messrs. Baring's, Exhibit 58, were removed on August 30th on a deposit of £80—in each case we were handed cheques—there are other instances.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE., We were paid a deposit except in the instance of two cases of bristles, when we were promised the warrant but did not get it nor the deposit—that was immediately before the failure—Rogers Brothers' account has been a good account—we have done a good deal of business with them, practically from the, time they have been established, close on fourteen or fifteen years, when the firm was "E. B. Rogers," before they were Rogers Brothers—having advanced money on the goods (Exhibits 121-3) I could not possibly account for the difference on the amount realised—I am not an expert in values, I take them from the loan contracts—I rely upon them as being correct—when I am called upon to give a value to a customer I ask the merchant to declare the value.
HERBERT HENRY BARBER . I am one of the firm of Edward Barber and Son, colonial brokers, 9, Mincing Lane—I have been in the business twenty-three or twenty-four years—as brokers we sell China produce, including furs, bristles, and horsehair—I am thoroughly acquainted with the value of those articles, and am employed to value them, in this case
by bankers—I have made some schedules and corrected some of the figures in the schedules already put in—as amended they are accurate—with regard to 35A and all subsequent schedules, I valued all the goods except the mats and the carpets—I subsequently sold all the goods except the canes and the carpets—my schedules set out my valuations and the prices realised, net and gross—we were told to do the best we could in the interest of the holders of the goods, which we did—we delayed the sale of several articles from time to time in order to realise their fair values—the prices averaged the prices in our valuations—in some instances they fetched more, in some less—our valuation being £13,000, the sale prices were £14,000, as against the £45,000 valuation put upon them in the contracts—Exhibits 59 and 59A, the schedule to 59 relate to warrants held by Baring Brothers and Company, Limited—our valuation there is £4,175, the sale prices £4,25.8, as against Rogers Brothers' valuation of £14,000 odd—in Exhibits 87 and 87A our valuation is £3,022, the sale price £3,200, as against Rogers Brothers' valuations of £7,000 in round figures—in No. 123, the goods deposited with Mr. Smith, the sale price is £938, as against Rogers Brothers' valuation of £2,267—in Exhibit 152a, those are Baring Brothers' warrants on goods deposited by Thomas and Short, my valuation is £1,300, the sale price £1,600, as against Rogers Brothers' £3,172—in No. 183 are the goods held by warrants held by Frith, Sands and Company, on loan contracts with Rogers Brothers, and my valuation is £6,300, the sale price £6,600, as against Rogers Brothers' price of £17,900; No. 193, Frith Sands with Thomas and Short, my valuation £2,381, realised £2,288, as against Thomas and Short's valuation of £4,552—as regards canes and carpets we suggested it would be more to the interest of the holders of the documents for Eastwood and Holt to deal with those goods—that firm made returns to us—everything went through our books, and their figures are included in those I have given—Schedule 235 relates to Arbuthnot's contract with Thomas and Short—my gross price realised was £1,209, as against Thomas and Short's valuation of £5,728—the sixty-four carpets in Exhibit 43, valued at £510, sold for £146—the 564 large Thibet crosses in Exhibit 42, which are skins laid out with a Maltese cross, and which are China goods, are valued in the loan contract at £1,269, and were sold, for £317—Exhibit 44 relates to twenty-eight Thibet coats, which were valued at £126, and sold for £15—Exhibit 43, 232 crosses and 204 lambs' crosses, were valued at £872 and sold for £116—Contract 44 is 100 pieced Thibet crosses, valued at £250, and sold for £77—in Exhibit 180, 100 sheep coats, put in at £4 each, or £400, were sold by me for £31—contract 58 is for 1,670 moufflon skins, put in at £1.490, and sold for £213—then according to the contract certified by Ransome and Company, 200 lambs' crosses are put in at £350, sold for £97—in Contract 85, 1,687 lambs' skins, put in at £1,391, sold for £485 0s. 3d.—Exhibit 234 includes 647 Thibet crosses, put in at £1,455, and sold for £32 4s.—I valued those at 2s. each—that would work out to about £60—it is difficult to value those because they were pieced and old—they should have been described in the contract as "pieced"—they are described as "Thibet crosses"—those are Rogers Brothers' goods, and Short's depositing.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Ninety per cent, were sold by auction—we sold the furs last January in "a public sale—Sands and Company sold the sable robes through another broker—I valued them at £23, and they sold for £20—another broker put some up for public sale which sold for £24 or £25—Sands and Company advanced money on the long robed dog skins—I was consulted as to selling some of the skins, privately, in October and November, and I said, "No, people might buy foxes' skins privately," but it was better to keep these till January—Frith Sands or Thorpe and Company valued them at 4s. or 4s. 3d.—I had valued them at the same—they were not sold without reserve in January—I have sold identical goods at 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d., and in a January sale at 5s. or 6s. up to 9s. or 10s. according to the demand—they would not fetch in the March sales 14s. or 15s.—bristles declined towards the end of the year, and goods held for three months fetched 5d. to 5 1/2d.—in November the sale of horsehair did not decline—no doubt if a bankruptcy was surmised in the trade the goods would have to be got rid of by advertisement without reserve, with few exceptions—we did not have a special catalogue—we issued circulars.
Gross-examined by MR. WARREN. Thibet crosses are now sold at 41s., the price has been 45s.—I have known Rogers Brothers as a well known firm, and have been friendly with them—I knew they had direct business with the East.
FRANK BRUCE EASTWOOD . I am one of the firm of Eastwood and Holt, colonial brokers, at Dunster House, Mincing Lane—we have special knowledge of carpets and canes, myself more particularly of carpets—our firm sell both largely—we were asked by Messrs. Barber to undertake the disposal of those two classes of goods, and took steps to dispose of them, the canes gradually, so as not to disturb the market prices, in two months—we got as good prices as we could for the canes for Messrs. Barber—some of the Oriental carpets we sold privately, and some at a special sale in January—that was an unprecedented sale, people coming from all over England and the Continent to buy, and the prices were full market prices—the prices were remitted to Mr. Barber, and included by him in his schedule.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. My partner, Mr. Holt, attended to the canes, as I have more knowledge of the carpets—about a third were sold privately—this is the original catalogue—the carpets are described as chiefly out of bankrupt's stock—we took advantage of that sale to include one or two other goods—they were sold by order in the liquidation—it was hardly a forced sale—some are put in at reserved prices to prevent sacrifice—it was advisable to sell some without reserve—if they had been kept for a private sale they would not have reached so good a price—the Turkestan moss carpet, valued at £5 to £6, fetched £15—another carpet, valued at £20 to £25, was sold for £48; others valued at 90s. to £5, fetched £22 10s.—some were sold to Kevorkian, a carpet dealer who knows their value—the antique Persian carpet sold for £12 15s.—antique carpets have not the same value as other carpets, and vary from £5 to £50—it is impossible to fix the value of antique specimens—this sale was exceptionally good.
took the sale of the canes for Messrs. Barber, and realised the best prices I could according to my judgment.
Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. Some canes were sold on November 28th at about 3 1/4d. each—I valued the partridge canes at 2 1/2d. a cane—I sold the 500 canes, in lot 47 in the catalogue, at 4 3/4d. each to an outside buyer—the 4,000 partridge canes I valued at 2 1/4d. each—I sold them a 2 1/4d.—the 500 partridge canes, at 70 lbs. per 100 canes, I valued at 3d. per cane, and sold them at 5d. a stick out of a quantity that we were selling.
H. I. BEVAN (Re-examined.) Our commission in the four years on Rogers Brothers' loan was £1,234, and on Thomas and Short's loan about £150 for two years—the valuation at Smith's wharf put in with us was £2,175, we advanced £1,892, we recovered £823, therefore we were £1,352 out—Thomas and Short had three loans, not two only, therefore £60 or £70 ought to be deducted from the amount put for Messrs. Rogers.
JOHN BRETT (Cross-examined by SIR J. LEESE). The carpets left on our hands were sold through a broker to Kevorkian, to whom they had belonged—I sold on the valuation of another broker, Mr. Miller, six carpets at £15—that was a very small proportion of the whole—Kevorkian wanted to get them, they were really his goods.
EGERTON SPENCER GREY (Re-examined.) I have prepared a schedule from the books and invoices of Rogers Brothers on the contracts exhibited in this case—I have also traced the prices paid by Rogers Brothers—with regard to the warrants deposited with the London and Westminster Bank in the column headed "actual value" is £646 17s. 7d., in the column headed "Value in schedule to loan contracts" the figure is £3,027—Mr. Barber's total realisation is £671—the crosess described in Rogers Brothers' books as "pieced Thibet crosses" are described in the "loan contracts" as "Thibet crosses" in the same way goods are differently described in the books or invoices to what they are in the loan contracts, as shown in my schedule—small lambs' skin crosses are described as lamb skin crosses—the goods in Frith Sands' contract were acquired six days before they were put into the London and Westminster Bank—Rogers Brothers deposited with the London and Westminster Bank shipping goods at the declared value of 18s. each, the declared value at Frith Sands' being on September 30th £4 each, the actual value being 9s. 10d. each—118 of the 670 moufflon skins were deposited for Rogers Brothers by E. M. Cohen for £400 on June 3rd, 1901, with Frith Sands and Co., and the dealer got delivery from Smith's wharf on the declared value of £400—on October 4th, 1901, goods put in with Baring Brothers at a declared value of £419 were sold for £1,400—the remainder were sold at £213—the actual value of 1,687 lambs' skin crosses was £441—those skins were sold at auction by Rogers Brothers on September 11th, 1901—they were put in at Brown Shipley's on September 20th; not only that, but delivery had been obtained from the wharfingers of these goods at the purchase price of £441, so that they were not at Smith's wharf when the warrants were deposited—the 647 Thibet crosses were put in at Arbuthnot, Latham and Co.'s on September 27th by Thomas and Short at the declared value of £1,455, and were put up by Rogers Brothers to public auction and sold to H. Jackson and A. J. Hadler—Exhibit 194 shows
the amounts deposited with Smith as wharfinger at his wharf—I have also summarised the losses on loan contracts with the London and Westminster Bank, Smith's, Baring's, Brown and Shipley, Frith Sands and Co., and Arbuthnot's, and the total shown in that schedule is £44,872, whereas the total valuation of goods put in the loan contracts is £100,352—the total realisation was £34,576, the actual value being about one-third of the declared value.
Cross-examined by MR. WARREN. It happened in many cases that Shorts had the warrants when there was a sale—if all the bills were met the balance would be in favour of Rogers Brothers—Short in his public examination denied having discussed the bills with any of the other defendants—I have never said that I was continually pressing Short to confess that the sale with regard to the Atkins transaction never took place—he denied that there had been any fictitious transfer—I suggested to him that he belonged to a combination, which he denied—he may have said that he never looked upon the hop business as being bad till August, 1901.
Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I said at the Mansion House that I found no trace of concealment by the Ransomes—I say the same to-day.
JOHN WILSON SMITH . I am the London manager of the Norwich Union Insurance Company at 71, King William Street—Francis Thompson, who was employed by Rogers Brothers, was the agent through whom the loan was introduced on behalf of Edward Beauchamp Rogers, Exhibit 364, on his personal security—I produce the proposal form in which he has answered questions stating his income at £1,200 to £1,500 per annum, that he had never been a bankrupt, nor insolvent, nor compounded with his creditors, and giving the name of his surety as Ransome Wallis, and his bankers as Martin's Bank, Lombard Street, and the London and South-Western Bank at Fenchurch Street; Algernon Wallis, bankers Martin's and the London and Westminster Bank, Forest Gate; John Rolls Short, bankers Glyn Mills; and Richard Newton, bankers Mercantile Bank, Manchester—one condition is that three responsible sureties should secure the repayment of principal and interest, and under the heading of "General Remarks" is, "The directors as a general rule will not accept as surety any person who is a borrower, nor will they lend money to a person who is also a surety"—the other sureties were Sheppard James Ransome, bankers London and Westminster, Lothbury; private account London and County, Wandsworth; and Arthur Ransome, of the same firm, and bankers London and Westminster, Lothbury—the proposal form, Exhibit 364, is signed by B. Rogers and dated February 4th, 1901—the particulars were partly verbal and partly written—the agreement, Exhibit 365. was executed which provided for a loan of £12,000 to Edward Rogers, and was executed by all the defendants in my presence on February 18th, 1901—this is the cheque produced, which is for £10,580 17s. 1d., the amount less certain charges—that is endorsed by E. Rogers—it is drawn by George Moors Chamberlin, one of the directors of the Norwich Union Insurance Society—before the advance, inquiries were made as to the solvency and financial position of the defendants, and the replies were satisfactory—Newton's, statement that I had examined the books of Rogers Brothers is not true—
on February 26th, 1901, I read a similar proposal, Exhibit 367, from Arthur James Ransome's son, Mr. Bernard Ransome, for £5,000, the three sureties being Arthur James Ransome, Sheppard James Ransome, and William Hodson, with another name, Kevorkian—we did not make that advance, as we considered the defendants were sufficiently indebted.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. I said before the Magistrate that our inquiries were directed to the point of the ability of the borrowers' sureties to repay the loan—we would not have lent the money without those inquiries resulting satisfactorily.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. The premiums were £1,100 to £1,200 a year, the amount being thus repaid in a period of ten years—the interest was 6 per cent, reducible to 5 per cent, on prompt payments—we made inquiries of the bankers quite independently of the parties to the deed.
Cross-examined by MR. KERSHAW I believe we had more than one interview with Newton—the conversation was as to his being able to find cover as a means of insuring his liability.
Re-examined. We inquired if the parties to the deed were solvent persons—the replies were favourable, and I reported accordingly to our head office—the document was read in the presence of all the defendants and myself—by Mr. Beck, and some questions were asked and were explained at the time.
GEORGE MOORE CHAMBERLIN . I am a director of the Norwich Union Insurance Society, also a member of the Finance Committee of that corporation—the loan of £12,000 to Edward Beauchamp Rogers came before me in both capacities; also the reports the result of inquiries of various bankers of the borrower and his sureties—having seen those the other members of the Committee, the directors and myself, discussed the matter, and agreed to make the loan—I was one of the directors who signed the cheque by means of which the sum was advanced—the result of the inquiries appeared to be that the borrower and his sureties were solvent persons and able to meet the requirements.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. The results were shown to me in Norwich by the general manager of the Society—most of the reports were in writing—inquiries were made through the defendants' friends, the banks, inquiry offices, and trade protection associations—Stubbs were also employed—that was quite independent of any reference by the principal and his sureties—if those independent inquiries had not been satisfactory we should not have entered into the business.
Cross-examined by MR. PAGE. Being associated with the President of the United Kingdom Trade Society, I naturally applied to them.
Re-examined. I believe that the banking accounts of the various persons represented genuine trade transactions—I have the reports from the bankers, and can produce them if required.
WILLIAM ROSS NICHOLL . I am Resident Inspector at Stockton for the Yorkshire Insurance Company—in June, 1901, I was inspector of the same company in London at 2. Bank Buildings, E.C.—I knew the defendants Wallis through doing fire insurance business for them—Ransome Wallis made a verbal proposal to me for a loan to be made by our Company to his
son Charles Edward, aged 24—we discussed the matter—then I received this letter, Exhibit 372, proposing to insure the son's life for £3,000 and to take a loan of £2,000 guaranteed by four persons. Norman Rogers, formerly partner in the firm of Rogers Brothers, banking at the London and Western Bank and Lloyds Bank; Algernon Wallis, banking at the London and South Western Bank, and for thirty years at Lloyds Bank, and proprietor of Wallis, Sons and Co.; Sheppard Ransome, banking at the London and County Bank, and senior partner of S. and E. Ransome, South American merchants; and Ransome Wallis, banking at the London and Westminster Bank; and Barnard Wallis, salaried representative of Wallis, Sons and Co., banking at the London and Provincial Bank, Sideup, and giving references, including Thomas and Short, Crosby Square, Great St. Helen's—I wrote to the references and made personal inquiries, which were satisfactory—I conversed with Short as to Algernon Wallis—his opinion was perfectly favourable; there was not a discordant note in his remarks—he spoke well of the Wallises, and Algernon in particular—m question was, "Do you believe Messrs. Wallis are thoroughly sound men who will carry out their engagements," and his remark was, as far as I an remember, to this effect, "You may be sure anything that they undertake they see their way to carry through"—I also read letter, Exhibit 374, signed Thomas Short and A. Howard Short, of July 8th, addressed to the Company to the effect that while they had no special knowledge of their financial standing, Wallis and Co. had met their obligations promptly—the loan was to be £2,000—our Company required that the firms and not merely the individual members should be responsible—I receives the proposal form, Exhibit 375, and dated August 25th, in which the references to the defendants Rogers Brothers, Wallis, Sons and Co., the two Ransomes individually and as firms as sureties, and their bankers are given—that is signed by Ransome Wallis—after the receipt of Exhibit 377 from Wallis, Sons and Co. asking for the cheque, I reported the result of the inquiries to my head office.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE. Edward Rogers came in later, when we required the signature of the firm—I made personal inquiries—after Wallis, Sons and Co.'s failure on October 11th, 1901, I saw Edward Rogers—I explained the position of the firm and that the money was recoverable from the sureties—he expressed surprise—he said it was a terrible business for him and would cost him at least £20,000, and added, "I have helped men all my life and this is my reward—he appeared to me very much upset.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. Ransome Wallis told me he was retiring from business—he said he wanted his son to bring £2,000 into the firm—we required references of the principals as well as of the sureties—one reference of Charles E. Wallis is Albert Wilson, M.D., 1, Queen Street, Cheapside, and Woodford, Essex—both references were of high position, so far as I know—the references of Ransome Wallis were Mr. Voake, the Chairman of Robinson and Co., Limited, and Mr. D. C. Appley, of Reigate, and the senior partner in Carson and Co., and John Dotteridge, all gentlemen of high standing as for as I know.
Cross-examined by MR. WALLACE. Short's references were also to well-known and respectable people.
Cross-examined by MR. DISTURNAL. I did not personally see either of the Ransomes till after the collapse of Wallis, Sons and Co., when it appeared that the position of affairs was quite unexpected by them—that as the impression they gave me at the interview.
WILLIAM HAMERTON JALLAND . I am a surgeon, practising at St. Leonard's House, York, and one of the directors of the Yorkshire Insurance Company—the application for this loan of £2,000 came before me in my capacity as Director—inquiries were made into the solvency of the borrower and of the sureties as well as the references from their bankers—all were satisfactory—afterwards the cheque, No. 442, for £1,796 7s. 6d. was drawn and signed by myself, as one of the directors on September 28th, 1901—the insurance was to be on the life of C. E. Ransome—at that time I believed the borrower and his sureties each and all of them were able to meet the requirements of the loan.
Cross-examined by SIR. JOSEPH LEESE.—We made private inquiries as well as to the bankers—that is the usual custom—without those private inquiries being satisfactory we should not have lent the money.
Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I mean that we concluded from our inquiries that both the borrower and the sureties were in a position to repay the money—I mean the sureties when combined.
Cross-examined by MR. DISTURNAL. The Ransomes said they could not give us a balance sheet, and they could not give us the full details we wanted—we were not as satisfied with them as with the others, because the information was not sufficient.
Re-examined. The answers to our private inquiries were satisfactory—we should not have advanced the loan if they had not been.
FREDERICK HOLMES (City Police-Inspector.) I arrested the defendant Edward Beachamp Rogers—I was present when the other defendants were charged—I found Exhibit 567 on Ransome Wallis—[A letter of September 3rd, 1899, from Martin's Bank to Wallis, Sons and Co., returning a bill for £90 0s. 4d., the Bank not considering that kind of bill to be trade bills.]—I was instructed on the Saturday to execute the warrants at once.
JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT (Re-examined). I produce a schedule which I have prepared of acceptances in a statement of the handwritings of the accused appearing on them and in whose possession the documents were found—it is correct.
Edward Beachamp Rogers, in his defence on oath, said that he believed he firm was solvent at the time he accepted bills to assist the other defendants and obtained the loan from the Norwich Union; that, as he had other property, he believed the firm would meet their liabilities; that he was absent for his holidays in Auqust, 1901, and part of September, and was therefore not responsible for what took place in his absence; that he believed the balance sheet prepared by Thompson represented he firm's position at the time; that pressure of business compelled him to leave the details of the work to Thompson, Terry, and other clerks, and that he signed documents relying
upon them; that he accepted the figures in the valuations, believing them to be correct, but that the forced sales considerably reduced the proceeds; and that he had no intention to defraud anybody.
Edward Norman Everard Rogers, in his defence on oath, said that he was taking his summer holiday in June and part of July, when he was not responsible for what took place; he denied all the charges, and stated that he acted throughout with a view of carrying the transactions through successfully and in an honourable manner; and that he had no intention to defraud or to assist in any fraud.
Ransome Wallis, in his defence on oath, stated that his annual turnover having been a quarter of a million with a profit of £7,000 divisible between the partners he believed the position of his firm was absolutely sound when the transactions referred to in the evidence were carried through, and that there never was any intention to defraud.
Algernon Wallis, in his defence on oath, confirmed his brother's statement, denied any intention to defraud, and stated that he had not made any representation in respect of more than one bill.
Sheppard James Ransome, in his defence on oath, denied any intention to defraud, and stated that, the firm having been prosperous, he refrained from retiring for some time, and even when he retired he invested further sums in it, believing those would assist to put it again on a sound basis.
Arthur James Ransome, in his defence on oath, supported his brother's statement, and denied any intention to defraud.
Joseph John Rolls Short, in his defence an oath, said he believed the bills drawn were of the value specified by Messrs. Rogers; he denied making any fraudulent representation, or that at the time of the failure he owed anything in respect of his private affairs.
Richard Martland Newton, in his defence on oath, stated that down to October last he had a capital of £4,000; that he had conducted all his business in a straightforward and honourable manner, and as he had not the least idea that he had done anything fraudulent, he wished to complain of the injustice he had suffered on the part of the prosecution upon a charge which had been dismissed by the Magistrate.
The prisoners all received excellent characters, both personally and with regard to their uprightness and integrity in business.
JOHN BRETT re-examined by the COURT. The balance sheet was handed to me by E. B. Rogers at my office in June, 1900—if I have stated otherwise that is incorrect—my directors had asked me, in view of the large amount running, to get it.
EDWARD ROGERS and JOSEPH J. R. SHORT, GUILTY on the first and twelfth counts (conspiracy and obtaining goods by false pretences). H. N. E. ROGERS, R. and A. WALLIS, S. J. and A. J. RANSOME and NEWTON, NOT GUILTY .
The prisoners were again indicted for conspiracy to and obtaining credit and for incurring liabilities, with intent to defraud.
No evidence was offered.
NOT GUILTY .
Sentence on E. B. ROGERS and J. J. R. SHORT— Nine months' imprisonment each in the Second Division.
NEW COURT—Saturday, November 22nd, 1902.
45. VALENTINE LACEY COOMBES was brought up for judgment before the Recorder on his recognisances, entered into at this Court on October 25th, 1901 (See Vol. cxxxiv., page 923). Six months' imprisonment in the second division.
Before A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. FULTON Prosecuted, and MR. KEITH FRITH Defended Smith.
WILLIAM GEORGE MACDONALD . I am a collector, of 160, Francis Road, Leyton—the bicycle produced is mine—on October 22nd, I went into an estate office in High Road, Leyton, leaving it outside—I was only gone a minute or two, and when I returned it was gone—about a week or fortnight afterwards I saw it at Mr. Parry's shop, a bicycle dealer of Bethnal Green—I value it at £6 10s.—I do not know either of the prisoners.
Cross-examined by Hurd. I cannot identify you as stealing it.
JOSEPH PARRY . I am a cycle dealer of 103, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green—I have known Smith as a customer for twelve months—on October 24th, the two prisoners brought this bicycle to me, and asked me to buy it; I said I would if they had the receipt; Hurd said that he had lost it, so I said I would buy it if Hurd would let one of my men go to his house to see where he lived—he did so, and the address being correct, I agreed to buy it for 45s.—I paid Hurd 25s. at the time, and the other £1 the next morning—I gave Smith 2s. for the introduction—Hurd said he had had the machine seven months.
Cross-examined by Hurd. You did not say that a man had given it to you to sell—the address you gave me was correct—I did not know you.
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I knew Smith, but did not know his address—I do not know the public-house that he frequents—he waited in my shop while the enquiry was being made about Hurd—I thought it was an honest transaction—Smith has often had machines from me on hire, and has always returned them—it is not uncommon for anyone of introduce a seller of a machine as his friend—there was nothing in Smith's conduct to arouse any suspicion.
ALBERT HANDLEY (Detective Sergeant J.) On November 2nd, about 1 a.m., I saw Hurd in Treadway Street, Hackney Road—I said, "Hurd, you know me; "he said, "Yes; "I said, "I shall arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with another man, not in custody, for stealing and receiving a bicycle on October 22nd, at High Road, Leyton; "he said, "A bicycle; "I said, "Yes;" he said, "You know that is not my game; I never had a bicycle in my life, and cannot ride one"—he was taken to the station, where Parry at once identified him from fourteen other men—he then said "Yes, that is right, I did sell him a bicycle, but you have got to prove your case against me, the bicycle I sold to Parry belonged to the man that was with me at the time I sold it"—I asked him who his mate was, and he said,
"You find out, you know him as well as you know me, but you will not get anything out of me"—as I was conveying him to the station, Smith; came up and spoke to him.
Cross-examined by Hurd. I have seen you riding a bicycle on several occasions in Bethnal Green Road—I made my note in your presence—I did not have a search warrant to search your place.
Re-examined. I had good reasons for searching Hurd's place, as I had information that he was trying to dispose of another bicycle worth £10.
PERCY SAVAGE (Detective J.) I was with Detective Handley when Hurd was arrested—the same day at 3.30 p.m., I saw Smith on the platform at Bethnal Green Junction—I said, "You know me;" he said, "Yes;"I said "I am going to arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with Hurd in stealing a bicycle from Leyton on the 22nd of last month; "he said, "I do not know anything about a bicycle; I do not work with Hurd"—he was conveyed to Bethnal Green station, put up for identification with nine other men, and at once identified by Parry—he then said, "It is no use telling lies about it, I was with Hurd"—I took him to Leyton Station, and in the train he said, "I only went with Hurd to sell the bicycle; I know he has had it some time, and that he bought it down the Lane"—when charged he said, "Now you cannot prove I stole it; no one saw me take it away."
Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. When Hurd was in custody, Smith came up and spoke to him.
Cross-examined by Hurd. I cannot produce anyone who saw you take the machine.
JOSEPH PARRY (Re-examined). When purchasing the machine I asked Smith to lend me 10s. to complete the deal, as I had not sufficient money at the time, but he could not, and I paid Hurd 25s. then, and £1 the next morning.
Hurd, in his defence, said that he was in a public house with Smith, when a man asked him if he could sell a bicycle; that he asked Smith if he knew of anyone; that Smith suggested Mr. Parry; that they took the bicycle to him and sold it, and gave the money to the man in the public-house.
Smith, in his defence on oath, said that he took Hurd to Parry to introduce him; that he received 2s. from Parry for the introduction; that he had nothing whatever to do with selling the bicycle, and received none of the proceeds.
SMITH then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Maidstone, on October 17th, 1901, and three other convictions were proved against him. Two years' hard labour each.
MR. STEWART Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.
The Jury, being unable to agree, and the Prosecution intimating that no further proceedings would be taken, the Prisoner was discharged on his own recognisances.
BARRON PLEADED GUILTY to simple robbery.
MR. NICHOLSON Prosecuted.
AGOSTINIO DA COSTA LEPZ (Interpreted.) On October 14th, about 2.30 p.m., I went into a baker's shop in the Victoria Dock Road to buy some bread—when I came out I was assaulted by the two prisoners—Walker caught hold of my two wrists from behind, and Barron took my purse out of my pocket, which contained a half sovereign and two half-crowns—on the 17th, I went to the police station and picked out Barron—I cannot identify Walker, as I did not see him; he was behind me.
Cross-examined by Walker. At Stratford Police Court, I did say that Barron took my purse—I did not say you put your arms round my neck, but like this (Describing).
ROSE SHAW . I keep a baker's shop in the Victoria Dock Road—on October 14th, about 2.45 p.m., I saw the two prisoners and the prosecutor outside my shop—Walker was holding the prosecutor's hands into his neck, and Barron was rifling his pockets—the prisoners then made off, followed by the prosecutor—I know both prisoners well by sight—on October 17th I went to the police station, and identified them from ten or twelve other men.
Cross-examined by Walker. I did not say at the police court that you had your arms round the prosecutor's neck—when you made off I heard the prosecutor shout—there is a policeman on point duty at the corner of the street about 20 or 30 yards away, but you did not go in that direction.
Cross-examined by Barron. I saw you put your hand into two of the prosecutor's pockets.
HESTA MONCHAM . I live in Victoria Dock Road—on October 14th I was standing at my door about 2.30 p.m., and saw the prosecutor and the prisoners struggling—Walker was holding the prosecutor's hands up to his neck while Barron was searching his pockets—I have seen the prisoners many times standing at the corner of the street—I had no difficulty in—identifying them.
Cross-examined by Walker. You were behind the prosecutor holding his hands up to his neck—I saw your face—when you left go the prosecutor screamed and you ran off into Smith Street—there was not any traffic in the street at the time.
Cross-examined by Barron. I cannot say how many pockets you searched, but they were inside pockets, not outside.
----CRONK (573 K.) I was on point duty in Victoria Dock Road at 2.40 p.m. on October 14th—I saw the two prisoners walking towards where the alleged robbery took place—I received certain information, in consequence of which I went in search of the prisoners—on the 17th I went with P.C. Dunstall to 36, South Norton Street, Canning Town—I saw Barron on the first floor in bed—I said, "Barron, I am going to take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned with another man in a highway robbery on Tuesday afternoon in Victoria Dock Road"—he said, "No,
not me"—on the way to the station he said, "I know nothing about it"—about 9 p.m. he was put up with nine other men and identified by the three witnesses—he was formally charged, and made no reply.
Cross-examined by Walker. The alleged robbery took place about 20 yards from where I was—I heard no scream; there was a lot of traffic at the time.
JAMES DUNSTALL (546 K.) On October 17th I went with P.C. Cronk to 36, South Norton Road, Canning Town—I saw Walker, and said to him, "I am going to take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned in a highway robbery with violence last Tuesday"—he made no reply—I conveyed him to the station, where he was placed among nine other men and identified by the two females, but not by the prosecutor—he was afterwards charged, and made no reply.
Walker, in his defence on oath, said that at the time of the alleged robbery he was at Poplar and did not get home till 6 p.m.; that he was not in Barron's company, and had nothing whatever to do with the robbery.
Barron, in his defence, denied using any violence.
WALKER then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on May 15th, 1901, in the name of John McAndrew. Five other convictions were proved against him— Five years' penal servitude. Three previous convictions were proved against BARRON— Two years' hard labour.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
ASHFORD PLEADED GUILTY .
MR. STEWART Prosecuted.
WILLIAM JOHN BICHENO . I am a general dealer, of 26, Martin Road, Custom House—I have a shed in a yard at the bottom of Devonshire Road—on November 5th I had a lot of furniture in the shed, including four chairs, a flock bed, two pillows, a bolster, two or three tables, and several pictures, and a barrow and bedstead outside—they were all safe on the night of November 5th—on the 6th, at 8 a.m., I went to the shed and they were all gone—these (Produced.) are two of the pictures—the other articles are at the police station—I identified them at the prisoner's house.
Cross-examined by Wall. I do not put marks on my property—I can swear they are mine.
ETHEL ROWLAND . I am 13 years old, and live at 45, Francis Street. Tidal Basin—on November 6th, at 9 a.m., I saw Bob Ashford and the other prisoner outside our door with a barrow and two mattresses, a bed and some chairs.
Cross-examined by Wall. I should know you if you had different clothes
on to what you have now—you had the same clothes on then as you have now—I am quite sure of you.
By the COURT. They took the furniture upstairs to a back room in our house.
EDWARD FOSTER (76 K.R.) On November 8th I saw the prisoner in Rosker Street, Canning Town, and told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with a man named Ashford in stealing a quantity of furniture—he said. "I know nothing at all about it"—at the station, when charged, he said, "Is that all"—he refused his address—I subsequently ascertained that he lived at 54, Wilberforce Street—I went there and found four pictures and a table—these are two of the pictures, the others are at the police station—the prosecutor identified them.
Cross-examined. I saw the pictures at the police station, and I was told that they were found at your place.
JOHN MERCY (18 K.R.) On November 6th, at 6.45 a.m., I saw the prisoners together in Cleaver Road, Custom House, with a barrow loaded with furniture—I identified the prisoners at the police station from amongst twelve others on November 8th.
Cross-examined. I am positive of you—I had a good look at your face when you went past me on the 6th.
WALL— NOT GUILTY . ASHFORD then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of misdemeanour at West Ham Sessions on October 11th, 1901. Four other convictions were proved against him— Five years' penal servitude.
MR. GODDARD Prosecuted.
CHARLES CHAPPLE (468 N.) On October 30th, at 8 p.m., I was on duty in Copper Mill Lane, Walthamstow, and met the prisoner coming from the Marshes, carrying the two coils of copper wire (Produced.)—I asked him what he was doing with the wire—he said, "I have just brought it from Erith, I am taking it home for the night; I am going to take it back in the morning, as we have no place to store it"—I said, "Is it your wire?"—he said, "Yes"—I asked him if he was employed by the company—he said, "Yes"—I asked him for his authority card and he produced one dated July 31st, 1902—I then took him into custody.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not say to you that I had been watching from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., and that two detectives were also watching, and that if you had been up the pole I and they would have seen you.
Re-examined. I had seen the wires about 4.30 p.m.
WILLIAM JOSEPH NICHOLLS . I am resident night porter of the Tottenham Exchange of the National Telephone Company—there is a line of wires running from the Tottenham Exchange to Dalston, which crosses Walthamstow Marshes—I came on duty at 7 p.m. on October 30th—the wires were then in order—at about 7.30 p.m. four of the lines got out of order.
Company—I have examined the wire produced and it is exactly the same as that used by the Company—on October 8th I found some wire was missing from the wire poles running across Walthamstow Marshes, which was reinstated—I found them in good order at 3 p.m. on October 30th—I went on October 31st, and cut down some wire which corresponded with that produced—the total length of the missing wire is about 560 yards—it is quite possible for a man to climb the poles without climbers; I have seen a man do it—the value of the wire is about a sovereign—no man has a right to take away spare wire, he has to return it to the stores each night—the least quantity sold by the Company is a quarter of a ton.
Cross-examined. I understand you are a leading wireman—I have seen a man climb a pole without climbers since this case started, and he experienced no difficulty in doing so.
JOHN WILLIAM THOMPSON . I live at 120, Camden Road, Bow, and am a fault-finder in the employ of the Telephone Company—on October 30th, in the morning, I examined the wires in question and they were in good order—on October 31st I went there and found eight wires hanging down, and the rest of the wire missing—I have climbed this pole myself without the use of climbers—there is no difficulty to a man who is used to it.
Cross-examined. A man is sometimes allowed to take home a piece of galvanised wire, but not of copper wire—I have never known it to be given away to anyone else asking for it—I have climbed poles without climbers dozens of times.
Re-examined. I have never known such a quantity as 500 yards to be given away.
WILLIAM STYLES . I live at Manor Road, East Molesey, and am local manager of the Woolwich area of the Southern district of the Company—I recognise the prisoner—he entered their service in my district on June 12th, 1902, and was discharged on September 20th, 1902—all spare wire has to be taken back to the stores.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that the wire in question was what was left from another job, which he had put in a hut in White's brickfield before he was discharged from the Company, and that being hard up on October 30th it came into his mind to go and get it from the brickfield where it had remained since he worked for the Company; that he saw the constable before he got up to him, and had a good opportunity of putting the wire down if he had known it had been stolen, and that if the detectives were there they would have seen him cut down the wire if he had done so, and that he was charged because they knew he was a wireman, and thought it was he who had cut it down.
GUILTY . He then
PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at the North London Sessions, on February 21 st, 1899, and another conviction was proved against him. Fifteen months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
having been convicted of felony at West Ham, on April 18th, 1902. Thirteen other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour. —
(53). THOMAS WATTS (In custody.) (19), to unlawfully obtaining a bicycle from Charles Murray Fleming, by false pretences and with intent to defraud, having been convicted at the Thames Police Court, on July 19th, 1902. Two other convictions were proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour, to run concurrently with a former sentence of six months' hard labour passed elsewhere.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
54. WILLIAM DUNT (20) , PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Ernest Mathews, with intent to steal, having been convicted of felony at Sevenoaks, on July 21st, 1902. Another conviction was proved against him. Three years' penal servitude and two years' police supervision.
Before Mr. Recorder.
55. FREDERICK GUIVER (18) PLEADED GUILTY to a robbery on Arthur Houghton, and stealing from him a watch and chain, his property, having been convicted of felony at Woolwich, on June 17th, 1901. Three other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
EMILY LEWIS . I live at 17, Watergate Street, Deptford—I am single and a laundress—I have known the prisoner between four and five years by living with him as his wife—I ceased to live with him the week before Whitsun on account of his brutality to me he turned me out—I went to live at Mrs. Cromartie's, No. 2, Riley Street, and from there to 17, Water-gate Street—I saw the prisoner on October 18th at about a quarter to six; he asked me if I should like to go to a play—we went to the Star Music Hall, and from there to Peckham; we went to a public house and had two glasses of ale; he threw one over me, and I walked out and took the tram to Deptford—I went home and came out again—I met the prisoner in Watergate Street—he drew out an open knife and said, "You and me for it before twelve o'clock to-night"—that is the knife (Produced)—I said, "Before you do that think of your boys down home; never mind me, go and see to them"—he quietened down, and I asked him for a halfpenny, which he gave me—I went to the Harp of Erin—and got a glass of ale—he came in and landed me a blow on the face—he accused me of being with Mr. Cromartie—we were turned out of the public house—it was 11.30—Mr. Cromartie saw me home—I shut myself in the back room—three minutes later the prisoner came in; he had no boots on and a lighted
match in one hand and the open knife in the other—he said he meant doing for me and stabbed me on my forehead three times—I tried to protect myself and got a stab in my neck and the back of my ear—I fell down on my left side—I said, "Oh, George, you have killed me, get me a drop of brandy;" he said, "My girl, I will," and jumped out at the window for it—I crawled upstairs to Mrs. Iiford's room—when he brought the brandy he had a cut on his hand—I was taken to Princess Street Police Station, and from there to the infirmary—I remained there till last Tuesday.
The Prisoner. I had been out drinking with my brother-in-law; I was drunk; all I know is we went out for a walk; I do not know anything about beer being thrown over her; after we went to Peckham I do not know what happened; I did not recollect anything till Sunday morning.
By the COURT. The prisoner unloads bricks from barges—there is not a quieter man when he is sober.
JOHN THOMAS KIDDES . I am landlord of the Harp of Erin, King Street, Deptford—Emily Lewis was in my house on Saturday, October 18th about 11 p.m.—she had a glass of ale—the prisoner rushed into the bar and started using bad language, so I had him put out—he was perfectly sober—he called her filthy names and said she had been deceiving him.
The Prisoner. If he says I was sober he is telling a falsehood; I do not even recollect seeing him.
JOHN WILLIAM AMOS . I am a labourer of 17, Watergate Street, Deptford—at 11.20 on October 18th I saw the prisoner in my back room—I asked him what business he had there; he said, "All right, Jack"—he came out at the door with a lighted match—he had a knife in his hand or a dagger—he shut it up and put it in his pocket—he rushed out of the passage—that made me suspicious, and I burst open the door of the back room—I saw Emily Lewis, who was a stranger to me, lying face downwards in a pool of blood—I went for help, and when I came back she had crawled upstairs under my adopted son's bed—Mrs. Cromartie and myself found her there, and put her on the door-step till the constable took her.
By the COURT. I know the prisoner by sight—I have seen him in the place three or four times—I believe he is some relation of Mr. Cromartie, but what I cannot say—I believe he was the worse for liquor, but I cannot say he was drunk.
EMMA CROMARTIE . I am the wife of George Cromartie, of 17, Watergate Street, Deptford—at the end of August, Emily Lewis came to live at my house—on October 18th, at about 11.45, I found her in the back room and brought her down into my room—I saw the prisoner there; he brought a cup with some brandy or whisky in it—I took it out of his hand and said, "Leave my room, you brute"—he went away, and I did not see him any more until he was at Princess Street Station—I helped the constable lead Emily Lewis to the station, where her wounds were stitched up.
WILLIAM WIGGINS . I am assistant medical superintendent of Greenwich Infirmary—Emily Lewis was brought to me on October 19th, at 2.30 a.m.; she was very faint from loss of blood—I found a wound 2 1/2 inches long over her right eye, and eight punctured wounds in her neck, chiefly in the back—they varied in depth from 1 inch to 2 1/2 inches; one of them reached
as far as the spinal column; the wound over her eye reached down to the scalp—there was a cut on her left arm and left hand, a contusion over her left eye and a cut on her lip—the wounds were such as might be caused by the knife produced—she remained at the infirmary till November 4th—dodo of the wounds of themselves would be fatal, but they were dangerous if either of the wounds in the neck had severed the jugular vein or one of the main arteries she would have lived but a few minutes—the position of the wounds was dangerous.
FRANK BEVIS (Police Sergeant R.) On October 19th, at 1 a.m., I saw the prisoner at 29, Charles Street—I said, "I am a police sergeant and shall arrest you for attempting to murder by stabbing Emily Lewis on head, neck, and arms at 17, Watergate Street, at ten o'clock to-night"—he said, "I caught her with George Cromartie; I meant her murder; I wish the knife was longer so that it would have put her out; I wish I had the chance to do it now"—I produced the knife, and he said, "That is the knife I did it with"—I took him to the station—he was afterwards charged, when he said, "Very good, this is what a man will do when he is mad wild"—on being taken from the dock he said, "I meant to kill Cromartie as well"—when I arrested him he appeared to be perfectly sober.
Prisoner's defence. "I did not understand the charge when it was read over to me. I did not recollect anything that night. I plead for mercy. I do not know what I did it for. I had no cause for it.
GUILTY on the Second Count only. Three years' penal servitude.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.
GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.
58. EDWIN ROBERT ARTHUR CHADD (58) , Obtaining £10 from Barnett Rosenberg by false pretences. Second, Count, being a clerk and servant to the said Barnett Rosenberg, did make certain false entries in a book belonging to the said Barnett Rosenberg.
MR. J. P. GRAIN and MR. P. GRAIN Prosecuted; MR. MUIR AND Mr.
BARNETT ROSENBERG . I am a registered money lender at 8, Camberwell Green, under the name of Lawrence—Mr. Cohen, my father-in-law, provides me with money for the purpose of my business—the prisoner entered my service in December, 1901—Mr. Cohen engaged—him—he had £2 per week and 5s. for travelling expenses, and lived on the premises rent free—he was also assisted by a boy named Ingram—it was the prisoner's duty to present application forms to be filled up by persons applying for a loan, and to make enquiries into the correctness of the forms to see that the particulars given were true—he was also furnished weekly with
a certain sum which he might loan out at his own discretion after enquiry, at the same time, adding the interest to the principal which was calculated at about 40 per cent, per annum—he was furnished with forms like this: "I promise to pay to Henry Lawrence, or order, the sum of £14 for value received by equal consecutive monthly instalments of £1 10s., the first instalment to be due and payable on the day of"—it was his duty on obtaining the applicant's signature to hand over the money to the borrower—he also had a cash book, journal, ledger and an instalment book—Ingram assisted him in keeping the books, and most of the entries are in Ingram's writing—the prisoner had to account to me at the end of the week by means of a balance sheet for the transactions in the past days of the week and send me the promissory notes which I retained—for a little time before I discovered anything he had not been very regular in sending me the promissory notes weekly—I communicated with him, and he then sent them weekly—I then compared them with the ledger, to see how it was going—he also received instalments and accounted for them in the balance sheet—each applicant and borrower has a debit and credit account in the ledger—on September 27th, when he said he was about to leave, as he intended opening a money lending business at New Cross in conjunction with someone who was financing him—I asked him to stay a few weeks longer until we got someone to take his place—he promised to do so, and on the Saturday in the same week I received a letter from him—I did not sec him again until he was arrested—in consequence of the receipt of that letter I went to my office, but could not find Ingram, and I have not seen him since—I went to 284, New Cross Road, the address in the letter, and found the house empty—this is the letter, it is in Ingram's writing and is signed "Chadd" "8, Camberwell Green, S.E., September 27th, 1902. Dear Sir.—It is—with much regret that I beg to inform you that I have a good opportunity of bettering myself. I therefore beg to give you notice that I wish to resign my position at the above address on October 4th. 1902"—after, that I examined my books, and interviewed the witnesses Bendon, Holmes, and Starr, as the result of which I consulted my solicitors and took these proceedings—in the ledger George Bindon is debited with £10 as an advance which had been made to him, and I received from the prisoner this promissory note (Produced.) dated September 10th, 1902, purporting to be signed by George Bindon—on the credit side Bindon is credited with having paid one instalment of 6s. on account of that loan—I also find a debit account of £10 against Alfred Holmes, of 4, Jesmond Street, Walworth, dated August 12th, 1902, and I received this promissory note. (Produced.) from the prisoner for that amount signed "Alfred Holmes"—he is also credited with six instalments of 7s. each on August 18th and 26th, and September 1st, 8th, 22nd, and 26th—I also find a debit account of £14 against Starr on July 21st, 1902, and two credit entries of two instalments of £1 10s. each—this (Produced.) is the promissory note I received from the prisoner purporting to be signed by Alfred Starr, dated July 21st, 1902—the balance sheets I received from the prisoner also contain the three sums I have alluded to—I also find an account
opened in the name of Frank Thornton Barker for £14, dated July 21st; he is credited with having paid 30s. on September 5th—this (produced.) is the promissory note I received from the prisoner, dated July 21st, in respect of that loan, accompanied by a balance sheet, purporting to be signed by Frank Thornton Barker—I also find a debit account against G. Phillips, of 18, Hollydale Road, Peckham, for £7 on July 25th, and he is credited on August 5th with 4s., and eight others of 4s. each—this (Produced.) is a promissory note I received from the prisoner, purporting to be signed by George Phillips—I also find a debit account against Wm. Whiting, of 4, Heaver Road, East Dulwich, for £8 8s. on August 8th; he is credited with 5s. on August 19th, 10s. on September 5th, and 15s. on September 22nd—this (Produced.) is a promissory note I received from the prisoner, accompanied by a balance sheet, purporting to be signed by Wm. Whiting—these (Produced.) are the six application forms in reference to those six cases which I found in my office—the three last-named persons are non-existent.
Cross-examined. The promissory note of Starr is in Ingram's writing—I do not know the signature—I do not know the writing in the application form—Mr. Starr said that the signature was not his, and the signature en the back which I asked him to write has no resemblance to it—I do not know the writing in Holmes' bill—the balance sheet relating to it shows that the prisoner had a balance at the bank of £16 2s. 7d., and cash in hand £1 16s. 9£d.—the body of Bindon's bill is in Ingram's writing—I do not know the signature—the address "Fishmonger's shop" in the application form is in the prisoner's writing, the balance sheet in Bindon's case shows that the prisoner had a balance at the bank of £8, and in hand 12 12s. 1 1/2 d., due from him to me—the account at the bank was kept in the name of B. J. Cohen—the body of Phillip's bill is in Ingram's writing—I do not know the signature—I do not know the writing in the application form—the body of Whiting's bill is in the prisoner's writing—I do not know the signature—the balance at the bank in that case was £28, and in hand £2 14s. 0 1/2d.—the promissory note is in Ingram's writing; I do not know the signature; I do not know the writing in the application form—I cannot say in whose writing the application forms are: they appear to be in one and the same writing, except the words "Fishmonger's shop" in Bindon's case, and that is in the prisoner's writing—I do not know a man named Faulkner nor his writing—I had heard that Chadd had been an engine driver and was a man of no education and a very bad writer—he was engaged by Mr. Cohen on my behalf—I had never seen him until after he had begun his work—all cheques for the business were drawn by Mr. Cohen—Chadd gave notice to Cohen—the business was not Cohen's, it was mine—Cohen merely advanced me the money to carry it on, he took none of the profits—the prisoner sent me a balance sheet every week and from that I knew what was in the bank and what was in hand—the office was taken in the joint names of Cohen and myself, and the rent was paid by Cohen's cheques in our two names—I never told Chadd that he must not be too particular in making inquiries about would-be borrowers, or he would drive business
away—the business had certainly increased during the latter part of the time Chadd was with us—he never told me that he had not time to make all the necessary inquiries—I suggested to him that he should have assistance—that was some considerable time before he left—the interest was never over 50 per cent.—it was not the method to ascertain the identity of a would-be borrower, to send a letter to his address and ask him to bring it with him; if Chadd did that, it was wrong—Chadd had to call on applicants to inspect their rent books and see that the landlord had not any right to seize their furniture—I made a mistake at the police court in saying I had had no communication with Chadd after September 29th—I had letter from him on October 4th—Mr. Cohen and I asked him to stay on, and he said he was going to start with a new man in a new money-lending business at New Cross—we never offered to increase his salary if he would stay on—Chadd paid Ingram himself—I live at 43, Grand Parade, Brighton—my office is at Camberwell Green—the bills are made payable at 42, Bedford Hill, Balham, because I wanted to use the Wandsworth County Court for actions—Camberwell Green would be in the Lambeth County Court District—my brother-in-law, Percy Cohen, carries on a money-lending business at 42, Bedford Hill—he is about sixteen or seventeen years old—Judge Emden of the Lambeth County Court would make orders in my favour, but they were for only a penny a month, which was ridiculous.
By the COURT. I went to the Wandsworth County Court because I liked the sort of justice administered there, better than that administered at Lambeth—both Judges would give mea-judgment if the case was proved, but all that remained was the question of payment by large or small instalments—I am not aware that I am committing an offence against the Money lender's Act in making the' bills payable at Bedford Hill instead of at Camberwell Green—there is a plate fixed with my name on it at Bedford Hill, but I have never seen it—the debtors were always told to pay their instalments at Camberwell Green—I have been a builder—I did not describe myself to the Magistrate as a builder—I registered myself as a money-lender, but as having been a builder—I ceased to be a builder twelve months ago.
Re-examined. Judge Emden made orders for small instalments to all other money-lenders besides myself—the balance sheets ought all to correspond with the books—they would be made up from the journal and the cash book—the instalments which were paid by the six different people from time to time ceased when Chadd left—the profits of the business went back into the business, but there has been a defalcation of about £400—Ingram was engaged and paid by Chadd—when Chadd left, Ingram left, and I have not been able to find him.
BARON JACOB COHEN . I live at-Hove, Brighton—I am the prosecutor's father-in-law, and have helped him with various sums in his business—the prisoner was engaged as manager and clerk to carry on the business at Camberwell Green by me, on behalf of the prosecutor—these (Produced.) are all my cheques which I gave to the prosecutor—I kept a separate cheque book for the moneys I gave to Chadd for the business.
Cross-examined. When Chadd had any money in hand he used it for
the business, and when he wanted any more I gave it to him—this was entirely my son-in-law's business—I made a charge for lending the money.
By the COURT. I am not a money-lender now; I have given it up—I owe the prosecutor money, and he owes me money—I owe him a little more than he owes me—I told him I would advance the business up to £2,000.
By MR. LEYCESTER. I took no financial part in the business except to charge 2s. 6d. a week for travelling to the office at Camberwell Green from Hove—I am still on the Register as a money lender in the name of J. Watson—when I say I have given it up I mean I am going to give it up—I last registered in November 1900, as carrying on business at 8, St. James' Road, Holloway, N, and 36, Stafford Street, and 23, Seymour Street, Liverpool, but I have given that up, and two more at Manchester—I did not know I was bound to register my change of address—I have two sons, Myer and Percy Cohen; they are registered as carrying on a money lending business as L. Martin—Myer is 23, and Percy is 16—I gave them the money—Percy is at 42, Bedford Hill, Balham—George May is my eldest son; he is also in the money lending business—Myer Cohen is "George May and also "L. Martin"—he carries on business at Walham Green and 147, Edgware Road—I have an interest in that business—I was not aware I was committing an offence against the Money Lenders Act in carrying on two different businesses in different names.
GEORGE BINDON . I live at 23A Commercial Road, Peckham—the signature to this promissory note is not mine—I have never at any time borrowed £10 from H. Lawrence of Camberwell Green, nor any other sum from anybody at that address—I did not fill up this application form—I see the words "Fishmonger" after my name—I am not a fishmonger—I do not know the prisoner, and have never seen him before.
Cross-examined. I believe inquiries were made at my house about that bill, but I am out from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and during that time the house is empty—it might very well happen that somebody had called without, my knowing it—the blinds would be up and anyone could see that it was decently furnished—I received this letter from Lawrence six or seven weeks ago, and I called oh him about two hours after: "Dear Sir, I am surprised to find that you have not yet paid last week's instalment, and must ask you to please let me have same by return. Yours faithfully, H. Lawrence"—I have several relatives named George Bindon—neither of them is a fishmonger—I do not know a man named Faulkner.
ALFRED STARR . I am a tobacconist of 138, Newington Causeway—this promissory note is not in my writing—I have never borrowed £10 or any other sum from Lawrence of Camberwell Green—I see the name "A Starr" on the back—it is not my writing, neither is this application form.
Cross-examined. I can write, and I know my writing when I see it—I am perfectly certain neither of the signatures on that bill are in my writing—Mr. Rosenberg came to see me about this matter—he showed me the bill I was supposed to have signed, and I signed my name on the back of it—I still swear that the signature on the back is not my writing—I was asked to sign in exactly the same style—the signature on this piece of paper
(Produced.) is very similar to mine, but that is not exactly how I did it—that is how it was done originally—Rosenberg showed me a bill, and I signed it on the back, but this is not the one—this (Produced.) is the one I signed, and I signed it for a friend of mine—this is my writing, and this may be the piece of paper I wrote on—I know a man named Faulkner—he is a coal merchant, and a friend of mine—I know Chadd by sight—I have met Faulkner in a public-house next to my shop—Faulkner brought a document to me and I signed it—he wanted £10, and asked me to do him a favour—I cannot say what the document was—the document I signed was for a loan of £10 from Lawrence or Cohen—I will not swear I did not sign this bill (Produced.)—it was done in such a peculiar way that if I lived up to 100 years I could not remember how I signed it. '
By the COURT. I signed some paper or other to oblige Faulkner by helping him to get £10 from Cohen or Lawrence.
Re-examined. This is not my signature, but I will not swear it.
ARTHUR HOLMES . I live at 4, Jesmond Street, Walworth, and am a hosier's assistant—the signature on this bill is not my writing—I have never borrowed £8 from H. Lawrence, of Camberwell Green—I have not written anything on this application form (Produced)—there is no one of the name of "Alfred "Holmes living at 8, Jesmond Street, Walworth, as appears on this bill.
Cross-examined. I know Faulkner—he has never suggested to me that I should get a loan from Lawrence, nor that I should fill up an application form—he knew my surname, but he could not be sure about my Christian name—he might have known the initial—I have met Faulkner in the public-house next to Starr's shop.
ELIZABETH SMITH . I live at 4, Heber Road, East Dulwich, and am single—there is no one named William Whiting as appears on this promissory note and application form, living at that address, nor has there been during the four years I have lived there.
Cross-examined. Letters have come to my house addressed to Whiting, and I have sent them back—J. E. Smith is my brother—I have never handed over any letters to him nor to any of his friends.
ELIZABETH ANN BATTWICK . I live at 18, Hollydale Road, Peckham, and am married—during the past seven years there has been no one named Phillips living at my house, as appears from this promissory note and application form.
Cross-examined. I do let to lodgers.
HERBERT CORNELIUS DAVIS . I live at 76, Beauval Road, East Dulwich—during the past four years there has been no one named Frank Thornton Barker living there, as appears from this promissory note and application form.
Cross-examined. My wife has a brother named Barker—his Christian name is Fred, not Frank—I am not on very good terms with him—my wife would not hand him letters without my knowing it—I believe he was out of work in July last.
remover—about October 1st the prisoner came to me for an estimate for removal—he gave the name of Williams, of 8, Camberwell Green—I removed his goods from that place to 13, Ashcombe Road, Wimbledon.
Cross-examined. I knew what business was carried on there—I did not know that the prisoner was the man who was carrying on the business there, but if anybody had asked me where he had gone to I could have told them.
Re-examined. If anyone had asked me where a man named Chadd had removed to I could not have told them.
PHILIP WILLIS (Detective Sergeant P.) I went to 13, Ashcombe Road, Wimbledon, on October 20th, and arrested the prisoner on a charge of forging and uttering promissory notes—he said, "This is a mistake, this is done for spite"—I went to 284, New Cross Road—it was an empty house.
Cross-examined. I found out from the last witness where he had moved to.
MR. LEYCESTER submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner obtained any sum from the prosecutor by false pretences. The COMMON SERJEANT agreed. MR. LEYCESTER then submitted that there was no evidence that the business was Rosenberg's. MR. GRAIN contended that there was evidence that Rosenberg was the registered person under the Act, and was the person who received the documents week by week. The COMMON SERJEANT held that there was evidence for the jury that Rosenberg was the prisoner's employer.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was engaged by Mr. Cohen at £2 per week, and 5s. for expenses, and to live rent free; that he engaged Ingram and paid him 10s. a week and his board out of his £2; that he received no instructions except that he was not to lend any money to Jews; that he used to write letters to applicants for loans, telling them to call and bring the letter with them, and a number of loans were done in that way; that he put them through Perry's Register to see that there were no judgment summonses or bills of sale against them, but if a person gave a false name which happened to be that of a respectable person, putting that name through Perry's he would get a satisfactory answer; that he had full discretion from Cohen to do as he pleased; that he never saw Rosenberg until after he started work, but that he sent the weekly balance sheets to Rosenberg; that the bill produced was signed by Starr, who was introduced to him, Chadd, by Faulkner, and that he received Starr's application form from Faulkner; that when Starr signed the bill he, Chadd, paid Faulkner £10, and that Faulkner afterwards paid several instalments; that Holmes' bill and Bindon's bill appeared to be in Faulkner's writing also, and that he paid £10 and £7 in respect of those bills, but that he could not now recognise Bind on and Holmes; that Whiting and Barker were introduced to him by J. E. Smith, and the promissory notes in those cases were executed at the office at Camberwell Green, and he advanced the money on them; that he did not remember how he got into communication with Phillips, but he advanced the money on Phillips' bill, which was signed at Camberwell Green, believing the person who signed it was Phillips, as in all the other
notes; that as he promised to look in at the office from time to time after he had left he did call upon two clients to remind them that they were in arrear, and he was then shown a circular stating that he was no longer in Cohen's employ and ceased to go to the office any more; that when he removed he had no motive in giving the name of Williams; that he was, in fact, negotiating to take 284, New Cross Road, but it never came off, and that the promissory notes were all accepted in good faith on his part.
Witness for the defence.
JAMES EDWARD SMITH . I am a clerk—I know Chadd—Barter was a fellow clerk of mine, and I introduced him to Chadd—I had nothing whatever to do with filling up Barker's application form, neither did I know his address—I was present when he signed the promissory note, and I saw Chadd hand him the money—I also know Whiting—he is a friend of Barker's—I told him to go to Chadd and mention my name, and I saw Chadd hand him money in exchange for his promissory note—Miss Smith is my sister.
Cross-examined. Barker had asked me to lend him money, and he also asked where he could get help—I have had three loans myself from Lawrence, two I have paid, and the third I am now paying—I was circularized not to pay, and I and other fellow clerks thought we would let things take their course—Chadd had asked me to send him customers, and I did, and if he entertained them it was no business of mine—in some cases he has granted their applications and has lent them money.
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
59. EDWIN ROBERT ARTHUR CHADD (58) was again indicted for forging and uttering a promissory note for £10, with intent to defraud There were five other indictments against him for forging and uttering other promissory notes.
MR. GRAIN, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
60. HENRY NARROWAY (35) , PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a tricycle, the property of Arthur Wood , having been convicted of felony at the West London Police Court, on August 11th, 1900. Six months' hard labour. —
(61). GEORGE MARTIN (a clergyman) (38), to unlawfully having in his possession gunpowder with intent to do damage to a stand erected round the Church of St. George, in the Borough. He received an excellent character. Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
(62). WILLIAM SAUNDERSON ARMSTRONG (35) , to embezzling £5 6s. 4d., £4 8s. 9d., £8 10s. 7d., £26 13s. 6d., and £11 0s. 6d., the moneys of the London, City and Midland Bank, Limited, his masters. Also to wilfully, and with intent to defraud, omitting to make certain entries in the books of the said Bank. He received a good character. Four years' penal servitude. — [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And
(63). FREDERICK NESTOR (32) (Indicted with Bessie Kynch ), to stealing a brooch and other articles, the property of Bertha Clare Greenway, in her dwelling house. Also to stealing and receiving a watch and other articles, the property of Thomas Dale. ( See next case.) [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]
64. FREDERICK NESTOR was again indicted with BESSIE KYNCH (22) for stealing and receiving four rings and other articles, the property of Frederick George Hambley Nestor, having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell, on April 3rd, 1900, as Sidney Percival Harcourt. Five other convictions wire proved against him.
NOT GUILTY .—Stolen property to the value of £552 5s. 9d. had been traced to Nestor. Five years' penal servitude.
Before Mr. Justice Bigham.
MR. BIRON and MR. MURPHY Prosecuted, and MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES and
MR. METHVEN Defended.
DANIEL MCNAMARA . I live at 39, Hampton Square, Mortlake—the deceased was my daughter—she was married to the prisoner about twenty-two years ago—from what I know of them I never see him shoving her—I do not know of any complaints—I saw the prisoner in the Mortlake Hotel on November 2nd, about 7 p.m.—he asked me what I would have to drink—we had a glass together—he went away in about ten minutes—I stopped talking to my mates—I went out and returned in about five minutes—the deceased came to the door and spoke to me, and then went away again—that was about 7.10—I saw her in the Mortlake Hotel about 9 p.m.—she had a drink in her hand—I did not see when she left.
Cross-examined. When I went out I left the deceased there, sitting down, and five or six young chaps were talking to her—the prisoner was not there then—she did not complain to me when I left the public-house that she had quarrelled with the prisoner—the prisoner was a good husband to her, and a good man to me and my wife and grandchildren.
Cross-examined. The bar was often full—I think they were on good terms, I did not notice anything the matter with them—I did not see the deceased come back afterwards.
ESTHER STANLEY . My father keeps the Jolly Maltman, 64, High Street, Mortlake—I knew the prisoner and the deceased as customers—on November 1st, the prisoner came in about 8.30 p.m.—the deceased came in shortly afterwards—the prisoner spoke to me but I did not speak to him—the deceased said to him, "Give me the key, I have had to get in through the window"—then she said to me, "He has got the key, Miss Stanley, and I cannot get in"—they seemed to be on friendly terms then—they had some refreshment—he did not give her the key then, he only laughed when she asked him—he gave her the key about a quarter of an hour afterwards—he showed her the key, then he leaned over and showed it to me for a joke, and then she took it—he did not seem to be teasing her—
they both left together and went towards their home—I know Walter King, he was standing near the prisoner and the deceased in the bar—before they went out I left the bar for a few moments—King was in the bar then—the prisoner came into the bar again sometime after 10 p.m., and started joking, then he called for a glass of beer—he left at eleven o'clock, which is our closing hour—he took two pint bottles of beer with him—on Sunday, November 2nd, he came into the bar again between 1 and 2 p.m.—I said to him, "Is it true?" he said, "Yes, only too true"—I had heard of the murder then, and that is what I referred to—I said, "I wonder how it happened," and he said, "Nobody knows"—he came in again in the evening and said the same thing, that nobody knew anything about it—on Monday, about 10 a.m., he came into the bar again—I asked him how the murder had been done; he said he could not make out how it had been done—I said, "It is a most strange thing, I cannot understand it,"—he said, "Neither can I, Miss"—on other occasions he spoke to others in the bar, but not to me—I heard what he said.
Cross-examined. He seemed to think it was a very strange matter, and that there was a mystery about the deceased's death—he was in our house three days after the murder—he went backwards and forwards to his house—I could see right into his house if I stood at our back door—when he and the deceased left the bar on the Sunday night at nine o'clock, they were laughing and joking—I heard them mumbling but I could not hear what they were saying—there was nothing to suggest that they were quarrelling—when the prisoner returned about ten he was in his usual manner—he was joking with me again—he was quite sober—he shook hands and said good-night.
WALTER KING . I am a baker of 26, Model Cottages, Mortlake—on Saturday, November 1st, between 8 and 9 p.m., I was in the bar of the Jolly Maltman public-house—the prisoner came in, and the deceased after him—they seemed on friendly terms—I saw Miss Stanley in the bar, and saw her leave—the deceased asked the prisoner if he was coming home—I do not know whether he said "Yes" or "No"—they seemed on bad terms then, because he went over to her and said three words—they were "b----y." "bleeding," and "f----g"—he seemed angry—they left the bar shortly after.
Cross-examined. This was not the first time I had heard those three words—I did not give evidence before the Coroner or the Magistrate—I did to Inspector Scott, and he wrote it down—the deceased said, "Are you coming home?"
WILLIAM COX . I am seven years old, and live with my parents at 1, Mullin's Path, Mortlake—on Saturday night, about 9.50, I was near 1, Senior Place, Mullin's Path—I knew that Mr. and Mrs. Brown lived there, and knew Mrs. Brown's voice—I heard two screams of murder in a woman's voice which I knew was Mrs. Brown's, come from the kitchen—I opened the garden gate, looked through the kitchen window, and saw the prisoner kicking Mrs. Brown, who was lying on the floor against the table, between it and the window—I saw him kick her on her forehead, and then he came but the back way about ten o'clock and went down the Avenue—
that was about three minutes after the kicking—I had left the window when I saw him outside—before I saw him outside the house I spoke to Mrs. Whelan.
Cross-examined. It is not very dark there—there is a lamp on the other side, but not on the side I was—there is another at the end at the bottom of the street—that was the first time I heard cries of murder in that street—I knew before that it was Mr. Brown's house—the man I saw there had his back to me—it was only Mrs. Brown's face that I could see—I never saw anyone come out of the house—I never got nearer than two feet from the window—I never went up to it—I was not very frightened—the cries of murder did not frighten me—there was a flower pot in the window, and the blind was about half-way up, not as high as the window latch—I saw over the flower-pots, not between them—the blind was up high over them—there was a table in the room, and Mrs. Brown was on this side of it—I only heard her voice—the lamp was at the back part, on the table; it was lit—I could only see into one room, the kitchen—the man's back was to me, and he was kicking her body on the floor—I said at the inquest, "I saw him go round and come to the front of the house, and go down the Path"—I remember going to Mrs. Whelan's—I saw her go to the house, open the door, and look in and shut the door, and come out.
Re-examined. I saw Brown coming down Mullin's Path—I was running—I saw him before I ran down Mullin's Path—I knew him by his face—I saw him sideways.
By the COURT. When I was looking through the window he was about four feet away from me—I have no doubt that it was Brown; I know it was him—when. I was running down Mullin's Path I was going to Mrs. Whelan's, but I did not go to her house.
WALTER HORSMAN . I am ten years old, and live at 38, High Street—I knew Mrs. Brown—on Saturday, November 1st, I was playing with other boys in High Street; Cox came up and said something, and I went with him to Mullin's Path—I saw Willie Cox go to the window—I stopped at the corner and heard cries of "Murder" in a woman's voice—I heard no other voice—just after the cries Mrs. Young went to the house, and I saw Mr. Brown come out at his front door—she had knocked at the door before he came out—I was about as far from him as I am from the end of the jury-box—I am sure it was Brown.
Cross-examined. I was running away when I saw him come out—we three boys all ran away together—we ran before he came out because a policeman was coming—he was a short man who came out—I only judge by his height, that is why I say it was Mr. Brown—he was not running after me, or I after him—he went towards Stanley's beershop—he came out at 9.30 or 10 o'clock—it was directly after the cry—when Mrs. Young got to the gate, Brown was in the house—I am quite sure of that—I said before the Coroner, "Mrs. Brown said, 'Someone wants you,' and Mrs. Brown answered, 'No, who the b—y hell wants to see me to-night?"—that observation of Mrs. Brown must have been after the cry of murder—it was after Mrs. Young knocked at the door that I heard the cries of murder—the door was not open—I do not know whether Mrs. Whelan
opened it—when I heard that expression by Mrs. Brown, Mr. Brown was in the house as well as Mrs. Young—I did not hear him speak—when I was examined before the Coroner I did say that Mr. Brown was not in the house when Mrs. Brown called out, but not in those words—he was in the house at the time of that conversation.
THOMAS DANCER . I am ten years old, and Jive with my parents at Mortlake—I was with Cook near Mullin's Path about 9.45—I know the Browns' house—I heard a rumbling noise like the roll of a drum in the house.
Cross-examined. I heard the door open and commenced to run away directly, so that I was running away from Brown—as soon as the back place opened I began to run away down the alley, and he followed me—he did not appear to be running after me—Mullin's Path is a dark place.
By the COURT. I saw Mr. Brown—he was not as far from me when he opened the gate as from here to that red door—it was a dark night—directly the gate shut we all said, "Here comes Mr. Brown," and then we ran away.
Re-examined. There is a lamp there; it was about as far from me as from here to that wall.
ELIZABETH WHELAN . I live at Model Cottages, Vinyaad Yard, Mullin's Path, Mortlake—I know where the Browns lived—on Saturday night, November 1st, I was near there—a little boy said something to me, and I said something to Mrs. Young, who went straight to the Brown's house and knocked at the door—Mr. Brown came to the door, and I heard his voice but he did not open it—he said, "Who is there?"—Mrs. Young said, "Are you in, Mr. Brown?"—he said, "Yes; what do you want?"—she said, "Is Mrs. Brown in?"—he said, "Yes," and turned round to his wife and said, "You are wanted"—I heard Mrs. Brown's voice, but could not distinguish the words, and Mr. Brown came out of the gate—I could see the garden gate, it was about as far off as from me to you—next morning, Sunday, November 2nd, at nine o'clock, I went to the Brown's house and saw him; I said, "Where were you, Mr. Brown, last night?"—there were a lot of people standing outside, and then I saw Brown standing in his front garden with his arms like this—I went into the house and into the scullery—I saw the woman lying on the stairs, and I came out of the front door into the garden and said, "Brown, where were you all last night?"—he said, "I was in bed"—I said, "Do you mean to say you went to bed and left your wife at the foot of the stairs like this?"—he said, "She was not in when I went to bed"—I told him to go for a doctor, and he went—that was all the conversation I had.
Cross-examined. I was not far from the house the night before when—I came up to these boys—I did not see anybody come out of the house—at the minute I came out at the garden gate I saw this boy running—I did not see Brown at all, but I heard a voice inside, and I knew it was Mr. Brown's voice, knowing him well—I did not open the door.
Cross-examined. If one boy says that I went to the door that is not correct; I never went near the door—I live right opposite—the distance from door to door is as far as from here to the dock.
By the COURT. My front room is a good way from his, because Brown's house is at the corner and mine is down a court, and it would be impossible for me to hear any noise in Brown's house—when I went up to the house there was a light in the window—I did not go up close to the gate; I never went near the gate—the blind was down, and, I think, all down—when I saw him in the morning and asked him about his wife he said that he did not see her when he went to bed.
Re-examined. When I say that the blind was down I do not mean as far as I could see—it was up about four inches on the Sunday morning—I do not know whether Cox is the boy who spoke to me; a policeman came to the corner, and they all ran.
ANNIE REBECCA YOUNG . I live with my husband, George Young, at 62, Senior Place, Mullin's Path, Mortlake—our house is next door to that occupied by the prisoner and the deceased—we have lived there about seven years and the Browns about five or six months—On November 1st the deceased came to my house about 7.30 p.m.; she left a new hat with me, and then went away—about 9.30.I saw Mrs. Whelan—she said something to me and I went and knocked at the deceased's door; there was a light in the front room then—when I knocked, the door was not opened, but the prisoner said, "Who is there?" I knew his voice; I said, "Mrs. Young"—I heard the prisoner say to the deceased, "You are wanted"—she said, "There is no b—body wants to see me to-night"—I came away from the door and went to where Mrs. Whelan was standing—I did not see any more of the Browns that night—I know Cox; I saw him after I came from the Brown's door with some other boys, but they all ran away—there is a back way out of the prisoner's house—I then went into No. 3—I went home after 11 p.m.—I did not notice anything at the prisoner's house, but there was a light in the window—I next saw the prisoner on Sunday morning at my back door at 8.50—he said, "Annie,—I want to speak to you"—I went with him to his house, and he said, "Annie, I think she is dead"—I said, "Good God, who?"—he said, "Bess," that is his wife—he went into the house; I followed him—I saw the deceased lying on the stairs leading up to the bedroom—I screamed out twice; I fell against the door, and when I came to I see my husband there.
Cross-examined. The prisoner asked my husband to fetch a constable—the prisoner seemed surprised that the deceased was dead—there is nothing between the deceased's kitchen and my house except a wall—if I was in my place I should hear any screams in the deceased's kitchen—I heard no cries during the Saturday night—when I went and spoke to the prisoner through the door the voices which answered me were quite natural—I did not think a murderous assault had been committed—I stood outside my daughter-in-law's house—I heard no cries at all.
in my washhouse speaking to my wife; I did not see her again that evening—next morning my wife left the house; shortly afterwards I heard her scream; I rushed to the prisoner's door; I saw my wife leaning against the door in a fainting condition—I saw the deceased and the prisoner—I said to him, "You will have to have a police-constable and a doctor"—I got constable Gook.
Cross-examined. On November 1st I went to my step son's about 20 p.m.—I did not go home between nine and ten, but I passed close to my home at 9.20—I heard no noise from the prisoner's house then—I live two doors from him—I stood outside my house from 11.10 till 11.40—I did not hear anything then—the prisoner seemed very surprised when he heard that the deceased was dead.
Re-examined. I told, the prisoner she had been dead for hours, and he seemed a little surprised—I judged that she had been dead for hours because I touched her arm.
By the JURY. If I was in my room, and anyone was talking loud in No. 1, I could hear them.
FREDERICK COOK (316 V.) On Sunday morning,-November 2nd, I was fetched by Young—I went to the prisoner's house; I found the deceased lying on the stairs; her face was on the fourth step and her feet on the floor; she was face downwards; her left arm was under her head in a bent position, and her right arm was on the third step; her hair was all down and partly hanging over her face; her—clothes were very wet with water; her hair and hands were-damp—Dr. Bell came about fifteen minutes after I arrived; I then moved the body into the kitchen—the blind in the kitchen was drawn down to within four inches of the bottom—there were some previsions and two beer bottles on the table—there was an old brown skirt lying in the scullery appearing to be torn in half and saturated with water—I also found half a pair of corsets—there was an enamelled bowl on the copper partly filled with dirty water, and a hammer (Produced.) lying against the kitchen door in-the scullery—the prisoner came in about ten minutes after I arrived—I said to him, "Are you her husband?"—he replied, "Yes"; I asked him when he last saw his wife alive; he replied, "At half-past six last night at the Mortlake Hotel; she had a drop of port wine with me, and I gave her 18s."—I said, "Was that the last time you see her alive?"—he said, "Yes; "I asked him what time he discovered the body in the morning; he replied, "About a quarter to nine; I called to her thinking she was asleep, but I failed to get an answer, so I stepped over her and called in Mrs; Young, the next-door neighbour"—I asked him what time he arrived at home the night before; he replied, "About eleven o'clock"; I asked him if his wife had come home then, and he said, "No."
Cross-examined. We were standing by the dead body when I asked him those questions—I did not warn him—he was not arrested till the following Wednesday—there was a glass partly full in the kitchen—the prisoner said he had had a glass or two of beer when he came in at eleven, and then went to bed—there was a table and some chairs in the kitchen—
there was a cloth on the table—when I first saw the deceased she was lying on her face, but more inclined to the left side.
By the JURY I did not see any other bottles which appeared to have been lately emptied—no money was found on the deceased—there were patches of water in the scullery and some near the feet of the body—there were no traces of blood in the kitchen.
HAMILTON JOSEPH BELL . I am a medical practitioner of 66, Sheen Lane, Mortlake—I was called to the prisoner's house on November 2nd, about 9.15 a.m.—I saw the body of the deceased—she had been dead for any time from five hours upwards—the body was quite cold and stiff—I cannot say the exact number of hours, but in my opinion at least five—Dr. Crookshank was not there then—I found the body lying on its face over the lower three or four steps of the stairs—there was a very damp place on the front of the jacket, apparently vomited matter, which had fallen on it—the body was only partly dressed—she had on a short brown jacket, a cream-coloured flannel petticoat, and a linen chemise, but no dress—I did not notice any signs of water having been thrown about—I struck a match and looked at her face without moving the body, and I saw there were no marks or scratches on her face—a little vomited matter was coming from her nose and mouth and a little blood with it—I made a more careful examination when the body was brought to the mortuary—on the head I found a contusion with a certain amount of laceration over the left ear,—another contusion with a laceration on the outer side of the left eye, and an extensive bruise over the right side of the head above the temple—there was a very large tear on the inside of the lower lip—there was an abrasion on the nose and one on the chin, and bruises all over the body which all seemed to be recent, except four on the right thigh, which seemed to be perhaps a couple of days old—on the 3rd I made a post mortem by myself and discovered serious injuries, and on the 4th Dr. Crookshank and I made a post mortem together—on opening the body I found nine ribs broken on the right side, and five on the left-some of those on the right were broken in two places—the breast bone was broken in two places—under the breast bone there was an extravasation of blood, evidently the result of the bruising of the tissues from the broken breast bone—I found no other injuries except those to the ribs, and bruises—there was a large bruise on the head, and on opening the head I found a large extravasation of blood corresponding with the bruise outside—that is what I should expect to find—my opinion is that death was due to shock from injuries received, particularly those to the breast bone and ribs—there is a possibility that asphyxia may have been present also, but I should not like to say definitely from what I saw; I mean the vomit may have been taken down into the lungs and asphyxiated her—in my opinion the injuries Were of such a character as to cause death—I did not notice any sign which suggested that there had been any concussion at all, but it is quite possible from the large bruise on the right side of the head and the quantity of blood beneath it, which showed that the bruise was severe—there was rather a severe bruise on the left side of the perineum—the breaking of the bones on the left side were most likely caused by pressure above—the lower four
ribs that were broken on the left side corresponded with a very bad bruise on the skin just over the four ribs, and in my opinion the breaking of those four ribs were caused by that bruise—a kick would be the most probable cause of that bruise,—this hammer might perhaps have caused it—the injuries to the head were evidently occasioned by some hard instrument, but not by the fist, possibly by a kick or a hammer—if the injuries were inflicted on her away from the house it would have been impossible for her to have got up and walked into the house—she might have crawled a few yards perhaps.
Cross-examined. I do not suggest that the injury to the perineum was one which would have contributed by itself to the deceased's death; there was injury to the tissues which shows the wounds were caused before death—the body had not begun to decompose when I opened it—I know it was the opinion of Dr. Crookshank that death was due to some vomited matter getting into the windpipe and causing asphyxiation; that is quite possible; in different cases of asphyxia the appearences are not always the same—I think most of the bruises were too severe to have been caused, by falling down stairs—they might have been caused by some weight falling or being struck down on her—there are twenty-four ribes in a body; some of them are called true and some false ribs; some are flying ribs which do not join the sternum, and they come forward and end in soft tissues—the ribs are connected by a kind of elastic substance to enable the ribs to go up and down with breathing—broken ribs are one of the commonest things I have to deal with next to broken arms and legs—we often have broken ribs to deal with in drunken people—ribs might be broken by the body falling on some projecting substance—I do not know that I have ever heard of them being broken by simple muscular contraction even in cases of powerful expiratory efforts—I do not say it is impossible, but it is not likely—a broken sternum is sometimes associated with the breaking of ribs, towards the bottom it gets more fragile—it is fair to say that it is caused sometimes by direct blows or compression by heavy weights, but more frequently by indirect violence, such as falling across a projecting body—in this case the sternum could not have been broken by falling on a projecting body—there was no bruise, and it was broken by the pressure of some soft substance—the deceased was a lightly-built woman—she weighed about 8 st. 7 lbs.—I did not weigh her, but that is my impression—she was not stout, she was thin—in cases of thin people the tissues are generally very much stronger, and the bones are harder than in stout people—I have never heard of the sternum being fractured by an effort to prevent a fall backwards—it might be possible to break the sternum in one place in that way—the deceased had a very small heart and something wrong with her lungs, but very little wrong—I was Told she was about forty years old.
By the JURY. My theory is that the ribs and the sternum were both broken by the same violence—there were no outward signs of bleeding—the pressure of a knee would fracture the sternum.
agree generally with his evidence—I think the immediate cause of death was the drawing in of vomited matter into her air passages—the vomiting was probably the result of the injuries to the head and the general shock, more probably the injuries to the head—I think I attach a little more importance to the injuries to the head than Dr. Bell does, but speaking generally I think death would result from the shock caused by the injuries—I agree generally with Dr. Bell as to how the injuries were caused.
Cross-examined. If I am right in supposing that the vomiting was the result of injury to the head, the vomiting would have occurred whether the deceased had been drinking or not—it would be unlikely for persons to be suffocated by vomit if they were conscious; they would cough and reject it—there are cases where the coughing is not successful when solid matter is drawn into the lungs, but not often when liquid matter is drawn into the lungs.
By the JURY. There was nothing to lead me to suppose that the deceased was a drunken woman—there was no trace of alcoholic liquor in the stomach.
WILLIAM WHITING . I live at 11, Eveldon Road, Richmond, and am the Coroner's officer—on Sunday, November 2nd, I received information from the police, and in consequence about 1 p.m. I went to 1, Senior Place, Mullin's Path—I saw the body of the deceased there, and ordered its removal to the mortuary—I saw the prisoner at the house—I asked him if the body was that of his wife; he replied, "Yes," and that she was employed in laundry work at Acton, and said "At 6.30 last night I met her in the Mortlake Hotel, High Street, Mortlake, where I gave her 16s. and treated her to two penny worth of port wine; she was quite well and sober at that time; I left shortly afterwards, leaving my wife at the hotel; I did not go home till 11 p.m., my wife was not at home at that time; I had taken two pint bottles of beer home with me, which I drank and went to bed about 11.45 p.m.; I got up about 8.30 a.m. and found my wife lying dead on the stairs; I went and called Mr. and Mrs. Young, my next-door neighbours, who came and sent for the doctor and police; my wife did not come to bed that night; I never heard anything of her during the night; I never saw her again after I left her at the hotel at 6.30 p.m. the previous evening; she would take too much drink at times, and we have quarrelled with each other at times, but not lately"—I afterwards went upstairs into the bedroom.
Cross-examined. The bed had been slept in.
By the COURT. The husband and wife usually occupied the one bed.
WILLIAM FURR . I am in charge of the mortuary at Mortlake—on Sunday, November 2nd, I received the body of the deceased there—the clothes she was wearing, were removed in my presence—she had on a flannel petticoat loosely round her; she had lace boots, stockings, and a jacket; they were all wet.
ELIZABETH O'CONNELL . I am the wife of Patrick O'Connell, and live at 8, Hampton Square, Sheen Lane—the deceased was my sister—I have known the prisoner for some time—I have been in the habit of visiting them, but I had not seen them for a fortnight before the murder—they
never lived very happy—I went to the house on November 2nd, about 9.15 a.m.—I found a black skirt in the corner of the kitchen; it was torn right up from the back—I did not notice anything on it—on the following Tuesday I found a pair of stays—I saw the prisoner on November 2nd two or three times—I met him as I was going to the house, and said to him, "This is all right, Brown; you know all about it, you have done this"—he said, "You know my business better than I do myself"—on the 4th, about 5.30 p.m., I saw him outside the Wheatsheaf beer shop at the top of the street where we live—I said to him, "You know all about this, why don't you speak the truth and own to it, and say who done it?"—he said, "I went to Woolwich, I could not rest, my landlady said, 'Brown, why can't you sleep of a night,'"—he then said to me, "I had to do it"—I asked him to come round and have a cup of tea at my house—I left him at the top of the street, and he came in just before 6 o'clock—I asked him to have a cup of tea and I poured it out—while having the tea, he said, "The Lord have mercy on my poor Bess"—I said, "Brown, take her out of all blame and shame, and the talk of the people"—he said, "Yes, I done it"—I asked him if he would tell the truth before the Coroner next day—he said, "Yes, you know who it is through"—I said, "No"—he said, "Through cursed Daly"—my husband and son came in then; I do not know if they heard what the prisoner had said—Daly is a young man we have known for years about Mortlake—I know that the prisoner went to Woolwich about two years ago; his wife did not go with him—the prisoner said he went because he had seen his wife and Daly coming out of Shady Lane, and that she had been behaving badly with Daly—I do not know that she had been behaving badly with Daly, and the prisoner is the only one I ever heard say so—this (Produced.) is my sister's purse.
Cross-examined. Nothing has been said about the Daly incident for two years until now—the deceased and Daly said it was a lie—people have talked of it lately—when I met the prisoner by the Wheatsheaf, and he said "I had to do it,"I thought he meant that he had killed her—he was crying, and I asked him to have a cup of tea after he said that—I accused him of murdering my sister at 9 a.m., before anybody else did, and every day till he was arrested—I made sure it was him—I went into his house and got hold of some of my sister's clothes—the prisoner never made any objection to my going there and searching the premises—I did no give evidence at first—directly my husband and son came into my kitchen the prisoner got up to go—he did not go out at once—I did not hear what he said to them, because I was getting the tea—the prisoner went to the Coroner and made a statement—he said he would tell the truth and that nobody knew it but the Almighty and himself and herself—I do not know why he made the confession to me—he was crying in my kitchen.
By the JURY. When the prisoner spoke about not being able to sleep that was two years ago—I was on good terms with my father, and he was on good terms with the deceased.
wife there; my wife said to me, "Pat, he has told me all about it"—the prisoner said, "Yes old girl, I have told you all about it, I murdered her, and I will go up there to-morrow and tell them all about it, and they can do as they like with me; where she was found I sat in the chair and see her crawl there; then I got sorry and thought she was in a fit; I got—some water and threw over her; I attempted it six times, and the Lord have mercy on her soul."
Cross-examined. I did not hear the prisoner say anything before what I have stated—my wife could have heard all I have said—I cannot say why the prisoner should have made this confession—I did not know that my wife had been accusing him every day since the murder—she had never told me before that it was her belief that the prisoner was the man who had done it.
JOHN DALY . I have known the prisoner and his wife for about twenty years—about two years ago I spoke to-the deceased in Richmond Road—there is no lane there—the prisoner came by while I was speaking to her—that is all that happened on that occasion—there has never been any impropriety between me and the deceased as far as I know.
Cross-examined. I had not seen the prisoner or the deceased for months before the murder.
JAMES SCOTT (Detective Inspector V.) About 4 p.m. on November 4th I saw the body of the deceased—about 11.45 the same night I saw the prisoner at his house—I said I was a police officer, and that I should take him into custody for causing his wife's death by kicking her—he said, No one saw it done"—I cautioned him, and told him anything he said might be used in evidence against him—after a moment's hesitation he said, "I left her at the Mortlake Hotel; I gave her twopennyworth of port wine and 16s., that is the last I saw of her; she left the house before me at 7.30, and went home with my tea bottle; nobody knows anything about it, nobody saw it done"—on November 5th the charge was formerly read over to him—he said, "I did not do it, I never saw the woman since I left her at the Mortlake Hotel at. 7 o'clock, when I gave her a glass of wine and 16s."—I afterwards charged him with wilful murder, and he made no remark.
Cross-examined. I made a note at the time of what the prisoner said—if I said at the inquest that the prisoner said, "I never done it," instead of "No one saw it done," it is a mistake—I had my note book at the inquest, but I did not use it—the prisoner at the station said, "I never done it."
JOHN WILLIAM BURROWS . I was acting as clerk to Dr. Taylor, the Coroner, on the occasion of this inquest—I took down the depositions—the prisoner was sworn, and I took down his statement—it was read over to—him, and he signed it. (The prisoner's statement before the Coroner was then read.).
Examined by MR. HUGHES.) On Saturday, November 1st, I left my house at 9.25 p.m. to goon night duty—I passed the prisoner's house two minutes later—I saw some boys running away and I saw Mrs. Whelan coming from her house—I passed her at the corner of the prisoner's
house—I arrived at Barnes police station at 9.40—when I passed the prisoner's house I heard no disturbance whatever.
The—prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was with his wife in the Jolly Mailman about 8.45 p.m.; that they were on friendly terms; that they went out together, and he bought some tobacco; that he followed her home, where he arrived just after 9 p.m.; that his wife asked him for a few more shillings; that he said he had only got 2s. more; that she came up close to him with a cup or something in her hand, and he pushed her away; that she went up against the side of the table, but did not fall; that he then went and had a wash in the scullery, and then walked down to the bottom of the alley, where he stood for a few minutes smoking; that he then went into Stanley's where he stayed till 11 o'clock when he went home taking two bottles of beer with him; that his wife was not then at home; that he drank one bottle of beer and part of the other and then went to bed upstairs; that he stopped in bed till 8.30 a.m.; that he then went down stairs and saw his wife lying at the bottom; that he thought she was in a fit, and got some water and wetted her forehead; that he took her clothes, which were lying by her side, and put them somewhere, but he did not know where, and that he then called Mrs. Young; that he had not assaulted his wife, nor had he told Mrs. O'Connell what she had said he said, but only that he knew nothing at all about it.
GUILTY. DEATH .
ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, 1902.