Old Bailey Proceedings, 14th November 1904.
Reference Number: t19041114
Reference Number: f19041114

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

POUND, MAYOR.

FIRST SESSION, HELD NOVEMBER 14TH, 1904.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY

MESSRS. BARNETT AND BUCKLER,

Short-hand Writers to the Court,

ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.

VOLUME. CXLL.

SESSIONS I. TO VI.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the King's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

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

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, November 14th, 1904, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. JOHN POUND, LORD MAYOR of the City of London the Right Hon. SIR WILLIAM GRANTHAM and the Right Hon. Sir ALFRED TRISTRAM LAWRENCE , two of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court Sir JAMES THEMSON RITCHIE, Bart. Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart., and Sir GEORGE F. FAUDEL PHILLIPS, Bart., Aldermen of the said City Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., FREDERICK PRAT ALLISTON , Esq., and HOWARD CARLILE MORRIS, Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City FREDERICK ALBERT 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 , Esq., K.C., M.P., LL. D., Deputy Judge of the City of London Court, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

THOMAS VEZEY STRONG , Esq., Alderman.

GEORGE JOSEPH WOODMAN , Esq., J.P.

Sheriffs.

FRANCIS HOWSE , Esq.

ANDREW WILLIAM TIMBRELL , Esq.

Under Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

POUND, MAYOR. FIRST SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that the 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, November 14th, 1904.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19041114-1

1. ALFRED LAWRENCE (19) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing, whilst employed under the Post Office, a postal packet containing a postal order for 7s. 6d. and three postage stamps, the property of the Post-master General. Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-2

(2.) WILLIAM CHARLES SIDNEY MCKENNA (28) to stealing, whilst employed under the Post Office, two post letters containing postal orders for 5s. and 10s. and a card, the property of the Postmaster General. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] 'Eight months' hard labour-labour. —And

Reference Number: t19041114-3

(3.) LOUIS AICARD (35) to stealing six blank cheque forms, the property of John Boase Thomas, his master also to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £420 with intent to defraud. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Eighteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-4

4. HELEN DANIELS (50) , Publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Edward George Codrington Parr.

MR. W. H. STEPHENSON and MR. THERN Prosecuted, and MR. MORROW Defended.

On the evidence of Dr. Griffiths, the medical officer at Holloway Prison, the Jury found that the state of the prisoner's mind was such that she was unfit to plead to the indictment and unable to give proper instructions for her defence. To be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.

Reference Number: t19041114-5

5. FELIX MARKFELDT (39) , Unlawfully obtaining from Frederick Chopping 15s. and £8 6s. 3d., and other sums from other persons, by false pretences and with intent to defraud.

MR. A. GILL Prosecuted MR. BURNIE Defended.

FREDERICK CHOPPING . I live at 34, Chiddington Street, Parson's Green, and am a laboratory assistant at the Westminster Hospital—I first made the prisoner's acquaintance early in January, 1901, when he applied at the hospital for work—my chief, Dr. Barlow, gave him some drawings to

do—he represented himself to be an artist and engraver—he worked at the hospital on and off for several gentlemen at the hospital until May, when he told me that Messrs. Spalding & Hodge had taken up an invention of his in copper plate printing in colours that they had set up twelve presses, or were going to do so that he was to have a salary of £500 a year and 10 per cent, commission on profits and that he was to have an assistant who he was to appoint himself at a salary of £5 a week—he asked me if I would take the post—at that time I was receiving 30s. a week at the hospital—I accepted his offer, and from that time he had various sums from me amounting in all to £14 10s.—the first sum I parted with was on Saturday evening, May 18th, 1901, when he came to my address at Chelsea—he said he had been to Spalding & Hodge's that afternoon, and that Mr. Spalding had left a message for him to go to his private house at Leighton Buzzard and talk over the business, and he asked me for his fare—I let him have 15s.—on June 27th he asked me for some money for some clothes he was shabby at that time—he had £8 3s. 6d. from me for new clothes—I went with him to the clothes shops he said he wanted new clothes because he had to attend a meeting that evening that Spalding & Hodge were about to form, to deal with his invention, and that it was detrimental to him that he should have to attend it without any clothes—on July 8th he asked for some more money I refused to give it to him until he gave me some proof that what he told me was true—he said he must have money—he did not say what he wanted it for—I let him have £2 10s., and he wrote out this document—(This was signed by the prisoner, and stated that he had on that day received from Mr. Chopping £2 10s. as part payment of £6 6s. 2d. which he had paid to the Lord Chamberlain's office that day in order to have the papers delivered to him (the prisoner) which were necessary for Chopping to enter his position tinder Government contract as a department director at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield, which papers he (the prisoner) promised to hand to Chopping, and to repay the £2 10s. to-morrow morning, while he gave Chopping full power to verify all his communications)—he said they were going to establish a branch department at Enfield for his invention under Government—I am still at the hospital—he said that the directorship would be a better position than I should get at Spalding & Hodge's, and he would obtain it for me—that was a few days before he wrote the paper the money was not returned to me next day—shortly after that I went to Spalding & Hodge's, and also to the War Office, and made inquiries—I saw the prisoner again, and told him he was a swindler I used rather strong language—I told him to strip off the clothes he was wearing, which were the ones he had bought with my money—he refused to do so at first, but I compelled him to—he did not deny my charge against him he did not say anything about it—I told him I had been to Spalding & Hodge's, and found out that his stories were lies—that happened at the hospital within a few days of this document of July 8th—I did not see him again till 12 months afterwards at Putney—I had no more transactions with him—I may have spoken to him, because when I met him he was in the company of another man

I knew, but I did not stop long, because I did not want to be in the the prisoner's company.

Cross-examined. I never knew that the prisoner had a foreign medical degree—I saw the invention for printing in colours I had never seen that kind of thing before—I took an interest in it, and thought it novel—it was shown to Dr. Barlow at the hospital—I helped the prisoner some-times when he wanted a good deal of strength with his copper plate press—when he first engraved the plates he had no press, so he took them to a copper plate printer, and I went with him, because Dr. Barlow would not trust him with any money—I believe he hired a machine afterwards—I do not remember him saying that the results were doubtful before his drawings went to the printer he had the utmost confidence in his invention—he worked in my room—I do not know if the invention would pay—I could do the work myself—I have never had an opportunity of seeing anybody else do it—different colours were used—the prisoner said he could reproduce any colour by the three-colour process; I never saw more than two—he did not come to work at the hospital after I bought him the clothes—he called for me at the hospital after he gave me the paper about the £2 10s., but I refused to go down to him—I told the porter to send him up—then the interview took place when I re-took the clothes—before the Magistrate I said I could not remember his reply when I told him he was a swindler—when I saw him a year afterwards he did not say anything about being sorry that the invention had not come off.

Re-examined. I had no knowledge of printing—I have been 15 years in my profession—we examine all the post-mortem material which comes to the hospital.

By MR. BURNIE. Dr. Barlow paid for the prisoner's work as it progressed, because he thought he was penniless.

ROBERT GEORGE COOPER . I live at the Birches, Peckham Rye, and have been employed by Messrs. Spalding & Hodge for about 17 years—it is not true that the prisoner was engaged by them at a salary of £500 a year, or engaged by them at all—I do not know the prisoner, and never saw him before he was at the Westminster Police Court—Messrs. Spalding & Hodge did not, at the beginning of 1901, take up an invention for copper plate printing in colours they could not do so as they are wholesale stationers and have nothing to do with printing—they never entertained any application for putting up twelve presses—one of the directors is Mr. Hodge in 1901 he had no country house at Leighton Buzzard.

Cross-examined. We do not do printing at all we only supply paper to printers—I know nothing about copper plate printing in colours.

WALTER JONES . I live at 12, Hardwick Road. Parson's Green, and am a traveller to George Wright & Co., iron founders. Queen Victoria Street—about August, 1901, the prisoner called at my Queen Victoria Street address and said he wished to sell designs of tiles and other things which he had been getting out—I told him we could not buy any designs, as we were not wanting anything of the sort—he said he was

sorry I could not do business with him, and that ho had not had a substantial meal for three or four days—I offered to take him out to lunch, as I was just going out myself—I took him to lunch and paid for it, and we parted—a few days afterwards he came again, and said he wished me to reconsider the matter of doing business with him, and asked me to see if I could not buy some of the things he wished to sell—I said I could not. but I gave him the names of one or two firms who I thought might be likely purchasers, and he went away again—he called upon me a third time, and said as I could not buy any of his designs perhaps I could help him to got a living he said he could do painting and various other things in the line, and perhaps I could give him something to do, to make an enlargement of a photograph or paint a picture—I said if 'he liked he could have my photograph to enlarge and I would pay him for what he did—I gave him the photograph, but he did not do it—he came a few days after and said he had not sufficient detail, and would I go to his address at Putney so that he could get further details—I went to his lodgings he pretended to make some sketches of me on a piece of paper—when he had finished I asked him to show it to me, but he would not—he left the room, and I turned up the corner of the paper and saw there was nothing upon it—I turned it back again and made no remark when he came in—this was sometime late in the summer—I stayed there for an hour and a half—later in the evening he introduced a Marconi wireless telegraph patent—he said he had been making some experiments and was able to bring out some improvements in connection with the wireless telegraph apparatus, and that he had some idea the Government would take it up, and possibly the Admiralty—he never enlarged the photograph which I gave him—he came to my business address again about a week later, and said he had not been successful in seeing somebody at the Admiralty, but that they had the matter under consideration; that he was very hard up, and would I let him have a small sum as a loan to help him—I said I could not let him have very much, but I would let him have a few shillings I lent him, I believe, 4s. or 5s.—I knew nothing of him except what he told me—on another day he told me that he had been to the Admiralty and had an interview with Sir John Durston, who I believe is the chief engineer to the Admiralty—he said that Sir John had still got the matter under consideration, and that Mr. Frederick Brown, who is secretary to the Controller of the Navy, was helping him to get it taken up—the prisoner did not say who Mr. Brown was, but he said he was at the Admiralty offices—I gave the prisoner 10s. or 12s. as a loan, and that ended the visit—he paid several visits—with various excuses, and a tale that he was carrying out this patent, and had got the Admiralty to take it up: he told me that in September or October he said the Admiralty had actually taken it up—he said they were going to put up a building for him to carry out the work at Enfield, and were going to give him the title of Colonel—he was to be paid £2,000 a year for his services, out of which he was to recompense me for the various loans he had had from me, and he said he would do so—he

had a few loans after that—I was to have the repayments and a certain amount of interest—T had let him have £7 or £8 in small sums of 5s. or 10s. at a time—he said he had actually got the appointment—this is my note book, in which I have entered the amounts of the loans—I did not put any dates down—there are four items of El, two of 10s., one of £14s., and a number of smaller items—they are initialled by the prisoner—that was done at the end of the transactions—he had a reason for asking for every loan—he had several amounts to go to Enfield and buy his lunch there—another time he was going there with some of the representatives of the Admiralty, and he said he had not sufficient money to buy their lunch there and he had loans from me to make up the amount—he mentioned the names of the representatives, but I cannot remember them now—I went to the Admiralty on one occasion—I had my doubts about him the whole time, and I made enquiries—I let him have a small sum of money after that—I was to get £5 or £6 more than I lent him—I never actually knew what I should get he never made any actual statement—he did not go the Admiralty with me when I inquired there, but I went once with him to see Sir John Durston—when we got to the door he said he was allowed to go in, but I was not, so I stayed at the door while he went inside—after he had been inside about 15 minutes he came out and said that Sir John Durston was not there—before I made inquiries he told me he was going to some town in the West of England to test the apparatus on a Sunday afternoon with some members of the Admiralty by special train from Paddington—I did not believe what he told me, so I went to Paddington—when I went to the Admiralty by myself I saw Sir John Durston—I believe the next day I saw the prisoner I told him he was mistaken about whom he was dealing at the Admiralty, as I had seen Sir John Durston, and he knew nothing about him—the prisoner said I must have made & mistake—I have seen Sir John Durston, the witness in this case he is the same person whom I saw at the Admiralty—I do not think I had any more to do with the prisoner after that—I parted with the money more from charitable purposes than anything else in the first place, and then hearing he was getting out a patent I thought it was well to let him have what money he asked for to a certain extent in order to get back what I had let him have at first—I had my doubts about what he told me of the Admiralty, but I thought he had something which would recompense him.

By the COURT. Some of the things he told me I believed, and some I did not—I believed that the Admiralty was going to take his patent up that he was known to Sir John Durston and Mr. Brown, that he had some arrangement to have a factory at Enfield, and that he was to have £2,000 a year.

Cross-examined. I knew the Admiralty could not make him a Colonel, but he told me that after he said he was to have £2,000 a year—I think I gave him one or two small sums after he told me he was going to be made a Colonel—I did not doubt that he was going to have £2000 a year, as he seemed so emphatic about it—the money I gave him at first was out of charity—when he was going to enlarge the photograph I

knew he had not made any sketches of mo, but that did not shake my confidence—I gave him the bulk of the money before he told me that the Admiralty had taken up his patent, and before he told me of the £2,000 a year—I let him have about £1 after he had told me that—I told him that Sir John Durston had said he had no knowledge of the prisoner and had never seen him—the prisoner said I was evidently mistaken, and had seen the wrong man.

By the COURT. I am a traveller in the firm—I did not direct the firm's attention to the prisoner calling we do not bother the firm about such things unless we think it worth while—I did not think it was a matter which the firm would be likely to take up.

WILLIAM BADCOE . I live at 70, Winchester Road, Pimlico—I am at present out of employment—I was manager at the Fratton Hotel, Portsmouth—I made the acquaintance of the prisoner on June 1st. 1904, through talking to him in the public house—at the time my wife was unwell—the prisoner referred to the fact that my wife was not looking very well, and he subsequently told me he was an M.R.C.S.—I said my wife had not been feeling well for some time, and I had contemplated bringing her up to London and consulting a specialist to see if anything was the matter with her I said, "Do you know to what specialist you would recommend me to take Mrs. Badcoe?"—he prescribed for her as though he represented the doctor he had recommended—he mentioned several names, and finally said Dr. Marsham would be the best to see—he was not paid anything—he said while he was an M.R.C.S., according to the agreement entered into, he would not be allowed to take any fee because he was on another case down there he said he was assisting Dr. Cousins at an operation—he supplied her with some medicines, and obtained £1 16s. 3d. for them—this is his card—the prisoner did not do my wife any good or harm—he afterwards mentioned a periscope to me, of which this is a model (Produced)—he brought it to the hotel on Sunday, June 5th—the day before he brought it, he produced a letter which purported to come from Captain Bacon, of H.M.S. Thames—he did not give it to me, but he showed it to me—I knew Captain Bacon to be the head of the submarine department—I read it it said that owing to some possible infringement of the patent, he could not deal with the matter, but recommended him to apply to the Secretary to the Admiralty—the prisoner explained the model to me, and seemed to be very pleased with the child of his inventive genius—he said it was a periscope for use with submarines, and that the Admiralty had agreed to give it a trial on the submarine boats—he also showed me what purported to be an Admiralty document, notifying the fact that this was an accepted invention—it was exactly like this document which is dated in August, apart from the date and name of the inventor—my name was on the one I saw, 'Badcoe's periscope, adapted by Dr. Markfeldt"—I have no knowledge of such things, but the prisoner said that, being a foreigner, the Government did not care for the invention to bear his name, and that he had been requested to get hold of an Englishman who would part with a certain amount of money to

finance the thing and whose name could be used as the inventor, the prisoner's name being used as the adaptor—I was to get £250—I said, provided the Admiralty were disposed to take it up, I should be disposed to venture some money on it—after June 6th he called upon me to go with him. into the dockyard, and said he had had an interview with the Admiralty authorities, who had agreed to take the thing up and had decided upon a certain number of trials—in the first instance I was only expected to advance small sums for the purpose of having other and better models being made—the prisoner at Portsmouth mentioned Sir John Durston's name he said that he, in conjunction with Captain Bacon and Mr. Fielder, had to confer upon the thing, and were to deal with it as they thought fit, that they had agreed that it was a very good thing, and a trial should be given to it—he said an agreement would be drawn up by which I should be shown as ostensibly the inventor of the apparatus and he as the adaptor, and that we should be paid in the first instance £250, and much more money if the invention turned out to be of importance and the experiments progressed—I advanced £40 in Portsmouth—I came to London on July 8th—the prisoner told me I should have to give up my situation, because I should have to come to London, and in a very short time I should be sent to Enfield—I gave up my situation at his instigation and on his word of honour that the thing was in proper order and as he represented it to be—I have been out of employment ever since—he said works would be erected at Enfield for the turning out of this apparatus, and I should be employed there at a large salary, in conjunction with himself, to test the apparatus before they were sent out for use in the Navy—I met him in Whitehall, by appointment, on July 9th—he said he could not stay with me long as he had to go away on further trials in connection with the matter—he obtained £1 from me, which was supposed to be for the purpose of defraying his expenses in travelling—between that day and August—4th I paid him other sums amounting in all to another £40. which made £80 altogether—I have no other means—the balance of what I had saved I have parted with in London in order to live—I had my wife and child to keep while I have been looking for other employment—on July 20th the prisoner called at my house and I gave him £10 for further expenses in connection with this matter—he said that while conducting the trials on different ships, he was expected to mess with the officers on the ship, and he was therefore to have some distinctive dress, probably a uniform, because this matter had gone on from the periscope business to wireless telegraphy, and he wanted the money to buy the outfit I never saw him in his uniform—I believed what he said, as he represented himself to be a doctor, and as I found he was staying at Portsmouth at the place where he said he was—I believed these forms were genuine, or I should not have paid him any money—on August 4th I paid him £3, because he said he had to go to Liverpool for further trials, which would probably be the last he also asked me if I had a small bag I said I had not a small one, but if he was back within a few days he could have my Gladstone—he took it, and I have never seen him since—I believe he

then knew he had got nearly all be could from mo, and ho did not intend to see me any more.

Cross-examined. I do not know what was on his card there was no M.R.C.S. on it—I parted with my money in the first place for my wife's health, because I thought the prisoner was a doctor—I did not part with my money for the invention only because I thought he was an M.R.C.S.—my wife's health was of great importance to me. and I wanted to go to the right quarter.

SIR JOHN ALBERT DURSTON . I am engineer in chief to the Fleet of the Admiralty—I do not know the prisoner—I have not received any communication from any person named Markfeldt for an apparatus for a periscope or wireless telegraphy to my recollection—I have attended no trials of such inventions no invention put forward by a person named Markfeldt had been accepted by the Admiralty to my knowledge it would not necessarily come under my notice if it was an invention for work on submarines it would not necessarily come before me I am only an engineer—I have never seen such a form as this in the Admiralty—I see on it. "Experts ordered to attend the experiment. Sir John Durston"—I never received such an order.

FREDERICK BROWN . I am secretary to the Comptroller of the Navy, and principal clerk to the Admiralty—this form, purporting to be signed "Fredk. Brown, Secretary to the Comptroller of the Navy." is not signed by me—I have never seen it: we have no such forms in the Admiralty—I have never seen one like it, and I think I should see it if it was there—I never saw the prisoner until he was at the Westminster Police Court—I have been in the Admiralty for forty years this month no person named Markfeldt holds a position in the Admiralty at £2,000 a year—I think I may safely say that any invention sent to the Admiralty would come under my notice—I know of no invention sent by a person named Markfeldt.

Cross-examined. I think I should know of any experiments they generally come into my department, and through me to my chief, Admiral May, the Comptroller of the Navy—when a matter comes to this point, papers would not pass through my hands without my remembering them—if it had been accepted it would make an impression on my mind.

Re-examined. A record is kept of trials they have been searched, and we can find nothing—somebody came to the Admiralty and asked if we knew Mr. Markfeldt—if an invention of a periscope were accepted by the Admiralty it would come before me.

GILBERT FORREST COWELL . I am secretary to the College of Surgeons,—I do not know the prisoner—there is no member of the College of Surgeons named Markfeldt.

GEORGE SMITH (Detective.) I saw the prisoner detained at Stafford Police Station on September 8th—I said I was a police officer and should take him to London—on the way he said he had seen Sir John Durston the day before that he expected £3,000 for his invention that all the trouble was caused in consequence of the Admiralty refusing to

acknowledge him, but as he obtained all his orders by wireless telegraphy, he was unable to show any papers to convince the people that if he had got the money it would be all right—I asked him where the bag was he had borrowed from Badcoe the last day he saw him, and he said that it was on H.M.S. Thames, where he had been experimenting he added "I shall require Sir John Durston and Mr. Frederick Brown, Secretary to the Admiralty, to give evidence on my behalf"—I afterwards saw him at Brixton Prison and showed him the official list, and pointed out Sir John Durston's name and Mr. Brown, and he said they were the ones—I found some papers on him, including what purports to be an Admiralty form.

Cross-examined. He also said that he had no intention to defraud.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I only can say I feel absolutely innocent. It is true what I said. I have-given an oath to be silent about certain things. I was much disappointed this morning I had seen Sir John Durston two days before my arrest. It is not the same man."

GUILTY . One previous conviction for a similar charge was proved against him. Eighteen months' hard labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 14th, 1904.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19041114-6

6. DAVID JAMES (37) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be counterfeit.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

THOMAS ELGIE . I am barman and potman at the Nag's Head, Whitechapel Road—on October 31st, about 7 to 7.10 a.m., I served the prisoner with a ld. of rum—he said to the barmaid Earp, "Halloa, Sarah, you do not look so well as you did"—"Sarah "seemed a strange name to me—I had not seen the prisoner before that Monday morning—he tendered a 2s. piece, and I gave him his change—he said, "Is not your rum strong?"—I said, "Perhaps its your having it first thing in the morning," and looked at him—I placed the coin on the rack—I afterwards examined it and handed it to Earp—she scratched it on the tester and found it was bad—I gave it to the manager—I cleared but the bar about 8 a.m.—between 9 and half-past on Thursday morning, November 3rd, the prisoner came again and called for a ld. of gin and a 1/2 d. of ale—he produced a ld. and a 2s. piece he placed the 2s. piece on the counter and put the ld. Back in his pocket—I served him with the liquor—before he put the coin down he said, "Halloa, where is Sarah this morning?"—I looked at him, and gave the coin to the other barmaid, Sinclair—she tried it in the tester and found it was bad—the prisoner had then turned his back to the counter—I said to him, "What do you call this?"—I had the coin in my hand, I took it from Sinclair—he said, "It is all right, I got it from the market"—I said, "What about Monday did you get that from the market when you came in for a ld. of rum?"—he said, "Well, we are all liable to be deceived at times"—I said, "Did you get the one you

brought on Monday from the market i"—he said, 'Yes, we are all liable to be deceived at times it is all right, Morry knows me"—that is the landlord, Morris Abrahams—he asked Sinclair for the 2s. piece—she said, "No, I will keep this"—he said "All right, I will owe you a 1/2 d. "because he only had ld. left, "I will leave you my address, it will be all right"—he wrote something on paper—Sinclair said, "We do not want that, we want the other 1/2 d.—he said, "It will be all right"—Sinclair sent for a policeman, and he came as the prisoner was going out at the other door—one coin the governor broke into pieces.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I knew you at once from the way you came in and mentioned "Sarah"—you had a canvas bag under your arm when you came in on the Monday, "the same as you had the second time—you are the same man.

ELIZABETH EARP . I am a barmaid at the Nag's Head in Whitechapel Road—I was in the bar when the prisoner called for ld. of rum on October 31st, between 7.15 and 7.30 a.m.—he passed a remark about how I looked, and called me, I think, "Sarah"—after the man had gone out the barman handed a 2s. piece to me—I scratched it on the tester and the edge came off—I only just touched it—I put it back in the till, and spoke to Sinclair—I saw it was bad—on November 3rd the prisoner came in again—it may have been after 0 a.m.—as I was going out Sinclair called me back and asked me if I know the man—I said I knew it was the same man who was there on the Monday.

Cross-examined. You had a bag of the same description under your arm on both mornings—I did not say I did not recognise anybody on the Monday I said I was not certain whether it was Monday or Tuesday.

ANNIE SINCLAIR . I am a barmaid at the Nag's Head—on October 31st I looked at the coin and gave it to Phillips, the manager, just after 10 a.m.—it was scraped at the edge—I was in the bar the following Thursday when Elgie picked up the second coin and handed it to me—I tested it and the edge came off the same as the other one—I said to the prisoner, "Do you know this 2s. piece is bad?—he said, "Well, I got it from the market"—Elgie said, "What about the one you brought on Monday morning, did you get that from the market?"—he said, "Well, we can all be deceived at times"—I said, "Go out for a policeman"—the other young lady came into the bar, and I asked her if she recognised the man and she said, "Yes, the same as came on Monday"—the prisoner wrote something on a piece of paper—I do no know what became of it—I handed the florin to the policeman.

Cross-examined. You said, '"Morris Abrahams knows me he won't say anything he knows my address I have not got ld. with me, I have only 1/2 d."—Abrahams was in the house, but he was not up.

REUBEN PHILLIPS . I am manager at the Nag's Head—on October 31st, very soon after 10 a.m., when I went into the bar, Sinclair made a communication to me—I examined the two shilling piece, and saw the mark of the testing at the edge—I placed it on the rack, and in the evening again looked at it, broke it up, and threw the pieces on the floor, having satisfied myself it was bad—Elgie would clear the floor—I

searched the dust bin on November 3rd and found these pieces—the dust bin is cleared twice a week it had been cleared just before I searched—I have been at the Nag's Head about three years—I have known the prisoner about 15 years, and at every house I have been in.

ZELIA BECKETT (414 H.) I was called to the, Nag's Head on November 3rd—the prisoner was just leaving, when I said, "I think you are wanted inside"—he went back with me, when Elgie said, "That man has just passed a bad two shilling piece he passed one on Monday morning"—this two shilling piece was produced to me—the prisoner said, "Let them say what they like I want to see Morris Abrahams, he won't charge me"—I searched him there I found no coins on him he had a small canvas bag—this coin was handed to me—these pieces were brought to the station by Phillips.

ALFRED PYE (Detective H.) I saw the prisoner at Leman Street Police Station on November 3rd—I had this two-shilling piece in my hand—he pointed to it, and said, "I got that down at Billingsgate Market off a barge in change for half a sovereign I know the man that gave it to me, but I will not give his name"—he was formally charged—when the charge was read over to him he said, "That is right well, I know nothing at all about it"—he gave this address, Wildermuth House, Wentworth Street, Whitechapel—that is close to Brick Lane, and about 200 to 250 yards from the Nag's Head—the charge was read to him, which included the alleged offence on the 31st.

Cross-examined. You did not mention anything about knowing the man by sight—you did not say when you left home on the Monday, you were told that you tendered the coin at 7.5 a.m.

Re-examined. The distance between Reform Place and the Nag's Head is about a mile and a half.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am inspector of counterfeit coins to H.M. Mint—this two shilling piece is counterfeit, and the three pieces of metal are bad.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I can prove that last Monday week I was in Bed at a quarter to 9 in the morning. I have got a witness here now."

Evidence for the Defence.

EMILIE ROBERTS . I live at 8, Reform Place, East Hill Street, Limehouse—last Monday week, about 7 a.m., my husband came home from night work—I went across to James's house, 3, Reform place, opposite, between 7.15 and 8 p.m.—I knocked, and his wife threw the key out of the window—I opened the door, went in, and dressed the three eldest children—I called out, "Ain't you lazy, Mr. James"—he said, "We have been up half the night working you have nothing to do and can sit down all day"—I went over to my home, and was away about 10 minutes—when I went back Mr. James came down stairs in deshabille, and said, "Mother Roberts, give me a cup of tea"—I said, "You are big enough and ugly enough to get your own tea," and I took the children over to my home, gave them some milk, and sent them to school—

when I went back Mrs. James was finishing some small sack sample bags that she makes for Clark & Hunt's, of Shoreditch, and Mr. James was tying them up—I said, "I'll take the baby now"—he said, "Never mind, Mrs. Roberts, I am not going out with the Missis this morning it is only a small parcel, and she can manage it herself"—I did not see him again till dinner time—that was just after the school bell, which rings from 9 to '9.30 a.m.—I went at 1 o'clock to give the children their dinner, when Mr. James said the Missis had not come home—he was in his shirt sleeves. the same as I saw him the first thing.

Cross-examined. My husband works at Montague Nelson's, Bank Side, Blackfriars, one week at night work and one week at day work—he comes home at 7 o'clock if he is steady. but generally he is "three sheets in the wind," and his time varies from 7.30 to 10 in the morning—I fix the time this morning, because on the Sunday he told me he was going to be a teetotaler and come home early, and he kept his word—the best part of the day I was backwards and forwards if Mrs. James has to get out in time—the first I heard of this was when I asked Mrs. James where her husband was, and she said he was away for a few days—I said, "What is the matter?" and she said, "You may as well hear it from me, you will hear it from other people," and she mentioned it on November 8th—I heard the time mentioned at the police court—I should say it was between 7.15 and 8 o'clock when I went over first, and when I had sent my man to bed I went back again, so it must have been between 8.30 and 9 a.m. when I saw Mr. James.

By the COURT. The Nag's Head is about half an hour's walk, or 20 minutes' ride by 'bus from the prisoner's house, or about two miles—I have seen the prisoner help his wife make the bags and help her carry them home.

MARY JAMES . I am the prisoner's wife—on October 31st I got up at 7.30 a.m.: my husband came down from bed soon after—about 8.15 I sent my little boy for some bloaters for breakfast—he came back and said he could not get them his father got them, and did not go out again till evening—I went out about 9.30 a.m. I came back about 4.30 p.m.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Roberts knocked at my door about 7.30 and called me up—I threw the key out of the window for her to open the door—I buy empty sugar bags, and make small bags of them—my husband helps me to take them home, and travels round with samples—I knew of the charge against my husband on Thursday, November 3rd—Mrs. Roberts looks after my children—I went to the Nag's Head and asked the publican's wife about the charge, and the lady said she was very sorry she had known my husband fifteen years, and had she been up at the time the thing would never have happened—I did not tell Mrs. Roberts till I said' to her, "To tell you the truth my husband is in serious trouble"—my husband lives at home with me and the children—he has not been living at Wildermuth House, Whitechapel.

The prisoner in his defence said that he was not in the Nag's Head on Monday, October 31st and on November 3rd, he-did not know the 2s. piece

was bad till he was told so: that he offered his address that the manager said the coin would have deceived him: and that it was an oversight.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19041114-7

7. HARRY BENSLEY (29) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Jordan and others, £200 and other sums, with intent to defraud (See page 41).—

Reference Number: t19041114-8

(8.) ALBERT SAUNDERS (22) to obtaining from Elsie Schaufelberger £1 4s. 6d. and other sums from other persons by false pretences with intent to defraud, having been convicted of felony at Marlborough Street on August 7th, 1903. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Fifteen months' hard labour. —And

Reference Number: t19041114-9

(9.) PAUL HOFFMAN (28) to having demanded £30 by virtue of a forged and altered instrument. Also to having altered the pass book of the Seamen's Savings Bank with intent to defraud. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Twelve months' hard labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, November 10th, 1904.

Before Mr. Justice Grantham.

Reference Number: t19041114-10

10. ALBERT JAMES HOLMES, (23) Indicted for and charged upon the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of James Uric Copland.

MR. MATHEWS and MR. SYMMONS Prosecuted MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES Defended.

THOMAS JAMES HOLMES . I am the prisoner's brother, and am two years older than he is—I am a member of the Tottenham Fire Brigade and live at 10, Bromley Road—my mother and my married sister, Mrs. Copland, live with me—my sister had a child named Joseph Uric Copland—at the time of his death he was about four months old—my sister's husband is a petty officer in the Navy, and is away from time to time—he was away at this time—the prisoner suffers from paralysis on his left side from his head to his foot—he can walk about but he cannot do any hard work—he has power in his right side—he has been like that ever since he was a little boy—until recently he had work for a week or a month now and again, but towards the beginning of October he had been out of work for about nine months—I maintained him and kept the house—when he was in work he did not bring home his wages—he never earned enough to get his food and clothes—on Saturday, October 1st, I was at home with the prisoner—I said, "Why did you leave these books in the garden"—'hey were some old books which some friends had given him to sell for pocket money, and he had left them out in the garden from the Friday afternoon—he said he 'did not know it was going to rain—I told him he ought to have known better than to have left them out there, as he had had the opportunity to sell them on the Friday afternoon—I told him he did not seem to be trying to help us to look after him, or to help himself in any way—I also said we had done everything to get him into a good Cripple's Home, provided he was willing to go, but he always objected—he said, "If I do go you will be glad to get me out of the way"—I-said, "No, we do not want to get you out of the way it is for your own benefit if anything happens to me, and there is nobody

to keep the home, you will have to go into the Infirmary"—he said, You think you are everybody"—I told him to leave oft, and not to be so cheeky"—the same morning I was talking to my mother as I was having breakfast in the kitchen, and told her what had occurred—the prisoner was in the back room, and heard what I said to my mother—he kept on denying things, and I told him to leave off—I went into the back room, and told him if he was so cheeky he had better clear out at once—as I was going on duty I said, "You had better be out of the house by the time I come off duty in the morning"—I was on night duty that night: I came off on Sunday morning.

Cross-examined. He was to have the benefit of the money derived from the sale of the books—my treatment of him has always been kind—I have provided him with a home when he wanted one—I think he worked for Ware & Company for a few weeks—he left them because of the bankruptcy of the firm—he was at Feltham at work—I am not aware that he has worked at addressing envelopes he may have done so, but I am often not at home—I have heard my mother and sister talk of it—he worked at Dumblestone's for about nine months and on another job at a draper's, whose name I do not know—my brother-in-law had not been home for four months before this—besides being paralysed the prisoner's head lays over on his shoulder—he has had, I think, two operations to try and straighten his leg and his foot—I do not know that he has been suffering for some years from a discharge from his ear—I have always tried to do my best for him, and have always tried to convey that to him—when I said I would turn him out I did not mean it—I had often spoken harply to him before, and I probably should have come home on the Sunday morning having forgotten all about it—when he was denying things to me he did not deny things I had not said—he has been reading a great deal of literature lately on hypnotism, and I handed to the police a lot of documents connected with hypnotism and mentalism—the prisoner must have sent to America, for them, because one arrived the day before yesterday—there is no truth in the suggestion that I was afraid that he was going to dominate the household by means of hypnotism—why I comlained to him was because of his wasting his money—I never suggested or feared that I was going to become his prey.

Re-examined. The prisoner went to school I do not know at what age he left—after leaving school, I think he was employed in the evenings by a Dr. Plaister—he left there because he had a club foot—he went to Dumblestone's when he was about 14, and left when he was about 22—he is now 23.

PRISCILLA HOLMES . I live at 10, Bromley Road, Tottenham—the prisoner is my son, and lived with me up to October 2nd—my married daughter, Mrs. Copland, and her little boy also lived there with my eldest son—on Sunday morning, October 2nd, I was in my bedroom when the prisoner brought me up some tea—my daughter was in bed with me, as well as the baby—I got up and went downstairs about 7.30—the prisoner, was in the kitchen putting his boots on, as though to go out—he said, "Where shall I go i"—I said, "Go to your sister Eliza's to dinner"—he said, "I will come home this evening, and go into the

country to-morrow to look for work"—He asked me for his clean shirt, which I gave him—by that time Mrs. Copland had dressed and come down into the kitchen—the prisoner went upstairs to put his clean shirt on he shut the kitchen door tightly—I proceeded to get the breakfast ready, and then went to the foot of the staircase to call him to come down—I received no answer—I went upstairs to his room—he was not there, and I went into the room where I and Mrs. Copland and the baby had slept—the baby was still there—I found the pillow on its face—I removed it and saw its head all black and blue—I called to Mrs. Copland—she came upstairs at once, and I showed her the baby—Dr. Thompson was sent for at once, but he gave us no hope for the baby.

Cross-examined. The prisoner has always lived at home—he has done what work he has been able to do—he has not bought many clothes—he spent what money he earned on clothes—he did a few household duties—on the Saturday before he came in about 11 p.m. my daughter and I were in bed then—the prisoner sleeps in the back bedroom over the kitchen—we put the child to bed just before 7—when the prisoner brought up the tea he did it in the usual way—he bent over and looked at the baby and went out and shut the door tight, more closely than ever lie did—there was nothing unusual about him asking for his clean shirt, nor in the way he asked for it—a few months ago I noticed a perceptible change in his character—before that time he was a land, good-natured boy—the change in him gave me some concern, and it worried me—he was very nervous, and for the last month very irritable—we have all of us been very kind to him—he has had a good home, and we have let him go his own way—up to the change in him, he showed he appreciated our kindness—he has suffered from a periodical discharge from his ear—he has had medicine for it, and has been to a doctor many a time—he told me that after the discharge he felt better—I have heard him say that for eight weeks before this affair he had had no discharge—twenty-five years ago last January my husband shot himself in the mouth with a revolver, that was about two years before the birth of the prisoner—my husband was then put in a house of detention—nineteen years ago, on October 2, he went to America—he wrote to me three or four times—the last letter was a very strange one—in one, letter he asked me to join him, and at the end of another he said "Good-bye for ever"—I do not know what has become of him—I have never heard of him since.

Re-examined. My husband was for a great many years in the police force—he retired with a gratuity of about £39—it was after he had spent the gratuity that he made the attempt on his live—he must have been drinking I heard that he was gambling till 2 a.m.—after that he became a house agent at Forest Gate, and after a time went to America—he left Forest Gate because he spent his employer's money—he went to America because he was afraid another man was going to take his work out of his hands—I do not know if he is alive or dead—on this Sunday morning I thought the prisoner looked very strange when he brought up the tea.

PRECILLA COPLAND . I am the wife of Joseph Copland. a first-class officer in the Navy—I was living with my mother at 10. Bromley Road, the prisoner and my other brother were living there, too—I am 20—I had a child named Thomas Henry—on Sunday morning. October 2, the prisoner brought up some tea—my mother got up first and dressed, and then I got up and went down—I remember the prisoner asking my mother for a clean shirt—he left the kitchen—I heard a noise in the back parlour as of fire irons being moved—I had seen the fire irons in the back parlour the previous day—among other things, there was a brass poker, it was on the left side of the fender in the fireplace—it was then straight—(Produced)—it was bent like this when I saw it on the Sunday on the right aide of the fender—I heard somebody going upstairs on the Sunday, with a heavy step—in consequence of the prisoner's infirmity he walks heavily—I did not see him go out—my mother called to me—I went upstairs and saw my child—he died about 10.30.

Cross-examined. The rattle of the fire irons was a quite perceptible noise—when the prisoner was going upstairs he did not make more noise than usual, but it attracted my attention—the kitchen door was shut—we did not take any notice of the noise the prisoner made, because he always made a row when he went about the house.

CHARLES GURNIE THOMPSON . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 790, High Street, Tottenham—on October 2, about 8.30, Mrs. Holmes and Mrs. Copland brought the deceased to me he was collapsed, pulseless, and suffering from a fractured skull—I told them the case was hopeless.

ARTHUR STANTON WAINRIGHT . I am a registered medical practitioner and divisional surgeon of police at 639, High Street, Tottenham—on October 2 I was-called to 10, Bromley Road, where I saw this child lying on its right side on the bed—it was comatose and in a dying condition—there were extraordinary marks of violence on the" left 'side of its head—I could feel that there was a depressed fracture of the skull—the case was absolutely hopeless—when I next saw the child, at 10.30 the same morning, it was dead—on October 4 I made a post mortem examination—the cause of death was compression of the brain, due to the fracture of the skull—the head of this poker would cause the injuries.

Cross-examined. There were three or four blows—the fractures were very serious—the blows must have been very severe, what would be described as reckless violence—very little force would have killed the child—the skull was very thin—the child was only three months old—the skull of a child of that age would be very easily fractured—I have been in practice about 27 years—I do not know that I have had experience of cases where reckless violence was used—I have had considerable experience of violence—disease of the ear might indicate some disease of the internal ear, but I do not think it would indicate a tumour on the brain. I should look for the mischief in the internal ear if there was a periodical discharge—if there was a dark coloured discharge from the ear I think it would indicate disease of the internal ear or the middle ear—I should not

think it would affect the brain at all—if there was an abcess forming on the brain there would not necessarily be a discharge from the ear, but there might be—I do not think there would generally be, but I do not know—an abcess on the brain would not cause any discharge from the ear that I know of.

Re-examined. The post mortem I made was on the baby" not on the prisoner.

ARTHUR HALL (Inspector). On October 4th I was stationed at Kingston-on-Thames—about 3.45 p.m. on that day the prisoner came to the station by himself—he came to the inquiry—window and said to me "I wish to give myself up for killing my brother-in-law's child at Bromley Road, Tottenham, on Sunday"—I said, "Who are you?"—he said, "Albert James Holmes of 10, Bromley Road, Tottenham—I said, "Are you quite aware of the seriousness of what you are saying?" he said, "Yes, sir"—I cautioned him. and took down this statement from him—it was read over to him, and he signed it—I witnessed it—(Read) "I wish to give myself up for killing my brother-in-law's child at Bromley Road, Tottenham, on Sunday morning last I am quite aware of the seriousness of what I am saying—Albert James Holmes.—I detained him until Martin came.

JOHN MARTIN (Detective Inspector). About midday on Sunday, October 2nd, I went to 10, Bromley Road, Tottenham, where I saw the body of male child in the front room lying on a pillow—I saw a bruise on its forehead—that was the child that was seen by the doctors who have given evidence—on October 4 I had some information, and in consequence, I went to Kingston police station with another officer, where I found the prisoner detained—I told him who I was, and that he would be charged with the wilful murder of this little boy by striking him on the head with a poker—he said "Yes sir, good sir,"—I took him to the railway station to bring him up to town—while getting into the train he said "My mother, my brother, and brother-in-law have been trying to get rid of me because I am a cripple and have been out of work. I had a row with my brother on Saturday night, and it came to a climax, so on Sunday morning I got a brass poker and struck the child. on the head.—I brought him to London, and at Stoke Newington police station he was charged in the usual way—he said in reply, "Quite right, sir"—next morning, on the way to Tottenham Petty Sessions he said, "I am glad you have caught me, because I was hungry and every time I passed a policeman I thought he was going to get hold of me."

The prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I plead not guilty and reserve my defence."

MR. HUGHES submitted that the proper, usual, and fairer course would be for the prosecution to put Dr. Scott into the box, the defence having been indicated in cross-examination, as if he (MR. HUGHES) called Dr. Scott he would be prevented from cross-examining him, and also that the penalty he would have to pay for calling him would be a very great disadvantage to the prisoner. Mr. Justice Grantham said that he thought the Crown had adopted the right course that although doctors' evidence had often been called by the prosecution, it had led to very great abuse that His Majesty's judges

had come to the conclusion that it was not a proper course: that in the prosecution believed a prisoner to be insane. it would he their duty to put Dr. Scott into the box, but' if they did not believe if they ought not to do so.

Evidence for the Defence.

JAMES SCOTT . I am the medical officer at his Majesty's prison at Brixton—t have had the prisoner under my observation since October 5th—during that time he has been in calm surroundings. which in many cases is proved to be a very material element, in cases where there is or might be disease of the mind—it is possible that insane persons who are put into an asylum may become apparently sane, but if they are released they may be in the same condition of mind again—that is what happens in certain cases—the prisoner told me he has had a discharge from his ear for two or three years—that is on the same side as the paralysis—he has hold me about the operations he has had—I do not know that he had had no discharge from his ear for about eight weeks before he came to the prison—he complained of a discharge about a fortnight after he came in, and there was one—if a sufficient amount of discharge accumulates it leads to irritation and pain—I heard his mother's description of the change in the prisoner's character at times that is one of the earliest symptoms of mental disturbance—I asked the prisoner about the incident of his having the books for the purpose of making a profit for himself out of them and of his leaving them in the garden he gave me a very plausible reason—he said the books had been given to him so that he might sell them for his own advantage he was told that at the end of the week he would have a further number given 'o him, and to save himself from going for them then he put them together, and that he put them in the garden as there was not much room in the house, and at the time the weather was dry, and that he only put them there for a short time till he procured the others—I do not know how many books there were.—the infantile paralysis which has affected him from his youth is sometimes associated with mental impairment—I have heard the history of his family I heard of his father's attempted suicide, and he said that he understood that his mother's brother had committed suicide through slackness of trade, but he said he was not positive about it—I have heard what his mother, brother, and sister said about his having a happy home, and of their being kind to him—he told me about his reading various books on hypnotism and mesmerism—I have seen them, they may be read by anybody—they are sold in London, and are very silly pamphlets—t consider he has a weak and unstable mind a very little would tilt some weak minds over to insanity some require a good deal—a very little irritation of the brain, or anything that contributed to upset the mental balance, would not tilt all weak minds over the border—I think that homicidal mania coming on in circumstances such as these is extremely rare—it is admitted in many of the books that it can do so—it has been stated that in homicidal mania you may have nothing but the criminal act

itself to indicate that there was anything wrong with the brain, but I have no experience of it, the premonitory symptoms may have been overlooked—I cannot say that it is impossible that this act was committed by the prisoner when he was suffering from homicidal mania—I notice that the prisoner when he went to the police station said he had killed his brother-in-law's child, but I cannot admit that he had no grudge against his brother-in-law—I said in my report, "He is not at present insane"—I was speaking of this from my knowledge of him at the time—I did not intend to show that I anticipated that he might be insane at any moment—I could not certify him as insane cases frequently occur that a crime is committed and then people wonder why the man was not put away before—I know that the prisoner gave himself up that is not inconsistent with a person who has committed an act of homicidal mania, the impulse to do the act may be dormant for a long time and no one detect it—some people have inclinations which they keep under control—people may have delusions about a person who they had been previously fond of.

Cross-examined. I have cot observed any traces of epilepsy in the prisoner or heard of any—the prisoner complained and seemed rather nervous at the time the discharge from his car was on, but otherwise not much changed—I had some conversation with him about this case—he told me What his history had been, how he had left school at fourteen, he being in the 7th standard—he worked us a surgery boy for 3 1/2 years, and left that to go into a hospital—then he worked for Mr. Ware for four years, and then went to a tailor's, where he was at work for 10 months—for the last two or three years he has been without any regular occupation—he said he felt the taunts of his brother and brother-in-law as to his crippled condition, and thought he would be turned out of the house, and that the dispute on. Saturday morning brought things to a climax—while he was in prison he acted rationally, as far as I could see he was nervous and depressed—as far as I could form an opinion, he was not on October 2nd insane, and was conscious of the nature and quality of the things he did.

By the COURT. I do not think there is anything in the evidence to show that he did not know what he was doing—I think he knows right from wrong, and probably did so on October 2—he spoke of his sweetheart.

Re-examined. A person may know right from wrong and yet be unable to control his impulse, impulses of that kind are usually connected with delusions—one generally finds out delusions in time—sometimes they are difficult—to find out—epilepsy and paralysis are diseases of the brain—paralysis may be from disease of the brain or spinal cord—epilepsy is from the brain generally.

JOHN SAMUEL DUMBLEDOX . I am an outfitter of 501, High Road, Bruce Grove—the prisoner was in my employ as an assistant for eleven months until March, 1904—about the last month of his employment I noticed a great change in his manner, and as the time grew short he seemed to get worse—on one occasion I sent him for a bottle of coffee, but he brought back a bottle of vinegar when he was told of it he had

a hearty laugh about it—when customers came in he would ask what they wanted and would then deliberately walk away and they had to ask, "Are you going to serve met—I have three children: he was brought into contact with them—on one or two occasions he spoke very crossly to my eldest child, who is about 8 1/2, that was towards the end of the time—previous to that he had been very fond of them indeed—I noticed almost from the time I engaged him that his nerves were in a shaking state and towards the end they grew worse—I noticed he was suffering from deafness, but I did not notice a discharge—we had to holloa at him sometimes because he could not hear—I have seen him many times drink from a bottle, I do not know what he took—he boarded with us and took his meals at the back of the shop—he left with the excuse that his money was not enough and his brother thought he had better get another job—he had 5s. a week and his food—I do not know whether his brother had said that or not—he left me, and I took him on again a few weeks afterwards and then he left me suddenly without notice.

GUILTY. Very strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury.

DEATH

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, November 15th, 1904.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19041114-11

11. FREDERICK BOYD TRENT (62) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering an order for £5 also to stealing five cheque forms and a bag, the property-of Henry Garrick also to obtaining from John Wilkins £1 and other sums from other persons by false pretences, with intent to defraud having been convicted of felony at this Court in May, 1809.- Five other convictions were proved-against him. Twelve months hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-12

12. WILLIAM MCBEATH MARCHAM, JOHN. NEIL MARCHAM, FRANK MARCHAM, BENJAMIN BRINDLE , and WILLIAM ANDREWS, Libel on Sarah Ann Good child. Justification was pleaded.

MR. HUTTOX and MR. MORITZ Prosecuted MR. HAROLD MORRIS Defended.

MABEL HIGGS . I am 10 years old—I live at St. James' Lodge, St. James' Lane, Muswell Hill, with my father and mother—a gentleman I should not know again handed me this paper—I took it home and gave it to my mother—[This set out a certificate of a marriage on October 25th, 1873. between John Marcham and Sarah Janet McBeath, and continued "Public Notice. To our friends and neighbours at Muswell Hill. It has come to our knowledge that a certain female named Sarah Ann Good child, alias Bray, a teacher of music, late of Melrose Villa, 9, Springfield Road, New-Southgate, formerly of 22, Kiver Road, Upper Holloway, and now resident at St. James' House, St. James' Lane, Muswell Hill, has alleged that she is married to John Marcham, of the same address, and that Sarah Janet Marcham was not and is not his lawful wife. In order, therefore, to defend the reputation of our mother and of our own

honour, we print and publish the above facsimile, and ask one friends to bring it to the notice of all whom it may interest.—(Signed), William Marcham, John N. Marcham, Frank Marcham. Hornsey, August, 1904."] I asked the gentleman for it—he had some more—he was giving them to people who passed.

NELLY SNELL . I am the wife of Leonard Snell of St. James' Lodge—on a Sunday in the summer this paper was given to Mabel Higgs, and I saw it in Mrs. Higgs' hands after Mabel had given it to her—I was standing at our gate—I saw two of the Marcham's in the street—I have read the paper—I saw it posted on a board in Brindle's yard—Brindle is a neighbour—anybody could see the paper.

Cross-examined. Our house is in the same block of buildings, and we are tenants of Mr. Marcham, the father of three of the prisoners—Mrs. Higgs lives upstairs and I live downstairs—I saw the little girl opposite the house with something in an envelope—I have been living in St. James' Lodge about a twelvemonth last June—I was not there long while Mrs. Marcham was living at St. James' House—I have been in St. James' House and have seen Miss Goodchild—I did not know her well, because she was never at home—she was a music teacher—I was often abed when she was out—I saw her sometimes, but have not spoken to her sometimes from week in and week out—when I have seen her she has been scrubbing the door-step—Mr. and Mrs. Marcham and Miss Good child lived, in St. James' House—I Saw no servant—I knew Miss Goodchild six or seven months, and just passed the time of day—I paid my rent to the old lady or whoever was in—I have seen Mr. Marcham and Miss Goodchild walking out together, but I did not trouble to notice them—I know Mrs. Andrews, Mrs. Brindle. and Mrs. Hayward—I have been. friendly with them, but there has been some difference of opinion for. a. little while—I never said Miss Goodchild was married to Mr. Marcham—the difference did not arise because of that—Miss Goodchild. Called herself the housekeeper when she has been talking to me—the mother is over seventy—when I took the rent to the house I asked Miss Goodchild about repairs, and she said she was only the housekeeper, and could give me no satisfaction till Mr. Marcham came home.

ARTHUR LANE . I am a beerhouse keeper of the Royal Oak, St. James' Lane, Muswell Hill—on Sunday morning, August 28th, I took my little boys to church, when John Neil Marcham came to me and asked me if I would receive a paper he had in his hand—I told him if it was anything concerning his mother's marriage certificate affair I did not require one as I had had two placed under my door early in the morning—I read" them—they were like these produced, but (hey were in envelopes—he said "We must protect our mother"—he had two in his hand in envelopes.

Cross-examined. Our house is only 120 yards from St. James's House—I have been in business in Muswell Lane for about nine years—I have known Marcham by sight—I have seen Mrs. Marcham at the gate, and I have seen her pass the door—I should say she has been away about two years—I have seen Miss Goodchild come in and out of their house

for a considerable time now—I have not seen Mr. and Mrs. Marcham and Miss Goodchild out together.

ELIZA HARRIS . I live at Saint James' Terrace—on Sunday morning, August 28th, I found a paper under my door similar to this produced—I took it straight upstairs in my hand—I saw some gentlemen in the street there were a great many about at the time—I saw John Marcham—the gentlemen were passing my door—they went towards Muswell Hill—I saw them go into their houses—my sight is not good enough to see what they had in their hands—I have made a statement to the solicitor.

ELIZA JANE TRISDON . I live at Dagmar House, Dagmar Road, Wood Green—I lived there in August—one evening in August I had been washing, and I was in the washhouse in the evening—I saw Frank Marcham coming down the path and went to meet him, as I expected a doctor's bill—he gave me a document enclosed in an envelope—I read it—I have made a mark on it.

SARAH ANN GOODCHILD . I went to live at St. James' House, St. James' Lane, Muswell Hill, on April 22nd, 1903—our goods were removed there—I went there in 1902 before my father's death—I have been visiting or living there ever since—my mother was living there—she is seventy years old—I have known Mr. Marcham all my life, over 30 years—I remember the reparation between him and his wife quite well—she went away in 1901, I think, but I am not sure—my father was there as a care-taker for some weeks—he died in April, 1902—I was then living in Springfield Road. not with my father—I went in and out of the house and looked after things in general—a lady and gentleman were living on the first floor, and it was arranged that I should have my own apartments, and take charge of the domestic arrangements—there is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that any impropriety took place between me and Mr. Marcham at any time, nor that I lived with him as his wife—I never said that I did—I never said to anyone that I was married to Mr. Marcham, nor that Mrs. Marcham was not his wife—I have seen the papers produced in several places in the neighbourhood—I have seen them in Mrs. Brindle's and Mrs. Andrews' gardens—I only live a few hundred yards oft across the road—I think Brindle has something to do with 'busses—he shook these papers in my face when I was looking out of the window after August 28th—the Marchams were trying to attract people's attention to them—they were to be seen at the corner of Brindle's house—Frank Marcham stood on the railings, and he insulted me by calling me dreadful names on Sunday, August 28th—he looked at me in the greenhouse—I cannot tell you his language, it is too dreadful to repeat—my name is Sarah Ann Goodchild: I formerly lived at Melrose Villa, Springfield Road, Muswell Hill.

Cross-examined. I am a music teacher—I have to go out early in the morning to meet my pupils—in the summer I am up between 5 and 6, and sometimes earlier, to teach people who are engaged early in the day—I was a member of the Alexandra Palace Choir in 1901, and I had been for years—Marcham was a friend of my father" when he came

to London—I nursed his eldest son, and I knew him before that, before 1880—he had been a builder, I believe—I used to meet him frequently at the Alexandra Palace Choir in 1901, which used to meet once or twice a week—I sang in the name of Bray—my father called Mr. Marcham "Jack," so I did—I do not know his age—I do not think he is as old as 53—his eldest son is about 27, but I do not remember dates—I think I was first introduced to Mrs. Marchant at the Alexandra Palace, it might be about June, 1898, but I have known her by sight for years—Mr. Marcham was one of my father's oldest friends—my father knew Mr. Marcham's family affairs—I remember the Prince of Wales's marriage in July, 1893, when he was Duke of York—I do not remember' going to St. James's Park with Mr. Marcham—I know Mrs. Anna Smith by sight—I do not remember seeing her there, nor taking Mr. Marcham's head into my lap, nor combing his hair and his beard—it never took place—I have never been to the Military Tournament—I did not go there with Mr. Marcham—he had not his arm round my waist one evening when Mrs. Marcham wanted the latch key—she startled me by saying "Oh, John, have you got the latch key?"—Mr. Marcham stopped, and I walked on by myself—that was sometime in 1898—she did not speak to me then—my father died in March or April, 1903—Mr. Marcham had people coming to live there, and it was arranged that I should have apartments in his house—that was during my father's life—my father did not live with me, he lived with my mother in Springfield Road—when he was ill it was arranged that he should move—my mother continued to live with my father—I cannot remember the dates—Mr. Marcham had other lodgers in the house—I had my apartments at the top—I went about February, 1902, to look after Mr. Marcham and the lodger—his daughter and his sisters wished that I should go there—there was no servant—I did not live in the house entirely, I used to go home very often—Mrs. Marcham left Mr. Marcham with only a few rags—I was there as house-keeper—I was paid nothing for it—I did not go there for love but for old friendship—I did not pay rent—Mr. Marcham paid the taxes—when I went out early Mr. Marcham cooked his own breakfast, at other times I did—if I had a pupil I used to go out and leave everything comfortable—the lodger's name was Pool—I never lived there till Pool came—the date I do not know—my father was there as caretaker, and I had to go to my father's to see if he had food, and to look after things in general—I do not remember my skirt being caught in a hurdle—I have seen Mrs. Hayward and Mrs. Andrews before—I have seen them in Court—may I explain that during last summer I have got over the hurdle at the back of the house as the nearest way to Crouch End Station, and to avoid the hill—there is a garden at the back of the house bounded by hurdles and I got into the field—it is a public walk—I was not "living in the house then—I believe the Haywards. live in some small cottages almost opposite, we can see their house and garden from St. James' House plainly—it is not true that I called Mr. Marcham to come and help me off the hurdle—I do not

know that the hurdle has had one of its rails lowered for me to get over—Mr. Pool stayed about twelve months—I never said to Brindle if he didn't go away I would go and call my husband—I do not remember his looking over the fence at me—I had a pony—it was taken in payment for rent, when I could not get the money.

NOT GUILTY .

The plea of justification was held not to be proved.

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, November, 10th, 1904.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19041114-13

13. JOHN ROGERS (68), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully and indecently assaulting Arthur Breadman. A conviction of misdemeanour at this Court was proved against him. Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-14

14. EDWARD FRANCIS RUTTER (42) and ARTHUR BOWER otherwise JACKSON (42) , conspiring with other persons to obtain from William Blanford and others £50 and other sums.

MR. BURNIE and MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted MR. WARBURTOX appeared for Rulter and MR. SLATER for Bower.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger at the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Edgar Francis Rutter—the petition was filed by himself on August 30th, 1900—the receiving order and adjudication was on the same day—he has never been discharged—the liabilities were £1,896 2s. 6d. assets nil—he is described as a financial agent—there was no dividend paid—I produce two files referring to Bower—the first is is 1896)—there was an order of discharge subject to conditions—he was again adjudicated bankrupt on March 12th, 1900, on a creditor's petition—the liabilities as set out are £7,766 0s. 5d. assets £8,000 estimated surplus £233 19s. 7d.—he has never applied for discharge—there has been no dividend paid.

THOMAS LAIDLOW . I am Examiner to the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy—Bower at his examination stated that since his previous failure he had been without regular occupation and chiefly dependent on his wife who had a separate estate—estimated assets are put in from information supplied by the debtor—they often turn out to be very contrary to the fact—he never applied for his discharge, and no dividend has been paid—only £12 17s. 4d. was realised—the assets chiefly consisted of equities which were not sufficient to satisfy the mortgages on the property.

THOMAS BROUGHTON KNIGHT . I am an Examiner to the Official receiver in Bankruptcy—I have the file here referring to the prisoner Rutter—he has not applied for his discharge—I did not examine him.

MARIA LOUISA FREDERICKS . In May and June I was living at St. James's Court, S.W.—on May 28th I received this letter, "Dear Madam, Pardon my addressing you, but I notice a County Court judgment registered against your name. I am aware that the publicity given to these matters frequently causes much unpleasantness and great

inconvenience. I am not a money lender, but can doubtless be of service to you, as I have been in many cases, so. I might ask you if at any time you require money at 5 per cent, a year, to write me fully in confidence, or to send me a letter or telegram making an appointment, when I shall be happy to call upon you. E. Francis Rutter"—there was a judgment against me—I answered his letter and he called upon me about a week after—I told him I wanted some money for a syndicate that was started—he took the prospectus and said he would see what he could do—I next received this letter, on June 6th: "Dear Madam, I greatly regret I was under a misapprehension with regard to your business, and if I had not been away should have written to say so. If the business is still open, I shall be glad to hear from you. Yours faithfully, E Francis Rutter"—he called on me, and I told him about the money that a Captain Blanford wanted—I did not want any for myself then—I told him that Captain Blanford had £500 a year, that he was stationed at Woolwich, and was a tenant of mine—he said he had a friend who was not a money lender, but who would lend the money—an appointment was made for June 29th, and he called about 6.45 p.m. with his friend, who I believe was. Bower, but I am not quite sure—Captain Blanford was present—Rutter introduced his friend as "Mr. Jackson"—Bower asked me to leave the room,. as he thought the business was better arranged between men, without ladies being present—I did so, but came back in a few minutes—I heard Rutter say his friend would lend the Captain £400 on a bill for £500, and Captain Blanford was to increase his life policy at the Life Association of Scotland Office—Butter asked Captain Blanford to meet him at 10 or 10.30, I am not "sure which, at the office in King William Street nest-morning, but the meeting was ultimately fixed for 3—the prisoners left us, but Rutter came back and said "to Captain Blanford "Will you come out, I want to speak to you alone"—he went out.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I was in need of money at the time," but not from a money lender—I have occasionally been summoned in County Courts—I have never had a judgment registered against me before the one mentioned—I formed a syndicate in connection with a reversionary interest which I had bought, which was registered at Somerset House—it is not correct that I wanted to get money through the prisoners, and that the only reason Captain Blanford was brought in was as surety—I have some bills out, there were not a good many drinks going, the evening the prisoners came.

Cross-examined by MR. SLATER. Bower had, I think, two personal interviews with me. before June 29th—he said that he had a friend Who would lend money—he did not mention his name—I did not hear Bower say to Captain Blanford that he could not carry the business through, and' Rutter did not then say that he must do it himself—I think Rutter spoke about' the increase of the policy—I believe Rutter suggested the bill for £500.

Re-examined. Rutter came back and took Captain Blanford out—Rutter suggested my name should be added as additional security.

WILLIAM GEORGE BLANFORD . I am a Captain in the Royal Artillery stationed at Woolwich—in June I was desirous of raising a loan in conjunction with Mrs. Fredericks—on hearing from her, I called on her on June 29th—the prisoners came shortly afterwards—they were strangers to me—Mrs. Fredericks introduced the subject of the loan—she knew Rutter—his name was mentioned to me—he introduced Bower to me as "Mr. Jackson "and as being able to lend money—Bower said he objected to lend money to a lady and I was asked would I take it in my name—I may have said & 007c this myself, I cannot say—Bower asked me what security I had—I told them what my income was and that I had a life policy for £300 in the Life Association of Scotland—Bower asked me about my bank and I said Messrs. Cos & Co., Charing Cross—he said he also had a small banking account there—I told him I thought I had between £35 and £40 there and that there was a promissory note of £100 outstanding, which I owed Messrs. Cox—Bower said he was willing to lend £500 provided I increased my life policy to £600 and we were to meet the following day at the Life Association of Scotland Office—he also asked me if I belonged to the Service Clubs—I told him I did to the United Service—Mrs. Fredericks said she wanted £30 urgently—Bower said he was unable to advance the money that night—they left shortly after—Rutter came back ten minutes after and said Mr. Jackson wishes to speak to you outside I think he can arrange to let you have the money this evening, the £30"—I went down into the street—on the way down Rutter said, "If you can let Jackson have a cheque for £50 he can arrange that you can draw another cheque for £30 on your bank for Mrs. Fredericks, the money to be paid in the first thing next morning," meaning the money to meet these cheques of £30 and £50—Isaw Jackson outside, and we talked the matter over again—I said to both prisoners that I could not give them a cheque for £50, as I had not got the amount in the bank—Jackson said, "Oh, it does not matter, I shall not present the cheque till the amount is paid in to your credit to meet it"—he asked me how much I wanted paid in—I think I said £115—that was to be part of the £500 loan—we then went to a public house near by for the purpose of drawing the cheque for £50—Bower obtained a sheet of note paper and I wrote out this cheque in favour of Rutter—while writing it I asked Jackson what his initials were—Rutter interposed and said, "Oh, make out the cheque in my name, as I am carrying through this business for you"—upon that I wrote, out the cheque and gave it to Rutter—we then parted—I gave no one authority to go to my club and get the cheque cashed—it was presented, I understand, the same evening at my club, and next day was paid into my bank—I went the next day at 3 o'clock to the Insurance Company's office and waited for an hour—the prisoners did not come—I then wrote to my bank telling them what had happened as to the £50 and the £30—I had drawn a cheque for £30 and handed it to Mrs. Fredericks—I tried to stop both cheques—I wrote to Rutter, but received no answer—I was induced to part with the cheque thinking that Rutter was known to Mrs. Frederick and that "Jackson" was able

to lend the £500—I also believed what he said about his account at Cox's Bank.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I was not in a very good financial position, but I had never been connected with money dealings of this kind before—the money was to be for Mrs. Fredericks, but I wanted a small amount of it—it was not arranged how much I was to have out it—it would probably have been simpler if I had said to the prisoner, "Instead of your paying £500 into the bank and my paying you £50, you pay £450 in, keeping the £50 yourself," but Bower objected to lending the money till the policy was increased—on the night in question I had a few drinks.

Cross-examined by MR. SLATER. Bower was slightly deaf, and I think more than one of my questions had to be repeated, but I do not think there was the slightest misunderstanding—it is not the fact that Bower said he would have nothing to do with raising the loan—Jackson sug-gested the increase of the life policy I will swear it was not Butter—I would not be certain who suggested the bill for £500 it may have been Rutter—I said there would be great difficulty in my meeting it at maturity, but I did not say I could not do so—Bower did not on that say he could have nothing to do with the affair—I thought Bower was going to advance the money—I made the cheque out to Rutter because he at the time said he was carrying through the matter.

Re-examined. Bower said more than once that he had an account at Cox's—Jackson suggested going to the public house, because he wanted a drink, I think—he knew I was giving Rutter the cheque—I think he ordered the paper and stamp for it from the bar.

GEORGE GARDNER . I am chief waiter at the Senior United Service Club, Pall Mall—Captain Blanford is a member—I was there on June. 29th when Rutter brought me a cheque about 10.15 p.m.—he said, "I have paid a bill for Captain Blanford, could you let me have some money on this cheque"—I said I could not cash it, but could let him have £10 and the balance the following day—I knew the Captain's signature—it is the rule of the Club not to give more than £10 at once—I gave him £10 and took the cheque—I then believed he had come from Captain Blanford, and that he had paid a bill for him—the cheque was passed through the Club's bank next morning—it was honored in the ordinary course—in the afternoon of the following day a messenger boy came from Rutter for the balance of the cheque—I said I could not give it to the boy, as I wanted to see the man personally—Rutter came just after, and he received the £40.

ARTHUR JAMES DAMPIER . I am clerk to Messrs. Cox & Co., Bankers, Charing Cross—I do not know the prisoners—we have no customer named Arthur de Courcy Bower, nor has he, to my knowledge, ever had an account at the bank—Captain Blanford has an account—no sum of £115 or anything like it was paid into his account on June 30th, nor any money paid in by Bower.

FREDERICK JOHN FALL . I live at 234, Old Ford, Road, E., and traded as the Royal Standard Wine Company at 14b, GreatMarl

borough Street, in December, 1902—on December 17th, 1902, Rutter came about some goods—I knew him as George Mowbray—he said he would bring a friend of his who would be a good customer and who had plenty of money and a motor car—he brought his friend on December 19th—that was Bower—he introduced him as Captain Bower who thereupon ordered four cases of whisky.

Cross-examined by MR. SLATER. I did not make enquiries to find out that he had a motor car—he tried to make arrangements with me to store it for him.

Re-examined. I never saw the motor car—I was never paid for the whisky.

THOMAS TAPPENDEN (Sergeant A.) At 9.30 a.m., on August 16th. I was in High Street, Kensington, with Detective Berritt—I saw Rutter opposite the Palace Hotel—I said to him, "You know me, Mr. Rutter"—he said, "Yes, Mr. Tappenden"—I said, "I hold' a warrant for your arrest for obtaining a cheque valued £50 from Captain Blanford, and further with obtaining £50 from the United Service Club"—he said, '"Oh, yes"—I took him to Rochester Row Police Station, where he was charged—he made no reply—Bower was arrested by Berritt on December 19th—after Bower's arrest, I searched his house, 25, The Avenue, Bedford Park, and took possession of some postcards, telegrams and letters from Rutter (Produced)—I also found a large number of letters and unpaid bills in the names of "Captain Bower," "Captain Bruce," and "Arthur Bower"—I searched him, and found a letter addressed "A Jackson, Esq., Chiswick."

JAMES BERRITT (Detective Sergeant A.) I was present when Rutter was arrested on August 16th—I took possession of a letter book at his place, 42, Stratford Road, Earl's Court—the letters in it are in the name of "E. F. Rutter" and "G. Mowbray," and on page 1 I find a copy of a letter to Bower of February 21st it is signed "E. F. R."—it starts "Dear Bower"—I also found a letter from Captain Blanford (Staling that the writer waited an hour at the Life Assurance of Scotland Office, and that should the loan not be negotiated he would be glad to have the cheque for £50 returned)—I found also a number of County Court Judgments against Rutter, a number of unpaid bills in the names of "E. A. Mowbray" and "G. Rutter, Esq.," 72 pawn tickets, one for eight bottles of whisky, also a diary for 1904, which shows several appointments with Bower—the first entry is February 8th, and it says, "Met Bower in the morning, called on Joe, who had been out all day and never returned"—on August 19th, about 11.30 p.m., I was with two officers at Turnham Green, and saw Bower—I went up to him and said, "Mr. Jackson, otherwise Captain Bower, I believe?"—Le said. "Not me, there is the Captain, there." pointing to another man—I said, "I am a police officer, and hold a warrant for the arrest of a man named Jackson, wanted for being concerned with another man named Edgar Francis Rutter in obtaining a cheque for £50 from a Captain Blanford"—I said he answered the description, and I should take him into

custody—he said, "All right"—I said. "Do you want me to read the warrant to you now I"—he said "No. I'll hear it at the station"—I then took him to Chiswick Police Station, where I read the warrant to him—he replied, "I know nothing about it, Cocky"'—he was detained while the other officers went to his house—when they returned he was taken to Rochester Row station—the warrant was explained to him—he said, "I know nothing about it, I absolutely deny it"—the Inspector then said to him, "Do you know the man named Rutter?"—he said, "I have heard of the man, but I do not know him"—he was placed among nine others and indentified by two witnesses—he was then charged and made no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. SLATER. On the night of his arrest he had been drinking but he was not drunk—he understood what was said to him—he might have fallen asleep at the start for a few minutes.

Re-examined. He did not say anything to convict himself in any way.

Rutter, in his defence on oath, said he found out people who had judgments against them and then tried to negotiate loans for them, getting a commission for himself that he ascertained that Mrs. Fredericks was in want at a loan and called on her to negotiate one, and ashed her if she could (let security that she then mentioned Captain Blanford that he took his name and placed it before a Mr. Themas, of Adelaide Street, Strand, a moneylender that he went with Bower to interview Captain Blanford who wanted a loan quickly that they left him and discussed the matter when Bower told him to fetch the Captain down and have a talk with him; that they went to a public house that Captain Blanford there drew the Cheque for £50 which he (Rutter) understood was for his trouble in the matter, as he had introduced the borrower to the person who was arranging the matter that he went to Captain Blanford's club to get something on the cheque that night that he did not say there that he had paid a bil for him but was. arranging a bill for him that they gave him £10, and he received the rest the next day that he received a letter'from Captain Blanford a few days afterwards, but he had unfortunately spent the money that he did not answer his letter, as he thought he could get the money and give it back to Captain Blanford.

Bower, in his defence on oath, stated that he had for a number of years been connected with financial transactions that he had at various times raised loans for various people that he had known Rutter for three or four years, but had not seen him very frequently that he met Captain Blanford, who wished to back Mrs. Frederick's bill that he said he would arrange the matter for him, as he (Captain Blanford) was in a good position, and the loan would be covered by insurance that they went to the public house to discuss the matter further that the Captain there said he would require the bill to be renewet that he (Bower) then decided to have nothing to do with the matter that Rutter said he would carry the matter through that the Captain drew the cheque for £50, but that he (Bower) never had a farthing Of the money.'

GUILTY . Six months' hard labour each.

FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, November 15th, 1904.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.

Reference Number: t19041114-15

15. JOHN JOSEPH CRADDOCK (18) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the shop of Max Bronstein and stealing therein four cigarette cases and other articles. Two previous convictions were proved against him, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-16

(16.) FREDERICK CHARLES CUTLER (35) to sending to Charles Thomas Cutler a letter demanding money from him with menaces, well knowing the contents thereof also to writing and publishing certain false and defamatory libels of and concerning Charles Thomas Cutler. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] He received a good character. Discharged on his own recognisances.—And

Reference Number: t19041114-17

(17.) WILLIAM SMITH (36) to breaking and entering the shop of J. W. Benson, Ltd., and stealing therein two necklets and other articles. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-18

18. JOHN CACACE, otherwise GEORGE MARESCA (.34). Stealing 84 picture post cards, the property of Alfred de Merolla.

MR. ROGERSON Prosecuted.

ALFRED DE MEROLLA . I am a foreign bookseller of 9, Holborn Viaduct, E.C.—about 3 p.m., on October 10th, the prisoner came into my shop—he had been looking round for about half an hour when I missed a parcel of post cards which I had placed in a special place, as I wanted it at the end of the day—I went to the other end of the shop, and on my returning found that the parcel of cards had gone—I waited another two minutes and the prisoner handed me four cards, for which he wanted to pay—I asked him if he had any other post cards, and he said, "No"—I said, "Are you sure?" and he said, "Yes, certainly"—I caught hold of him and said, "Now give me what you have stolen," and he picked out. this big bundle of post cards (Produced) from under-his coat—whether he took it from under his arm or from his inside pocket I cannot say—I asked him if he had any more, and he pulled these actresses' post cards (Produced) out of a pocket of his coat—the total value of the post cards is £1 2s. 6d.—I said, "Have you got anything else," and he looked through his pockets, but found nothing more of mine—I sent my boy for a policeman, and on his arrival I gave the prisoner in charge, saying, "This man has robbed me of these post cards, and I want to give him in charge"—the prisoner said, "You mischarge me," and something else in French.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. When you brought the cards out you said, "That is quite right I wanted to ask you to put them aside for me"—you said that after you had denied you had any other post cards, but the four you wanted to buy.

HERBERT HINE (Detective Sergeant, City.) At 3.30 p.m., on October 9th, I was called to 9, Holborn Viaduct, where I saw De Merolla and the prisoner—De Merolla said, "I wish to give this man into custody for stealing some picture post cards"—the prisoner said, "He has made a mistake I am innocent"—De Merolla said, "I missed some picture post cards, and I asked him if he had got them then he fetched these cards

from his inside pocket, and the others from his outside pocket"—the prisoner, referring to a rather large packet, said, "You will see they will not go into my pocket"—De Merolla said, "Well, he took them from under his coat"—I took him to Snow Hill police station, where he was charged—he gave the name of Maresca, and refused to give his address or any account of himself—on searching him I found this leather case (Produced), which he said was given to him by a friend 12 months ago. who, he believed, had gone to America, and this pocket handkerchief, which he said was given to him by a lady in Frascati's Restaurant, but whose name he did not know—he was then charged with the unlawful possession of the property—I afterwards received a letter from him giving his correct name and address.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that he took the picture post cards, intending to ash the prosecutor to put them on one side for him, when he was taxed with stealing them.

GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-19

19. ESTHER JOAB (28) and MATILDA GREENBERG (23) , Stealing 65 yards of satin from William Whiteley, Limited, and REBECCA HOLLANDER (50) feloniously receiving the same, well knowing it to have been stolen.

GREENBERG PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. NOLAN Prosecuted MR. METHVEN Defended HOLLANDER.

EGBERT HAYNES . I am an assistant in the drapery department of Messrs. Whiteley, Limited, of Westbourne Grove—on November 3rd Greenberg and Joab came into the shop, but did not buy anything—some time afterwards a roll of black satin, valued at £9, was missed.

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEN. We should sell it at £9, and make a profit on it—I here are, of course, other assistants in the shop besides myself.

By the COURT. The counter on which the satin was, was some little distance away from me.

Cross-Examined by Joab. You were looking at the remnants on the counter.

FREDERICK WENSLEY (Sergeant H.) Between 2 and 3 p.m., on November 3rd, I was in company with other officers in Whitechapel Road, when I saw Greenberg and Joab get on a 'bus—we followed them—they got off at Holborn Bars and went into Lewis's, the drapers, where we afterwards learnt some silk had been stolen—after going to other places, about 4.30 p.m. they went into Whiteley's, in Westbourne Grove—they both came out without any parcel, but Greenberg seemed to be very bulky under her skirts—they then went into a restaurant, and after a time Joab came out and went to the Tube Station at Queen's Road, returning with a parcel—after a minute or two they both came out of the restaurant, Greenberg carrying a parcel larger than the one Joab had taken in—they then got on to an omnibus, and I, with four or five other officers followed them to Berwick Street, Oxford Street—Hollander was standing on—the kerb and Greenberg went over and handed the parcel to her, which she put beneath her apron—Joab and Greenberg' then walked away and entered 13, Berwick Street, while Hollander's movements

wore being watched by another officer—I waited about, and ten minutes after Hollander returned and went into 13, Berwick Street, with the parcel still under her apron, leaving the door open—we followed her upstairs, and she went into the third room, which was lighted, the other two rooms being in darkness, and leading into each other—it was then about 6.30 p.m.—we stopped in the second room and saw Joab and Greenberg in the third room, Hollander having left the door open—they commenced a conver-sation in a foreign tonsue—Hollander began undoing the parcel, when she stopped, came into the second room, and went back followed by Sergeant Lee and myself—Joab turned round, and, seeing me, had a conversation with the other two prisoners, and before I could say anything she said, 'Oh, Mr. Wensley, we will plead guilty do not let us go for trial"—she knows me, as I am in the Whitechapel district—I finished opening the parcel, and found it contained (55 yards of satin and 34 1/2 yards of silk—I subsequently charged Greenberg and Joab with stealing that property, and Hollander with receiving it, but they made no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEN. I was probably about 20 yards away when Greenberg handed Hollander the parcel I could not hear whether they were speaking English or Yiddish—I generally go into a house of which the doors are left open, if I am following people of the prisoners' class—I am pretty well known about there—I might have said at the police court that I saw all three undoing the parcel—I know that Hollander keeps a stall in Berwick Street, where she sells lace stuff and other things—I know that her husband is old and bedridden.

Re-examined. Hollander and her husband had previously lived in my district—her stall is just outside 13, Berwick Street I did not know at that time that she lived there—four out of the sis officers gave evidence before the Magistrate, and the other two were ready to do so.

FREDERICK BIGGS . I am an assistant to Messrs. Samuel Lewis, drapers, of Holborn Bars—about 3 p.m. on November 3rd Greenberg and Joab came into the shop—this roll of silk (Produced) was brought to us on the Friday morning as having been taken from our shop—I identify it as our goods by this ticket (Produced) which has the cost mark, the wholesale mark, and the selling price on it—it is 34 1/2 yards of silk and its value is about £6 16s. 6d.

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEN. That is the retail value—the prisoners bought four yards of stuff at the time, took the bill and paid for it.

SAMUEL LEE (Sergeant H.) I was with Wensley and some other officers in Whitechapel Road when I saw Greenberg and Joab get on to a "bus, and we followed them—they got down at Holborn Bars and went into Lewis's shop—on earning out Greenberg had a parcel, and they went in'o a public house, and on their coming out again I noticed that the parcel which Greenberg was carrying was bigger than the one she had taken in—they got on a Bayswater 'bus and deposited the parcel in the cloak room at Queen's Road Tube Station—they went to Whiteley's, and on coming out I noticed Greenberg"s skirts were very bulky—Joab was

walking in front, it appeared to me, to conceal it—I they then went to a restaurant at 100. Queen's Road, and Joab, after a few minutes, came out, went to the Queen's Road Tube Station, took out the parcel, and returned with it to the restaurant—they remained there about twenty-five minutes, and then came out, when I noticed that the parcel that Joab had taken, and which Greenberg was now carrying, was very much larger—they got on to a 'bus and went to Berwick Street, we following—on reaching Berwick Street I saw Hollander standing on the pavement—they both went up to her, and after a few minutes' conversation Greenberg handed the parcel to her, which she concealed beneath her apron—Greenberg and Joab went up Berwick Street and Hollander stood there for a few minutes, and then turned the corner and went up a turning for about twenty-five yards, stood there, looked round, came back again, walked up Berwick Street and entered No. 13—I never lost sight of her at all—we followed her up the stairs, and she went into the third room on the first floor, we stopping in the second room—I then saw that Hollander had joined Greenberg and Joab, and that she was undoing the parcel she had brought in under her apron, and I think talking in Yiddish—some-thing seemed to have attracted her attention, and she put down the parcel and came into the room in which we were, but it being dark, she seamed not to see us, and returned—Wensley and I then went into the room and we saw a parcel of silk and satin, wrapped in brown paper—Greenberg dropped this ticket (Ticket attached to roll of silk produced), which I picked up she said "I shall plead guilty"—Hollander attempted to leave the room, and I said, "You cannot leave the room, as you have received the property"—she said, "I have not paid for it"—up to that time no word had been said as to the property being stolen—they made no reply when charged.

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEN. The other four officers stood at the door while this was happening—I have no difficulty in understanding Hollander's English—the parcel was only partly undone when we entered the room.

FREDERICK GOODING (Detective H) I was with Wemsley, Lee, and the other officers in Whitechapel Road on November 3rd—I was with them the whole time up to when Greenberg and Joab went into Whiteley's—on their coming out I noticed that Greenberg was very bulk)-about the skirts—they went into a bun shop—I next saw them get off a 'bus at Tudor Street, Oxford Street, I think it is, and go into Berwick Street—I saw Hollander standing on the footpath they went up to her, and I, standing close behind, heard her say in English, "Good evening, we have some silk here, can you do with it?"—Hollander said, "'What is it? How much do you want?" Joab said, "£4" Greenberg said, "You take it," and handed a parcel to Hollander, saying, "We will go up"—I followed Greenberg and Joab into 13. Berwick Street—Hollander came some time afterwards, went up to the first floor, and pulled a parcel from under her apron in the passage—she then went into the third room where Greenberg and Joab were.

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEN. I would not be certain that it was

Greenberg who said "We will go up"—there are a lot of stalls in the street I cannot say whether one of them belonged to Hollander.

Re-examined. I was looking very rough at the time—of course, all the officers scattered we did not remain in a bunch or a file.

BEXJAMIN LEESON (Sergeant H.) I was with the other officers on November. '3rd up to the time that Greenberg and Joab went into Berwick Street—there I saw Hollander standing—Greenberg and Joab went up to her, and I saw Greenberg hand her a large brown paper parcel, which she immediately wrapped up in her apron, she crossed the road into another street followed by Lee—I followed Greenberg and Joab who went into 13, Berwick Street—I was in the second room when Lee and Wensley went into the third room—I arrested Hollander, and on the way to the station in a cab she took hold of my hand and said. "Do not be too hard on me on account of my poor husband. I am obliged to do a little to keep us both going."

Cross-examined by MR. METHVEX. I think she has a perfect knowledge of English—I cannot say she was distressed at the time—at the police station she said nothing.

Joab, in her defence on oath, said that being a dressmaker she was asked by Greenberg to go with her and help her choose some silk that they went to Lewis's, where she bought four yards of silk which she paid for that she did not see what Greenberg was doing that in a "public house afterwards, whilst having a drink, Greenberg showed her a parcel of silk which she had taken from Lewies that she (Joab) wanted to take it back when they got to Queen's Road Tube Station, but Greenberg would not allow it that they went to Whiteley's, and that she did not see Greenberg steal anything there, neither did she see Greenberg make the parcel she (Joab) brought from the Tube station and the satin that Greenbeig had stolen from Whileley's into one parcel that they met Hollander in Berwick Street, but she (Joab) did not say"' We hare some silk. Can you do with it?" that they went to Is Berwick Street to see how Hollander's husband was that she had never known Hollander before, and did not know whether Greenberg had either: and that she did not know that Greenberg was trying to sell the stolen property to Hollander.

Hollander, in her defence on oath, said that she kept a stall in Berwick Street, where she sold velvet, lace, and other articles that Joab and Greenberg, whom she had known two years previously, came up to her and asked how her husband, who was ill, was that Greenberg handed her a parcel, asking her to carry it, saying that it was too heavy for her in her delicate condition that Joab did not say "We have got some silk here. Can you do with it?" that she did not say, "How much do you. want for it?" that Joab did not say" £4", that she (Hollander) did not know the parcel contained stolen property that she did not know why she put it under her apron that the reason for her endeavouring to leave the room on the officers" arrival was that she wanted to see how her stall was getting on, which she had left in charge of a boy.

GUILTY . JOAB then

PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at

this Court on April 18th, 1904. One previous conviction was proved against her. She was staled to he a notorious shoplifter.— Three years and six months' penal servitude. GREENBERG, who was stated to be a Continental shoplifter— Three years' penal servitude. HOLLANDER, who was stated to be a well-known receiver— Three years and six months' penal servitude.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, November 16th, 1904.

Before Mr. Justice Grantham.

Reference Number: t19041114-20

20. JOHN COLLINS (40) , Feloniously and maliciously casting upon Benjamin Deitz certain corrosive fluid, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. BURNIE Prosecuted.

BENJAMIN DEITZ . I live at 2. Burn Street, and am foreman at the Salvation Army Shelter in Burn Street—on Saturday, November 5th, about 6 p.m., the prisoner came in—he was disorderly—I cautioned him—he had a disturbance with an old man—I put him out, and ordered that he should not be let in in the future—I went out, and he followed me and said he would put my sight out—he would not go away—I went into Burn Street to see if I could see a policeman—I saw one, and told him there was a man who was using bad language and threatening me—he went into Lisson Street—I went to open the door to see if the policeman was there, and the prisoner tried to get in again—I put him out again—presently. I opened the door again to see if the policeman had come back—the prisoner was there, and he threw some liquid in my face and burned me very much—I saw that the prisoner had a bottle in his hand—the throwing was done two or three times—just after the prisoner had thrown the stuff at me the policeman came up—the prisoner was slightly under the influence of drink, but he knew what he was doing—I have been since then under the care of Mr. Lovell at the Western District Dispensary.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner.—We have never had a quarrel that I know of—I do not know that you had any cause to bear malice or ill will against me—you had plenty of chances to run away after you threw the stuff—you had not been drinking a great deal—you could walk as straight as me.

JOHN MEAD (23 D.R.). I was called to the Salvation Army Shelter about 6 p.m. on November 5th—it is near Lisson Grove—I saw the prisoner trying to push the door open to get into the shelter—just as I arrived, the door was opened and the prisoner walked away when he saw me—just afterwards the prosecutor came out and said "That man has thrown something over me," and gave him into custody—I went after him and arrested him—me said "I have thrown nothing in his face"—on the way to the station he took this bottle (Produced) from his pocket and dropped it as we walked along—it is not quite empty now—I picked it up—at the station he said "I am sorry it did not go in his eyes—he said he had been carrying it about for a constable who had taken him into custody a short time previous for begging—he

was charged by the inspector in the usual way—in reply he said, "I admit throwing it, but not with the intent"—he was slightly under the influence of drink, but he knew what he was doing.

Cross-examined. I do not know whether it was a lie that you told me about carrying it about for a constable.

WILLIAM LOVELL . I am house Surgeon at the Western General Dispensary, Marylebone Road—on November 5th about 6.15 p.m. I attended to the prosecutor—he was suffering from burno on his face, which I thought were produced by some corrosive acid—there were brown acid stains on the front of his coat and on his waistcoat, and yellow stains on both hands—when I first saw him I did not think the burns would be permanent, but now there is a considerable amount of fluffing, especially on the upper lip and nose—I think there will be some permanent mark on his nose—I have seen this bottle—it contains strong fuming nitric acid—the burns on the prisoner would be caused by an acid.

Cross-examined. I do not think the burns will prevent him from working—these marks sometimes become malignant—nothing serious is likely to follow. It is worse than being skin deep.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am very sorry it happened. I did not know the nature of the crime I was committing."

The Prisoner in his defence said that there was no ill will between him and the prosecutor: that what he did was not premeditated: that he was under the influence of liquor: that he had been drinking all day and scarcely remembered anything about it that it was done in the height of temper at his being turned out of the place: that he did not know what was in the bottle, as he had picked it up that day thinking it would be a handy bottle for putting smelling salts in.

GUILTY . Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19041114-21

21. ALBERT. JOHN MANSFIELD (35) , Carnally knowing Lilian Maud Lincoln, a girl under the age of 13 years.

MR. FORDHAM prosecuted MR. PURCELL defended.

He received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, November 16th, 1904.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19041114-22

22. JOHN EBENEZER BORLAND, Obtaining credit for £30 without, disclosing the fact that he was an un discharged bankrupt.

MR. PURCELL, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19041114-23

23. HARRY ABRAHAMS (31), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing two rings and 4s., the property of Jessie Jacklin, from her person also to having administered to Jessie Jacklin a noxious matter with intent to steal her goods and money also to having administered to Beatrice Burch a certain noxious matter with intent to steal her goods and money: also to stealing two rings, a bracelet, and 17s. in money, the property of Beatrice Burch, from her person: also to administering a certain noxious mutter to Hannah Isaacs with intent to steal her goods and money from her person: also to stealing two rings and 28. the property of Hannah Isaacs from her person, having been convicted of felony or Bow Street Police Court on December 28th, 1898. Two other convictions were proved against him. Five year's penal servitude, to run concurrently with a sentence already passed of five years' penal servitude at the Middlesex Sessions.—And

Reference Number: t19041114-23a

(23.) JAMES MAXWELL (60) to obtainning £1 0s. 6d. from Arthur Lacey and other sums from other persons by means of forged cheques. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] He received a good character. Six months' prisonment in the Second Division.

Reference Number: t19041114-24

24. JOHN ARCHIBALD EVANS , HARRY EVANS , and WILLIAM HEMMINGTON, Unlawfully throwing a milk churn upon the line of the Great Northern Railway and endangering the safety of persons being conveyed upon that line.

MR. PETER GRAIN Prosecuted. MR. LAWLESS Defended.

JOSEPH ROGERS . I live at 2, Pembroke Street, and am an engine driver on the Great Northern Railway—on October 19th I was driving the 5.53 p.m. passenger train from King's Cross to Enfield—the train runs from Wood Green to Enfield without a stop—there was a thick fog—passing under Compton Road Bridge my engine bumped against something heavy—the milk churn in Court would have produced the noise I heard—it might have derailed the engine, but the engine cut through it—we were going 40 to 45 miles an hour—I examined the engine at Enfield, and found no harm done—I gave information, and a wire was sent to Winchmore Hill.

Cross-examined. There is a cutting there—I have not noticed any scrub or waste ground.

CHARLES RANDALL . I am station master at Winchmore Hill—at 6.30 p.m. on October 19th, in consequence of information I received, I walked along the line because of the fog and examined the Compton Road Bridge—under the bridge I found the disused milk churn produced—I took it to the station—it was as it is now, in two portions—the buttress of the bridge was indented by the churn—small portions of solder were impressed into the brick work of the bridge—it is an over-head bridge—the gravel under the rails was. disturbed—it is a deep cutting for half a mile, and the station is in the cutting—I picked the churn up about two yards from the bridge—one sleeper was furred up, or broken on the edge it appeared like ironwork, but the churn was rusty—I cannot answer for the consequences if it had been in the four-foot way instead of outside the lines, as it possibly would have severed one of the valves of the engine, and disconnected the vacuum, and the train would have come to a stand still.

Cross-examined. I have walked over the bridge—the walls are about five feet high—on each side are banks with brushwood, trees and scrub, and there is a piece of waste ground near—it was too foggy to examine the line that night, but I did so in the morning.

Re-examined. The vacant ground is twenty or thirty yards wide—the bridge goes across the cutting—the line runs under the bridge—there is an up and a down line—it is obviously a railway bridge, and anyone can see that a line runs underneath.

DOROTHY LESLIE . I am ten years old—I live with my parents at Esther Cottage, Winchmore Hill—on October 19th I was near Compton Road Bridge with a little boy, Harry Townsend, after tea time, which is about 5 o'clock—it was too foggy to see any one on the bridge till I got there—I saw John and Harry Evans—Harry had a can on the wall and was holding it up—he dropped it over the wall—I went up the road—there was a truck which John Evans pushed—I know it is a railway bridge—I heard a train come by a few minutes later.

Cross-examined. I saw the can disappear—I heard the noise of it falling—this occurred at the end of the bridge, at the very corner, when I was standing at the corner.

HARRY WILLIAM TOWXSEND . I live at Hopner's Road, Winchmore Hill—on October 19th I was with Dorothy Leslie by the Compton Road Bridge between 6 and 6.10 p.m.—I saw William Hemmington and Archie and John Evans on the west side of the bridge—Harry was holding a can on the wall, and Archie had hold of a truck—I had seen the can and milk churn at the back of Evans' house the night before, when I went to take father's club money—I think they had been using it to put acorns in—Harry let the can fall over the bridge wall I was about two yards off—I said to Harry, "It might roll down the line"—he said it had gone behind the signal—I heard a train on the up side two or three seconds after the can had gone over—afterwards the boys walked up the road towards Winchmore Hill—they took their barrow with them—Hemmington was two or three yards away.

Cross-examined. This happened at the end of the bridge—banks slope down to the line—there are trees and brushwood on the top—the night was very foggy—I could not look over the parapet it is too high—I saw Harry let the can go over the bridge, but I cannot say whether it was an accident—we all went up the road together—I was friendly with the boys—I did not see Hemmington touch the can.

WILLIAM HARMAX (G.N.R. Detective). On October 20th I went to 6, Compton Terrace, Winchmore Hill, where the Evanses lived, and saw the prisoners—Hemmington lives nearly opposite—I told them I was a police officer, and cautioned them—I told them what I was going to charge them with Archibald said. "Yes, we dropped it on the bank Hemmington suggested that we should drop it there I intended to take it. back to where we got it from my brother Harry dropped it over." Hemmington said, "I was there, but did not drop it over"—the line is in a cutting, with a bank on each side and a fence—there is no waste land on the railway—the bridge is over the cutting—a can falling over "the corner of the bridge would probably roll down the bank.

Cross-examined. I examined the spot—the can might have gone straight on the line.

HARRY CAMEROX G.N.R. Detective). On October 20th I went to 6, Compton Terrace, Winchmore Hill, with Harman, and heard what was said.

GEORGE FOSTER (Policeman Y.) I am stationed at Southgate—I went to Compton Road on October 20th and saw Harry Evans—I cautioned him

and then told him I should arrest him for being concerned with William Hommington and John Evans in throwing a milk churn on the railway—he said, "I did not throw it over, I only put it on the bridge"—the prisoners were taken to the station—they made no reply to the charge.

The prisoners' statements before the magistrates: Archibald said, "I am not guilty of throwing the can." Harry said. "I am very sorry, but we had no intention of throwing it on the line." Hemmington said, "I was guilty that I was there, but I did not put my hand on the churn: I was speaking to Harry Townsend at the time it was done."

NOT GUILTY . The Jury thought the boys should be very severely censured.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday and Friday, November 16th and 18th, 1904.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19041114-25

25. FREDERICK VICTOR BALL (21) , Feloniously wounding Lillie Bruce with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. HENDERSON Prosecuted MR. BURNTE Defended.

The prisoner stated that he was guilty of unlawful wounding, and the Jury found that verdict. Three months in the Second Division.

Reference Number: t19041114-26

26. HARRY BENSLEY (29) (seepage 15) Feloniously marrying Lilian Clapham, his wife Kate being alive.

MR. MATHEWS and MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.

LILY MOBSBY . I am the wife of Amos George Mobsby, and live at 206, Albert Road, Addiscombe, Surrey—my maiden name was Lily Elma—I formerly lived at Thetford—while there I knew a Kate Green who is now in Court—I also knew the prisoner there as Harry Bensley—on August 6th, 1898, I was present at the Registry Office at Thetford when the prisoner and Kate Green were married—this is the certificate of the marriage, and I am mentioned as one of the witnesses—Edgar Elma. another witness, is my stepbrother—they remained in Thetford after their marriage—I cannot say for how long—I wrote to them.

ROSE SMITH . I am the wife of Thomas Albert Smith, of 65, Sandown Road, South Norwood—in February, 1901, I was living in Cobden Road—the prisoner and his wife came there to lodge with me—they lived together as man and wife there—they had two children—they moved to 34 Woodside, Anerley, and afterwards to 3, Anthony Road, South Norwood—they lived there for some time with their two children—in July, 1902, Mrs. Bensley came back to live with me, bringing her children with her, but without her husband—she remained until October, 1903—after October, 1903, I did not see her again—in December, 1902, I received this letter at 65, Sandown Road, addressed' Mrs. K. Benaley, 65, Sandown Road, South Norwood or Croydon. Or if not, then to occupier" I opened and read it it says, "Dear Madam,—Would you kindly write to Mrs. Henri Moncrieff to the address enclosed, as you might hear of something to your advantage also send your address, and if your name

was Kate Green: also if you was in an Orphanage at Ipswich if you have any children, their names and age'. Will you kindly answer this by return, as Mrs. Henrt Moncrieff is only making a short stay, and oblige yours truly, Mrs. Henrt Moncrieff. To Mrs. Bensley"—in January, 1904, I had a visit from the prisoner at (53, Sandown Road—he asked me if Mrs. Bensley was there, and I said no—he asked me if I knew where she was I said no—he said he had heard that his wife was expecting another child, and that he wanted to find his children—I told him of this letter from Mrs. Moncrieff, and that I had not answered it—he said I ought to have done so, and I should have been well paid for all my trouble—he did not say who she was—he then went away.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. Your wife left my house in October, 1903, to go to the infirmary.

LILIAN CLAPHAM . I am now living at 1, Hammerfield Place, Bexley Heath, and am a dressmaker—in June, 1902, I was a barmaid at Norwood, and made the prisoner's acquaintance—he was then a carman—a little while afterwards I began to walk out with him—he told me his name was Harry Burrell, son of Robert Burrell, who was connected with an engineering firm at Thetford, in Norfolk—he told me he was coming into a fortune in three years' time from his godmother, and he also had money at that time—he said the fortune consisted of a large estate situate between Suffolk and Norfolk, called "Eriswell Court," and that the trustees were Mr. Lindon and Mr. Howchen—we wrote to each other—about three weeks after the acquaintance began he proposed to me to marry him, and I accepted—he then said he thought my situation was not a fit place for me to be in—he proposed that I should go home, and then go to his sister till the marriage—he gave his sister's name as Lily Burrell, and said she lived at St. John's Wood—I agreed to his suggestions, and left my situation—I did not go home, but went to some rooms in Norwood taken by him—he said I was to stay there till his sister returned from a journey abroad—he used to visit me whilst there in the daytime but not at night—whilst there I made efforts to get another situation—I gave the prisoner the letters to post—I never got any replies—I stayed at the rooms till my money was exhausted—I was led to believe by the prisoner that my parents would not receive me at home so that I could not go there—I wrote to my parents and gave the letter to the prisoner to post, but I had no reply—I believed everything he told me—I left Norwood and went to 9, Homewood Terrace, Mitcham—the prisoner took the rooms—that was, I think, in August 1902—at Mitcham I lived there with him as his wife—he had no employment at that time—I Had jewellery and clothes, and part were sold to pay the rent—I left Mitcham and went to the Church Army in Edgware Road. London, and found employment with a dressmaker at 14s. a week—the prisoner did a little work occasionally—between us we paid the expenses of living—early in 1903 I found myself pregnant—the prisoner and I arranged to get married as soon as we had the means—he got some employment as a keeper at an Asylum at St. Albans in January. 1903)—on February 5th, 190-5, I was

married to him at the Registry Office at Marylebone—this is the certificate—he went in the name of Burrell, and I believed that that was his real name, and that he was a bachelor—I lived at the Church Army with a nurse after the marriage for a short time—I had a child, born on April 24th, 1903, which is still living—I afterwards went back to live with the prisoner up to December 1903—this letter of December 19th, 1902, is in my writing—I was then living at St. Albans—the letter was written to find the prisoner's wife—I cannot tell how my suspicions were aroused, but I suspected him—I found in his luggage a certificate of marriage—I spoke to him about it, and asked him if it was true—he denied at first that he was a married man, but at last he confessed to it, telling me that it was not a legal marriage, the reason being that it was so quiet an affair that nobody knew anything about it, that it was only a form of marriage, that he had bribed the registry people, and that it was not his right name—the name on the certificate that I found was 'Harry Bensley"—he then suggested I should write the letter in the name of Mrs. Henri Moncrieff, which I did at his dictation—I got no reply to it—I continued to live with him till his arrest—we went from St. Albans to Cape Town, where he was arrested.

Cross-examined. I received one answer to my applications for situa-tions, but I posted that letter-myself—I remember going to the Queen Charlotte Hospital the first time, when they told me to bring my marriage certificate—that was, I suppose, the real reason you married me—the marriage took place shortly after I went to the hospital for the first time—you told me several times that you would commit suicide, and on one occasion you took a bottle of landanum, or were supposed to have done so, and that made me give you mustard and water to cure it, I suppose—that was when any unpleasantness arose—I first saw the certificate of your first marriage after I lived with you as your wife—I did not see it at Norwood—you wanted me to pass it off as our marriage certificate, only the name went against it—you showed me letters supposed to be from lawyers, talking of settlements.

The 'prisoner called:

GEORGE COLE (Detective Sergeant H.) I have been to see a Mr. Burton and warned him to be here—he showed me a letter that he had received from you, asking him to give evidence to the effect that he went, with you to where your first wife had been living, and that when you got there you found that the home had been sold up—I have made inquiries and find that your first wife, you having left her, heard something about the second wife, and sold the home to provide herself with means of living.

The prisoner in his defence stated that his first wife deserted him, sold up the home, and disappeared with the children that he tried in vain to find her and the children that he met Miss Clapham and fell in love with her at first sight that he walked out with her, when they met her father, who created a scene that in consequence Miss Clapham said she would never (go home again, and asked him to find her somewhere to go and that as

he could not find his first wife, he did not think he was doing wrong in marrying Miss Clapham.

GUILTY . Two convictions were proved against him. Four years' penal servitude on each indictment, to run concurrently.

Reference Number: t19041114-27

27. CESARE BAUER (50) , Having been entrusted with four desks and an armchair, the property of Amadeo Meroni and Rodolpho Fassati in order that he might retain the same in safe custody, did unlawfully and frandulently convert the same to his own use and benefit. Other counts, Unlawfully converting other property belonging to the same people.

MR. BODKIN and MR. BRUCE Prosecuted.

GUISEPPE MERONI . I am now living at 12, Greek Street, Soho—when at home I live at Lissone, near Milan, Italy—I am a clerk to Amadeo Meroni and Rodolpho Fassati, furniture makers at Lissone—the prisoner was a representative in England of the firm, and had been since 1899—he obtained orders in England which were sent to Milan, and the goods were sent from there to England—there was an agreement in writing between him and the firm—on May 23rd, 1903, this new agreement was entered into—our firm took a warehouse at 10, Elm Road, London, N.W., as show rooms, keeping there at first furniture worth about £150—all our furniture has distinctive marks on it—in addition we have a trade list which gives the number of the class of furniture—the furniture was sent to the prisoner with deposit notes—the numbers of the furniture would appear on the note, and would be entered in books kept at Milan—sometimes customers in England would refuse to take furniture, and it was then returned to the London warehouse—I came to London in July this year and saw a book kept by the prisoner—I found about £64 of furniture in the London warehouse, leaving about £850 worth unaccounted for—I spoke to the prisoner about it—ho said at first that the bulk of the missing furniture was pawned by his son, and that he would pay for it by instalments of £13 a month—I took away the £64 worth—he said he would give me £13 worth of his own furniture, which I agreed to—the agreement was in writing I signed it—he asked me why I did not sign the name of the firm, and I replied I had no authority to do so and he asked me was I sure that my employers would accept it I said I thought so—I had authority before I left Italy to come to such an arrangement—before I came to England I had no knowledge that any of our goods had been pledged—the prisoner had no authority to pledge goods—I went to pawnbrokers in London, amongst others Mr. John Cordell, Bury Street, Oxford Street, and there saw four desks, valued at £6 10s. each—they were ours—I also saw there some chairs of ours—I went to Messrs. H. Rowley, pawnbrokers, High Street, Camden Town, and saw there two desks and other articles of ours—I went to Messrs. Thompson, Kentish Town Road, pawnbrokers, and saw articles of ours and many other pawnbrokers—I identified what I saw as ours.

Cross-examined by the prisoner (Interpreted). The price of table No.

618B is £20—I had not spoken to that—the price of No.442 is £2—I am not a member of the firm I have no responsibility—I learnt the names and addresses of the pawnbrokers from you—you told me it would have been better if I had come some time before I do not know why—I did not tell you to get rid of the property at a sacrifice—you were never authorised to collect money.

JOHN GIBBONS . I live at 17, Murray Street, Camden Square, and am an assistant fitter of machinery—I have moved furniture for the prisoner—he gave me a description of what to take, which I did, by horse and van, to pawnbrokers and auctioneers—I remember going to various pawnbrokers and auctioneers Thompson Gill Crick Rowley Attenborough, Jays, and Cordell and other auction rooms with furniture—I pawned most of the goods in the prisoner's name, but I remember in the Hampstead Road I gave the name of "J. Gibbons for C. Bauer"—I do not remember that I have given any other names—I gave the tickets and the money to the prisoner—I remember taking three vanloads to Mr. Thempson, Kentish Town Road—that was furniture from the prisoner's warehouse—he wanted £150 lent on it, but the amount dropped down to £32 or £-33.

Cross-examined. I have not been on many occasions to my knowledge to renew pawntickets for you—the articles I took to Holloway road were bedsteads, new ones.

The Prisoner was here defended by MR. DUNBAR.

GEORGE GIBBONS . I live at 17, Murray Street, Camden Square, with my brother—I have known the prisoner for about two years—I am a furniture remover—I have done work for him for about a year and eleven months—it consisted of taking furniture by his orders to customers, pawnshops, and auctioneers from 10, Elm Road—sometimes the prisoner was with me, sometimes not—some goods were pawned in my name—on some occasions I received the money and the tickets for them and handed it to the prisoner—some of the names I remember going to are, Mr. Attenborough Mr. Gill Mr. Arnold of Kentish Town Road, Mr. Thompson Mr. Alworthy Mr. Rowley and Mr. 'Cordell—I remember also going to auctioneers, for instance, Knight, Frank & Rutley Tooth and Tooth Bonham and Phillips, Son & Neale—I was paid by the prisoner for the work I did.

Cross-examined. I cannot say how many times I went to auctioneers—it may be three or four times—there was no secrecy about the matter, I got the goods quite openly from the prisoner—I went by his orders—as far as I know he carried on business at 10, Elm Road, and had no other place of business—the prisoner made out that the goods belonged to him—he said he had got his governor in Italy—I understood he had an entirely free hand to dispose of them.

Re-examined. I am a furniture remover—the prisoner told me that he had a governor in Italy, and sometimes he said he was the governor—I saw Mr. Meroni last July, never before.

PERCY ARNOLD . I am a clerk to Messrs. Knight, Frank & Rutley,

auctioneers, of Conduit Street—on February 24th. 1904, there was a sale of furniture by my firm—it included unredeemed pledges received from Mr. Attcnborough, of Charlotte Street, pawnbroker—some of them were sold to a Mr. Macmichael, of 48, Duke's Avenue, Chiswick—they included an inlaid Moorish cabinet, two carved chairs and a small Chippendale chair frame—an inlaid Italian chair was sold to Mr. D'Almaine, of High Street, Stratford—Dr. Godson, of 82, Brook Street, bought a variety of things, including a Dutch commode—Mr. Hyams, of Rupert Street, bought a carved settee frame, two carved easy-chair frames, and four other chair frames.

By the Prisoner. The two carved chairs fetched £1 17s. 6d.

WILLIAM ALLWELL . I am a pawnbroker's assistant to Mr. Cordell, of Berwick Street, Soho—I know the prisoner—I advanced him £8 on August 29th, 1903 on four bureaux and a chair—he handed to me at the time this card: "C. Bauer, 10, Elm Road, Camden Town, London, N.W."—Mr. Meroni called and identified the furniture.

Cross-examined. I had never seen the prisoner before August 29th.

WILLIAM HENRY ROWLEY . I am a pawnbroker at 204, High Street. Camden Town—I know the prisoner as a furniture manufacturer and importer—he never told rue he was an agent for other people—I have taken furniture in pawn from him—the first time was September 8th, 1903, when I advanced him £7 10s. on six chairs, a cabinet, two tables, and three pedestals—I have still got them—Mr. Meroni has identified the cabinet, chairs, and pedestals, but not the tables—on October 1st, 1903, I advanced £12 on two bureaux, a carved table, and a shell chair—I have still got them—Mr. Meroni has identified them—the same day I advanced £6 to the prisoner on a hall stand, a bench, and a writing table—Mr. Meroni has identified them—on October I advanced the prisoner £17 on an inlaid secxetaire and a roll top desk—Mr. Meroni saw them in my possession, but identified only the secretaire—on November 6th I advanced £7 to the prisoner on two bureaux and two stands-Mr. Meroni identified them—on November 9th I advanced the prisoner £10 2s. on an inlaid chest and a settee frame—Mr. Meroni only identified the latter—in addition to the prisoner I remember George Gibbons coming with furniture, which was pawned by "Geo. W. Gibbons for Mr. Bauer"—the money was given to him for the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I took the prisoner to be the owner of the goods, and that he did not wish to send them back to where they came from—I do not know how Mr. Meroni found me out.

LIONEL MILLS . I am a pawnbroker's assistant to Mr. E. S. Attenborough, of Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square—the prisoner has pledged furniture at our place on various occasions—I have a very long list of articles here—four chairs in it were sold to Messrs. Knight, Frank & Rutley as unredeemed pledges.

ARTHUR RICH . I am manager to Mr. R. P. Attcnborough, 62, Shaftes bury Avenue, money broker—I know the prisoner as a dealer in and manufacturer of furniture at 10, Elm Road, Cainden Town—I never heard

of his being an agent to Messrs. Meroni & Fassati—on July 24th. 1903, I advanced him £18 on an inlaid bookcase, 'writing desk and chairs—there was a renewal of that in October. 1903—the goods were never redeemed—they were sent to Messrs. Knight, Frank & Rutley, and sold on May 20th. 1904—the proceeds were handed to me.

Cross-examined. I had known the prisoner for about three years—I asked him if the goods were his own—I asked him for his receipts, but being a manufacturer he had none.

WILLIAM ALFRED BUSSELL . I am a pawnbroker's assistant at 15, Hampstead Road—on March 22nd, 1904, the prisoner pawned ten chairs with us—they were afterwards identified by Mr. Meroni—on December 5th, 1903, the prisoner pawned a bureau and four chairs for £4 10s.

PERCY CRICK . I am a pawnbroker at Kentish Town Road—the prisoner on June 23rd, 1904, pawned four cabinets, four tables, two chairs, one being a Moorish chair, and two stools for £20—Mr. Meroni only identified the Moorish chair amongst them.

LESLIE ARNOLD . I am an assistant to George Arnold, pawnbroker, 213, Kentish Town Road—on June 30th. 1904, the prisoner pledged two cabinets with us for £5 10s.—Mr. Meroni identified one of them.

Cross-examined. I do not know who gave Mr. Meroni information about the goods.

RICHARD NEEDHAM . I am an assistant to George Walter Thompson, pawnbroker, of 234. Kentish Town Road—on May 20th, 1904, the prisoner pledged with us a wardrobe, a cabinet, three stools, two plain tables, an inlaid table, and other articles for £16—Mr. Meroni came and identified the cabinet, three stools, two plain tables, and a desk chair—on March 12th. 1904, we advanced £32 10s. to the prisoner on furniture—they were redeemed—there ware also other things which were redeemed.

DAVID LIDDLE (Sergeant Y). At 9.30 on September 15th I saw the prisoner at Tottenham Court Road Police Station, where he was detained—I asked him if his name was Cesare Bauer, and his address 10, Elm Road—he said, "Yes"—I told him I was a police officer and read the warrant to him—he replied, "Me knows nothing"—when charged he said, "No."

GEORGE BREWER (Constable Y). On September 19th and 20th I went to 10, Elm Road and took possession of books and papers there—these—. auctioneers' catalogues of Messrs. Knight, Frank & Rutley were amongst them—I found no pawn tickets—during the remand the prisoner was allowed to look at any papers he wished.

GUILTY . The police stated that they had received information from the Continental Police that he bore a bad character there, and that there were several convictions against him abroad. Twelve months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-28

28. JOHN ALBERT KUPPERS , unlawfully and frandulently obtaining £25 from Maria Dorothea Frederica Reher. Two other Counts Incurring a debt and liability to her, thereby obtaining from her credit by false pretences, and by means of fraud other than false pretences.

MR. ABINGER Prosecuted: MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS and MR. BOYD Defended.

MR. ABINGER applied that the last three counts in the indictment should be struck out on the ground that although the Magistrate did not dismiss them, he did no! commit except upon one count, and that they were therefore bad, and cited Reg. v. Fuidge (33 Law Journal, N.S.). MR. HUMPHREYS said he had no objection to their being struck out, but applied that the whole indictment should be quashed on the ground that where a Magistrate has not committed on charges before him, these charges cannot form, the subject of a separate indictment and so cannot be added to any charge upon which the Magistrate had committed: also that the whole of the indictment went before the Grand Jury when it ought not to have done. He cited Reg. v. Aylmer Central Criminal Court Sessions Papers, 1891, Vol. 113. p. 337. The Common Serjeant refused to quash the whole indictment but quashed the last three counts.

MARIA DOROTHEA FREDERICA REHER . I am a cook-housekeeper in a situation at Belsize Park—lam a single woman—in March, 1901, I was a out of a situation and saw an advertisement in a German newspaper—I answered it and received this letter, dated March 4th, 1901—I replied to it and received a further letter—they were both signed "A. Luders"—the lust one made an appointment—I kept it and met the prisoner—ho told me his real name was Dumont—that he would like to get acquainted with a German lady and get married and live in his own home, and that he had a large business at Gresham Street, City, which was worth £1,000—he said he was a bachelor—he asked me about my position and asked me if I had saved any money—I said, "Yes, I have been cook-house—keeper for many years, and I have saved so much money, about £159"—I told him that I wanted to give up service and take a boarding, house—he said that would be very nice, and that he was a steady business man—he asked me where my money was, and I said I had £100 in Hamburg and some in the post office in London—he said it was very wrong to have my money in Germany, and advised me to write at once and get it as soon as possible as it was no use looking for a boarding house till I had the money—we went and had some tea, and on the way passed his business place—he pointed out that he had only the name of "Albert" up, as English people do not care to go to foreign names—it was the top floor of the house—I wrote the same evening to Germany for my money—before it arrived he said to me, "I am not able to pay my men, I must have some money, let me have some of your money"—I said, "No, I cannot give you any money. I want it for my boarding-house"—he pressed me several times—on, I think, March 19th, 1901, I drew out of the post office £12, and on the 25th £20, and I gave him £26—he said he wanted me to take a situation for two or three months, and then to be married—when my money arrived from Germany I gave him £50—I think that was on April 16th—he next told me, "Well, I know a customer of mine who comes every day to

my business, and he has. some stamps to sell, about 7,000, and he wants only £25 for them, but they are worth much more than that"—he asked me if I knew the value of stamps—I said I knew nothing about them—he said, "I do not want to buy stamps you know we want the money for our house, but we want to make some money when we sell them we can get £50 do give me the money when your money comes from Germany we will get a large sum and there will be plenty for the house"-shortly after, I went to see him—he said, "I wanted to write you about these stumps I am glad you have come do please me and let me have the money for them"—"Well," I said, ". do you understand stamps do you know the value of the stamps?"—he said, "Do you think I am a fool, and buy stamps and do not know the value? I have known stamps for many years, I know the value of them I should not think of buying stamps not knowing the value of them"—he told me he had looked every one through—he said they were very valuable, and worth more than £50, so I agreed to give him the money for them—I truly believed every word he said—an appointment was made—this was in May—I went to the Gresham Street shop about S.30 p.m.—the prisoner was there—he said, "We expect the gentleman with the stamps"—we waited—instead of a gentleman a woman came in—she said, "Good evening you are Mr. Dumont?"—lie said, "Yes"—she said, "My husband cannot come and bring the stamps"—they appeared 'to me to know one another—she produced the stamps and he counted them over in bundles—she said to me. "These stamps are worth much more we should like to take them back when we have got the money to spare"—the prisoner heard her say that—I had given the prisoner the money before the woman came in—he handed it to her—she then went away with the money—I said to the prisoner, "You had better take the stamps home"—he said. "I have not a proper place to put them in keep them for me, put them in your box and lock them up don't show them to anybody"—he did not say why I was not to show them to anybody—these are the stamps—some are. tied up in little packets, with "100" marked on them, written by the prisoner—he had more money from me till I had nothing left—he then advised me to go for six months in a situation, and wanted to marry me in—the spring—I took another situation near Reading, as cook-housekeeper—in September the prisoner called upon me while I was at Reading—I returned from—. there the end of March, 1902—he asked me to meet him at his business place—I did so—he told me that he had lost his business and he was penniless, so that he was not able to marry then, and I was to wait another two years—I did not then know that he had been married in November—when "I saw him in September he did not tell me that he was going to be married in November—I asked him for his address, and he said he only lived in apartments and could not give me his address—I found it out 100, Priory Park Road, Kilburn, and went there, I think, in June. 1902—a woman opened the door—she was the same woman who had brought the stamps into the shop in Gresham Street—I instructed a

solicitor and commenced an action—I never recovered any of the £126—I did not sue him for the return of the stamp money—I went to the police about 12 or 14 months ago.

Cross-examined. I never knew the prisoner under any other name than Dumont—I understood he was short of money at the time I handed over the first £26, but I did not lend the money I gave it to him—I expected him to marry me and I should then have it back, as we should both have it—he had the next £50 because he was again hard up, he had not received some money that he expected—he said we had our money together, mine was his and his was mine—that was why I gave him my money—he wanted to buy the stamps with our money and to sell them at a double price—I brought an action against him for the £126, and recovered judgment—my solicitors put in an execution, but I did not tell them to do so—a lady then came forward as his wife, 'and said the furniture belonged to her—I then had other solicitors and we fought the question, and it was decided that the furniture did belong to her—I asked my solicitor to sue him for the stamp money, but he refused to do so—I then went to another solicitor and told him about the stamps and asked him to go to the police, but he refused—I then went to another solicitor who took the matter up—this was some months ago—when I first went to the police I had not a solicitor—I saw Detective Inspector Phillips and told him my story, but he did not see the stamps—I cannot remember exactly what I said to him.

FREDERICK MONTAGUE BANNISTER . I am a postage stamp dealer at 30. Copthall Avenue, and have had 20 to 25 years' experience—I have examined these stamps now before me twice—as near as I can judge from the appearance, not having opened all the bundles, I should say they were worth about 9d. or 110d.—they consist chiefly of different issues of English postage stamps—these stamps are worth £2 to £2 10s. a million—I should like to add, that in opening a bundle like this it is not impossible to find a stamp worth a sovereign.

Cross-examined. I have not looked at every stamp—I have turned them out of the box and opened about eight or ten bundles—each bundle is supposed to contain 100 stamps—I have not counted them—I should say there are 4,000 to 5,000, roughly speaking.

Re-examined. It was not put to me before that a single stamp was of any value.

WILLIAM GROOM . I was present at the Parish Church, St. Mary's, Standen, Herts, at a marriage on November 11th, 1901, of the prisoner of my daughter. Francis Louisa Groom—he was married in the name of Kiippers.

WILLIAM GEORGE REED . I was a clerk in the Superintendent Registrar's Office at 61, Bartholomew Close, in 1893—this is a certificate of a marriage solemnised on February 11th, 1893, between Albert Johann Kiippers and Emily Privat, at the Registrar's Office, London, City District.

Cross-examined. There arc not a great many couples married in the

course of a day. I cannot as a witness charge my memory with knowing the prisoner as the man who was married.

EMMIE MELSHER . I am a widow living at 302, Gray's Inn Road, and am a dressmaker—I knew the prisoner about five years ago—in December, 1900, he proposed marriage to me—I gave him some money—in February, 1901 was still engaged to him—he showed me some stamps—this is the same box and the same stamps, tied up in hundreds with his writing on—he said that he had a friend who was short of money and had some valuable stamps—he said he had no money to give his friend and asked me if I knew the value of stamps—I said, "No, I do not know anything about them"—he said he had got some stamps and wanted £25 for them and asked me if I wanted to give him £25 for them—I said, "No, I cannot give it to you"—I then said, "Do you know anything of stamps?"—he said, "Yes, I made a lot of money with stamps years ago"—he then showed me the stamps—they were packed up like this—I did not buy them—he had some money before that from me, and I wanted him to return it, but I could not get it, so I was suspicious and would not give him any more—I never got a farthing.

Cross-examined. I do not understand you when you ask me have I prosecuted the prisoner for attempting to obtain money by false pretences—I cannot speak much English—I have not been to a Magistrate—the prisoner was not sent to prison.

JOHN COLLTSSON (Detective Sergeant, City). I received a warrant at the Guildhall—on October 1st, in company with Detective Owen, I went to 31, Talmud Road, Brixton, where I found the' prisoner—I told him I was a police officer—I read the warrant to him: he said, "This is cruel, I did not obtain the money by false-pretences, it was lent to me by her"—he further said, "She has sued me in a Civil Court, and I was ordered by the Judge to pay £3 per month I have paid her some £28 then I fell out of work, and could not keep up the payments I then started business again, and she had the brokers put in, and seized my goods now she is having me arrested as a felon it has cost me some £60 to defend actions which she has brought against me."

Cross-examined. I said at the police court that he stated in addition to what I have said, "Had the Magistrate known these facts he would never have granted the warrant"—of the four charges in the warrant three of them were dismissed., and he was not committed for trial on these—I believe Miss Reher went to the Guildhall Police Court, where her statement was taken from her, and I believe one of the Court officials called for an officer from Old Jewry to make certain inquiries, and that they were made by Detective Phillips—nothing was done on that.

GUILTY . Four months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-29

29. JOHN MARTIN (42) , Breaking and entering the warehouse of Julius Schnurmann, and stealing therein 5 cwts. of gunmetal fittings and 12 cwts. of brass wire netting.

MR. THERNE Prosecuted and MR. PURCELL Defended.

JULIUS SCHNURMANN . I live at Hampstead, and have my business promises at 27 and 29.), Downham Road, Kingsland—on Tuesday. September 6th, I went to the premises—I found some tiles had been removed in the roof and that 5 cwts. of gunmetal castings and 11 cwts. of brass gauze were missing from a lift immediately under the roof—the goods were worth from £25 to £30—I was subsequently taken to the premises of a Mr. Austin and identified my property there.

JULIA MARY DELANEY . I am the wife of Henry Joseph Delaney, a metal dealer, and live at 123, Graham Street, City Road—my husband stands committed for trial on a charge of receiving stolen property—on Monday, September 5th, I saw the prisoner between 10 and 11 a.m.—he had another man with him—there was a horse and van as well—he asked me if my husband was in as he had some old stuff he wished to sell—I told him he was out—he asked the other man what he was going to do about it and he said he would leave the stuff—I told him to put it in the back yard—the prisoner came again about 1 p.m. and did business with my husband—he came again the same day at 5 p.m. with the other man, when my husband paid them the money for the goods—I did not see the money paid, but I took a pen and" ink into the room to make out a receipt.

Cross-examined. I had seen the prisoner before September 5th—my husband told me then that he had done business with him before—the prisoner had the same man with him each time he came on the 5th—I now know he was a Mr. Nicholson—the money was paid to Nicholson—I did not hear the prisoner say he was bringing my husband a customer.

MARY EDRIXGTOX . I am a single woman and live at 17, New Compton Street. Soho Square—I am the last witness' sister—on September 5th I opened the door of Delaney's house to the prisoner—he asked if Delaney was in—I said no, he would be in at dinner time—there was another man with him.

HENRY JOSEPH DELAXEY . I am a metal dealer, and live at 121 to 123, Graham Street, City Road—I am now awaiting my trial for receiving this metal—on September 5th the prisoner came with another man who gave the name of H. Nicholson—the prisoner said, "We have got some stuff for you"—I said, "I suppose that is the stuff in the yard?"—I glanced at it and offered them 20s. per cwt. for the gauze and 40s. a. cwt. for the guninutal—I think Nicholson said, "Oh, we got 29s. for the last gauze wire," so I said "Well, I am rather in doubt about this gauze wire myself. I cannot offer you 29s., you had better take it where you got the 29s. before"—I meant I had never dealt in this kind of goods before, and was in doubt as to its value—after bargaining I agreed to 22s. a cwt. for the wire and 40s. for the gunmetal—I had not enough money to pay then, and asked them to come back later—in the meantime I took the stuff to Mr. Austin and sold it to him, and there it was found.

Cross-examined. I understood the man selling the stuff was Nicholson, and that he had been brought to me by the prisoner, who I had known before—the deal took plan? between Nicholson and me, and Nicholson

had something on account, and the balance later on—the total amount I paid was £21 4s. 10d.—I sold it at a little better price.

Re-examined. I had never known Nicholson before—I had no subsequent dealings with him—the address he gave me was 18, Maria Street, but it was inaccurate—I paid him in gold.

WILLIAM SMITH (Detective Sergeant J.) On September 6th, at 2.20, I arrested the prisoner at Warburton Place, Mare Street, Hackney—I said to him, "I think your name is John Martin?"—he said, "That is it, sometimes"—I said I should take him on this charge—he said "Be careful what you say"—I took him to the station where he was identified by Delaney from among nine others—he was charged and made no reply.

Cross-examined. I know nothing against the prisoner—he has been on bail pending this charge—he has done a lot of work for large builders.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am a respectable man."

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was a demolisher of buildings by trade, and had been his men master for twenty years that this was the first charge ever brought against him that he met Nicholson while buying timber, who asked him to direct him to a metal dealer that he look him to. Delaney as he knew him that he had a few shillings for his trouble, but that he did not know where—the things came from.

NOT GUILTY .

THIRD COURT.—Saturday, November 19th, 1904.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19041114-30

30. HENRY JOSEPH DELANEY, Feloniously stealing and receiving 3 cwts. of type, the goods of the Lanston Monotype Corporation, Limited.

MR. GANZ Prosecuted MR. DODD Defended.

CHARLES HENRY PRITCHARD . I am superintending engineer to the Lanston Monotype Corporation, Ltd., of 43, Fetter Lane—this type now produced is the company's property—we have a nick at the side of it—we do not sell it—it is produced in testing our machines before they are sold—it consists of lead, antimony, and tin—after being made in our machines it is sent to the smelters to smelt into ingots—we weigh it before it goes out—when it comes back it is weighed again—we sell the machines that make this type—we have sold metal in ingots—some years ago we sold small quantities of type to accommodate customers—we do not make a practice of doing so—this type in question was produced during August.

Cross-examined. We do not print—our machines produce type from molten metal, sets it up, and composes it ready for printing—about the time in question our premises were undergoing alterations—I do not know that anything except this type and a bicycle were stolen—it is impossible to say—the premise', were quite open—we generally send away not less than a ton—on August 19th we sent to Messrs. Ashby 31 cwts. I qr. of a similar sort of metal, before this was found on the

prisoner's premises—I am quite unable to say whether this was taken from our premises or sold by the people to whom we sent it.

Re-examined. It, was sent to be melted down—it is difficult to say whether the particular metal was sent back—I do not know that we have received back one ton and a half we sent to be smelted.

ALEXANDER MACKENZIE (Police Sergeant.) On September 8th, about 6 p.m., I went to 123, Graham Street, City Road, the prisoner's address—I saw there four bags of type—this is one of them—I told the prisoner I was going to take possession of it—I said, "I have every reason to believe they have been stolen"—in answer to the charge he said, "I shall say nothing without my solicitor"—I was present at the North London Police Court when the prisoner was charged with receiving—he said in answer, intermixed with the other charges, several things.

Cross-examined. I do not want to bring out that there was another charge against him.

NOT GUILTY . (See next case.)

Reference Number: t19041114-31

31. HENRY JOSEPH DELANEY , was again indicted for break-ing and entering the warehouse of Julius Schnurmann, and stealing and receiving twelve cwts. of wire netting and a quantity of gun metal fittings.

MR. GANZ for the 'prosecution offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, November 16th, 1904.

Before Lumlcy Smith, Esq., K.C.

Reference Number: t19041114-32

32. BENJAMIN ROBERT ELDRIDGE (30) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Annie Ryan, his wife being alive. Discharged on recognisances.

Reference Number: t19041114-33

33. THOMAS HAROLD. JOHN MIDDLEDITCH (21), and DONALD ALBERT MIDDLEDITCH .Feloniously stealing 120lbs. of metal plates, the property of John Leigh Nisson.

JOHN MIDDLE DITCH PLEADED GUILTY ."

MR. J. R. DAVIES Prosecuted.

No evidence was ofcred against DONALD ALBERT MIDDLEDITCH.

JAMES SMITH (Sergeant X.) About 8 a.m., on October 10th, I was in Essex Road, Islington. with Hall, when I saw Harold and Donald Albert Middleditch pushing a barrow containing a quantity of copper plates—these are a few of them (Produced)—they are used for printing cheques. and some bear the name of Nisson & Company. Fcnchureh Street, and from others the name has been stamped out they were all bent double—Harold, on reaching the shop of Miles, a marine store dealer, took the sack. in which the metal was contained, from the barrow, took it into the shop. and put it on the weighing machine—he then came out and they both hurriedly went away with the barrow—it seemed to me suspicious, so I went and spoke to the shopkeeper, and from what he told me I and the other officer continued watching the shop—just before 9 a.m.

Harold came back alone with some more metal, and went into the shop—I went in, and asked him what he had got there, and he said it was some old copper, and he was selling it for a man named John Middle-ditch—I told him I was not satisfied with that answer, and after making certain inquiries I took him to the police station—I then went to 36, Mortimer Road, Hagerston, where I saw the two Middleditches.

By the COURT. I cannot account for the depositions saying that it was John Middleditch I saw with Harold wheeling the barrow I said at the police court that it was Donald Albert Middleditch—it is true that I signed the depositions as being correct after they had been read over to me.

WILLIAM THOMAS MOORE . I am the manager of one of the departments of Mr. John. Leigh Nisson, printer, in Fenchurch Street—these are some of our plates (Produced), which I identify by the name of my firm being upon them—the value of the copper plates taken was about £2 5s. by weight—they are obsolete plates, which have been laying in our basement for about 50 years—we have several tons of them, but the firm will not sell them—I have had charge of them for 25 years—John Middleditch, who has been in the employ of my firm for about six years, would have access to them, but Harold would not—a statement was made by John Middleditch, through which we found a quantity of them missing.

The COURT here intimated that there was not sufficient evidence against Harold, and the jury returned a verdict of

NOT GUILTY .

John Middle-ditch, who received a good character— Discharged on his own recognisances.

Reference Number: t19041114-34

34. ALFRED MACK (28) , Stealing a watch chain, the property of Henry Garland, from his person.

MR. J. R. DAVIES Prosecuted.

HENRY GARLAND . I am a licensed victuallar, of 179, Burrage Street, Plumpstead—about 11.30 p.m., on October 19th, I was in High Street, Islington, near the Tube Station, where I had missed my last train to London Bridge—the station was in darkness, and I turned round to look for a cab, when the prisoner snatched at my chain and ran away—a young fellow saw him do it, and ran after him, catching him a few yards before I got up to them, a policeman also having come up and got hold of him—I found that he had taken my chain, which I paid £11 for some. time ago—I gave him into custody.

By the COURT. I never lost sight of the prisoner at all—he ran down two or three streets and had got into St. John's Street Road, when he was caught by the other man and the policeman—the constable found my chain.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. The night was not very foggy—there were not more than half a dozen people round you when I got up to you.

SIDNEY GEORGE WEATHERHEAD . I am a barman, of 64, High Street, Islington—I was in High Street, Clerkenwell, about 11.30 p.m. on October 19th, and was passing by the prosecutor, near the Angel Tube

Station, when I saw the prisoner snatch his chain—I immediately gave chase, and after 15 minutes' chase I caught him. not having lost sight of him at all—I blew a whistle that I had and a policeman came up—he struggled for a moment, and I had got my arm round his neck when he threw up his arm, and I herd the clink of a chain falling to the ground—a policeman asked me where the chain was, and I took him back to the scene of the struggle, while the other policeman took the prisoner to the station.

Cross-examined. I am sure I did not mistake you for someone else—I was within a couple of vards of you the whole time.

JAMES GARROW (322 G.) At 11.30 p.m. on October 19th, I was in shadwell Street, which is about 200 or 300 yards from the Angel, Islington, when I heard a whistle blowing in the direction of John Street—I saw the prisoner running, followed by Weather head—I caught the prisoner and took him into custody, when the prosecutor came up and said he had lost his chain, indicating the prisoner as the man who had taken it—the prisoner made no reply he had been running some distance and was out of breath—he made no reply when charged.

By the COURT. Weatherhead had just caught him when I came up—there were very few people round at the time—nobody else was running.

ARTHUR LAKER (430 G.) I found the prosecutor's chain (Produced) in the area of No. 174, St. John's Street Road, hanging on the guard that protects the windows.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that after coming out of Sadler's Wells Music Hall about 11.30 p.m. with his sister he was standing outside the Red Lion public house in St. John's Street Road. when he noticed a crowd on the other side of the road, and, leaving his sister, he went across to see what was the matter, when Weatherhead came up to him and said, That is him" that the two constables took him in charge: and that the night was a very foggy one, which accounted for the mistake being made.

Evidence for the Defence.

ROSE CATTELL . By the COURT. I am married, and am the prisoner's sister—I live at 15, Chapel Street, Islington—on October 19th I had been with the prisoner to Sadler's "Wells, and about 11.30 p.m. we had come out of the music hall, and were standing outside the Red Lion public house in St. John's Street Road when he said to me, "Wait a bit, Rose, there is a crowd," and he went across the road, and I did not see any more of him—it was a very foggy night.

Cross-examined. The Sadler's Wells performances finished early that night—I saw the policeman come up and take the prisoner as he got on to the opposite kerb—when we came out of Sadler's Wells at 11.20 p.m. we went and had a drink at a beer shop just opposite—we were in there about five minutes, and then walked to the Red Lion public house.

JAMES GARKOW (Re-examined). By the COURT. I arrested the prisoner opposite No. 174, St. John's Street Road, about 200 yards from the Angel—I gave instructions for the chain to be found, and it was found close to the spot where I arrested him.

GUILTY . He then

PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerken-well Sessions, on August 11th, 1903, in the name of Albert George. One previous conviction was proved against him. Four years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19041114-35

35. THOMAS CAYANAGH (48) . Stealing a pair of spectacles and a spectacle case, the property of John Thompson.

MR. BRODRICK Prosecuted MR. WARBURTON Defended.

JOHN THOMPSON : I live at 22, Saville Place, Lambeth, where the prisoner lived for three weeks prior to October 29th—he had a shop, a workshop, and one room there—he is a marine store dealer—I have a letter box on the front door of my house, which is kept unlocked—on October 29th, I was expecting something from my mother—on that evening, Mrs. Shannon, who, I believe, is the prisoner's niece, came to see me and gave me this envelope, which had been opened, containing a letter (Produced)—in consequence of what she told me I went for a constable, and with him I went to the prisoner's shop, where I saw the prisoner, showed him the letter, and asked him where the spectacles were that it had contained—he said he had never seen them.

Cross-examined. I live in two rooms adjoining the prisoner's on the ground floor—the letter box is common to the house—the prisoner generally brought me my letters—he had been drinking when I showed him the letter, but he was sober enough, then—the letters do not fall into the prisoner's room, as there is a little passage there—all his letters would go into that box—I do not know whether he can read or not—the glasses were sent to me as a birthday present, and are worth about 25s.

By the COURT. This was between 8 and 9 p.m.

JANET THOMPSON . I am a widow and the mother of the prosecutor, and live at 27, Dancer Road. Fulham—about noon on October 29th, I posted a letter myself, containing a pair of spectacles worth over £1 to my son at 22, Saville Place, Lambeth.

EDGAR RICHARD FAWKES . I am a postman, and I remember on the' evening of October 29th dropping this letter (Produced) in the letter box of 22, Saville Place, Lambeth, where it was addressed to—I could feel something down at the bottom corner of it.

MARY SHA NNON . I am the wife of Richard Shannon, of 11, Colwyn Street, Lambeth, and the prisoner is my uncle—about 8.30 p.m., on October 29th, I was passing by 22, Saville Place, where my uncle lives, when I overheard a quarrel, and a smashing of glass—I went in and saw him beating his wife, so I separated them—he then took a letter from the sideboard and tore the top of it off—I told him that it was not for him but for his landlord, and he told me he knew whom it was for, using a very offensive expression—he took this spectacle case (Produced) out and drew out the spectacles, saying, "Here is a prize packet"—I told him it was a spectacle case—he can only read and write his own name—I picked up the envelope and letter which the prisoner had thrown in the fender and took it to the prosecutor—when the policeman came I pointed out a coat to him that the prisoner, who was then upstairs, had been

wearing at the time—the policeman found the spectacles in a pocket of the coat.

Cross-examined. I have never had a quarrel with my uncle—he had been drinking in the earlier part of the day—I met the prosecutor outside and told him that there was a letter for him containing some spectacles—at other times the prisoner allows me to take letters to the prosecutor if they are addressed to him.

GEORGE LEWINGTON (182 L.) About 8.50 p.m., on October 29th, I was called by the prosecutor to 22, Saville Place, Lambeth, where I found the prisoner locked in a room—I knocked at the door, and he opened it—I showed him this open letter (Produced) and said, "You are accused of stealing a pair of spectacles from this letter, which is addressed to Mr. Thempson," he replied "I do not know anything about any spectacles"—I arrested him, and he was charged at the station—I afterwards went back to the room, and Mrs. Shannon showed me the jacket which he had been wearing, and in one of the pockets I found a pair of spectacles—he had been drinking, but was not drunk.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "This letter box belongs to my shop. When you open my shop there is the door open. Mr. Thempson lives right at the back of the yard. When he wants his letters he walks up to the farrier's yard and waits for the postman to deliver them. I was drunk at the time. I cannot read or write."

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that all the letters put into the letter box from which he took the letter were his that he was drunk on this occasion that as he could neither read nor write he thought the letter was for him and that he could not remember Mrs. Shannon telling him that the letter was not for him.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19041114-36

36. GEORGE PENNY (21) , Unlawfully attempting to procure the commission by-another male person of on act of gross indecency.

MR. ANGUS CAMPBELL Prosecuted MR. SANDS Defended.

GUILTY . One month without hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-37

37. CHARLES HAYNES, Unlawfully wounding John Welsh. Second Count, Assaulting him and occasioning him actual bodily harm.

MR. BAGGE Prosecuted.

JOHN WELSH . I am a labourer, of 84, Auboyne Road, Fulham—at 12.30 a.m., on October 13th, I had a cup of coffee at a coffee stall in the Broadway, Walham Green—I was coming away when I was struck on the mouth—I do not know with what nor who did it—I fell to the ground, and a policeman came and took me to the station, where I had a gash in my cheek, caused by the blow, sewn up—I was speaking to a corporal at the time I had nothing to do with the prisoner, whom I had never seen before—there were a good many people standing round at the time.

Cross-examined, by the Prisoner. I said, "Here is a full blown corporal" when you and a friend of yours, a soldier, came to the stall—

I had had a drink or two—I may have fallen against you when you were drinking a cup of coffee, but it was not intentionally—I do not think I said that I could get stripes at a penny a time.

GEORGE WATERS . I am a general dealer of 166, New Road, Battersea—at 12.15 a.m. on October 13th I was at a coffee stall in the Broadway, Walham Green, where I saw the prosecutor, whom I had never seen before, having an altercation with the coffee stall keeper—the prisoner and a soldier came up—there was some kind of argument between the soldier and the prosecutor—the prosecutor was walking away when the prisoner struck him, either with a cup or a saucer, on the face—undoubtedly the prosecutor had been drinking, but I cannot say that he was really the worse for drink—a constable came across the road, and the prisoner and the soldier seemed to run down a back turning.

Cross-examined. I saw you arrested within a few yards from the scene of the assault.

By the COURT. It was a very severe blow, felling the prosecutor to the ground, and cutting his cheek—I did not see the prosecutor strike the prisoner at all.

HERBERT HENRY BAKER . I am a cab proprietor, of 18, Portland Street, West Kensington—I was at a coffee stall in the Broadway, Walham Green, on October 13th, at 12.30 a.m., when I saw the prisoner and a friend of his having an altercation with a woman across the road—they walked across the road to the coffee stall and ordered coffee—the prisoner's friend was a corporal, and the prosecutor began arguing with him—I understood from what I heard that the prosecutor asked the corporal how he was—as the prosecutor was going away the prisoner hit him in the face with a cup or a saucer—I should say the prosecutor was sober—he was knocked down by the force of the blow—the prisoner had drunk his coffee before the blow was struck.

By the COURT. I was standing next to the prisoner at the time.

GEORGE AUSTIN . I keep a coffee stall at the Broadway, Walham Green—it 12.30 a.m., on October 13th, the prosecutor came to my stall and asked for a slice of bread and butter, two eggs and a cup of coffee, and tendered in payment lid. and a beer can, saying that I could get 2d. for it in the morning—I said that I did not do business like that, and he said he would have an egg and a piece of bread and butter which I gave him—he broke a plate as he put the money. down—he then turned round and said, "Look up, here comes a full blown corporal," and the prisoner and a soldier came up—the soldier asked him what he meant, and they had a few words—the prisoner then hit the prosecutor with a cup and he fell to the ground—there was nothing to justify the blow—the prisoner and the prosecutor had not had any words.

Cross-examined. I threw the pieces of the plate that the prosecutor had broken inside the stall.

ROBERT MARSHALL (64 T.R.) In the early morning of October 13th I was stationed in the Broadway, Walham Green, when I saw the prosecutor lying in the roadway in a pool of blood—I picked him up,

and asked him how ho had come by his injuries, but he was unable to answer—I convoyed him to the station and the doctor attended to him—I then went back to the coffee stall where I picked up these pieces of a cup (Produced) which are bloodstained, and which were lying in the road.

HERBERTTHIP. KETTLE (Police Sergeant.) On the early morning of October 13th, in consequence of information, I went out with Waters, who pointed out to me the prisoner, who was standing two yards from the coffee stall in the Broadway, Walham Green—I told him I was a police officer, and should arrest him for assault he said "All right, I will go with you"—I took him to the station—a soldier friend of his accompanied him.

WILLIAM HALLEY . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 724, Fulham Road—on the early morning of October 13th I examined the prosecutor. who had an extensive incised wound on his left cheek, about four inches long and about I inch deep—it was a clean cut, and bled very profusely—it could have been caused by a broken coffee cup—the prosecutor smelt strongly of alcohol, and was recovering from the effects of drink—he will have a scar on his cheek for life.

Evidence for the Defence.

WALTER SMITH . By the COURT. I am a corporal in the Royal Fusiliers, now stationed at Aldershot—I went to the coffee stall in the Broadway with the prisoner, where the prosecutor was having an argument with the coffee stall keeper—the prosecutor noticed me, and said, "Here comes a full blown corporal"—the prisoner told me to take no notice of him, whereupon the prosecutor turned round and said to him, What is the matter with you?" and pushed the prisoner's cup into his face as ho was drinking—the prisoner then struck him in the face with his cup.

Cross-examined. The prisoner had not drunk his coffee when this happened—Baker was standing at the other end of the stall, not next to the prisoner.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that the prosecutor was drunk, and pushed his cup in his face, and that he had hit him, but did not intend to hurt him so much.

GUILTY on the Second Count. Discharged on recognisances.

NEW COURT.—Friday and Saturday, November 18th and 19th, 1904.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19041114-38

38. JOHN SHEA (18) , Robbery with violence, with others unknown on Sion William Wilkins, and stealing from him a watch and chain, a purse. and 18s. in money.

MR. J. R. DAVIES Prosecuted.

SION WILLIAM WILKINS . I am a master mariner, of 54, West Street, Pool—about 11 p.m. on October 17th, I was in the neighbourhood of High Street, Whitechapel—I was not drunk at the time—suddenly the prisoner

caught hold of my face from the back, and put his lingers in my throat, whilst two other men took my watch and chain, which I value at £15, and also 18s. or 19s., which was ht a bag, from my pocket, which they tore right out—two policemen, who had seen the affair, came running up, and I saw one of them run after the prisoner—the next time I saw him was when he was being brought back by the policeman—the other two men got away—my throat is still sore from the effects of the assault.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I picked you out at the police court.

JOSEPH HAYNES (63 H.) At 12.30 a.m., on October 18th, I was in High Street, Whitechapel, when I saw the prosecutor with a woman—he had been drinking, but was not drunk—I saw him go down Osborn Street, followed at a short distance by the prisoner and two other men—the prosecutor then went into Thrawl Street, and when he had got 50 or 60 yards down, the prisoner caught hold of him by his nek, and the other men stole his watch and chain—on my coming up they all ran away—I ran after the prisoner, who ran down several streets, and eventually I caught him within 4.00 yards of the scene of the assault—I did not lose sight of him the whole time—he said, "I have not got it, guv'nor"—I was in plain clothes at the time—a uniformed officer then came up and took him to the station—he was not put up for identification—at the station the prosecutor said he recognised him by the brown sweater he was wearing—he did no't make any reply to the charge. The prisoner, in a written statement, said that he was returning from Shoreditch, and was going through Commercial Street, when he heard a constable's whistle blowing, and saw a lot of people running after some men that he ran with them to see what was the matter when he was seized by a constable in plain clothes that in spite of his saying that the policeman had made a great mistake, he. wan taken into the next street, where he saw the prosecutor, who said he had lost his watch and chain that he was then taken to the police station and was detained there, as also was the prosecutor the next morning the prosecutor, not remembering what had happened, was told to say that he (the prisoner) had taken his watch and chain and money.

JOSEPH HAYNES (Re-examined.) By the COURT. The prosecutor was detained at the station over night for being drunk, and was discharged by the Magistrate next morning with a caution.

GUILTY .† He then

PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at. this Court on June 29th, 1900, in the name of John Driscoll. Three previous convictions were proved against him. Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19041114-39

39. AINT JAINT (62), THOMAS SMITH (22) and SAMUEL JOYNES (20) , Burglarly in the dwelling house of Charles Chareborough, and stealing therein 17 spectacle frames and two velvet stands, the property of Ross, Ltd. Second Count, Feloniously receiving same.

JOYNES PLEADED GUILTY .

SMITH PLEADED GUILTY to receiving.

MR. J. R. DAVIES Prosecuted.

HARRY WHIGHTMAN (61 A.R.) I was on duty in Trafalgar Square at

4 a.m. on November. '3rd, when I heard three distinct knocks coming from the direction of Cockspur Street, as if someone were banging against a hoarding—I went in the direction, when I met the prisoners walking towards me. Jaint in the middle—I said to them, "What noise was that over there and they all said, "We have not heard any noise"—I said, "There is someone knocking over there let us go back and see what is up"—they said, "Why should we go back? we have done nothing"—Jaint said, "I have done nothing there is nothing on me"—I caught hold of Jaint and Joynes, and told Smith to come back with me, saying, "If you have done nothing, what is the harm in coming back."—we went as far as Ross's at 31, Cockspur Street, where I noticed that a portion of the wire covering which protects the window was pulled away, and a hole nine inches in diameter in the window—I said to the prisoners, "What about this?" and they said, "We know nothing about it at all"—I said, "Well, you are the only ones that are here, and someone has got to know something about it," and I took them all into custody—I blew my whistle, and another constable came up and took hold of Smith, whom he took to the station, I taking Jaint and Joynes—on the way I put my hand into Jaint's pocket and found nothing, but on putting my hand into Joynes' pocket I found, a stand and eight pairs of spectacles (Produced)—on Smith were found a stand and nine pairs of spectacles—on their being charged Smith and Joynes made no reply, but Jaint said, "I know nothing about it he met me in the road, and asked me to go back I do not know what he is charging me for"—I then went back to Ross's premises, where I found in the window this stone, which evidently had been used for breaking it (Produced)—I rang up the caretaker—at the time of the robbery there were no people about except the prisoners.

CHARLES CHAREBOROUCH . I am the caretaker to Messrs. Ross Limited, oculists, 31, Cockspur Street I sleep on the premises, and am employed in the business during the day—everything in the window was perfectly safe when I left it at 10 p.m. on November 2nd—at 4 a.m. next morning I was awakened by a policeman ringing at the bell—I went down and saw a portion of the wire protecting the windows pulled away from the grid to which it is attached by small pieces of wire round it. and a hole made in the window.

By the COURT. The grids are padlocked and could not possibly be removed, but the wire work can be easily taken away—I am not quite sure what was in the window when I left it at night.

ROBERT BODKIN WATSON . I am the manager of Messrs. Ross, 'Limited, at 31, Cockspur Street—on the night of November 2nd, I left the shop window properly and firmly secured—the next morning, on reaching the shop, I found the wire work pulled up and the window broken, and I missed 17 pairs of gold spectacles and eye glasses and two stands, on which they are displayed, worth about £20—I saw them afterwards at Cannon Row Police Station—I identify these pairs of spectacles and stands as my firm's property (Produced).

Jaint's statement before the Magistrate: I was not with these two men. I was crossing the road, and the constable said to me, "Stop," and I stopped. I asked, "What for?" and he sand, "Stop and I will see." I had done nothing wrong I had taken nothing from nowhere."

Jaint called

SAMUEL JOYNES (the prisoner). You were not with Smith or myself.

By the COURT. When Smith and I were stopped Jaint was about five paces to the left—he was a stranger to me, and as far as I know Smith did not know him either—I was not asked about. him at all by the policeman, so I said nothing.

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether Jaint heard the noise that was caused by the breaking of the glass.

Jaint, in his defence, said that he was not with Joynes and Smith at all when they were arrested, and knew nothing of the robbery: and that none of the property was found upon him.

Smith, in his defence, said that he had been walking about all night and that he saw the spectacles on the pavement, so he picked them up, put them into his pocket and walked away.

JAINT and SMITH GUILTY .

SMITH then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at West London Police Court, on December 7th, 1903, as Thomas Shingwells. Ten months' art labour.

JOYNES— Six months' hard labour. (See next case ).

Reference Number: t19041114-40

40. AINT JAINT was again indicted for having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell Sessions, on June 9th 1903, in the name of George Izance.

MR. J. R. DAVIES Prosecuted.

FREDERICK WEST (Detective Sergeant. C.) I was present at the North London Sessions on June 9th, 1903, when the prisoner in the name of George Izance was convicted of shop-breaking, a similar case to this. and sentenced to nine months' hard labour by Mr. Loveland-Lovcland.

By the COURT. Before he was convicted he was arrested for the unlawful possession of certain articles stolen from a tobacconist's shop—he was remanded at the Worship Street Police Court, where I was present, and I re-arrested him and took him to Marlborough Street Police Court—I gave evidence at the trial—he was identified in this case by his finger impressions—at Bow Street Police Court I addressed him by his name, and he said, "You have made a b——mistake"—I said, "No, I have not made a mistake you have got a waistcoat on that you were wearing when you were arrested before"—he was then taken before the Magistrate, and I proved the previous conviction against him—he has also disputed his convictions when he was remanded—there is another conviction against him on December 14th. 1902.

GUILTY . Eighteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-41

41. JOHN LONGMAN (60) , Having received a diamond necklace and other articles on account of Woltmar Huhn. did frandulently convert the same and the proceeds thereof to his own use and beneft.

MR. LEYCESTER and MR. JAY Prosccuted MR. W. B. CAMPBELL Defended.

WOLTMAR HUHN . I am a dealer in jewellery and have a safe at the Chancery Lane Safe Deposit—I know the prisoner as a dealer in jewellery, but he has never sold any for me yet—on September 14th I gave him this pair of diamond ear rings, value £15 (Produced), for two or three days to sell to a particular customer that he said he had. for cash, or to return them to me if they were not sold—at the expiration of two or or three days I asked him if he had sold them, and he saidhe could not see his customer, and on asking him repeatedly what had happened he always gave me excuses, that his customer could not make up his mind, or that his customer was out of town for a few days, and so on—I never got my car rings back, neither have I had the money for them—on September 21st I gave him this diamond pendant, value £90 (Produced) on the same terms—he brought it back once, but asked for it again, so I let him have it—I have not had that back, nor the' money for it—on September 28th 1 gave him this pearl necklace, value £200 (Produced) on the same terms—I never received that back, and when I asked for my property he always made the same excuses—on October 21st I received this letter from him (Read):13, Hewett Road, Hackney. Dear Sir,—I am sorry I did not see you to-day, but was detained and could not get round in time. I heard you called here this evening and wished me to call on you, but I did not get home till late. 10 p.m., which was too late to see you. I will let you have all goods back if not sold at once.—Yours faithfully,. J. M. Longman "on October 27th I received this letter from him (Read): "It is with the most profound regret I have to inform you that, owing to bad trade, losses in trading, and bad debts, I find myself utterly unable to meet my engagements. My liabilities amount to about £l,000, and my assets consist of my house, which with great sorrow I place at your disposal. If you desire to confer with the other creditors I will send you list of names. I ought to have placed my affairs before my creditors before now, but have continued trading in. now what I see is. the. vain hope of retrieving my position I now find it is impossible.—Yours truly, J. M. Longman."

Cross-examined. If he had lost them. I would have charged him for them that was not mentioned but it was understood—as long as I got my price that I was willing to sell it at, he could sell it at what price he liked—things have been bad for some people in the jewellery trade for the last two or three years—he saidhe had a certain customer for the things, but did not give me the name—I have pledged some trifling pieces of jewellery of my own—I have never pawned anything I had on sale or return—a good many people raise money in the jewellery trade in jewels which they have on sale or return, and a good many jewellers tock their windows with such jewels.

ASHLEY SAUNDERS . I am the manager to the executors of the late

T. A. Robinson, pawnbroker, who carried on business at 26, Mortimer Street, Oxford Street—the prisoner, who was a customer of mine, pawned on September 23rd a diamond pendant for £55; on September 30th a pair of diamond ear rings for £30; and on September 29th a pearl necklace for £75, in order to redeem other goods he had in pawn which he wanted for business purposes—it is the custom of jobbing jewellers to carry on business in that way.

Cross-examined. I did not hand him any money at all; he took out other articles which he had in pawn, arid which, I suppose, he thought he could get a readier sale for. (MR. LEYCESTER submitted that he was entitled to call evidence of similar transactions to show the prisoner's intention in obtaining the jewellery. MR. CAMPBELL submitted that it would be contrary to the usual practice to permit other act of the prisoner to be given in evidence, having regard to the fact that the charge was for felony.

THE COURT ruled that the evidence was admissible.)

CHARLES RICHARD ENGLEY . I am a diamond merchant, of 88, Ecoleston Square—on August 15th the prisoner called upon me and said he had a customer for a pair of diamond ear rings—I had not a pair at the time, but I gave him two loose brilliants to show his intended customer, which he took away—at my request, he brought them back on September 15th, and said he had not seen his customer, and took them away again—he returned with them again on September 19th and said he would like them a little longer, as his customer had not finished with them, and would like to see them again; and I let him have them again—on that day I also gave him a diamond heart, value £85; six diamond and enamel buttons, value £24; and a gold and enamel repeater, value £10, which he said he thought he could sell—I gave him an approval note, pricing those goods at the value mentioned, including the brilliants, which I value at from £86 to £90—he could have sold them at any prices above those, if he had liked, but I wanted my price—on September 28th he called and told me he had sold the brilliants for £16 15s. per carat, there being five carats, but his customer was neither willing to pay cash, nor to give a bill, but that I could take his bill instead—I asked him whether he was thoroughly satisfied with the soundness of his customer, and on his' saying he was, I took his bill (Produced), which becomes due on November 28th—I had two bills from him, but at the time I took them I did not know he had pawned the two brilliants; I understood that he had effected a genuine sale—I have done business with him for the last four yean, and have had no complaint against him previous to this—on October 6th he told me he had an enquiry for three pearl studs, which I gave him on sale or return, fixing the price at £12—on October 27th I received this letter from him: "43, Hewett Road, Hackney, October 27th. Dear Sir,—It is with the utmost regret that I have to inform you that owing to bad trade, losses on trade and bad debts, I find myself utterly unable to meet my engagements. My liabilities amount to £1,000, and my assets consist of my house, which, with great sorrow, I place at your disposal. If you desire to confer with

the other creditors I will send you list of names. I ought to have placed my affairs before my creditors before now, but have continued trading in, what I now see is, the vain hope of being able to retrieve my position. I now find this to be, impossible.—Yours truly, J. M. Long-man"—I afterwards presented a petition in bankruptcy against him, but I did not know at that time that my goods were pawned—with the exception of the pearl studs, I have seen my goods in the possession of a pawnbroker—the diamond heart was returned to me on October 17th.

Cross-examined. I do not remember specific transactions with him previously, but I have had several transactions with him, and sometimes he has paid me cash, and sometimes when he has had goods on sale or return he has sold them and paid me the cash—I knew that he had been in very good employment, and I regarded him as a trustworthy man—I think I remember exactly what he saidwhen he took the brilliants that he had a customer for them, but of course it is not quite possible to remember—I knew he was a likely man to sell my goods, and that is why I let him have what he wanted.

JOHN JONES . I am a salesman to Richard Smith, jeweller, of 84, Hatton Garden—on October 20th, the prisoner came and asked me to let him have a diamond pendant and a diamond ring, saying he had a fine chance of selling them—he had had them twice before, and we could only get them back with difficulty, and I therefore sand, Well, Mr. Smith said you were not to have any more," whereupon he sand, "I know I am very sorry if you will let me have them this time, I have a good chance of selling them"—I said I would let him have them on condition that he would either return the goods or let us have the money within seven days, which he promised to do—the price, which was £60 for the ring and £45 for the pendant, had been fixed when he had them before—he asked for five per cent, more interest, and I told him he could have five per cent, for net cash off the pendant, but that the ring was absolutely net—he had no authority to pawn them, and if we had had the slightest suspicion that he was going to do so, we should not have let him have the goods.

Cross-examined. If we find a man has pawned anything we let him have on sale or return, he is barred from having any more—I have never heard of cases where a man has done so for a temporary purpose—the prisoner's excuse always was that he could not get them back from his customer—it was a common thing for a man to have jewels to show a customer—sometimes he has them for a long time, by which we understand that the customer has them and cannot make up his mind we certainly should not sanction his pawning them until such time as the customer had made up his mind.

Re-examined. I have never heard of a man pawning jewellery in order to get other jewellery out that he thinks he might get a readier sale for.

ASHLEY SAUNDERS (Re-examined.) On October 17th the prisoner pawned these three pearl studs (Produced) with two brilliant rings for £38 the studs being pawned for £10.

Cross-examined. He did not get cash he took out other things that he had in pawn, paying the difference in interest.

WILLIAM BUSSEL . I am an assistant to the" executors of Mr. George Edwin Gill, pawnbroker, of 18, Hampstcad Road—on September 19th the prisoner pawned these two brilliants, which were identified by Engley, for £60 in the name of Howard (Produced)—I have known him in that name as a customer of ours, for some time—on September 23rd he pawned these six diamond buttons (Produced) with us for £15, together with two rings for £15—I also produce the ring and the pendant which were produced by Jones, which were pawned to us by the prisoner on October 28th for £30 each (Produced)—he always took out other goods he did not take out cash.

Cross-examined. He first began pawning things with us in December, 1901—he never allowed an article to remain in more than a month—it is quite common for honest jewellers to pledge things with us—it is our business to enquire whether they are on sale or return, but we had such implicit faith in him we did not do so.

WALTER NICHOLAS . I am the manager to Edward Ernest Dees, pawn-broker of Euston Road—on October 5th this gold repeater (Produced) was pawned to us for £4 by the prisoner, who took cash—I think it was only a temporary loan—he went in the name of John Longman, of 43, Hewett Road.

Cross-examined. It is common for honest men to pawn things in assumed names.

WILLIAM HAYMAN (Sergeant E.) On November 3rd I arrested the prisoner on. his way to his home at Hewett Road, Hackney—I said I was a police officer and was arresting him for stealing a diamond pendant from Mr. Smith—he sand, 'Cannot you come for me in the morning"?—I took him to Gray's Inn Road Police Station, where he was charged in Smith's case, to which he made no "reply—I found this document upon him (Produced), which seems to be a list of jewellery that he had pawned, as follows: "October 20th, 1894, diamond collett necklace, £103 October 20th, 1894, diamond single stone ring, £35. Gill, 16/9/04. Brilliant brooch, £38 23904, brillant' pendant, £55 29904, pearl necklace, £75 30904, brilliant ear-rings, £30. Robinson" there is nothing after "Robinson"—he has cast the total "£336"—"1894" seems to be an error from 1904.

Cross-examined. He is a married man with a family of two—he was up till eight years ago in business with other firms—for fifteen or sixteen years he was in the employ of Longman & Strongi'th'arm, of Waterloo Place—afterwards he set up in business for himself in Great Portland Street, but he failed, and took to dealing with other jewellers in Hatton Garden—apart from this charge, I can find nothing against him—up till six or seven months ago he paid his way.

(Mr. Campbell submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, and cited Kirk v. Attenborough as his authority for contending that where goods were had on sale or return the person so delivering could not recover, as he had divested himself of them, and enabled the person to whom he has given

them to make them his own. un-less misrepresentation was proved, which, he submitted, was not proved here. The COURT overruled the contention, and said the case must go to the Jury.)

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had been in the jewellery business all his life that he was manager to Longman, and Strong? th'arm for many years, until he started a business for himself, which—proved' a failure that he then sold jewellery to jewellers, mostly to retail shops that with reference to Huhris case he may have told him that he had a customer for his property, and that he believed it was Chappell & Mantel, who were the customers in his mind for the diamond ear-rings, but that they were not suitable that he did not return them at once, as he wished to sell them elsewhere, but could not do so: that when he pawned them he had no intention of defranding, it being only to take out goods that would have a more likely market, while he waited his time till he could sell the jewellery he had pawned that with reference to Smith's case he did not believe he had told Jones that he had a customer, and that the reason why he pawned the gold repeater was that he required a small temporary loan that he had pawned £500 or £600 worth of jewellery, but with no intention to defrand, believing that he could sell it that he was not in serious financial difficulties that he never raised money on the jewellery to the full extent; and that he had hundreds of pounds worth of goods previously from Huhn Engley, and Smith which he had returned.

CHARLES RICHARD ENGLEY (Re-examined.) By the JURY. As far as my memory serves me I had transactions with the prisoner in 1903 of between £100 and £150—there is a clean sheet in regard to that—in the year preceding that there were transactions to the amount of from £150 and £200, and there is a clean sheet with regard to that also—I have traded with him for three years, and have always found him straightforward previous to this.

WOLTTMAR SUHK (Re-examined.) By the JURY. The prisoner has had about £400 worth of jewellery from me on sale or return previously, some of which he has returned—I have known him for many years, so I trusted him.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19041114-42

42. JOHN LONGMAN was again indicted for having received a ring and a pendant from Richard Smith and two brilliants and other articles from Charles Engley and having frandulently converted the same to his own use.

MR. LEYCESTER, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19041114-43

43. GEORGE STARBROOK (27) , Robbery with. violencc with other persons unknown, upon Joseph Michaels, and stealing from him a watch and chain, and the sum of £2 4s. 2d. in money.

MR. BAGGE Prosecuted MR. SAXDS Defended.

JOSEPH MICHAELS (Interpreted). I am a costermonger, of 282, Brick Lane, E.C.—between seven and eight p.m., on October 23rd, I was in Brick Lane, when I saw four men standing outside a public house,

amongst whom was the prisoner, whom I had never seen before—I crossed the road to avoid them, and they crossed over too, so I went back again to the other side—the prisoner then came up and knocked my silk hat in the mud, hit me in my mouth, and stole my watch and chain—I got hold of him by the sleeve and started screaming—one of the men, who had a flat nose, put his hand in my pocket and stole £2 4s. 2d.—I caught him by the hand and he bit my hand; then another of them hit me in my eye, cutting it, and I was knocked to the ground—they then assaulted me; I do not know whether with their fists or their feet, but I was bandaged until last Wednesday—I got up and held on to the prisoner—they dragged me across the road when they saw a policeman, and tried to make me release my hold of the prisoner—he tried to slip his coat, but I got hold of his waistcoat and collar and would not let him go until the policeman came up, when the other men ran away—it was when I was picking up my hat that I saw the policeman, or I should have let it be—I said to the policeman when he came up, "Do you see what they are doing to me?"

Cross-examined. I know Barnet Morris, who came up with the policeman—it is not true that I was running after the prisoner, and caught hold of him and struck him—I was eight days in bed from my injuries—I went to the police court next day, but I was all bandaged up—I did not say anything about being dragged across the road; they did not ask me be much there.

WALTER NORTHCOTE (414 H.) About 8.30 p.m., on October 23rd, I was stationed in Brick Lane, when I saw the prosecutor running on the east side, with a silk hat in his hand, after the prisoner, who was walking alone—he caught up to the prisoner, and struck him with his left hand in his face—he then threw his coat and hat or to the pavement, and caught hold of the prisoner by the collar—the prisoner struck him several times and ran across the road—I went up and said, "What is the matter?" and the prosecutor said, "He put his hand in my pocket; do not let him go"—I tried to part them, but the prosecutor refused to let go his hold—a crowd of roughs assembled, and we got hustled along—assistance arrived, and I took the prisoner to the station, where he made this statement, "I was walking along Brick Lane with my hands in my pockets when this man came up and struck me, and took hold of my throat; I admit striking him, as he would not let me go"—when the charge was read over to him he said, "It is a bit hot, ain't it, after seeing stars like that?"—nothing was found on him when searched—I did not see any three men assault the prosecutor, and it is not true that he was dragged across the road while I was looking on.

Cross-examined. I have made enquiries about the prisoner, and find he is a man of most excellent character—he is a cabinet maker—it was the usual crowd that assembles in Brick Lane that gathered around us; whether they were friends of the prisoner I could not say.

The COURT intimated that there was no case to go to the Jury, who returned a verdict of.

NOT GUILTY .

FOURTH COURT.—Friday and Saturday, November 18th and 10th, 1904.

Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.

Reference Number: t19041114-44

44. FREDERICK PAIN (28) , Being entrusted with 11 horses in order that he might pay to Benjamin Bigglestone the proceeds of the sale thereof, did unlawfully convert the proceeds to his own use and benefit. Other Counts, That he, having received bankers cheques for £63. £68, £58, and £80, did unlawfully convert them to his own use and benefit.

MR. MUIR Prosecuted MR. MOYSES Defended.

BENJAMIN BIGGLESTONE . I am a contractor and horse dealer, of Blades Hall Farm, Oldbury, Worcestershire—I am assisted financially by Mr. Lloyd, a witness here, but the business is carried on entirely in my name—up to January I had not a business in London—I let my horses on trial, but not on hire—I wanted an agent in London, and communicated with the defendant, and afterwards engaged him as my agent—I took stables at Greenhams Yard, Hammersmith, in my name—I was responsible for the rent, and I paid it, and all outgoings at the stables, including feeding, stable help, and mens wages—if the defendant paid anything away I gave it him back—his remuneration was to be £2 a horse—it was thoroughly understood the horses were to be sold in my name and the cheques sent on—I first sent him horses on February 10th—I received several cheques from him in payment for horses sent up—they were made out to "Ben Bigglestone"—on July 5th I saw the defendant at Blades Hall Farm, and had a squaring up—Mr. Lloyd was there in the evening—I paid him a cheque for £69 and £11 he had in hand, making £80 he also had £2 in gold at New Street Station, Birmingham, as he sand he had not money to go home with except the cheques—that was to come into the next account—this is the account presented on July 5th, and this is the counterfoil of my cheque book (Produced)—the defendant wrote out the cheque and the counterfoil—the total of the account is £80—he had sold about 40 horses—on July 5th it was arranged that he was to go on selling horses, and to have £2 per horse, and £1 per week extra—he had not done very well, and I gave him the £1 extra to encourage him—after that date I got no more cheques from him—I got several letters from him, one is dated August 11th, stating that there would be cheques next week—I suppose he meant from the Hammersmith Council and the Barnes Council—I believed I had horses out at those places and also—with a farmer named Curlick—(Other letters dated August 11th and 10th were read, in which the prisoner stated that he expected cheques)—I came to London and saw the prisoner about August 29th—he met me at Euston Station—he drove me to Caledonian Road and to Hammersmith, and as it was late I saw him at the Hammersmitl stables alone about nine o'clock the next morning—I asked him for a squaring up, and said that I wanted to go back home, as I thought they had had the horses long enough—he sand he would square up, but he made out that he wanted to go somewhere else—I was with him all through the day—at 12 o'clock we went to

Acton—he saidthe Council would be buying horses in a short time—after going about, we went back to his house—we did not do much that day, but he saidhe would square up on Wednesday morning—I met him on the Wednesday morning at the stables alone about 9 a.m.—we went for a ride again, and then came back to his house—I said, "I must get home, and I must have a squaring up"—he saidno, he had received some money, but he must go to the Barnes Council, to the Hammersmith Council, and two or three other places—I said, "If you have received money, come on, let us have it will you settle up? as I want to get home"—he sand, "I have not got the money"—I said, "What have you done with it?"—he sand, "I have bought some horses"—I said, "How many?"—he sand, "Nine"—I said, "What business have you to spend my money? I have horses at home to send you"—he saidhe knew of a few horses in the country, and he bought them thinking them worth the money—I said, "Well, where are the horses?"—he sand, "I have sold them"—I said, "Who to?"—he sand, "I have sold five out of the nine to Nalder, Collier & Company, of Croydon, two to Swift, the meat people in the City, and two to the Teddington Council"—I said, "Well, you had better give it me I want a memorandum of where the horses have come from," and I supplied him with a form from my pocket, upon which he wrote a memorandum (Produced) of the horses he had bought and sold, and the cash received—I had given him no authority to buy horses with my money—I said, "Well, if you have bought some horses, where are they?"—he told me they were at the places named—I said, "Will you go with me, and let us have a look at them?"—he said he would—I had dinner at his place, and we went to the City—when—we got there he saidhe would not go he saidit was against the "Lane," as he called it—I said, "I shall go and see where my horses are"—I went to the police, and made enquiries what to do—I saw the prisoner coming out of the Clarendon Hotel late in the evening of August 31st—I did not speak to him, I went home to bed at the Rutland Hotel, Hammersmith—next day I waited about all day to see the prisoner, but could not, and went to consult a solicitor—on the morning of September 2nd the prisoner came to the Rutland Hotel—Mr. Lloyd saw him first after we had passed a "good morning" we asked him what he had done with the money—he saidhe was in trouble—we asked him what the trouble was, and what he had done with the money—he sand, "I have spent it"—I said, "Spent it? you could not have spent it, it is a lot of money to spend in the time, and you have been paid well"—he sand, "I spent it, and gambled it"—I told him he had made a fool of me by sending me to Croydon, as he had not sold any horse there—he sand, "Humph" and made no other answer—I asked him what he had got hadn't he any money at all—he said, "No," and that all he had was a pony and trap turn-out—I said, "I suppose you have bought that with my money?"—he sand, "Yes"—I said, "That is mine then"—he sand, "You can take that"—I took it, and sold it for £35, and sold four or five horses—he asked me if we

wanted anything more—we sand, "If that's the best news you have got to tell us we have done with you. we do not want any more of you"—I again saw my solicitor, and we went, to the police court and land an Information—on July 5th he saidhe had nine horses not sold I sent him five more—he sent three back I found two, which would leave nine to account for, and which he professes to account for in his statement of August 30th—I never got my money for those horses.

Cross-examined. When I first met the prisoner I had been associated with Mr. Lloyd three or four years—up to July 5th the defendant had paid me up to £100 at a time in notes—the first time he saw Lloyd was when he came to my place—I-told him Lloyd had an interest, in my business on August 29th—the prisoner told me he was selling horses, but he did not say who for—our arrangement was that he was to sell for me exclusively—that he was to sell my horses in my name, have the cheques made out to me, and sent on to me—I did not say I wanted a man to sell horses on commission, with liberty to work for himself—the arrangement was not £4 a horse, but £2, and after July 5th £1 a week extra, and I paid all outgoing expenses—the prisoner took Greenham's stables for me, and I paid the rent—he had not the stables before I was there, that I am aware of—the price of the horse sold to the Barnes District Council he put at £68. and another one £63), so he told me—I am not awale that they have returned one—I do not know that one was sold to the Barnes Council for £58—no horses were returned to me that I know of—the price of one horse was £65, and £7 was still owing, because the Council had met and drawn a cheque—the horses put in the statement were right, and the prices are what he told me—I have a bill of £44 for hay—not a single bill came to me in the name of Pain—all accounts were sent to me. and I squared up—the prisoner did not say he had an account against me, nor that it was inconvenient to settle, nor ask me to accept something on account, nor ask me to square up—I deny that he could not get the exact number of horses, and that his commission was £4 a horse—I did not tell him if he could get the cheques cashed it would save time and trouble of passing them through my bank—I did not tell him he was having as much "as us"—the arrangement on July 5th was to make me safe, to put the thing on a business footing, and to hit him up and make him sharper, and he told me he got as much "as us"—that is true—it was to make him work, as the more horses he could sell the more we should get—He squared up for 40 at £2 a horse, and for 49 at an average of 50s.—we have not had the money—he sold one for £80, and I have given £100 for one myself—he did not say on July 5th he wanted a free hand—he" never asked to see any books—he put the total sum for the horses sold at £393—I got £191 for what I sold—two horses were left—what he sold he had the money for.

Re-examined. The defendant asked for 50s. a horse, and we settled at £2—the words were. "We cannot pay 50s. you will have to do a lot bettor than you have done to pay us even at £2 a horse," and he saidhe

would take £2 per horse and £1 a week to try again—I am prepared to pay the corn bill.

ALFRED LLOYD . I am a corn merchant of Hill Top, West Bromwich—I have a financial interest in Mr. Bigglestones business—I first saw the defendant early in February at the shop at West Bromwich, when it was arranged between my partner Bigglestone and myself and the prisoner that the prisoner should sell horses for us—no remuneration was fixed, but it was suggested we were to go on for a month to see what he could do in the shape of selling horses—on July 5th a fixed amount was settled—I saw the prisoner about twice between February and July, and cheques came from him which I paid to my own account—I did all the banking and the books entirely—the first cheques we had were made payable to Ben Bigglestone, then there were some in the prisoners name—on July 5th the matter was generally discussed, and we asked the prisoner what he suggested, and he said 50s. per horse I asked my partner what he thought, and he saidit would not stand it—the settlement arrived at was a salary of £1 a week and £2 a horse, whether there was gain or loss, for the future—we settled up and gave him £2 a horse which we had sold and received the money for to that date, and he was given this cheque for £69)—I saw him make out the cheque and counterfoil, "F. Pain, commission up to date, £09"—I next saw him at the Rutland Hotel, Hammersmith—only my partner, myself and the prisoner were present—after wishing me "Good morning" the prisoner said he was in trouble—I asked him what he was in trouble about—he saidit was in connection with the money paid for the horses—I said, "You have either got the money or the horses have you got the horses ("—he sand, "No"—I said, Well, where-is the money for them?" and he saidhe had lost it and gambled it—I suggested that the statement which he had made out and given to my partner was a fabrication from beginning to end, which he admitted—I said, "What have you done with the money? you know the statement you have given to Bigglestone is entirely false or something to that effect, and I said, "Well, where is the money for the horses"—he replied that he had lost it and gambled it—I said, "Have not you got anything for it?"—he saidthere was a pony and trap which belonged to us—my partner or I said, Is that all there is for £500?"—he sand. "Yes, that is oil"—I said lo him, "There is only one construction I can put to this, you"" know what that is" he saidhe did not know: I said, "It is a criminal. one, and I shall consult my solicitor"—he asked if we wanted him any more wo sand, "No"—he went away then—I consulted my solicitor.

Cross-examined. I arrived at Hammersmith on Wednesday, August 31st, I think—I saw the prisoner once on Friday morning at the Rutland—I went to the police station—I was with "Bigglestone when he swore the information at I he police station—the banking account is in my name, the business in the name of Ben Bigglestone—the meeting of July 5th took place at Blades Hall Farm—that is Bigglestones house—Ren Bigglestone signed the cheque—he carries a cheque book in his pocket—the outgoings are paid out of his account, the incomings go into

mine—the prisoner did not want to see our books—he did not enquire how much we got out of the business—I do not remember all the conversation—it took half an hour to beat him down from 50s. to £2, and that is 20 per cent., and not bad business—sometimes we have to give the horsekeeper a bit of gold—about 40 horses were sold—46 or 47 were on the paper—we had a complete settlement up to July 5th—£80 was due to him on account of the horses we had received the money for—he had £11 in hand—we gave him £69, the balance—his expenses had not come up to the amount we had sent him on—he wrote for money when he wanted it, as the letters show—I believe he spent, one night at Biggles tones—I went to Green hams stables at Hammersmith—I did not see three horses at Barnes.

Re-examined. The statement of July 5th shows cheques sent from time to time to the prisoner to pay petty expenses, and that he had £11 in hand, and the list included other horses than those we had paid him on, and which we had not received the money for—looking at the counterfoils in this cheque book I can see every bodys writing but Biggiestones—one is a cheque for Green hams stables, and one for £5 to Pain, apparently in Mr. Bigglestones daughters writing—these cheque endorsements and receipts are in the prisoners writing.

WILLIAM THOMAS GOOD ALE . I am assistant clerk to the Urban District Council at Barnes—I handed to the person who brought this letter two cheques payable to F. Pain for £63 and £58 in payment for two horses bought by the Council—the cheque for £58 I handed to the prisoner on August 20th—these are the two receipts—three horses were sent for inspection; two were accepted, and one, the £58 horse, refused—those cheques were drawn because we were rising for the recess, and the prisoner sent another horse for £65, which was accepted, so that £7 is still due from the Council.

PERCY WILLIAM HOSKIXG . I am the cashier in the accountants department of the Lambeth Borough Council—on August 3rd I handed this cheque for £80 to some person in payment for a horse by the Council—the cheque is payable to and is endorsed by F. Pain.

EDWARD BRISCOMBE . I am cashier at the Hammersmith Branch of the City and Midland Bank, where Mrs. Edith Ferris-has an account—three of these four cheques have been paid to the credit of her account.

ALFRED GREGSOX . I am yard manager to Nalder, Collier & Co., Limited, Brewers, Croydon—I do not know the prisoner—I have only seen him once before, at the police court—I have to do with buying horses for the firm.—we did not buy a horse from the prisoner last year—they have not done business with him at any time—I have been six and a half years with the firm.

Cross-examined. There was a Pain, of Roraford, the firm used to do business with.

JOHN RIDGEWELL . lam accounlant and anditor to the Swift Beef Company, Limited, 04, West Smithfield—we do not employ a horse—our firm never purchased one from the prisoner.

ALEXANDER ADAIR JOHNSON , F.R.C.V.S. I am veterinery surgeon to the Paddington District Council—on behalf of the Council, on August 26th, I went to the prisoners place to see two horses which I was looking for, and arranged with him to have them on a months trial—they came on August 31st—the Council would have bought them, but as the prisoner was arrested on September 2nd, the horses were still on trial—(Jones and Craven were called into Court)—they were returned to those gentlemen.

Cross-examined. I said at the police court, "They were on hire five weeks in all; there is still due for the hire £1210s.—I examined the horses at Hammersmith as a person who understood horses—one was a bay horse, and the other a brown mare—the price was £68 for the horse and £58 for the mare.

HENRY ALFRED JONES . I have stables at Eland Road, Peckham Rye—I allowed the prisoner to have an animal for sale or return.

Cross-examined. At the police court I said, "He had as many as three horses in one day"—I had every confidence in him—my price for the brown mare if sold was £48—it had nothing to do with me whether the prisouer got £57 or £67 for her.

JOSEPH CRAVEN . I am manager to Charles Rand ford, New Cross Gate, jobmaster—I took the horse from the. Paddington Council back to Randford.

Cross-examined. I found out" where the horse was, about a week after it went away—the prisoner told me he would let me know where it had gone to—the price was £50 if he sold it, whatever profit he got.

GEORGE LAMBERT (Sergeant T.) I arrested the prisoner on a warrant on September 2nd, at Mr. Hansons office, a solicitor, in Vernon Street, where he came by appointment—the warrant charged him with embezzling £191, the property of Benjamin Bigglestone and another—he sand, "All right"—when charged at the station he made no reply—he was remanded from time to time till September 28th—he did not surrender, his bail was est. reacted, and the money paid—a fresh warrant was issued—on October 5th I communicated with the police in Glasgow—on October 7th I went to Glasgow and saw the prisoner—I read the warrant to him at the Central Police Office, Glasgow—he sand, "I was drunk when I went away; I should not have gone, but Stattrick and Fowles refused to be bail any longer, and I did not want to go to Brixton; with regard to the other matter, the cheque for £130, I sold Mears a—horse that was not Bigglestones, and when I got the cheque I signed his name on it, and got Hyde to pass it through his bank; I took them only that was not theirs, and paid them the rest; I did not think I was doing any harm in that"—I brought him back to London—he was charged at Hammersmith—he made no reply—the police officers found him staying at 320. Argyle Street, in the name of Mitchell—he has frequently mentioned that he had been going in the name of Mitchell.

Cross-examined. His brother-in-law told me where to find him in the name of Mitchell; we telegraphed, and he was arrested and detained till I got to Glasgow—Mr. Hanson, whose office is opposite the police station, sent word to the station that he was there.

BEN BIGGLESTONE (Re-examined by MR. MOYSES). I am a poor writer, and I get somebody to pay in my cheques; my daughter at times makes them out and sees to the books—I can read writing—I do not get some person to write a warranty—this one is written by Joseph Stanford; he paid me £42, and got a quiet and good worker—my writing is on the back—I told my daughter to write, but not to address the prisoner as" Dear Fred "or how to address him; I left that to her—that was not written after his arrest; that was for me to meet him on the Monday night before anything of this occurred; I never wrote a letter to the prisoner since he was arrested—when Greenbush stables were first taken, and at the time this man was arrested, he had gone to the stables at the City Arms Yard, Hammersmith—he had been there a few weeks before he was arrested—he had horses there he bought with my money—I saw them on the Tuesday morning after I saw him on the Monday night.

Re-examined. The prisoner addressed me as "Dear Ben"—I addressed him, as a rule, as "Dear Fred"—my daughter knows what to put—(The letter was dated September 3rd, 1904, and asked the prisoner to do his best to find a customer for three horses)—that is Saturday, and the Saturday before that was August 27th—I should say that was written on the Saturday before I came up to see him on the Monday—the date is a mistake.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that as a horse dealer he sold for Bigglestone as well as for others; (hat. he was not a servant but an agent at a commission of £4 a horse; that it was a matter of account, and he could not get a settlement; that £50 to £170 was due to him; that he told a he about Nalders because he did not want the prosecutor to know his customers; that he never mentioned about gambling the prosecutor's money away; and that he regretted going to Glasgow, but that he was drunk.

GUILTY . Twelve months hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-45

45. ARTHUR KEIL (30) , Committing wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. PURCELL and MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted; MR. PETER GRAIN Defended.

AUGUSTUS HALLEY . I took the depositions at "Worship Street Police Court on the hearing of the charge against Morris Shekel sky—Arthur Keil was sworn and gave evidence—I identify the depositions and the information produced.

MORRIS SEKOLSKY . I am a cabinet maker of 50, Hassard Street—I have been in England seven years—before March 6th I had dealings with" Adam Keil, a—polisher, of 36, Columbia Road, about three minutes walk from Hassard Street—I had some trouble in getting my money—on Thursday, March 3rd, I saw him just before dinner at 50, Hassard Street, in the passage, going out as I was coming in—he saidhe wanted two satin walnut stand dressing chests, two elliptic stands and a top box—I told him I had them in stock, but the top box would have to be Reveneered—he asked the price and I promised to deliver the same day—I had them at my other shop at 196, Ravens court Buildings—he sand he must have them that day as he wanted them very specially for a

customer—I re-veneerod the top box in the presence of my men, and one man, Schlesinger. assisted mo to take them to the prisoners place at 8 p.m., when I asked Adam Keil, the prisoners, father, to excuse my keeping him till 8 o'clock in the evening when I had promised to deliver them in the middle of the day—he sand, "All right," and I left the things—the following Saturday, March 5th, I saw the prisoner, the son, who was as a rule always in the. shop—I said, "Is—the old man in?"—he called him up from down stairs—Adam said he could not pay the money that day as the customer had stopped delivery of the goods till next week—I asked him when I was to call—he told me "One day next week"—I went the next week—I said I had come for the money for—the dressing chests—Arthur sand, "Father is not in. call on Saturday"—I called on Saturday; Arthur was in the front shop; I said again, "I have come for the money;" he sand, "I cannot give you the money; I said, "I want to see old Keil"—Adam Keil came up, and said he could not pay me; he was very hard up—I called lots of times after that, and saw Arthur or Adam Keil; Arthur sand, "He is very hard up, and cannot pay you;" I said, "Will he pay 1s. a week, or as much as he can?"—Arthur sand, "We do not owe you any money; don't you come again, if you come again I shall assault you;" that was a few weeks after—I went to a solicitor, and then to the County Court; I obtained judgment against "A. Keil & Co." for these goods—the hearing was on June 2nd, before the Registrar—when the name A. Keil" was called, Arthur Keil, the son, came forward; I said, "He is not the man, I sued his father"; he sand, "My father is not interested in the business"—the Registrar adjourned the summons for the attendance of-Adam Keil—the. week after, when Adam came, I said Adam was the man I had the transaction with, and he denied it—Arthur and all the other Keils denied it one after the other—the Registrar gave judgment for me—I heard that an application was made for a new trial before the Judge; the next thing was a policeman brought me a summons—when I got to the police court I heard Arthur Keil swear. "On March 3rd my father was in bed, he had been in bed three weeks"—I saw the father on March 3rd in my shop—Arthur swore, "The goods delivered to our shop were for Robert Wilson"—I say they were delivered for and to Adam Keil, and that Adam Keil was present—Arthur swore that Adam had nothing to do with it, and that he paid "7s. 6d. on account of Wilson—I have never sold any goods to Robert Wilson—Arthur swore that I-called and spoke to Wilson several times after these goods were delivered—I paid no visits to Keils place for money for goods supplied to Wilson—I cannot say if I spoke to Wilson, because he or Arthur, or one of the sons, was always in front—I spoke to anybody who was there—Arthur swore: "Selkolsky did not offer to take the money by installments"; I say I did—I was willing to take 1s. a week, or anything—I never called for orders after March 3rd; the Keils wanted to give an order, but I said, "No, I cannot take it"—my practice, when I delivered goods which were not paid for, was to make an entry in this little book

in Hebrew; it begins at the end—I made this entry at the time: "3.3.04—Kil, two chests with boxes. £1 16 s.; two elliptic stands, 6s. 6d. (id,; one box. "5s.: £2 7s. (id.," and underneath. "I sued him"—that book was called for when I was tried in june before a Judge and a Jury in the Third Court here, when Mr. Marsh was called—up to the previous Friday or Saturday I had not heard of Marsh—he was in attendance in consequence of what I had found out—in consequence of what Marsh stated, the Jury stopped the case against me, and I was acquitted; end some papers were sent before the Public Prosecutor, "who kept them a long time, and in the result they were sent back to our solicitor; and the prosecution was left to me.

Cross-examined. I enter the date and particulars, in cases where I do not get the money, in any open space; the dates are not in order—Keils used to pay me on the Saturday, not on delivery—I have seven or eight people working in the same shop—George Winton stands against the first door—he was present when Adam called—I did not say that Winton said it was a much younger man than Adam Keil who called—another man. Siegel, was present—he is not here—he has left my employment some time ago—he gave evidence at the County Court—I know Peston—I cannot say if he was -at Keils when I called—I never asked Wilson for money—Peston is not respectable—the goods that went to Marsh were manufactured not by Marshall, but in my place, and I found out hey went to Marsh—I have to pay for this prosecution—I have seen Marshall, and can quite understand what he came here for—I can say nothing against his character—I do not know that the Keils, father and son, had carried on business for 22 years; I had known them for years as respectable till they would not pay me, and I sued them for £2 7s. (id., and they tried to put me in prison.

Re-examined. I heard Arthur Keil say the goods owed for were the same as were taken to Marsh.

GEORGE WINTON . I am a cabinet maker, of 19, Darcy Buildings, London Fields, and have worked for Sekolsky nearly three years—I remember Wilson coming to Sekolskys shop—I knew him as Keil—he asked whether the governor was in; I said, "No;" he sand, "Has he got any dressing chests in stock? I said, "I think he has;" he sand, "In satin walnut?" I said, "I think he has, they are not here;" he said, "Where are they?" I said, "Round at the other shop"; he sand, "Can you show me what they are?" I said, "No, because the governor has got the key of the shop"; he sand, "You know me, don't you?" I said, "A son of Keil": he sand, "Will you send him round to my old dad round the corner?"—about 12 o'clock Adam Keil came in and asked if the governor was out; I told him yes; he sand, When he comes in tell him I want two stands and a top box"—he went down the passage, and met Sekolsky as he was going out—that was early in March—that day Sekolsky took a top box I made to pieces, and I said, "I don't know how you can afford to do the work twice"—he saidhe wanted satin walnut—as I was leaving off my work at 8 o'clock I saw the governor loading up a barrow.

Cross-examined. I have not said that it was a younger man, than Adam Keil who called—the man who came about the chests was not at the County Court; Adam and Mrs. Keil were—Siegel does not" live opposite me at London Fields.

Re-examined. I saw Adam Keil after Wilson had been to the shop.

JOE SCHLESINGER (Interpreted.) I can understand English, but not much—I am a cabinetmaker of 18, Spital Street—I have worked for Sekolsky about ten months—I remember helping him with a barraw of goods, which included a top box, which had been re-veneered—we took them to Keils shop—the load consisted of two dressing chests, two elliptic stands, and three boxes—I saw Adam Keil at Sekolskys shop that day with the governor—I know him, a stout old man—I saw the old man standing on the pavement, and he ordered the goods to be taken into the shop—it was in March.

Cross-examined. I had not seen the old man before that, but I have seen him several times since—I was working at the first bench, and when I heard some conversation I turned my head, and then I saw the old man in the passage—I could not understand their English—we had delivered goods twice or three times before, but I cannot fix the time—I know Siegel—he lives in Ravens court Buildings—I have seen him go there to dinner—Sekolsky lives in" the same building at No. 29—he was at the shop on March 3rd.

Re-examined. Adam Keil is the man I saw in the shop and the man we delivered the goods to in the evening.

FRANK MAKSH . I am a furniture dealer of 382, Edgware Road—I was in the business with my father in a different district—I have been in Edgware Road nearly ten years—I have dealt with Keil many years—he came to me on a Friday before the trial—looking over my receipts I find one dated March 5th, which includes a satin walnut chest and Fome other things—I paid him for the goods which he brought, and he signed the receipt in my presence—I put it away among my papers—on a Wednesday or Thursday before July 25th, a gentleman representing some solicitors paid me a visit—he saidhe represented Sekolsky—I told him I could not help him; I did not feel inclined to—he said I would be subpœnaed to produce documents—on the Friday before the trial at this Court, about 8 p.m., the prisoner came to me and asked if I had a receipt of March 17th or 19th, and if I had would I exchange it for one he already had in his hand, a copy, he wished to take the other one away—I told him I was subpœnaed by the defence, and I wanted to know all about it—he then sand, "Have you a receipt for March 5th?"—I looked for it and found it—he asked me to lose that receipt, or suppress it, or not bring it—he sand, "You can suppress it, no one will know"—I said, "I could not do that"—finally I said, "I believe these goods are the very goods in question"—he sand, "If you bring the receipt down to the Court it will send my old governor to prison"—he begged me to keep the receipt away—I asked him about the articles and whether they were the same goods, and he sand, "they are"—the words I used were, to believe these goods

are the very goods in dispute"—he sand, "They are"—I said, "If you have done such a wicked criminal thing as this you had better give him ten pounds"—he saidhe hadn't ten pounds—I said, "Well, you had better sell your horse and van and compensate the man"—I told him it was a most dastardly thing, such as I had not heard of before—I sand. "I would not go to the Court and tell any falsehood for myself, let alone a thing like this"—the conversation went on for about half-an-hour—he kept on begging me to give him this receipt, and not send his old man to prison—he was in a very excited state—I refused to do anything of the kind—I telephoned for Sekolsky to come the following morning, and when he came I asked him for a description of these goods, and what he told me confirmed my impression that these were the goods in question—I knew Sekolsky was being prosecuted for perjury, and in consequence I attended the trial and gave evidence—I knew nothing about Sekolsky—Keil was the man who supplied me with the goods—among the people who came to me from Keils was Robert Wilson, but I always understood him to be a nephew of Keil—he signed the name "R. Keil," and never R. Wilson"—I was astonished on giving evidence to know that his name was Robert Wilson.

Cross-examined. I was subpœnaed as a witness—the goods purchased from Sekolsky were two satin walnut dressing chests veneered—I paid him 29s. each for them, I think £2 18s.—the price of an elliptic stand and top box in the white would be about 18s.—Sekolsky described to me the things he sold to Keil—from that description I say they may be the things which Keil sold to me—I cannot be sure, except from what Keil himself told me—I do not know Mr. Marshall.

Re-examined. What I asked Arthur Keil was, "Do you mean to say these are two of the articles in dispute I"—he replied, "Yes"—that satisfied me, I had never bought a pair of veneered dressing stands before—I make them up in the solid; I have them in mahogany, black walnut and birch, but never in satin walnut—my transactions with Kei have only been for cash—he brought me goods and I paid him for them.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that the evidence he gave was true, and that the perjury was on the other side.

Witnesses for the defence.

ADAM KEIL . I have carried on business with my sons at 36, Columbia Road, as a cabinet maker for twenty-two years—I have frequent attacks of gout—on March 3rd I was ill with rheumatic gout—I show signs of it now—I was land up in the house, mostly in bed for three weeks—"some days I was up, but if the weather changed I was in bed—on March 3rd I was in bed all day, I am sure, and did not go to Sekolsky's shop—I did not buy any furniture from him on that day—I have left the business to my sons since last Christmas, because I was unable to attend to it myself—I sometimes took some work home when I was able to go out, but the business has been chiefly conducted by my sons since Christmas—I have not been to Sekolskys place since before Christmas—we employ a man named Wilson—I have dealt with Marsh

for years—I have also dealt with Marshall—when Wilson was slack he would take an order for himself, and we allowed him to do the work on the premises because he had no convenience at home to do it—he is no blood relation—when I was ill with the gout my wife looked after me.

Cross-examined. For three weeks I was on and off in bed; I was a fortnight in February and a week in March mostly in bed", "about half the time, or more than half; more than 14 days out of the 21, I cannot tell exactly—Wilson is about 28 years old, I think; he came to us quit a boy straight from school, and has lived with the family ever since—people took him to be my son; he signed my name and his own as well—he was allowed to carry on business for himself at my place—I knew I was summoned to the Shoreditch County Court when I got the summons—Arthur told me he was summoned by Sekolsky—I heard him say that the goods came from Sekolsky—I did not know to whom they had been delivered—I knew at the County Court that the goods were for Wilson; my son told me before I got to the County Court—I never told the Registrar the goods were for Wilson; I have lost a lot of memory—my son sold goods to Marsh—I signed this receipt at home; I was paid by. cheque; my grandson took the things to Marsh which are included in this receipt—it is false to say that I brought my horse and cart, and had my hand tied up. and that I signed this receipt in Marsh's presence.

Re-examined. I cannot carry a chest of drawers—I was at Marsh's on the 11th, the first time I came out, when my hand was tied up, and I went in a cart.

CATHERINE KEH . I am the wife of Adam Keil—my husband was ill in bed with the gout for a fortnight in February and a week in March;"he first went out on March 11th—he had his arm tied up and one hand; he has been a great sufferer from gout since Christmas—he has been land up sometimes for a month, and then came out again; he is 65 years old.

Cross-examined. In February he was in bed, and could not get out; in March we got him up a bit, and he could just sit on a chair, but from March 1st to March 4th he was in bed, and not able to get out of bed; he was able to gee up for about half an hour on March 4th for the first time, when he got out of bed—he has often been land up; I do not keep a book to put down when my poor husband is ill, but he has been ill, off and on, ever since Christmas—my son Arthur did not remind me when he was ill—I am trusting to my memory, and I ought to know. when he was land up-Robert Wilson has been with us since he was about twelve years old, as near as I can tell—I know March 11th was the first time my husband went out, because he said, "I cannot go out because of my hands"; and Arthur sand, "We have a lot of work to do, and you will have to go out"; so he went out, and he was land up again through it—I gave evidence at the last trial—I was never asked about my husband going out on the 11th. "

EDWARD MARSHALL . I live at 97, Great Cambridge Street, and carry on business at 227, Brick Lane—I have, from time to time, manufactured furniture for the Keils, for upwards of ten years—about March, I made for them two mahogany chests of drawers, with round corners, and two

square cornered dressing chests in Walnut.—I took them home to the Keils the last week in February, and got my money for them the first week in March—they told me at the time where they were going—I sent a boy on March 5th for the money, and he came back with a cheque, which young Keil said was Marsh's cheque—I saw the cheque, but I could not read it because I did not have it in my hand—the boy was sent to Marsh's—he said he went to Marsh's after he came back—I got the cheque cashed.

SOLOMOX PESTON . I am a furniture manufacturer in Brick Lane, Bethnall Green—I know Sekolsky, the Keils, and Wilson—I remember Sekolsky calling at Keils shop on a Saturday—I and three or four others were in the shop, with Arthur Keil—Sekolsky asked for Wilson—I did not see Wilson there—I only heard Sekolsky ask for him—Sekolsky called the following week, I think, on Saturday, March 12th—the prisoner and a boy were present—I have known Wilson a good many years—Sekolsky and I went out when he asked me if Mr. Keil owed me any money—I said, "No, because I only give Keil polishing work"—I have never been present when Sekolsky called and Wilson was in the shop.

ROBERT WILSON . I have been employed by the Keils for the last 14 years—when they have been slack I have been allowed to do work for myself—I have dealings with Sekolsky on my own behalf—the last was with regard to two chests of drawers and a top be. in satin walnut, on March 3rd, for £2 7s. Gad.—I went myself to buy them, on March 2nd, but he was not in—I went on the 3rd in the morning—I ordered them to be sent to Keils place, in the Columbia Road—Adam Keil was not with me—he was ill—I have seen Sckolsky with reference to payment since March 3rd, first about a week afterwards—he asked me for the money for them—I did not pay him then—I left 7s. 6d. with Arthur Keil to give, to Sekolsky—the two sons have looked after Keils business since Christmas—Adam Keil has only been out now and then—he was at home ill for several days before March 3rd, and was not attending to the business—he had nothing to do with the furniture I got from Sekolsky—I still owe £2 for the furniture.

Cross-examined. I did not see Winton at Sekolskys on March 3rd—I did not say to him, "When Mr. Sekolsky comes. in send him to my old dad; you know my old dad?"—the customer fetched the furniture—I did not say at the police court that I had sent it home, nor that I did not know the purchasers name, or his address—I sent some toilets home—I have heard the purchasers name, but I cannot think of it—"the customer came and fetched the things—I said the customer was recommended by my landlord, who is dead—I sent the toilets to 209, Francis Road, Leytonstone, my landlords sons house—this is the first time I have mentioned that address—I heard the Keils had been summoned to the County Court—Arthur Keil told me—he asked me to go there and say the goods were mine.

Re-examined. My father and mother are in Brompton Cemetery—they have been dead for 18 years—I was? not asked my landlords address

—it was 2, Gascoyne Place, Lumley Road—I knew the name of the customer, and made out the bills, but I forget it now.—(The witness produced a marriage certificate to show that his fathers name was Robert John Wilson.)

The Prisoner received a good character. GUILTY .— Twelve months. hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-46

46. CATHARINE KEIL Wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. PURCELL, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

(See page 110.)

OLD COURT.—Friday, Saturday and Monday, November 18th, 19th, and 21st, 1904.

Before Mr. Justice Grantham.

Reference Number: t19041114-47

47. CONRAD DONOVAN (34) and CHARLES WADE (22) , Indicted for. and charged on the Coroners inquisition with, the wilful murder of Emily Farmer.

MR. MATHEWS and MR. A. GILL Prosecuted; MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES and MR. METHVEN Defended.

HARRY WOODLEY (343 H.) Produced and proved a plan of a portion of Commercial Road and Stepney Causeway and Old Church Road, and also a plan of 478, Commercial Road, showing that a counter ran all round the shop, the only means of access to the room behind the shop being through a flap in the counter, and that there was a front bedroom arid a lack room on the first floor.

CHARLES DUNLOP (439 H.) I produced a photograph of a portion of Commercial Road, showing Gosling's coffee shop at 488, and Misa Farmers shop at 478.

VICTOR NEWTON FARMER . I am a, newsagent at 139, High Road, Clapton—the deceased was my aunt—I used occasionally to visit her at 478, Commercial Road, where she had a small shop attached to her house, and carried on a newsagents and tobacconists business—I heard she was just over 60 years old—I have seen her wearing four or five gold rings, some with stones in, and a long gold watch chain round her neck, also a gold and. silver watch, a pair of gold pince nez with a small gold chain attached, a gold bracelet and a bead bracelet—those are all her ornaments that I have seen—she used to keep her money upstairs at nights, but I do not know where—I expect it was in her bedroom—the money taken in the shop was kept in. a small tin box, without a lid, in the parlour; if she wanted any change she went into the parlour for it; no money was kept in the shop—she had also a small round tray in the parlour as a till—if there were two or three customers in the shop and she did not want any change, she would put the money she took on one side, and then take it into the parlour altogether—I have seen her take the money upstairs with her at night—I have stayed in the house with her for two or three days at a time—I slept at the top of the house, in a small place called the cabin—I last

slept there about nine months prior to October 12th—I did not go into the deceased's bedroom at any time—in 1903. between July and October, I was sitting on a small tub, behind the counter, in the shop, reading, when I heard Wade say something to the deceased; I had not seen him come in; the deceased went into the parlour, and I went round the counter to get another book to read—Wade sand, "Is she any relation to you?"; the deceased was then in the parlour; I said, "I am her nephew"—he sand, "Does she live here alone?"; I said, "Yes"—he sand, "She ought not to, ought she?"; I said, "No"—the deceased came out of the parlour and nothing more was sand; he took his change and went out—after he had gone, I had a conversation with the deceased—I next saw Wade when he got out of a cab at the Coroner's Court in Horse ferry Road—I said to my father, "I have seen that man before somewhere"; in the court I stared at him, and it came back to me where I had seen him; I have no doubt that he is the man with whom I had the conversation—on the day of my aunts death I went to her house; I was present when the search was made to see what had been left; none of the ornaments which I have been speaking of were found; no money or coin of any description was found—I noticed that a rail from the banister (Produced) had been broken at the bottom of the staircase—t thought it was a new breakage, so I looked for the piece and found it on the 8th stair; the banister is on the right of the staircase—this small piece of rail I found on the stairs; the other piece was in its place, but broken; it looked as if it had been pulled from the inside—if anybody had clutched at it going upstairs they might have broken it—I last paid a visit to the deceased four or five weeks prior to her death—it was the day of the Southend Regatta—I do not know the date—I had no regular intervals when I visited her; I went when I liked.

Cross-examined. I have no doubt Wade is the man who came into the shop—I agreed with what he saidabout my aunt living alone—when I spoke to my aunt about it she sand, "Yes, he often comes in and chats with me"—he was buying something, I do not know what—when I went to the house on the day of the murder, I went into the parlour, amongst other places; I noticed it was a little different; there were one or two ornaments knocked over, and a photo—I got there at 10.10 a.m.; nothing had been disturbed then; the police were there—when I said at the police court that the condition of the parlour was very different to what it was before, I referred to the ornaments which were knocked over; I referred to things other than those on the mantelpiece.

Re-examined. I said, before the Magistrate: "When I first saw the parlour after the death of the deceased" it looked very different from what it generally did. There were one or two things lying on the floor; there was not much disorder."

EDITH WADE . I live at 587, Commercial Road, Stepney—my father and mother still live in that house—I moved there with them; I think it must be about 12 weeks from now—I am not exactly living there with

someone else—I said before the Magistrate, "I am unmarried; I am living with David Pollock; I am not exactly living with him, I am being supported by him"—he visits me at my mothers—Wade is my brother and Donovan is my half-brother, and also Wades—Donovan is a son of my mother, who married twice—her first husbands name was Rotten, but I do not know his Christian name—Rotten is Do no vans real name; he was first called Donovan three or four years ago—up till that time I had always known him as Wade—we moved from 121, Stepney Green, to 587, Commercial Road—I lived at 100. Old Church Road, with my mother—Charles Wade used to come there, he did not live there—he and Donovan both came, and they visited us while we were at Stepney Green, and also while we were at 587, Commercial Road.

Cross-examined. I do not know if the prisoners have been about a great deal together—I have seen them come into the house together—we are not on bad terms; we had just a little disagreement—Wade generally has good spirits—I saw him on October 12th in the morning—he was in good spirits then; he was singing and whistling, that is his usual way.

Re-examined. On October 12th I saw Wade in our house between 11 and 12, and I heard him earlier—I saw him on the night of the 11th at 587—I do not exactly know the time; it was early in the evening, probably before 9—on the 12th he" was going upstairs to my mother whistling—he sold mottoes and made artificial flowers for his living—my father is a carman.

EDWIN SPENCER AVEN ALL . I am licencee of the Royal Duchess, at 553, Commercial Road, which is at the corner of Old Church Road and Commercial Road, and nearly opposite the deceaseds shop—I recognise the prisoners—I first saw them some time in April—since then I have seen them on different occasions outside my house—I cannot say how often—I saw them on October 9th, I think, between 9 and 11 p.m., outside my house; they were there till closing time—I saw them every time I went to the door between 9 and 11—they we sometimes outside my house and sometimes away towards Miss Farmers shop, but always on my side of the way—they appeared to me to be watching her shop, which was then open—I did not speak to anybody about what I saw—when I saw them in April they always seemed to me to be watching the shop—I saw them on different Sunday evenings—at that time, in conesquence of what I saw, I spoke to a customer named Le Vesconte—I did not know the prisoners as customers; they did not use my house as far as I know—I attended at the police court when they were charged—I went of my own accord—I was not summoned by the police or anybody—I knew the deceased by sight, so I took an interest in the case, and I thought I should like to see who was taken up for the crime, and I saw the prisoners in the dock there—I recognised them as the men I had seen in April and on the Sunday before October-12th outside my house.

Cross-examined. I told the Coroner that I paw the prisoners in April—when I saw them watching the shop they were standing about on the pavement, either at the corner by my public house or a little further along towards Stepney Station—they have never been to my house that

I am aware of—I do not know if they go into the public house opposite; there were placards on boards outside Miss Farmer's shop of the morning and evening papers—people stand and look at boards sometimes—I thought the prisoners were looking at the deceased's shop—I do not know if they were looking at any other—I said before the Magistrate, "I had an idea they were watching the shop; there were other shops they may very likely have been looking at"—it is a common thing in the Commercial Road for men, or people who live in the district, to stand at corners—I have seen the prisoners a number of times—I cannot say how many—I do not think I gave the number of times when I gave my evidence before—when I said. "They were walking up and down in front of my house, I might have seen them two or three times "I meant on one evening—Miss Farmer's shop is open on Sundays, the placards are outside on Sundays—I only saw the prisoners on my side of the road—my public house stands at the corner of Old Church Road, and the next street to that is Grosvenor Street—I know now that Wade lives in Grosvenor Street, but I did not know it then—I did not know that Donovan lived in Old Church Road—I have no idea how many yards it is from the Royal Duchess to the corner of Grosvenor Street.

Re-examined. The boards for the newspapers were against Miss Farmer's shop—I never saw the prisoners on her side of the road, so they would be the width of the road away from the boards; I said before the magistrate that I had seen the prisoners in April, and before the coroner I said. 'I remember the month of May last, for several Sunday nights I did notice two men loitering and distinctly watching Miss Farmer's shop. I became suspicious and I spoke to a customer"—that is true—Le Vesconte was the customer I spoke to.

JOHN LE YESCONTE . I am a shipping clerk and live at 2, Grosvenor Street, Stepney—in the spring of this year I remember Avenall speaking to me, in consequence of which I went and spoke to the deceased—I should think it was about five or six months ago—o October 12th I went to her shop at 6.47 a.m. for two papers and some tobacco, but I could not get it—the errand boy Wiggins was in the shop—I had a few words with him—I did not see the deceased there, the boy sang out as loud as he could "Miss Farmer, Miss Farmer," to attract her attention, and I knocked on the counter, with a couple of coppers which I had in my hand; there Was no answer—I took the two papers but did not pay for them—I could not get my tobacco—the boy was not allowed to go behind the counter—I was in the shop for about two minutes.

Cross-examined. When I went in Wiggins was standing in front of the counter, folding papers, I believe—the counter runs round the shop—the boy would have to go inside the flap to get inside the parlour—he called from the shop where he was standing—I knew the time by the clock outside the shop—I cannot say for certain if the shop shutters were up or down, but I think they were up in both windows.

JAMES BROOTAN . I live at 183, Grosvenor Street. Stepney—I sublet the top front room of that house to Wade, on a Tuesday evening

in September, three or four weeks before October 12th—Wade and his missus occupied the room—he was generally out from nine to ten in the morning—on Tuesday night, October 11th, his missus gave me certain instructions in consequence of which, next morning, I got up at 5.10 and knocked at her door—she answered me—I was dressing when I knocked—while I was finishing dressing I heard someone go downstairs—I cannot say who it was, but it sounded like a mans footsteps—besides myself and Wade there were no men in the house—I heard the footsteps about 6.20—I had never called Wade so early while he was there—I had never called him at all before—I never knew him to leave the house so early—he usually wore a hard black bowler hat—I have seen him in a dark overcoat.

Cross-examined. He was with me for three weeks—I did not see him very often, perhaps two or three times a week—he may have left on other mornings without my hearing him but I do not think he did—I generally wake about 5 a.m., and rise about 5.30 or 5.45.

CHARLES GILLHAM . I live at 5, Apsley Street, Stepney, and am employed by Hubert Raggett, wholesale newsagent, of Turners Road—I have been in the habit of delivering the morning papers at 478, Commercial Road, when Miss Farmer had it—I usually got there at 5 45 a.m.—on October 12 I left Raggetts at 5.30 or 5.35—I had to deliver some papers at a newsvendors named Hart, at the corner of Stepney Causeway, then I went to Miss Farmers—I got there at 5.45—I always delivered the papers to Miss Farmer herself—when I arrived there on October 12 the door was shut—I knocked on the panel—I waited from 5.45 to 5.5G—when Miss Farmer opened the door she had a skirt on and a blouse, and a small square shawl folded into three corners tied round her head, with a knot underneath her chin—I delivered the papers—I did not see anybody else—I then went down Stepney Causeway—there are two doors; one was left open—the papers are delivered flat, tied by a string down the middle, and a set of contents bills on top—this bundle (Produced) is the exact way they were tied that morning—when I left the shop it was not quite 6.57—the deceased seldom kept me waiting—I can. fix the time because I see the clock opposite. I have a special time for delivering at each place.

Cross-examined. I was kept waiting 11 minutes on this morning—during that time I was kicking the door, because I was in a hurry, and the deceased made me late—she was a very difficult person to wake—as soon as I had delivered the papers she said"Thank you," and I went off down Stepney Causeway; as I turned away she turned into the shop, and the door was left open—the bundle of papers was heavy; it was tied with a slip knot; we have all got one knot—you could pull papers out of the parcel without untying it; I am quite sure about that—a good business was done by Miss Farmer; in that locality the business in the paper trade is generally done between 6 and 8 a.m., that is the busy time—when the deceased came down and opened the door to me she did so in a hurry; I could not hear her before she

reached the door—I was at the door, but it is no good listening because you cannot hear nothing; she comes down so quietly—until she turned the key I could hear nothing—I daresay she had just tumbled out of bed; before tuff Magistrate I said she had the appearance of having just got out of bed; she was not fully dressed to my appearance—I said before the Magistrate,—The skirt was an alpacca one, not a petticoat; the blouse was done up"—I remember I tied up the bundle of papers that morning; this (Produced) 1st he exact string I used (Exhibit B)—I can recognise it—I had not any string shown to me before the Magistrate, but I had before the Coroner.

Re-examined. As I left the shop I could see through the half open doors, but it was dark at the back of the shop—I saw Miss Farmer as I left, she was just going to turn round to take the bundle of papers in; I was on the pavement—being a Wednesday morning it was rather a light one; on Fridays and Saturdays I would take them in and put them on the counter—when I tied up the papers with this piece of string it was a bit longer than it is now; to the best of my belief this is a part of the string with which the papers were tied up. that morning.

By the FOREMAN. I know I was kept waiting outside 11 minutes, because I looked at the clock; I did so because I wanted to meet the cart.

WILLIAM JAMES (28:) H.) I am stationed at Arbour Square police station—in the early part of October I was on night duty; I come off duty at 6 a.m., and am dismissed at G. J. 5—on October 12th I was dismissed about 6.113—in order to get home I went into Commercial Road, and passed Miss Farmers shop at 6.20; my habit was to call there for a paper; on this morning I was going across to purchase a paper, but seeing the door was closed I turned back and went home.

Cross-examined. Arbour Square police station is only two or three minutes walk from Miss Farmers shop—I went along Charles Street, East Street, and Old Church Road; I know the locality well—there are generally men standing about at the street corners, but not at that time in the morning, they do not stand about much—I have not seen them standing at the corner of Stepney Causeway; I do not know that there are common lodging-houses there; I do not know that corner—I pass Miss Farmers shop every morning—it was nothing unusual that the-door should be shut—I have seen it shut on one or two occasions that month at that time—I had about a minutes walk from the shop to my home—it is a pretty busy road at times, but not many things pass at that time in the morning—at that time the fish carts go by—hundreds of men do not get on the trams there—I did not take any notice of any trams that morning—a good few men were waiting for a tram—it was dusk then—it was daylight, but dusk; a dull day—I said before the Magistrate that it was dusk—I signed my deposition and heard it read to me—on one occasion I tried Miss Farmers shop door—the shutters being up would not prevent me from going in to get a paper.

Re-examined. I did not notice anybody about on the pavement at that time.

C. GILLHAM (Re-examined). I say that this piece of string is similar to the piece with which I tied up this parcel.

By the MR. HUGHES. Since I left this Court no one has spoken to me, except that Sergeant Divall came up to me.

By the MR. MATHEWS. We get the string from Horace Marshall, Temple Avenue, at 15s. per cwt.—when we want it we take it out of the sack that it comes in—it is a bit different now and again—on October 12th I took the string I used out of the sack.

By the COURT. The piece I used was about half a yard longer than this piece—when Sergeant Divall spoke to me he sand, was I certain that this was the string—I told him it was; then I had another look at it, and I thought to "myself, "I imagine it is the string"—before the Magistrate I said. "It was tied with string similar to this," that is what I say now.

ROBERT RAE . I am a fish curer, employed by Mr. Lucy at 44, Old Church Road—I have been with him for 18 months on and off—I am 18 years old—I have known the prisoners for about a year and 10 months before October 12th—they used to go up and down Old Church Road—I have seen them together and apart—I Used at 44. Old Church Road then—I have-seen the prisoners going to No. 100, together and apart—I have seen them go along Commercial Road together at night—I last saw them together a month before October 12th—they were going past Old Church Road in Commercial Road—I had never spoken to either of them—on Tuesday, October 11th, I was on night work—I left off work about 5.30 on Wednesday naming—I generally knock off between 5 and 6 a.m.—when I knocked off work I went to Goslings coffee shop in the Commercial Road; I got there about 6 a.m. and remained there about 15 minutes—when I came out I walked to Miss Farmers shop, and stopped just outside the shutters on the west of the shop and on the pavement—I had not passed the shop more than half a yard, the door was shut—I was looking at a tram which was going by over-loaded—I turned, and I see the prisoners come out of the shop, they left one half of the door open—Wade came out first, he had a newspaper in his hand; Donovan was very close behind him, he had a paper too—they stopped just outside the shop in the road and Wade pointed to the paper to draw Donovans attention—they could not see me then because they were looking towards the other side of the road—Donovan looked at the paper—they had not quite got to the middle of the road—they then walked to Stepney Temple, which is a chapel on the opposite side of the way—they stood on the pavement by the side" of the Temple, not in front of it—I hey stopped and Wade made a motion with his hands towards the ground like that—they walked to "the other side of the road wheelie I was and. then towards-Poplar. It was between-6.25 and G. J. when I saw them come out of the shop—from the time they came out of the shop till they went towards Poplar was about four minutes—that was the last I saw of them—I noticed that Wade had a hard bowler hat on and Donovan had a cap—Wade had on a darkish coat—I did not notice Donovans clothes—after the prisoners

had gone Wiggins came up and walked straight into the shop—he stopped in there for about five minutes, then came out and felt the shutters, then he went in and proceeded to take the shutters down—after the prisoners had gone and before Wiggins arrived I had my attention fixed upon Miss Farmers shop, nobody went into the door before Wiggins arrived—I stayed there until Joe Coverdale, a friend of mine, came up—the prisoners left between 6.25 and 6.30, and I should think it was about 6.45 that Wiggins came up—I spoke to Coverdale at the corner of Old Church Road—I was then going towards my home—I had crossed Commercial Road—I made a statement to Coverdale—I went with him to number 44 and went to bed—I first heard that violence had been done to Miss Farmer about 10 o'clock that morning from my mother—I made a statement to her—I went back to work at about 10.30 a.m.—I had a fellow worker named Albert Horn by—I made a statement to him on the 12th—on the following Friday when I was at work Divall and Wensley came to see me—on Sunday, October 16th, I was taken to Arbour Square Police Station where I saw 14 men—I see the prisoners and picked them out.

Cross-examined. I went to the police station to point out the two men I see come out of Miss Farmers shop—Divall sent a policeman round for me—Divall was at the station—the prisoners were placed among twelve others—the other men were tidily dressed as well as the prisoners—the prisoners were more tidily dressed than the others—the 12th was a light morning—the lamps were out—it was not a dull dusky morning—I should not agree with an officer who had been at the shop a few minutes and who said it was a dull dusky morning—it was fairly clear—I said before the Magistrate, "The morning was very light."—I work in a smoke hole fish curing—I work all night till just before 6 a.m.—there are eight smoke holes where I am employed—when I come out of the smoke hole I go to the coffee shop and have a blow—it is very close in the smoke hole at night, so I stand about in the air—I have been to a doctor about my eyes, but not since I have been employed in the smoke hole—it is my eyelids which are affected—I do not blink at all—the smoke hole does not affect the sight—I said before the Magistrate, "It affects the sight when the wind blows the smoke down"—I am very tired sometimes when I leave work—we have long hours from 10 or 10.30 p.m. until 5.30 a.m.—I get 50s. a week and am eighteen years old—the pay is not because of the hard and trying work I have to do, it is because of the trade—on the morning of the 12th I was standing just before the Royal Duke, on the same side as Miss Farmers shop—I did not say before the Magistrate I was looking towards Aldgate when the men came out of the shop—I signed my deposition and it was read over to me—I said in it,—I was just between the Royal Duke and Miss Farmers shop"—I was looking towards Aldgate, but not when the two men came out of the, shop—before I turned my head round I had been looking towards Aldgate—my body was facing the road, and I got a side glance of them coming out of the shop: I only had a momentary glance of their faces, but I did not lose sight of them at all—as they walked to Stepney Temple their backs were towards me, but when crossing the road they

looked sideways—when they crossed on to my side of the road at the Stepney Temple they went in an opposite direction to me, towards Poplar, and continued their journey eastward—on leaving the shop, they crossed the road in a slanting direction, towards the corner of Grosvenor Street—I watched the tram as far as East-street—I did not see Constable James pass at 6.20 a.m.

Re-examined. I have been to a doctor this week about my eyes, and before then about six years ago—it is only ulcerated eyelids that I have—I could see the prisoners faces when they stopped in the roadway and looked at the paper—I did not take my eyes off them until they returned to my side of the road and went in the direction of Poplar.

By the JURY. When I caught the momentary glance of the prisoners, Wade was out of the shop, and Donovan's face was out of the door.

By the COURT. There was the distance of about a shop between us—they are split doors to Miss Farmers shop, and the prisoners came through the half door away from me—the door was pushed out from inside, by whom I could not see—I was standing like this when I saw them coming out, my head turned, and my body half turned—I could see them as well as if my whole body had. been turned in their direction—I knew that Miss Farmer lived there, but I did not know she lived alone—throe was no particular reason for my turning my head—the fact of these two men coming out struck me, and that is why I watched to see what they did—I did not know their names, but I recognised them as men I had seen before—during the whole of the time that I kept them in sight I had no doubt that they were the men I had seen coming out of the shop, and whom I had previously known by sight.

JOSEPH COVERDALE . I am a carman of 19, Old Church Road—on the morning of October 12th, not having been able to sleep the night before, I got up at 6.33 a.m. and walked to the top of Old Church Road where it joins Commercial Road—I there saw Robert Rae, whom I know, standing opposite the Royal Duchess—we had a conversation—I noticed the door of Miss Farmers shop open and Wiggins come out and undid the bolt of the shutter—this happened at 0.57 a.m.

Cross-examined. I was with Rae about twenty minutes—he did not draw my attention to any house, shop, or place whatsoever—I am quite confident I said the same thing when I was examined in chief before the Magistrate. (Mr. Mathews contended, on the ground of the nature of the cross-examination for the defence, that he was entitled to ask what conversation transpired between the witness and Rae. Mr. Hughes objected to tint conversation being given, but the Court considered that it was admissible.)

Re-examined. Rae said to, me, "I see two men come out of Miss Farmers shop.",.

THOMAS CHARLTON . I live at 10, Dorset Street, and am employed by my sister, who keeps Goslings Coffee House, at 488, Commercial Road—between 6 and 6.15 a.m., on October 12th, Rae. a customer of ours, came in, and was served with refreshment—I did not see him go

out. as I was at the back of the shop—Miss Farmer supplied the coffee house with papers, which she generally fetched in herself, or, if not, she sent a boy in with them—it might be one of Dr. Barnardo's boys; it was not Wiggins—they generally came between 6 and 630 a.m.—on the morning of October 12th, as they were not delivered, about 6.37 a.m., I went to Miss Farmers shop, where I saw Wiggins—I noticed the shutters were not down—I went in and had some talk with Wiggins, who showed me these false teeth (Produced), which I saw him pick up off a box that was behind the counter—I noticed a shoe like this one (Produced) on the box.

Cross-examined. I remember this shoe being produced to me before, and saying, "That is not what I saw; I saw a boot; the boot remained on the box, the buck part towards me"—it was so dark, the shutters being up, that I did not notice whether it was a boot or a shoe—I had a good look at it in the police court—I was only in the shop two or three minutes altogether, and perhaps less, and I did not pay any attention to it at all—I did not consider that from Wiggins manner there was any importance attached to it; there was nothing mysterious about his manner—I first heard of the murder about 10.30 a.m. that day—I did not see Wiggins again that day, nor later on—I did not give evidence at the inquest—it was a middling morning—I said before the magistrate "This was a dark morning," which is correct—I am speaking of between 0.30 a.m. and 7 a.m. when I say it was a dark middling morning for that time of the year—I am not quite sure that it was a box on which I saw the shoe, at any rate, it was some form of box behind the counter—I am quite sure it was not on the floor—between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. a good many men come into our coffee-shop in singles, couples or threes, or even in half-dozens to breakfast—there are coffee lodging-houses round Stepney Causeway—there are a good many people about there at that time of the morning.

Re-examined. I am certain that it was 6.37 when I got to Miss Farmers shop—I did not take the shoe in my hand, and I made no examination of it—it was coming on daylight—(Mr. Matthews asked that the slice produced should be put in a position with its back to the jury, upon which one of the jury said that it appeared to be a boot from that position.)

By the COURT. I said it might have been the one that was produced to me when before the Magistrate.

By the JURY. I never took much notice whether only one door was open at the time or not—Wiggins gave me papers from off the counter.

HARRY WIGGINS . I live at 22, Caroline Street and was an errand boy to Miss Farmer—I am eleven years of age—I had been in her employment for five months—my hours in the shop were from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 6 p.m. to ft p.m.—I saw her on the night before she died—the next morning I got to the shop at 6.33 a.m.—I can fix the time—exactly because I saw the cooks clock when I went in—I found one side of the door open, which was unusual—Miss Farmer is generally down when I get there, at 6.30 a.m. or thereabouts, but she was not there that morning—I saw the packet of newspapers on the floor in front of

the counter tied up, and apparently just as they had been delivered—I found some false teeth of hers in front of the counter, her shoe just under the flap of the counter, and a soda-water bottle and a tumbler behind the counter—I put the teeth and the shoe on a box behind the counter—I called Miss Farmer three or "four times—I was in front of the counter; I had orders not to. go behind it—I undid the newspapers and folded them up, and put the string on the counter—Charlton came in for some newspapers and I had some conversation with him—in the course of it I went to the parlour and called "Miss Farmer "three or four times, and I got no answer—Charlton then went out with his papers—some other customers came in before he went, and got their papers—I pulled down the shutters at 6.36 a.m.—Charlton had gone by that time—that took me over five minutes, and I then went into the shop to serve papers—Miss Farmer as a rule had breakfast in the shop parlour, which she generally would be eating when I arrived, and she would come out to me—I cannot tell you whether she cooked her breakfast in the shop parlour—I did not see any sign of her having had breakfast that morning—I remained in the shop some little time, and I spoke to Downes, who passed the door—in consequence of something that passed between us he went away and made some statement to Mr. Green, who keeps a newspaper shop not very far from ours; you can see it from our door—Mr. Green then came into the shop and spoke to me—about 7.20 a.m. I went to look for a policeman, leaving the shop unoccupied and closing the half door behind me—I could not find a policeman, and I came back about 7.40 a.m. to find Thomas Mitchell standing outside the door, which was closed as I left it—we had some talk—I then went again to look for a policeman, leaving Mitchell inside the shop in charge—I came back at 7.55 a.m., not having found one—I then saw Mr. Green outside the shop, and he went to speak to a policeman who was coming from Aldgate way—they came together into the shop—about that time, 8 a.m., Miss Baker, our next door neighbour, came in, and we all went into the parlour with the object of going upstairs—we then went upstairs, the policeman first, Mr. Green next, Miss Baker and myself afterwards—when we got into Miss Farmer's bedroom I saw Miss Farmer lying face downwards with her hands tied behind her back—the room was in great disorder; the drawers having been taken out and a number of things thrown upon the ground as if they had been looked through.

Cross-examined. I saw Miss Farmer the night before she died at 10.30 p.m. standing at the door—before I went home she told me her head-was very bad—this piece of string (Exhibit B) seems to be a little thinner than the piece of string with which the papers were tied up—I remember saying at the Coroners inquest that this piece of spring was similar to the one which the papers were tied up with—it did not occur to me to go to the Arbour Square Police Station—during the twenty minutes I was away I did not meet anybody I knew to ask if they could tell me where to find a policeman—when I said at the Police Court that I was thirty-five minutes looking for a policeman I meant the two times I had

been together—I did not mean to say at the police court that Mr. Green had not been to the shop when I went to look for a policeman; I meant that he was not there at the time—I am not allowed to go into the parlour, so I called Miss Farmer from the parlour door—I am quite sure I put the teeth and the shoe on a box which stood up against the wall at the back of the counter—before I went for a policeman I did not notice any unusual untidiness about the shop—I thought no more about the teeth after I showed them to Charlton—I may have said that it was twenty minutes to seven when I saw Mitchell first, but it was 7.20 a.m. I meant—we have some pretty roughish customers come into the shop—between the times I found the teeth and when I went for a policeman I served some customers with papers—I kept the money I got for them, and gave it in at the Arbors Square police station—there is a fairly good trade done there in the morning—I went for Dr. Richardson, who was the first doctor to arrive there—when I went into the parlour with the police-man I noticed some papers strewn about on the table, which I had not noticed before—there were none on the floor—I cannot remember whether I said before, "The parlour was in a state of confusion."

Re-examined. I left Mitchell at 7.20 a.m., and he went on his rounds, and when I came back he was standing outside the door.

By the COURT. When I got there the papers were on the counter—Miss Farmer used to untie the bundle, and fold up the papers for the customers, but they wore not undone this morning—I did not go into the parlour at all before I went in with the policeman.

ALFRED GREEN . I am a newsagent of 484, Commercial Road, within a few doors of Miss Farmers—on Wednesday, October 12, at-7.10 a.m., my boy John Downes came into my shop and made a statement to me—I went to Miss Fanners shop and saw the errand boy Wiggins—I had a conversation with him, and in consequence of something I said to him he went behind the counter, opened the shop parlour door, knocked on the ground and called "Miss Farmer"—there was no answer—I went back to my shop and told Downes to go for a constable, he went about 7.20 a.m.—whilst he was gone I went backwards and forwards between my shop and Miss Farmers about five or six times—I did not go into her shop—I only went to the door—Downes came back at three or four minutes to eight, and told me he could not find a constable—I stood outside Miss Farmers—Downes was in my shop—I was outside when Miss Baker came out of her shop—she was Miss Farmers next door neighbour—whilst I was speaking to Miss Baker I saw Constable Hooper—I went to him and made a statement to him—I went with him to. Miss Farmers shop door—it was then exactly 8 a.m.—I saw the constable and Miss Baker go into the shop—I did not go—Wiggins was in the shop—I went back to my shop.

Cross-examined. I begin work at 5 a.m., it is a fairly busy neighbourhood between 5 and 9 a.m., between 8 and 9 is the busiest time—my wife was in my shop on this morning; she came in at 7.25—I could have gone for a policeman myself then, but I had sent the boy before that; he did not come back for thirty-five minutes—when Wiggins

went round the flap of the counter I was there; the parlour door was shut—Wiggins opened it and looked into the parlour—I do not know if I said at the Police Court after I had sent the boy for a constable, "I did not notice what Wiggins did; I did not go to her shop again until I fetched a constable"—I said, "I was not watching Miss Farmers shop all the while"—I was "attending to my business now and again, or talking to my customers outside my shop—I" did go to the shop after I sent the. boy for a constable, but I did not go inside—I did not see Wiggins go for a policeman—I thought this was a very important matter—I said at the Police Court, "I had my own business to attend to, and had customers coming in and out"; that was the reason that I did not go a policeman myself.

Re-examined. At 7.10 I thought there was something serious the matter; that was in consequence of the statement which was made to me.

By a JURYMAN. I did not go out of sight of the two shops—I saw the constable coming while I was walking up and down.

JOHN DOWNS . I live at 3, Manor Court, Ratcliffe, and am now employed by Mr. Green—at one time I was employed by Miss Farmer—I left her about the end of July—on October 12th I passed her door, first at 6.30 a.m.—I did not notice anything about it then—I next passed it at 7 a.m., when Wiggins ran out to me, and spoke to me—I did not go in, but went to Mr. Greens shop and told him what Wiggins had told me—Mr. Green went and looked into Miss Farmers shop—he came back and sent me for a constable—it was then 7.20 a.m.—I went for a constable; I was away about 35 minutes—I did not find one—I returned about 7.55 a.m.—I knew of Arbor Square Police Station, but I did not think of going there for a constable.

Cross-examined. I did not meet anyone who could tell me where to find a policeman—when I get to Mr. Greens at 6 a.m. it is a fairly busy time—he was inside the shop then on this morning—no customers were there—I cannot remember what he was doing when I went out—when I came back he was still inside the shop.

RICHARD BARNES . I am a painter employed by Mr. Duck of Bedford Street, Spiral fields—I was in his employment for three weeks, but I am now working for Mr. Montgomery, a builder, of Sidney Street—I have been employed by him for just on a fortnight—I live at, Stepney Causeway—I have known Wade by sight for about two years—I have never spoken to him—I knew his name—I have seen him in Commercial Road alone—I do not remember seeing him with anybody else—on Tuesday, October 11, between 10 and 11 p.m. I was in Dorset Street—I saw Wade with another man who. I now know was Donovan—I recognise the prisoner as the man—I had never seen him before, so far as I knew—they were between Stepney Causeway and Dorset Street—I was coming from Stepney Causeway and going to Dorset Street—they were by the Duke public house on the pavement—I know Miss Farmers shop—we had papers off of her—the prisoners were about six yards from her shop—they were together, and talking to one another—I

walked right by because I generally make a practice of going to the corner of Dorset Street to see if the Friends Institute Chapel is all right, as my father is the caretaker—next morning I left home just as the bugle was going 6 a.m.—I went into Goslings coffee house, which is a house I use—I saw Rap in there, and two or three other people—there are generally about a dozen there in the mornings—I knew Rae by sight, but not personally to speak to—I stayed at Goslings for about 45 minutes—I got there about 6.3—I cannot tell you the exact time I left because I did not take much notice—before I got there at 6.3, I saw the prisoners coming across Commercial Road—I was about three feet from them—I saw both their faces—they were on the pavement—there was one shop between them and Miss Farmers shop—I passed them and went into Goslings—Charlton was there that morning—the newspapers were not delivered there by the time I got there—I came out before I saw a newspaper—when I left I went down home—I walked by the "Duke "and down Stepney Causeway—I went to the Friends Institute at the corner of Dorset Street—I got to work at about 7.55—as I was going to work I see some people outside Miss Farmers door: I asked what was the matter, and saw a policeman go in—about 8 p.m. I heard that Miss Farmer had been murdered and robbed—I live with my parents—I made a statement to them that day—I told father first at the top of Dorset Street, and I spoke to old mother afterwards—she is pretty old; she is over 50—I knew there was a Coroners inquest—I did not attend at the inquest—I knew the Magistrate was inquiring into the case, too—I did not attend at the police court—I first made a statement to the police last Thursday morning, November 17th—I made my statement to Sergeant Gibson—on that day I went to Brixton Prison and saw about 14-men; amongst them I saw the prisoners and picked them out as being the men I had seen on the 11th and 12th.

Cross-examined. I identified them a month and five days after I say I saw the prisoners—I was accompanied to Brixton Prison by Inspector Duvall—I had left Mr. Duck about two weeks to better myself because trade was bad—it is bad now—I get odd jobs now—that is how I make my living now—I know there have been four investigations before the Coroner—I have read the accounts in the papers and I have seen the times in the papers at which the murder was supposed to have been committed—I did not go to the inquest or to the police court on any occasion—I thought it very extraordinary for two men to be walking across Commercial Road at (6 a.m.—there are plenty of men who go to the Free Trade Wharf—it is not extraordinary for men to be about, but it was extraordinary for me to see Wade standing there on the morning of the murder, having seen him over night, knowing what character he is—I did not give any information to the police because I did not think it important, but I had reasons—I know Rae, I knew him to speak to before this matter; I said before that I did not know him personally—I went to Brixton Prison alone with. Duvall, I did not speak to him about the matter until I got there; I thought it consistent with I my duty as a man and a citizen to withhold this information from

the police for a month and five days—I had been forbidden by my parents, I take my views from them and I obey my mother—I "am 20 years old, I look after my mother as much as I can—she asked me not to say anything about it because it upset her and father; he was robbed. and beaten." three years ago in the chapel, and mother is. Afro and it will. happen again—it is a rough neighbourhood—there are plenty of respectable citizens living there—I have seen portraits of the prisoners in the newspapers—my mother told me not to have anything to do with, the case, and I studied her feelings—I picked the prisoners out from amongst some other men, most of them being of a different class—I was one of the first persons to know that anything was wrong at Miss Farmers shop on the morning of October 12th, because I saw a policeman go in there at 8 a.m.—it was just at the break of day, at 6 a.m.; it was a bit misty; you could see clearly from Stepney Causeway to Stepney Railway Arch—it was very light at 6.30 a.m., but not unusually clear—I am quite positive it was not dark or dusky—I cannot fix the time I left the coffee house; I am not always clear about times—there was a crowd standing outside Miss Farmers shop—I spoke to Miss Baker, whom I know, when she came out between 8 and 9 a.m.—if Sergeant Leeson had not come to the coffee house on the Thursday morning I should not be giving evidence to-day—I have known Charlton for a long time—a matter of this kind would be common talk in his coffee house—I spoke to one or two about it—I was going for a cup of tea to Charlton's coffee house when I saw the crowd outside Miss Farmers shop—I have never given evidence in a court of justice before.

Re-examined. At the time of the murder I was working for Mr. Duck—I am a Sunday school teacher in Brick Street—my mother and father told me not to get mixed up in the matter on the day that I told them what I knew—I had seen reports in the paper when I told him—I told two or three people, but not all, that I knew about it—I told my mother after I told my father; I ran round from my work and told her.

By the COURT. I was after and to give evidence because of the rough neighbourhood.

By the JURY. I knew the man Rae, whose evidence I read of in the newspapers, as the man I was in the habit of seeing in the coffee house.

RICHARD BARNES . I am the father of Richard Barnes; my wife suffers from heart disease.

(MR. MATHEWS submitted that he was entitled to ask the witness as to he circumstances under which his sons statement was made to him. MR. JOSHES objected on the ground that the statement itself being inadmissible he circumstances surrounding such statement would also be inadmissible. The COURT considered that the point was not of sufficient importance to have justified the witness being called.)

THOMAS CHARLTON (Re-examined). I know Richard Barnes, junior, as customer at my coffee shop—I saw him there between 6 and 7 a.m. on October 12th.—

Cross-examined. My hours are from 4.30 a.m. till 7.30 a.m. or 7:45 a.m.—I wash up and draw tea—I can see the customers very well where I

am—I drew Roes tea when he came in at (6.0 to 6.15 a.m.—my brother-in-law supplied Barnes with his breakfast—at the time I saw him he had his cup of tea in front of him.

CECILIA BAKER . I live at 480. Commercial Road, which is next door to where Miss Farmer lived—I knew her for about eight years, and was on friendly terms with her—she generally was in dishabille in the morning; and in the afternoon she would change her dress—in the afternoon and evening by way of ornaments she would wear three rings, a gold chain round her neck, and a gold-ringed pince-nez with a thin gold chain attached—sometimes on Sunday she would wear a pebble bracelet and a jet bracelet—the only occasion before October 12th that I ever went into her parlour was when she had a fit and I went in to give her assistance—I had a chat with her in the evening of October 11th at her shop door—she was wearing all her ornaments then—the next morning at 7.55 a.m. I saw Mr. Green, and in consequence of what he said I went into Miss Farmers shop—while standing there a policeman came, and accompanied by him I went into the parlour, and then up to Miss Farmers bedroom followed by Wiggins—the door was wide open, and I saw Miss Farmer lying at the foot of the bed with her face downwards, and her hands tied behind her back—I and the constable put the body into a proper position on the bed, and the constable removed a piece of cloth like this (Produced) which was tied round her mouth and chin once, and was fastened at the back—I believed that it covered her mouth—on that being removed, I noticed a small piece of cloth hanging out of her mouth, and the constable removed a piece of cloth like this (Produced) from her mouth—she was dressed in her morning style, with no shawl round her head—I undid the front of her clothes at the top, and found she had her stays on, which I undid—I then placed my hand on her heart, which felt as if it were faintly beating—it seemed to last for a minute or two, and then it stopped—I was trembling at the time—beyond this beating of the heart I noticed no other sign of life; there was no sign of breathing or attempting to breathe—the mouth was wide open, and when the cloth was removed from it, I noticed that her tongue was swollen and far back in her mouth—I did not notice any injury to her tongue as I did not look any more—one of the first things the policeman did was to cut the string from her wrists—within a few minutes Dr. Grant arrived, followed after two or three minutes by Dr. Richardson—I then left the room—about an hour later I picked up this half of a steel pince-nez (Produced), nearly at the top of the staircase, which I gave to the police—I noticed when we first went into the bedroom that it was in great disorder, the drawers of the chest of drawers being on the ground, with their contents strewn all over the room—I saw the top part of apparently a whole set of false teeth on the floor of the shop near the flap of the counter when I first went in—I also saw a high-backed shoe on the floor.

Cross-examined. There were several policemen in the shop when I went in for the second time, and found the pince-nez—I was taking

in a sheet for her to be brought down in—Dr. Richardson was the first doctor to arrive, not Dr. Grant—I had constantly been into Miss Farmers shop, and I knew it well—when I went first into the shop on this morning it was not in a muddled state, but it struck me that it was 201, so tidy as Miss Farmer used to keep it—as I said before the "Magistrate "When I entered Miss Farmers; shop, the confusion was quite perceptible to me without anyone pointing it out; it was as if something unusual had happened"—the parlour was also in a state of confusion—I am certain that I saw the false teeth on the floor, and not on a shelf or ledge—when I saw her she was not like a person who showed any signs of having just got out of bed—I saw some string on the bed, which I identified at the inquest, and which was like this piece (Exhibit B)—I said before, "I felt her heart faintly beating, and I felt it cease to beat; I realised there was a moment when it ceased to beat, and that, I take it, is the moment she died"—I also said, "I have no doubt that when I was with her she was alive," and as far as I know that is correct; I have never seen a dead person before—I know this neighbourhood pretty well, and there are common lodging houses just round the corner in Stepney Causeway—from the time I get up, at 7.30 a.m., till I go to bed I very often see people standing about at the corner of Stepney Causeway, in couples, or singles, or threes.

Re-examined. The sign of confusion in the shop was that the papers were not land regularly, as Miss Farmer always had them land, and the sign of confusion in the parlour was that the cigarette boxes were on the floor—I saw nothing of a soda water bottle or a tumbler in either the shop or in the parlour, neither was my attention called to them—I held up the deceaseds hands when the constable cut the string—it was after I put her in an easy position that I put my hand on her heart.

By the COURT. I was trembling a good deal, and very much affected—I have never had anything to do with medical work—the beating that I felt might have been the pulsation of my hand.

JAMES HOOPER (111 H.) I was on duty in the Commercial Road on October 12th—about 7.55 a.m. Green came and spoke to me, and I accompanied him to Miss Farmers shop—I saw at the door Wiggins, and Miss Baker, to whom I spoke—I then went in with her upstairs to the first floor into Miss Farmers bedroom, where I found Miss Farmer lying on the bed face downwards, her hands being tied behind her back—I cut this piece of string tied round her hands (Produced), and turned her on to her back—I then discovered this piece of cloth in her mouth (Produced), pushed well back with a small piece protruding, by which I pulled it out—it had the effect of a gag—there was another piece of cloth tied round her neck and chin; it did not come over her mouth—I do not know whether it was attached in any way; I took it away very freely—I did not notice the position of her tongue—Miss Baker undid the front of her dress, and I put ray hand just over her heart—I kept it there for a moment, and it felt as if there were a faint beating of the heart-1 cannot be sure whether Miss Baker felt her heart first or not—I went to fetch Dr. Grant—I did not see Dr. Richardson

arrive: I saw him come out of the room—Wiggins handed me a lady's shoe, and the top part of a set of false teeth. which were on a form behind the counter—there was also a lemonade bottle and a tumbler there—otherwise, I think, the shop was in its normal state—this would be about 8.30 a.m. as near as I can say.

Cross-examined. I have been in the force for 12 1/2 years—I have a little knowledge of first and—I am not nervous or hysterical; of course some experiences are more unnerving than others—it. was when Serge. Sewell came into the, room that I went across the road for Dr. Grant—Dr. Richardson must have arrived when I was fetching him—it was after Dr. Grant had arrived that Wiggins handed me the false teeth and the shoe—I did not see Mitchell in the room, he was at the shop door when I arrived—I said before the Coroner that in my opinion the heart was beating, and I have not changed my opinion since.

Re-examined. I have had no experience at all of placing my hand upon the hearts of dying people—I saw no other sign of life but that; there was no breathing or attempting to breathe that I could see—I did not notice at all as to whether the front of her body was cold or cooling—no effort was made to revive her before the doctors came; I thought professional advice would be better—the beating I felt may have been the throbbing in my fingers.

By the JURY. When I removed the cloth from her mouth it did not shut, it remained open—I did not say that I had learned first aid—I cannot tell you whether the deceased was cold round the heart, or whether a slight massage would have revived her.

By the COURT. We go through a course of first and when we become constables.

SAMUEL LEE (Sergeant H) In consequence of instructions on October 15th about 6 a.m. I went to Commercial Road and there kept observation upon No. 587—I was so placed that I had a view of the door of the house—at 11.40 a.m. I saw Wade enter accompanied by a female—at 12-15 a.m. I saw the door open and the woman come on to the doorstep, and look up and down—she turned round and spoke to Wade, who was standing behind the door—he came to the doorstep so that he could see into the road, then she made a sign to him, and he darted back into the passage—she followed him, and the door was closed—it remained closed for three or four minutes, and was then again opened by the woman, who came on to the step and looked up and down the road, as she had done before—she turned and made a sign, and directly afterwards Wade came out—he appeared to be greatly agitated, and ran across the. pavement and jumped on to a yellow car that was going towards Limehouse—I followed on the next car that was going in the same direction—I kept his car in view until we got to the Limehouse Town Hall, when some traffic got in between my car and his, and I lost sight of him—I saw him no more that day—about six a.m., on Sunday, October 16th I went with other officers to 83, Grosvenor Street, where Wade was lodging—I found him in bed, and the woman that I had seen with him on October

15th was the, also—I told him to get up and dress himself and after he had done so I said to him, "You will remain here with me until Inspector Divall arrives, and he will tell you the charge that will be preferred against you"—he replied, "All right"—I remained with him until Inspector Divall came.

Cross-examined. I am acting under the directions of Inspector Divall—I was with two other officers in a window, watching No. 187, Commercial Road on the 15th—the women did not see me the first or second time that she came to the door—I do not know that in spite of his agitation he came back there that night to sleep—I know that that is his mother's house.

Re-examined. One of the officers with me was Detective Worsfold.

By the JURY. I interpreted the woman's first sign to mean, "Keep back," and the second sign as saying, "The coast is clear."

HARRY WORSFOLD (Detective H.). On the morning of October 15th I was with sergeant Lee keeping observation on No 587, Commercial Road—at 11.40 a.m. I saw Wade and a women enter the house, and at 12.20 a.m. the women came to the door, looked up and down the road, and beckoned to somebody in the passage—Wade then came to the door, and she made motions to him to go back—he went back, and she followed him and shut the door—a short time after that she came to the door again, and again beckoned to Wade, who came to the door, ran across. the footway, and jumped on a passing tramcar going in the direction of Limehouse—Lee followed on another car—I was told off to watch the woman, and I followed her to No. 83, Grosvenor Street, where she entered.

Cross-examined. I believe No. 587, Commercial Road is his mother's address—there is nothing I wish to add to my evidence that Wade came out of the house and jumped on to a passing tramcar.

By the JURY. It is possible that the woman was looking for a tramcar; there was not a tram passing the first time she came to the door, but there was the second time.

By the COURT. The trams run very frequently there.

THOMAS DIVALL . About 8.30 a.m. on October 12th I was summoned to 478, Commercial Road—I went into the first-floor front room where I found Miss Farmer dead on the bed—at that time Dr. Anderson and Dr. Grant were present—I made an examination of the premises—the Back door was bolted with two bolts inside, and there was not the slightest evidence of any forcible entry having been made into the premises either at the back or front—the windows of the back parlour and both windows of Miss Farmer's bedroom were fastened and secured; I should not think that the windows of Miss Farmer's bedroom had been Opened for two months; they had both Venetian curtains, which were drawn—clothing, books, and small antique boxes, were all over the floor—the drawers had been withdrawn from the chest of drawers; some had been turned upside down, some on their sides, and one, I think, was on its head, showing the contents had been tipped out from one drawer to another, and mixed up altogether—

everything must have been done in a great hurry—nobody seemed to have gone beyond the first floor, as there were signs of dust on the banisters—I had a motive for looking for finger-prints—in the parlour there were a few little tin boxes or canisters which had been turned over—the curtain at the entrance to the shop from the parlour, was practically torn away—I saw Miss Baker pick up a broken piece of pince nez on the third stair from the top landing to Miss Farmers room, which she handed to me—I found this banister in a corner of the stairs with a little bit broken of (Produced)—I did not find a coin of any description, nor any jewellery, nor any metal of any value on the premises—I saw the lady's shoe and the set of artificial teeth immediately on entering the shop lying on the counter close by the flap—Mr. Edgar Farmer found the shoe corresponding to the one I saw on the counter—I. found in a cupboard just by the fireplace some bread, sugar, tea, cheese, and an uncooked egg; no preparations had been made for breakfast—I have consulted the almanac and have found the sun rose on the morning of October 12th at 6.20 a.m.—on October 10th, with Sergeant Wensley, I went to 83. Grosvenor Street, where I saw Wade—I said to him, "I am a police inspector, and I am going to take you into custody on suspicion of being concerned with another man not in custody for the wilful murder of Miss Farmer between 6 and 8 a.m. on the 12th inst. at 478, Commercial Road—he saidsomething and I left him in charge of Wensley—he turned very pale and trembled—at 8.30 a.m. I went with Wensley to 17, Church Row Limehouse, nearly a mile away—on entering the firs! floor back room I saw Donovan in bed with a woman—I said to him "I am a police inspector; get up and dress; I will take you to Arbour Square Police Station"—he was taken there and placed in the library—I said "I have brought you here on suspicion of being concerned with Wade, detained for the wilful murder of Miss Farmer between 6 and 8 a.m. on the 12th inst."—he said"You have done a b——fine thing this time. I will do my utmost to disprove it. This is a nice b——thing ain't it?"—I got the assistance of twelve men as near the description of the prisoners as I could, some a little more respectable than they, some a little less so—I told them to stand in a line in a yard at the police station out of the view of the public—the two prisoners were in two separate rooms in charge of officers nothing to do with the case—the witnesses were placed in charge of uniformed officers, who also had nothing to do with the case, out of view of the prisoners—I had the prisoners brought separately into the yard, and in the presence of the twelve men I said to each of them, "You see those men. You are going to be put up for identification. You can place yourself wherever you like"—they chose their positions and on my asking them if they were satisfied they both replied "Yes"—, then I sent an independent officer for the witnesses, who were brought out separately—I said to each of the witnesses as they came out, "If you see a man or men whom you have come to identify touch him or them. Say nothing"—Rae walked along the line and picked out the prisoners without the slightest hesitation—the other two

men picked no one out—it first came to my knowledge that Richard Barnes could give evidence at 1 p.m. last Thursday—I received a communication from Rae—I saw Barnes at 7.30 p.m. on the same day. after he had been seen by Sergeant Leeson—after he made his statement I at once took him to the Treasury, and afterwards in a cab to Brixton Prison—I saw him identified, the Governor of the Prison, chief warder Scott and other warders being present—I had nothing to do with the arranging of that identification; I was simply an observer standing 50 yards away.

Cross-examined. When I went into the shop there had been 20 or 30 persons there, and the false teeth and shoe had been shifted—I think it was Sergeant Wensley who found the other piece of the pince nez—the curtain was not torn right away; it was torn from the top—I had never been in the shop before—after the two men had failed to identify the prisoners they were sent away—two mow men failed to identify the prisoners the next day—I have not had charge of the witnesses in this case; I have examined their statements—when I spoke to a witness after he left the court as to the nature of his evidence, I was asking for my own information, and I had no idea that Mr. Mathews was going to recall him—it is not my duty to have a witness called back to repeal information that he has given to me after he has been in the box.

Re-examined. What I said to the boy was, "You said at the Coroner's Court, and I have already told my officers, that the string is similar to your string," and he saidto me the same as he had said in the box, "I imagined it was the same piece of string."—the conduct of this prosecution has not been in my hands.

By the Jury. None of the four men have been called to give evidence; they have nothing whatever to do with the case now—I should say there was no difficulty for Rue to identify the two prisoners as he had known them for eighteen months.

FREDERICK WENSLEY (Detective H.) I went into Miss Farmers shop at 8.45 a.m. on October 12th, and assisted in the search—t found a piece of a steel pince nez on the floor, near the flap of the counter, and it appears to match the other half produced by Miss Baker—this pince nez did not have a chain to it; it was the gold pince nez that Miss Farmer wore that had had the gold chain—on October 16th I accompanied Divall to 83, Grosvenor Street, when Wade was arrested, and I also accompanied him when Donovan was arrested.

Cross-examined. On Donovan there was found 4s. 11 1/2 d., and some trifling things of no value; nothing was found on Wade.

THOMAS SMART (Detective H.) On October 16th I was in the library at the Arbour Square Police Station about 10.30 aim., with Donovan after the identification—he sand, "Of course the f———boy knows me; he used to live in the same street as me for about two years. "

CHAS. GRAHAM GRANT , L.R.C.S. I am a registered medical practitioner of 523, Commercial Road, and am surgeon to the H Division of Police—at 8.10 a.m., on October 12th, I was called to Miss Farmers shop, and, on arriving at the bedroom on the first floor, I saw Miss Farme. 's

body on the bed—I arrived there at 8.15 a.m.—I there saw Dr. Richardson, who left immediately, having had no opportunity of examining the body; it was at his request that I took on the case. I examined the body, and found it was dead and slightly stiffened as far as the limbs were concerned, which were partially flexed. and the body itself was partially flexed at the hips; her eyes had lost their transparency and tension; her chest felt colder than one would expect if she were alive and was losing temperature—the body was fully dressed, with the exception of the feet, which had no boots or shoes on—the hands were swollen and marked very distinctly with a ligature, of a red colour turning to blue—I made a cursory examination of the mouth, which was open, and I could see the tongue was bent back; there was blood underneath it, and only the lower denture was in position; the lips were abraded, and also the surface of the chin, which indicated that force had been used to open the mouth—two pieces of cloth and two pieces of string were handed to me by the policemen for me to examine—the face was congested—there was an exudation of the secretion of the nose, which was not very noticeable, forced out, in my opinion, by the efforts to breathe—either of these pieces of string might have caused the ligatures on her hands—(Exhibits B and C Produced)—I formed the erroneous opinion at the time that she had been dead within half an hour, but on maturer consideration of the facts, and on looking up the authorities, I was reluctantly compelled to alter that opinion; I think she had been dead then over half an hour but I would not like to say how much over—on the same day, at p.m., I made a post-mortem examination, assisted by Dr. Anderson, and I have my notes here—I found the cause of death to be asphyxia by mechanical obstruction of the air passages, which opinion I arrived at by unmistakable signs—the further sign of injury was a bruise on the external aspect of the left thumb—she also had a rupture on the right side, which has no bearing on this case—I examined the cloth that was tied round her neck, and found nothing on it—on examining the gag I found blood upon it but not in any quantity, and such would have been produced by the tear under the tongue—there was no sign of blood anywhere else on the body—I came to the conclusion that asphyxia was caused by this gag (Produced), and all the external and internal appearances corroborated that—I cannot say decisively how long after the insertion of the gag death ensued, because I do not know whether the gag was effective in obstructing the entire air passage or not; if air passed the gag she would live in direct proportion to the amount of air that passed—I did not see the gag in her mouth—the turning back of the tongue indicates that considerable violence was used, and it also formed an additional obstruction to breathing—it indicated that the gag had caught under the tongue—assuming complete obstruction had taken place I should think that she died in four or five minutes—turning her on her face would undoubtedly accelerate her death—I examined the stomach, and found it empty, as though nothing had been taken in the morning—I do not think she could have been living when Miss Baker and the police-man

saw her—it is a common occurrence for unskilled people to make mistakes about the beating of a heart.

Cross-examined. Mistakes are made by skilled persons as well—I am not quite certain as to the date when I altered my opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead, but I think I said at the Police Court that it was half an hour; whether you cross-examined me or not I cannot say—my opinion was not founded on the gag, but upon the condition of the body, the set eyes, and the losing temperature—one strong point to tell how long a body has been dead is the eye losing its tension—I am not an expert like Professor Pepper, and I did not mention the fact of the eye losing its tension at the inquest—I know Professor Pepper said that this was such an important point that I ought to have mentioned it—the fact is not down in my report of the post-mortem examination—I did not take the eyes sufficiently into consideration until after I gave my evidence at the Police Court—the uncovered parts of a body would cool more rapidly than the parts that are not exposed—I do not know sufficiently to give an opinion whether a dead body cools more rapidly at first than later on; if an authority said it was the general rule, I should disagree; it depends on what was the cause of death—I heard that Professor Pepper, Dr. Anderson, and myself are all at variance as to the exact time the deceased had been dead—I can assure the jury, with the greatest possible confidence, that Miss Baker and the policeman could have mistaken a body that had been dead for two or three hours for a living one—it is extremely difficult, by placing the hand upon the heart of a person lying on their back, to tell whether the heart is beating or not, even if it be a healthy one—in forming the opinion that the body had been dead half-an-hour, I was not aware that the eye is more brilliant after asphyxia than it is before—of course, skilled persons on looking at the eye of a dead person would make different remarks to unskilled persons—I do not know what conclusion Professor Pepper has arrived at as to how long the deceased lived after the gag had been inserted; I cannot say without seeing the gag in the mouth.

Re-examined. There had been some exposure-of the chest, and it was there that the cooling was felt—I did notice the eyes at the time, although I did not give evidence as to them.

By the Jury. The deceased was found in a semi-kneeling position—rigor mortis sets in more rapidly in some deaths than others—I saw nothing to form the opinion that she had died in the kneeling position—the flexure was due to the struggling in death—I do not think that she could have struggled off the bed, as one of the first effects of asphyxia is a partial paralysis and inability to struggle—I should think that if the deceased had been" alive on the removing of the gag her mouth would have shut and the tongue would have been brought back to its proper position—I think Miss Baker and the policeman felt the pulsations of their own fingers—it was, of course, too late to revive her by massage, or anything.

JOHN CHARLES Anderson, M.D. I practice at 15, Great Winchester

Street—on October 12th I was culled to Miss Farmers; I reached there about two minutes after Dr. Grant—I went upstairs into the bedroom and saw Hooper and Dr. Grant—I agree with the description of injuries upon Miss Farmers body as described by Dr. Grant, who directed my attention to the eyes, which were dim, and there was a loss of transparency about them—I thought the deceased had been dead for a couple of hours, from the cooling of the body and the ligature marks round the wrist, which were very marked, being of a dark blue colour with no surrounding area of redness or inflammation; discolouration of a ligature mark depends upon the circulation of the blood, and when the circulation stops there is an alteration in colour, and this particular alteration I concluded could not have been produced under a couple of hours—I have read in text books that the eyes after asphyxia become very brilliant, but I should be surprised to find it was the truth—taking into consideration the age of the person, and the size of the gag, I do not see how she could have lived more than five minutes after it had been inserted—of course, she might have survived longer if the gag had been less effectually placed—the fact of her being placed upon her face would have accelerated death—she would have been likely to have died in that position.—post-mortem rigidity had not set in—I think if twenty people had felt Miss Farmers heart, even when alive, she being a short, fat woman, they could not feel the beating with a great breast covering it, and I am sun; that Miss Baker and the policeman were mistaken in saying that they felt the heart beating—Miss Baker is a neurotic person.

Cross-examined. Hooper may be neurotic for all I know—the deceased's hands were swollen, but there was no sign of inflammation on her wrists—I was asked by the Magistrate, not knowing the facts of the case, how long should I say she had been dead, and I said three hours—I did not form any definite opinion, when I first saw the body, as to how long she had been dead, but I formed the opinion that nobody could say exactly—I thought it was an important matter—it is true that I said before, that it is very difficult to decide the exact moment when death took place, from the appearance of the body—it might happen in many cases that for a few minutes before death the power of exercising the muscles would go, but you do see people with" muscular power right up to the last—I should say, where there had been violence, and exhausttion takes place, there would be very little muscular action, a twitching only—it is a fact that the heart will continue beating after respiration has ceased, and vice versa, so it would be impossible to judge the moment—of death by the stopping of the heart or the stopping of the respiration alone.

THOMAS MITCHELL . I live at 11, Grosvenor Street, Commercial Road, E.

Cross-examined. I gave my evidence before the Coroner—I know that it is necessary to speak the truth—on the morning of October 12th I first passed Miss Farmers shop at 6.25 a.m., and I saw Miss Farmer open one of the half doors and lock it back—she had a dirty old shawl round her

head—I next saw the shop when I came along with my papers at 7.10 a.m.; I was going on my rounds—I came back to Miss Farmers shop at 7.45 a.m., when I saw Wiggins just coming out, as the policeman and Mr. Green came up—I am quite sure about the evidence I have given.

Re-examined. It was I who gave an account to the police of having seen a man leave this shop and jump on to a tramcar and go away, and that he was a man of about thirty—I described his appearance and his clothes, and said that I saw him in the shop, stay there three minutes, and then say "I shall not wait any longer"—I was in such a muddle at the time, and I thought I would say the same at the police station, but it was all untrue.

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER . I practice at 13, Wimpole Street—I am an F.R.C.S. and I have many other qualifications—I have heard the, evidence in this case so far us part of it is concerned, and I have read the whole of the evidence—I was examined as a witness before the Magistrate—I have formed the opinion that Miss Farmer had been dead over an hour when Dr. Grant arrived—my grounds are, in the first place as to the temperature of the body which was spoken to by Dr. Grant; the front of the chest was cool—the death was clearly from suffocation, which is one of the causes of slow cooling of a body—it was in a room, as I understand from Inspector Divall's evidence at the Police Court, where the windows were closed and had not been opened—that was the room in which the woman, had slept the night, so it would be comparatively warm, which would tend to prevent the cooling of the body—Dr. Grant deposed that the eyeballs had lost their tension—in death from asphixiation the eyeballs as a rule arc prominent and the flaccidity comes on slowly—I do not lay much stress on the transparency, the tension is more important—it takes time for the tension to alter in cases of suffocation—I do not place much stress on the dark blue colour, round the place where the ligatures had been on the wrist—I think that would form very quickly after death—I think death ensued within ten minutes of these injuries being received—I saw the rag which was taken from the deceased's mouth, the greater part of which the constable said was impacted into her throats—there was only a small piece" out of her mouth—the bulk of it would be quite sufficient to completely block the throat, and there was something else placed over the mouth, which, might easily slip off when the body was moved—I understand that the body was found on its face, and the head hanging over the end of the bed—the tongue was doubled back in the mouth, according to the constable and there was a quantity of frothy mucus which was the result of the suffocation, and was also the cause of it—the suffocation would be very complete—those are the leading indications upon which I base my opinion—the deceased's knees may have been drawn up by herself in a dying effort on her part, or it is possible that the body was placed in that position—whoever placed it there would probably not try to get the knees straight, but even if they did. they may not have succeeded—I cannot say one wav or the other—I think

that if the deceased, when she was on her stomach with her face on the pillow, had moved her knees forward and got them into that position it would have meant some considerable muscular exertion, as she would have to raise her whole body, and I think it would be more likely if she could have done that, that she would have got on her side, but it is impossible to say—I feel quite certain that Miss Baker and Hooper did not feel the beating of the deceased's heart—I believe Miss Baker said she ceased to feel the beat after about a minute and a half, that being so, it is quite certain the woman was nearly dead—under the circumstances I feel quite certain she would not be able to feel the beat—in the first place she said the body showed no other signs of life, and it would be extremely difficult for a medical man to feel the heart—it does continue to beat, but you cannot feel it—you have to listen to it with a stethoscope, it is so feeble.

Cross-examined. I form my opinion assuming that the evidence of Dr. Grant and Dr. Anderson is correct—I have not seen the body, and can only form my opinion from the evidence—I do not lay much stress upon the colour surrounding the place where the ligatures were—I consider Taylor an authority; he says that in some cases of asphyxiation a body has been observed to cool as rapidly as in death from other causes, and that is so; there is no fixed rule—the surrounding circumstances would have something to do with the cooling of the body—the evidence refers to the cooling of the front of the chest; that was the only part apparently which was observed—if anything important turns upon the temperature of a body, a themometer would be more accurate, but it is not usually used—it would, of course, give an absolute register—if I had been present at the inquest I should have considered the question of the tension of the eye if it had been present to my mind—I should have had a written note, and should have referred to it—it is extremely difficult to place the time of the death; I should say it had taken place certainly over an hour, perhaps two hours—I cannot say nearer than that—at the time of death the eyes would be prominent; the eyes of a dead person are generally staring; they were in this case—I should say that death had certainly taken place within 10 minutes of the violence; there might be some difference if there had been some little opportunity for air to pass to the lungs, but from the time that cloth was fixed at the back of the throat I am quite sure she would be dead in 10 minutes; I am taking the constable's evidence that one piece was coming out of the mouth, and the rest at the back of the throat—in cases of asphyxia one does have sometimes the fact that after respiration has ceased the heart continues to beat—when death has arisen from shock, and when there is considerable muscular action, there may be an inclination for the muscles to be fixed; where there has been a violent struggle the muscles remain fixed after death in the position in which they last were during life—in life and death there may be the same appearance in a muscle which has been severely exercised just before death—I am not assuming that Miss

Baker is unusually neurotic, but I say a woman being brought face to face with such circumstances would be affected automatically—I do not think one could expect anyone to act with great presence of mind in such circumstances—I think that Miss Baker and the constable, on going into the room, and seing Miss Farmer in this condition, might think that she might be dead, I am not in the least saying that they are not absolutely honest in their statement, but they were not skilled observers, and they would naturally be in a state of trepidation; anyone would—I agree, as a general proposition, that I am constantly called upon to give evidence in cases where eminent gentlemen do not agree with me.

Re-examined. In the majority of cases where death is due to suffocation, the body cools more slowly than it does in ordinary circumstances. There are cases where the temperature rises after death.

By the COURT. I think Miss Baker behaved in a most exemplary manner.

By the JURY. The grooves remaining after the string had been removed would probably show that death had taken place before the string had been removed, but I cannot say for certain—there would be no tendency for the blood to flow, the heart would be so feeble it would have no effect upon the grooves.

BAKER (Re-examined). The piece of the pince nez which I picked up and the other piece which Wensley picked up belonged to Miss Fanner. I had seen it her possession.

EDGAR FARMER . I am the deceased's brother—after her death I found this shoe in her bedroom, it was amongst the, things scattered over the floor—I believe I found it on October 25th.

GUILTY — DEATH .

MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM said that a statement had been made to him that shortly before this trial commenced, MR. HARNETT, the solicitor for the defence, had been to the boy Mitchell, who admitted that he had given false evidence before the Coroner, and asked him about hit evidence. MR. HARNETT said that that was true. MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: And that you said "Did you see a gentleman-come out of Miss Farmer's shop and jump on a tramcar," that he replied, "No," and that you said, "You silly little goose, why don't you say so, and the men will walk out of the dock free. MR. HARNETT: No, my Lord, I did not say that. I do not remember the exact conversation, but I did not know at that time that the boy Mitchell was to attend here on behalf of the Prosecution. As soon as I was aware of that, I immediately abstained from further questioning, and the statement Mitchell made has not been put before Counsel on that account. MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM; The father of the boy said to you "Who are you?" you said" am the solicitor for Donovan and Wade"; is that what took place? MR. HARNETT; Yes, my Lord. MR. JUSTICE GRANT HAM: And the father of the boy turned you out of the house. MR. HARNETT: "No, not my Lord; may I explain?" MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: "You have no right in my house." MR. HARNETT: "No, my Lord. When I went there Mrs. Mitchell was in the house,

and I thought I had her son to deal with. The father came in and snatched the paper out of my hand and fore it in two. It was only through threatening him with the natural consequences of that that I got it back. Finding the boy ictus to be one of the witnesses for the prosecution, I left in the ordinary way. and I was not turned out of the house." MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: It is quite untrue that he-was going to give evidence for the Prosecution: MR. HARNETT He told me he was going to attend here on behalf of the Prosecution; therefore I abstained from continuing my statement. MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: The mother says you said, "I come from Coroner Baxter." MR. HARNETT: "No, my Lord, I never said anything of the kind"—Mrs. Mitchell was then called and swore that Mr. Harnett had said to her when he called that he had come from Mr. Baxter. MR. HARNETT: That is altogether wrong, my Lord: but MRS. MITCHELL was under that impression. Nothing was said about where I came from. MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: I believe you are a solicitor of the High Court? MR. HARNETT: Yes, my Lord, I am MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM: Then I shall send the papers to the Law Society. MR. HARNETT: Thank you, my Lord; I am obliged to your Lordship.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 21st, 1904.

Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.

Reference Number: t19041114-48

48. ROBERT WILSON (28) , Committing wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. PURCELL and MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted: MR. J.P. GRAIX Defended.

AUGUSTUS HALLEY . I am clerk to the magistrate at Worship Street Police Court—I identify the original information in the prosecution of Sekolsky—I took notes of the evidence on the prosecution of the prisoner and. others for perjury—I read the prisoner's evidence over to him, and he signed it.

MORRIS SEKOLSKY . I am a cabinet maker, of 50, Hassard Street—I have had dealings with Adam Keil. a polisher, of 36, Columbia Road, for two or three months—on March."3rd, I met him in the passage as I was going into my place—he asked me if I had two elliptic stands and dressing chests in stock—I told him yes—he asked the price—I said 16s. 6d. for the two elliptic stands and a box, and with. the dressing chests the bill would come to £2 7s. 6d.—he said he wanted them quickly for a customer, and that was why he asked if I had them in stock—one box was not the right colour; satin walnut is very light—the one in stock was mahogany—when he had gone I set to work to reveneer the mahogany box in the presence of my men—that took me till about 8 p.m.; when Schlesinger and I took them to Adam Keil's place—he was in the shop—I was not paid that evening—I have no clerk, but I keep this book in Hebrew, and if I have an order on credit I put it in, the date, and where the goods are—I have made this entry, "3.3.04—Kil, two chests with boxes £116s., two elliptic stands 6s. 6d.; one box 5s.—£2 7s. 6d.—that book was produced when I was tried here, and when I was examined—I called on Adam Keil on March 5th and asked him

for the money—he saidhe could not pay that day because he had had a post card from his customer, and he could not deliver them for a week; he sand, "Come next week some time"—I went the following Saturday—he saidhe was hard up and could not pay me—I went again, when he saidhe would pay me in time, but he was hard up at present—I asked, him if he would pay 3s. at a time—finally I saw Arthur Keil, and in consequence of what he said I went to my solicitor—after writing Keil a letter, I took out—a summons at the Shoreditch County Court—when the summons was called—on before the Registrar, Arthur Keil appeared—in consequence of what I said the hearing was adjourned to another day, when Adam Keil appeared and said that he had not bought the things, but that he was ill in bed on March 3rd, and that he had not had them—Arthur Keil and other witnesses were called, and the Registrar gave judgment for me—afterwards there was a motion for a new trial, which was refused—the next thing that happened was that I received a summons for perjury—I attended at Worship Street Police Court, when Adam Keil, his two sons, and the prisoner gave evidence against me—Adam Keil swore that he was ill in bed on March 3rd, and the others swore the same, in consequence of which I was committed for perjury to this Court—about a week before the trial at this Court my solicitor received information, and a gentleman was sent to see Mr. Marsh in Edgware Road, and who was subpœnaed—when the case came on before the Common Serjeant in this building, Adam Keil, his two sons and his wife gave the. Same evidence as they did at the Police Court—Marsh was then called, and directly the jury heard my repetition that what I said was true, they stopped the case, and I was acquitted—the next step was that some of the papers in this case were sent to the Public Prosecutor—when they came back, at my own expense I put the matter into the hands of a solicitor—I am responsible for bringing this charge against the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I came to England from Russia seven years ago—my father was a milkman—I came here because I had to go for a soldier—I came to evade military service in Russia—I started in the cabinet line—I went to a place to learn it—I have known Adam Keil and his wife for about three years—they are old people—I have charged them and their sons with perjury, all arising out of a sale of goods coming to £2 7s. 6d.—I say the old man bought these articles himself in my shop—it would not be enough to prosecute Keil, because they all prosecuted me to put me away for £2 7s. 6d.—they tried to get out of payment—the entry against Keil in this book is all made at one time—I added 6s. 8d. for a letter, making it £2 14s. 2d.—I paid 6s. for a summons—the "19.5" is the date I sent him the letter from the solicitor—I did not show Adam Keil the book—he never denied the debt, he said he owed it—I showed the book to the Registrar—I say the prisoners false oath is that he swore he bought the articles from me when he never bought them; that Kiel was land up seriously ill in bed, when he was not land up, all to help his governor to get out of paying £2 7s. 6d.—

the Keils paid me on Saturdays till a transaction two years ago, when they owed me £8 10s.—they paid me that 5s. and 3s. at a time—I have had a lot of trouble with them—they have been cabinet polishers the whole time I have been in the trade, and probably longer—so far as I know they were respectable hard working people till they did not pay me, then I found out a lot against them, but. I never tried to find out what sort of people they were so long as they paid me—I told my solicitor my trouble, and he saidthis case might be prosecuted—I do not know what papers were sent to the Public Prosecutor—the papers were left in Court.

Re-examined. I had no hand in sending the papers away—after I heard the Public Prosecutor would not take the matter up I went to some solicitors—one of Keils sons was tried on Saturday—my book is in Hebrew, and begins at what you call the end—I make an entry when a customer cannot pay ready money—I make an entry where I find space.

GEORGE WINTON . I am a cabinet maker of 19, Darcy Buildings, London Fields—I have worked for Sekolsky nearly three years—one day the prisoner came into my masters shop and asked whether the governor was in—I told him "No"—he sand, "Has he any dressing chests in stock?"—I said, think he has"—he sand, "Has he any in satin walnut?"—I said, "I think he has"—he sand, "Where are they?"—I said, "They are not here, they are over the way in the other building "—my governor had another shop—he sand. Can I see them?—I said, "No, the governor has got the key of the other shop"—he sand, "Do you know me?"—I said, "Yes, you are a son of Keil"—he sand, "Send him round the corner, you know where"—Adam Keil came to the shop door afterwards and asked whether the governor was in—I said, "No, Mr. Keil"—he sand, "When the governor comes in tell him I want two stands and a top box"—he walked down the passage and met the governor coming in as he was going out, and they remained talking—I did not hear what was sand, I went on with my work—after Keil had gone Sekolsky came into the shop and took a top box to pieces, and I saw him veneering it over with satin walnut when I left work about 6 p.m.—I saw some things packed on a barrow—that was early in March.

Cross-examined. I always thought Wilson was a son of Keil, that is why I called him Keil—I have never known him to select goods on his own account, or do work for himself—he only ordered goods on that one occasion from me—I gave evidence at the County Court—I did not saw there "I know he has asked for goods for Keil"—I said at the Police Court that the prisoner was the man who came and asked me about two dressing chests—Wilson was not at the County Court—I said if he was there I could identify him—Arthur Keil asked me "Do you say it was my brother; can you swear it was?"—I said "He represents himself as a son of your father, therefore, he must be your brother."

Re-examined. The prisoner never appeared at the County Court at all—I never knew that the defence at the County Court was that he

had the goods—that was kept for the benefit of the Police Court afterwards.

JOE SCHLESINGER (Interpreted.) I am a cabinet maker—I have been in England ten months—I have been working for Mr. Sekolsky—one day I noticed Sekolsky altering the colour of the veneer of a top box from mahogany to satin walnut—that day I assisted him to take to Keil's two dressing chests, three boxes, and two elliptic stands—when we got there the old man came from the house to see. the stuff taken in—that day I saw him talking to my governor—it was in March, I cannot remember the date.

Cross-examined. I do not remember what part of March.

FRANK MARSH . I am a furniture dealer, of 382, Edgware Road—I have been there ten years—I have bought goods of Adam Keil for cash—he never sent me a receipted bill with the goods—the bill was brought with the goods and receipted in my presence on my paying for them—the receipts are like those produced—the prisoner signed receipts "R. Keil"—I thought that was his name—this is the last receipt of A. Keil, dated March 5th—it was given to me by Adam Keil, who came to my shop in Edgware Road—the receipt included two satin walnut dressing chests—I have never had them in veneered goods before, only in the solid—he came with his pony and van, and I think with his grandson; he had one hand bandaged up, and I directed my porter to assist the things out—after that transaction I had a visit from a gentleman representing Sekolsky's solicitors—up to that time I had had no dealings with Sekolksky—I had a conversation, and in consequence understood that I would be subpœnaed to produce documents—that was in the week before Sekolsky's trial—on the Friday before the trial I had a visit from Arthur Keil—he asked for a receipt of December 17th, and afterwards for one of the 5th—I had the receipts in a packet, and showed him those he wanted to see—I asked him if the goods in the receipt of March 5th were the goods in dispute in the County Court—I had heard that Sekolsky was prosecuted for saying he sold them to Keil—Arthur's reply was "They are"—in consequence of the conversation I had with Arthur Keil, I telephoned for Sekolsky, or his solicitor—I had a conversation with them together—in consequence, I was subpœnaed to attend this Court on the trial of Sekolsky to give evidence, and not merely to produce documents, and I attended this Court, and told the jury all that passed between me and Arthur, after which, and after Sekolsky had given evidence, the jury stopped the case, and he was acquitted.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, adhered to his statement that he had ordered the goods himself, and still owed £2 for them, having paid 7s. 6d. off the bill of £2 7s. 6d. against him and not against Adam Keil; that the customer, whose name he had forgotten, fetched them home; that he was willing to pay for the goods when Sekolsky would allow for repairs which he (the prisoner) had had to do to them, and that Sekolsky's evidence was untrue.

Evidence for the Defence.

ADAM KEIL . I shall be 66 years old next February—I have been in

business about 44 years—last February and March I was very queer with rheumatic gout—I was land up in bed for three weeks, but I had been very bad in health all the winter—my wife looked after me; the old lady who was here on Saturday—she is ill this morning—the prisoner has been with me many years—he had the privilege of doing jobs on his own account, and getting what profit he could, when we were not busy—I have dealt with Sekolsky for about three years—I have bought goods from him, and paid him for them—I have left the business entirely to my sons since Christmas—on March 3rd I was in bed all day—sometimes I was up for a few hours in the room, but I was confined to my room—I did not buy goods from Sekolsky on March 3rd or the day before—I was not in his shop on March 3rd—I am not aware of any goods being delivered to my place that day or the next morning, certainly not in my presence—I did not go to Mr. Marsh on March 5th—I was ill upstairs—on March 11th I went to Mr. Marsh—I recollect the County Court summons coming in—I had not conversed with Sekolsky about it—I went to the County Court on the second hearing—I was land up on the first hearing when the matter was before the Registrar—I applied for a new trial—I did not get it—I consulted a solicitor—on his advice I swore an Information at Worship Street.

Cross-examined. My son Arthur does all the business—I help him when I am able to go out and see the goods delivered, but not indoors—he told me to go to the County Court—I understood afterwards the goods were for Wilson—I did not tell the Registrar that—I was not asked—I told him I did not order them—I did not know at the County Court the goods were for Wilson—I saw Marsh at the trial—I sent a receipt with the goods sold to Marsh on March 5th—I did not go myself—I understand what Marsh has sworn—I had my hand bandaged up when I went to Marsh on March 11th—the things I delivered were not two satin walnut elliptic stands—he often has elliptic stands—I did not sell him two in March—I know nothing about the goods delivered on March 5th or that week.

Evidence in Reply.

MORRIS SKKOLSKY (Re-examined.) I did not ask Wilson to pay for the goods—he did not say they were in a bad state and wanted repairing—I never spoke to him about thorn—he did not say if I made an allowance he would pay.

FRANK MARSH (Re-examined.) The bill was not sent to me receipted with the goods on March 5th—there can be no mistake, receipts are signed at my desk—I have in my pocket a lot of receipts signed by persons who supplied goods; some signed in pencil and some in indelible ink—this one of March 5th is not receipted in the same ink as the bill—it was signed in my presence—a porter assisted with the goods, but I cannot identify which of my porters it was—my clerk receipted the bill of March 11th—what are described in this invoice as two square chests in satin walnut, was an exceptional deal—that was the first time I had ever had such an article.

Cross-examined. Tradesmen never leave a receipted bill with me, I could not carry on my business like that.

GEORGE WINTON (Re-examined). I do not recollect whether it was March 2nd or 3rd, but the same day Wilson called Adam Keil came immediately afterwards—this is the bill signed by Adam Keil on March 5th—it includes other goods than those in dispute.

GUILTY . Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19041114-49

49. WILLIAM KEIL and ADAM KEIL (65), withdrew their pleas and PLEADED GUILTY to committing wilful and corrupt perjury. To enter into recognizances.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, November 22nd, 1904.

Before Mr. Justice Grantham.

Reference Number: t19041114-50

50. GEORGE COOPER (27) , Rape on Kathleen Amelia Major.

MR. HUTTON and MR. FORDHAM Prosecuted; MR. ELLIOTT and MR. FITCH Defended.

He received a good character.

GUILTY of the attempt. Eighteen months' hard labour.

OLD COURT.—November 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th; December 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th, 1904.

Before Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence.

Reference Number: t19041114-51

51. ERNEST TEKAH HOOLEY and HENRY JOHN LAWSON (52) , conspiring to defraud Alfred John Paine of certain of his monies and valuable securities. Second Count. Conspiring to defraud such persons as should become, shareholders and creditors of the Electric Tramways Constructions and Maintenance Co., Limited. Third Count. Obtaining from Alfred John Paine a cheque for £1,500 by false pretences and with intent to defraud. Eighth Count against LAWSON. Being manager of the Electric Tramways Company did unlawfully make and publish false statements which he knew to be false, with intent to induce persons to become shareholders in the said company.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Muir, and Mr. A. Gill Prosecuted Mr. Rufus Isaacs; K.C., Mr. Horace Avon-, K.C., and Mr. K. Chalmers Defended Hooley.

ALFRED JOHN PAINE . I live at The Cedars, West Hill, Sydenham, and am a. licensed victuallerl and. owner of the "Windsor Castle Hotel, near Victoria. Station—sixteen or seventeen, years ago I knew a gentleman named Sims White who was then in the service of the Great Eastern Railway—in the latter part of April, 1900, I met him at Victoria Station in the train—I had a conversation with him—he left the train at Thornton Heath Station—some little time afterwards I got this letter (Exhibit 3) from him; it is dated from the Walsingham Hotel, October 2nd, 1900: Dear Mr. Paine,—If you will give me a call airy day between 10 and 5 I shall be glad to see you and put you in the way of making some money quickly. You might ring me up on the telephone when you are coming, so that I can arrange to be in. Yours very truly, J. Sims White"—some little

time later I called at the Walsingham Hotel and asked for Sims White—I was shown into the drawing room, and had some conversation with Mr. White—he showed me some documents relating to the Siberian Goldfield Development Company, Limited, and made a statement to me about it—he then brought Hooley into the room and introduced me—Hooley made some statement to me with regard to the Siberian Goldfields, and in the result I bought some shares in the company—Hooley said that they belonged to Mr. Ormerod, who wanted money—he did not say who Mr. Ormerod was; he saida gentleman, a client of his—I bought 5,000 of these shares for £3,000—this is the transfer I got. for them (Exhibit i); it is dated October 12th—this is. my cheque for £3,000 which I gave for it—on October 16th I bought a further 5,000 shares in the same company and gave this cheque for £3,000 for them (Produced)—on November 7th I bought 200 shares in a syndicate connected with the same goldfields for £1,500—tills is my cheque (Exhibit 6)—on November 26th I bought 300 of the same syndicate shares and gave £1,500 for them, and on the same day Hooley mentioned to me the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited—he saidit was a very fine company, and that it had got a railway from Liverpool Street to Walthamstow, and he showed the plans and said that they were promoting a lot of tramways and had got a lot of orders for running trains in different parts of the country, that it was a very, very fine thing, and that the Bill for running the railway was practically passed—The City and North Eastern Suburban Railway, I think it was called; commonly called the Walthamstow Railway—he stated that the shares would be very, very valuable, and that he would part with them at a sacrifice as he wanted money very, very badly—he saidthey would be paying 16s. in a few days dividend—I asked him about it, and said that was a lot of money for a dividend—he sand: "Yes, they were promoting another company, and that part of the dividend would come out of that"—the British Electric Tramways Street Company, Limited; what is called the Street Company—he saidthat he had got 3,000 shares) in the Electric Tramways Construction, that he would part with them at a sacrifice, as he wanted the money very badly; he offered to sell them to me at 10s. per share—I agreed to that and gave him a cheque for £1,500—I think the transfer was Mr. Ormerod's; this is it (Exhibit 5), December 13th is the date now upon it—that was with a view to lodge it; there was no date to it then—this is the cheque I paid for it (Exhibit 9); it purports to be for the consideration of 5s.—Hooley always did that; the same with the Siberians.; he stamped everything, and arranged about the stamps; he saidhe always did that for any client that purchased shares from him—the body of that is filled up in Sims Whites) writing and my own the "paid by Alfred John Paine, 4, Eastern Terrace, Marine Parade, Brighton," is mine: I filled that in: that was when I acknowledged the transfer: they said it was incomplete—I gave the cheque and had the transfer, I should think, two or three days, or three or four days afterwards; I had got a receipt for the money—I must have had it: perhaps it was. a week afterwards—the—words, "In consideration of the sum of five shillings" are in Mr. Sims Whites writing; 10s. stamp it is—"in consideration" is printed, "paid by" is printed, and "Alfred John Pain, of 4, Eastern

Terrace, Marine Parade, Brighton," is written in—this is the receipt I got at the time for my cheque (Produced): "November 26th, 1900. Received from A. J. Paine the sum of £1,500 for 3,000 shares of £1 each fully paid in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. Ernest T. Hooley"—there are two exhibits of that date—this is crossed with the name of Fosters Bank, Cambridge, and stamped—the figures as given me show that I had paid to Hooley for shares between October 12th and up to this transaction of November 26th, £10,500—this copy of the prospectus of the Streets company was given to me at the time I purchased the Construction Company's shares—that would be on November 26th, 1900; I got it from Hooley—looking at that, I find that the capital of the Street Company is £300,000, and among the directors I find the name of Sir J. Kenneth D. Mackenzie, Bart., Gordon Hunter, and Herbert J. Thomas—on November 26th I was living at Brighton—I went to Brighton that night and I found this telegram there waiting for me; (Exhibit 11), handed in at Regent Street, 7.52 p.m., November 26th: "Just see," it means "just seen," "the little man, says will be 18s. per share dividend at once. Hooley"—he had sand that the gentleman who owned very nearly all the shares in the Electric Tramways Construction Company was a friend of his, a man he had done a very large amount of business with, and he was a very rich man—I came up the next morning and saw Hooley at Walsingham House—I pointed out to him that the "see" ought to have been "seen," and I said: "Who do you mean; by the little man?"—he sand, "That is the gentleman I was speaking to you about, who owns nearly all the shares in this Electric Tramways Construction Company"—he sand, "I saw him last night, and he tells me there will be 18s. dividend"; and that his name was "Mr. H.J. Lawson, the big motor man, or cycle man"—he said Lawson had made a very large amount of money out of motors, and he understands the British motor; that he had made a quarter of a million, I think he said, out of it and that he had sold a lot of shares for him, and that they had done business together for years—at that time I had in my possession two guarantees relating to the Siberian shares that I had bought from Hooley; they were Mrs. Hooley's guarantees—they were both handed to Hooley; one he tore up in my presence and threw in the fire—it was a guarantee that if he did not get a sovereign per share for the shares I had paid him 12a for by Christmas he would send me back my 3,000; it was an indemnity against loss—I did not understand that it was a guarantee of £1 for 12s.—I understood that if he could not succeed in getting £1 per share for the shares I purchased from him that he would hand me my money back and take the shares back; of course, that is what I understood it to mean—but if he could get £a share for them he was to sell them, and I was to get the benefit of it—that would mature at Christmas time—I spoke to him before November 27th; he had been selling a lot of shares, and I asked, him if he could not sell mine—that would be on the 27th or 26th—the 26th was the day I sold, so it would be the day after—this was not a guarantee for the Construction shares; it was in relation to the Siberian Goldfields Development Company—he saidhe could sell my

shares he had already sold 700 of them, he sand, to a Mr. somebody, of Virginia, in the United States; Doctor somebody, think it was—on that day he spoke to me about his having a contract, or Mrs. Hooley having a contract with Lawson for a certain number of shares in the Electric Tramway Construction Company: and ho showed me the contract this is a copy of it (produced)—first, of all Hooley had the original: he then handed it back to me: he then had it again, and I never saw it. afterwards—he was the last person that I knew of who had it—but I had a. copy of it: this—is a copy certified by him and by me to be a true copy—hot showed me the original of that on November—27th—Read: 26th November, 1900. Walsingham H u-e. Piccadilly. London, W. Mrs. A. M. Hooley. In consideration of your having transferred to me this day 1.300 shares of five pounds each fully paid in the Dublin Distillers Company, Limited. I hereby agree to divide with you all the proceeds I make out of dealing with the 245,000 shares in the Electric Tramway Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, on the following terms. The share to be sold from time to time, and the proceeds to be divided in the following proportion:—Three-fourths to H.J. Lawson and onefourth to Mrs. Hooley, but Mrs. Hooley not to receive any money until he has paid to Lawson out of her proceeds the sum of £3,500. The price of the shares to be arranged by Mr. Lawson * * * * * H. J. Lawson"—I asked him what the Distillers shares were worth: being in my own business I naturally should—he saidthey were worth £5 each and he then suggested that I should purchase a share in it, and that. I should give up my share that I had in the Siberian Goldfields Development Company, Mr. Hooley's guarantee and pay him a cheque of really £2,500 but hot wanted the cheque then for £2.000. and he was to allow mo for the shares that were sold in Virginia £550, I think it was but I will not. ho quite sure until I see the contract—we spoke generally about it on the 27th and I think you will find my cheque is dated the next day—I think I gave him a cheque the next day—we did not do any business day but he told me all about it—that is the cheque (Produced)—I brought it. round with me: I remember that—it is November 28th, 1900. payable to Sims White for £2,000, and stamped with the stamp of the National Provincial Bank of England, St. James Branch, Piccadilly, and endorsed by Sims White—I agreed to the terms that he offered, and they were reduced to writing on December 3rd—he was. not quite sure about I he money from the doctor in Virginia: this is the document (Exhibits 14): "Walsingham House, Piccadilly, W., London, December 3rd, 1900. To J. Paine, Esq.—In consideration of your handing me transfer for 4,300 Siberians and paying me the sum of £3,000 payable as to £550 to be retained by you coming from the sale of 700 Siberians sold by you to clients in Virginia, U.S.A., £450 to be paid by December 31st, 1900, and £2,000 already paid"—November 30th is a mistake: it is 28th: "I hereby agree to deposit with you the contract between H. J. Lawson and myself. dated November 26th, 1900, and I also agree to divide with you equally all the profit I make in the transaction"—that is signed "For A. M. Hooley, E. T. Hooley. her agent," on a stamp—by that contract. I gave up my 5,000 Siberian share. which had cost me £3.000. and which he said

he had sold for £5,000, or got a customer for them; he said he could readily sell them for £5,000—I had, in fact, given £3,000 for them—I gave a cheque for £2,000, and promised to pay £150, which I afterwards in fact paid; and gave up my guarantee from Mrs. Hooley, so that in cash that had cost me £5,450—in exchange for that I got half of Mrs. Hooley's interest under contract with Lawson—Mrs. Hooley for the whole of that interest had given 1,500 shares in the Dublin Distillers' Company, and had to pay some more—it was to come out of the sale—I did not see that document signed (Exhibit 14); the signature is in Hooley's writing—up to that time I had never seen Lawson to my knowledge—I saw him for the first time at the beginning of December at Walsingham House—Hooley introduced us, and we went into the drawing room and he left us together—Lawson then spoke about my having purchased half the shares—he saidthat I had done a very good thing, that he had got orders all over the country for Tramways; and he produced a paper showing me what a good thing it was, and said they had promoted the British Electric Street Tramway, and that the railway was going on all right, that it was practically passed, that it would be a very, very valuable thing, and anybody who held shares would get a very, very large profit, and that he should advise me when Hooley was hard up to try and buy the other half—he told me a lot about the railway and what a fine thing this electric traction was; that there was a boom in it, and what he was going to do and how they paid, and so on; ho said that there would be big dividends, and that he expected that there would be a dividend shortly here because it would come mainly out of the British Electric Tramway Company told me they had promoted thiscompany, and he also told me all the big people who were connected with it, and on that prospectus there is a lot of names of first subscribers,. I think you call them: important names—he said that it was important that the shares should not be put on the market—Lawson sold that—I think Hooley was present then, but I am not sure, and that ho did not want the shares put on the market because they had some serious negotiations going on, and it would not be the thing to have these shares put the markets and would I put my shares in a, pool—I said, "What do you mean?"—he then explained to me it meant that if the shares were sold I got so much pro rata; that is to say, if he old 30 shares, I should be entitled to 10, because I held a less number—I said that if Hooley would consent. I had no objection—previous to that Mr. Cox, of Cox & Lafone, called at Walsingham House, and Hooley explained to him that he had arranged with Lawson that the shares should be pooled, and that I should be trustee for Mrs. Hooley's other half, and gave instructions to Mr. Cox, I think Lawson was there at the time, to draw up this pooling agreement—I got a letter (Exhibit 15), and the draft pooling agreement—the letter is signed by Messrs, Cox & Lafone and headed: "Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company. Limited, 6th December, 1901: Dear Sir,—Here with we send you, as promised, one copy of the proposed pooling agreement between yourself and Mr. Lawson. We have sent duplicates to Mr. Hooley and Mr. Lawson. We have also sent Mr. Hooley a short acknowledgment to lx signed by you as to the shares which you will hold on

behalf of Mrs. Hooley"—that is addressed to me (Read) "Draft agreement made the blank day of December, 1901, between Harry John Lawson, of 40, Holborn Viaduct, of the one part, and Alfred John Paine, of Brighton, of the other part: "Whereas the said Harry John Law-son has the control of and is beneficially entitled to 185,750 fully paid shares of the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. And whereas the said Alfred John Paine has the control of and is beneficially entitled on his own personal account to 3,000 fullypaid shares in the same company, and also has the control of and is beneficially entitled on a trust account to 61,250 fully paid shares in the same company. Now it is hereby agreed between the saidparties hereto as follows: (1.) All the before-mentioned shares shall, for the purposes of this agreement, be placed under the control of the said Harry John Lawson as trustee for both the sand parties for the period hereinafter mentioned, and shall be pooled in manner hereinafter appearing. (2.) The said Harry John Lawson shall, as opportunity arises, sell all or any of the saidshares as to the 10,000 thereof at any price not less than £3 per share, and as to the remainder of the saidshares at any price not less than £5 per share unless and until both parties to this agreement shall otherwise mutually agree, and he shall hold the net proceeds of such shares upon trust for himself and the sand Alfred John Paine pro rata according to the proportions of the shares to which the saidparties respectively are entitled as aforesaid (videlicet 185,750 and 64,250: and he shall from time to time distribute such proceeds as and when such proceeds shall amount to £1,000. (3.) This agreement shall remain in force for the period of six months from the date hereof, and if one half or any greater number of the saidshares shall then have been sold, this agreement shall remain in force for a further period of six months. (4.) During the continuance of this agreement none of the sand shares shall be sold except in accordance with and subject to the provisions hereof"—I never heard any more of that—by January 21st I had lodged my transfer; I lodged that on December 13th—I had not got my certificate then—I wrote to the secretary of the Construction Company on January 21st—(Exhibit 88): "Dear Sir,—I have been expecting to receive my certificate for the 3,000 shares I hold in your company. Up to now it has not arrived. I shall be glad to know when I may expect it, as it is placing me in a very awkward position, and unless I have it during the next few days I shall be obliged to place the matter in other hands. When sending the certificate please let me know how the company is getting on with the City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway"—I got a reply to that on January 22nd (Exhibit 89): "Dear Sir,—Your letter of the 21st inst. duly to hand. I shall be glad if you will kindly inform me the exact amount of the consideration, that has passed for the shares transferred to you in the company. The reason that I shall require to know the consideration is to see if the stamp duty upon the transfer is in order. I would point out to you that the shares issued by this company at present are really not tranferable at all. the shares having been pooled. I regret it is impossible to give you any information as to the railway mentioned in your letter"—that is signed by Mr. Parford, the secretary—I showed that letter to Hooley, and on January 24th he dictated

this reply to his typewriter: "Dear Sir,—I purchased the 3,000 shares in your company, transfer of which you have a considerable time, from a friend of mine for shares in another company, which can be proved at any time. Your letter this morning is the first intimation I have that the shares are not transferable. I know nothing; of any pool and am not a party to any, and unless I receive my certificate during the next seven days I shall immediately place the matter in the hands of my solicitors. Yours faithfully, Alfred J. Paine"—headed "Windsor Castle, Victoria Station, London"—it was typed at Walsingham House; Hooley dictated it—he sand Lawson was trying to fish to find out how much he had got for the shares; and he sand, "That is all right; I will attend to that"—it was not true about the shares being obtained for other shares; I paid £1,500 for them—I was very foolish to sign that letter which contained that untrue statement, but it did not make any difference to me, because Hooley paid all the stamps on the transfers, and he wanted me to do it so that Lawson should not know what he got for the shares—that was) the only reason; it was a very foolish thing to do—(Lawson: should like to say that I never had a cheque in my life from Paine)—to that letter I got this reply: "January 25th, 1901. Dear Sir,—Replying to your letter, we beg to say our solicitors are Messrs. Lumley & Lumley, 15, Old Jewry Chambers, London, E.C., who will accept service on this company's behalf.—Yours faithfully"—that is signed by Mr. Parford, the secretary—Exhibit 222 appears to be signed by Hooley—(Read:") January 24th, 1901. H. J. Lawson, Esq., 40, Holborn Viaduct, E.C. Dear Lawson,—Mr. Paine has called on me to-day with a letter he has received from the secretary of the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, and it says they wish to point out that the shares issued by the company at present are really not transferable at all, the shares having been pooled. He is very wroth, as no mention has been made that he should pool these 3.000 shares until this letter received this morning. Kindly have it put right at once—Yours faithfully, Ernest T. Hooley. P.S.—Of course, you are aware that Mr. Paine is the holder of the other contract referring to one-fourth of the 245,000. I think it is a great mistake to have him annoyed in this manner—E. T. H."—I purchased the second half of Mrs. Hooley's contract with Lawson, subject to the terms of these two documents (Exhibit 17;) they are both dated January 24th, 1901—the first reads: "To A. J. Paine, Esq. In consideration of your having paid me the sum of five thousand pounds this day, I hereby assign all my interest in the contract between myself and H. J. Lawson re one quarter of two hundred and forty-five thousand shares in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. The original contract now in your possession"—that is signed: "For Annie M. Hooley, Ernest T. Hooley, her agent"—the second is: "In consideration of your purchasing this day all my interest in a contract between Lawson and myself £245,000 Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, shares, and paying me by bill £1,200 at three months and £3,800 at six months, I hereby agree that if called upon within 14 days before the maturity of the saidbills to cancel the contract and meet the two bills; you to retain out of my interest 5,000 shares as a bonus

on the transaction"—the same day that Hooley wrote that, letter saying that I was the holder of the other contract I was, in fact, the holder of the whole of it—the first of these bills was a three months bill, and would become payable on April 27th, 1901, if it was three months, after that date: and 14 days before the maturity of the saidbill I had the right to cancel this contract, which I did more than fourteen days before the first of the bills became due—the time stated there is that I was to give notice within 14 days, but before that I said that I would not have it—the latest date on which I could have cancelled the first of the bills was April 13th, and before that date I had cancelled it and in one way and another the bills were mot by me and Hooley partly in Corunna shares and partly in money—before I entered into the contract of January 24th, Hooley told me that Messrs. Baring & Co., the bankers, were taking over the whole concern, and that the shares would be worth, I think it was, £.5 each: that they were the big bankers, and that they were taking ever the whole of the company, railway bill included; that is, the Construction Company, and that if I bought this contract before the bills became due the deal would be done, and it was on that understanding that I took them—he saidif the deal did not come off, he would not ask for the money; and he said: "will put it in writing for you"—and that was the reason of the option given to me here in Exhibit 18—before I exercised my option I inquired whether Messrs. Barings had taken them over: I knew that they had not, because I should have heard of it directly. and then I exercised my option to cancel after the letter which I received on January 25th, 1901, from the secretary of the Construction Company, saying that their solicitors would accept service—I got this certificate (Produced)—it is for 3.000 ordinary shares in the Construction Company, dated January 26th, 1901. and it is signed by Mr. Parford, the secretary. and by two directors: the same Mr. Parford who had written me the letter—this other letter is signed by me: it was typed at Walsingham House although it I headed "Windsor Castle, Victoria Station—January 30th, 1901, to the secretary of the Construction Company: "Replying to your letter of the 25th inst., I have to inform you that Mr. H. J. Lawson has handed me my certificate for 3,000 shares in your company, and he has also given me information with regard to your company's interest in, and the position of the City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Company. I am also pleased to hear of the various arrangements which have been made with local bodies in different pans of the county for The promotion and construction of electric tramways, particularly as my interest both in your company and the British Electric Street Tramways Company (apart from the above 3,000 shares) is very large. Do you wish me to sign a formal receipt for the above certificate?"—I had, in fact, got that certificate from Lawson—about the end of May or the beginning of June an appointment was made to meet Lawson at the Walsingham House Hotel—Hooley arranged it: he saidthat Lawson was very much annoyed that I had got such a large interest in the concern, and that he wished to see me: and I then saw Lawson at Walsingham House—he said I had too large an interest in his company and that he was not going to stand that—it meant. I think, that for every sixpence he earned I would take three halfpence

of it—I think it was something of that sort; and that ho should not lot these orders keep in the company; ho should form, separate companies unless I came to some arrangement—if you take the property of the company, it would not be as valuable—he did not say so; I say so, if he had done so—he saidthat ho should form them into different companies unless I came to some arrangement with him—I pointed out to him that I had paid that large sum of money for these shares—he said he could not help that; he had not had any of the money; Hooley had no business to have sold it—I said, Why, you advised me yourself to buy it"—he said, Well he was not going to let me have such a big interest in it, and I would have to come to some arrangement—I saw Hooley and talked it over with him, and said Lawson had offered me a number of shares—he had not named the shares at that time; I do not know whether he did, it is four years ago—yes, I think he did mention the shares—I spoke to Hooley about it—I said I would consider the matter and would speak to Hooley—he offered mo 16,000 shares—I said to Hooley, "I do net like this sort of thing, you know; this is very unfair," and I said, "Can he do this sort of thing?"—"Oh, yes," he sand, "if he likes"—I said, "We can prevent him, cannot you, or I can"—he sand, "No, there is nothing to prevent him getting these orders and putting them in another company altogether"—after some considerable discussion. I agreed that I would accept the shares—the next day Lawson made an appointment—the next day, or a day or two afterwards: I think it was about June 6th, the beginning of June I know, and he brought up a number of blank transfers to me and we went into the drawing room, he brought out these transfers and wanted a copy of the contract, and I told him that I had given it to Hooley, and Hooley said, "I do not think I had it," and the result of it was he accepted a, copy and we both accepted it as a true copy—that is Exhibit 25, and Hooley put these statements upon it which are now there dated June 5th, 1901—it says: "I hereby swear this is: a true copy of the contract cancelled this day as far as I am concerned for Annie M. Hooley. Ernest T. Hooley, her agent": and then I state: "I hereby swear the above to be a true and cancelled paper as for consideration received.—Alfred J. Paine"—Hooley wrote both those memorandums and I signed one—the orders that are mentioned that Lawson said he would transfer to ether companies were provisional orders for rights to run trams in different parts of the country—it. appeared to me from what he told mo that you go to the corporation or the boroughs under the Light Railway Act and got the rights confirmed—I know that Lawson was getting these provisional orders; he and the company—I had no means, of telling who was doing it—Hooley told me that Lawson's threat could be carried out—I thought he holding so many shares, would be master of the company and could do as he liked, and, as a matter of fact, Hooley told me it was his company—on June 5th I gave up that contract, or the copy of it, which was all I had—I got a number of transfers on that date—the first is 101 for 250 ordinary shares of £10 each in the Blackpool South. Company transferred by Lawson to me, the consideration being stated as £50—the second of I hem is for 2000 debentures in the Construction Company from Lawson to me for a consideration of £50—the third 2.500 debentures in the Blackpool

South from Lawson to me in consideration of £50—the fourth for 2,500 £shares in the Electric Tramways Trust, Limited, from Lawson to me in consideration of £50—and the fifth for 2,000 debentures in the Trust Company of £each from Lawson to me in consideration of £50—not having heard of the Trust Company before, I said to Hooley, "What is the Trust Company?"—he sand, "That is a very good company; I have done a lot of business through it, and Mr. Lawson does his business through it"—that was said at the time these shares were given or within an hour or so; the same time; the same day—there is a transfer of 2,000 shares, giving their numbers, which none of the others do, in, the Construction Company—that is also said to be in consideration of £50 from Lawson to me—they were all really in exchange for the contract or the half of Mrs. Hooley's interest—those Construction shares I have now—all the others that are mentioned here were subsequently cancelled—Exhibit 26 is a list on a telegram form in Mr. Whites writing; it relates to 2,500 British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, but it was 250 really, because they were £10; it really means £2,500 in £10 share—I kept the first lot until I presented a petition to wind up the Street Company—they were mine—that was in 1903, I believe—Lawson agreed to pay me and the other shareholders 7s. 6d. a share upon the petition being withdrawn; he followed me about for two days—I consented to that arrangement on the understanding that the shareholders who supported my petition should have the same as I did, and I got a bill for £937 signed! by Lawson—that bill was first dishonoured; it was not afterwards taken up: I had to get judgment, and recovered upon it: I had to issue a writ—I got £937—7s. 6d. a share—Exhibit 227 looks like an original document to me, signed by Lawson: it is in Lawson's writing—(Read:") 34, Victoria Street, London, S.W. June 5th, 1901. Mrs. Hooley, Risley Hall, Derby. Dear Madam,—I hereby give you notice that the contract made with Mr. Hooley on behalf of Mrs. Hooley in November, 1900, for one quarter of the profits that may be received in respect of the sale of the 245,000 shares in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, has to-day been cancelled for a consideration. Will you please kindly acknowledge this letter and confirm same?—Yours faithfully, H. J. Lawson"—Exhibit 229: June 7th, 1901. H. J. Lawson, 34, Victoria Street, London, S.W. Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th inst., and! agree that the contract of November, 1900, relating to the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, is cancelled.—Yours faithfully, Annie M. Hooley" in Hooley's handwriting.

Wednesday, November 23rd.

ALFRED JOHN PAINE . (Examination continued.) I got the certificate for my 2,000 shares in the Construction Company which I acquired on June 6th part of the consideration for giving up my rights under the contract of November 26th, 1900—it is undated—I think I got it some considerable time afterwards; I do not remember the exact date—I sent the transfers up, or Mr. Sims White did on my behalf, to the different companies, but it was in one letter, and I understood that Mr. Parford or Mr. Osborn was the secretary—in June, 1901, Mr. Sims White was Hooley's clerk, and

he was on commission, selling shares and that sort of thing—he said he had come there to pay Hooley's debts, and had been appointed by Hooley to arrange with his creditors—Exhibit 230 is: "June 10th, 1901. The secretary, Electric Tramway Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. Dear Sir,—Enclosed I send you transfers from Mr. H. J. Lawson to Mr. A. J. Paine as under: 2,000 debentures of £each fully paid in, your company, and 2,000 fully paid shares of £1 each, also in your company. I also send 5s. transfer fees, and shall be glad to receive transfer receipts and to hear that the transfers are quite in order"—the next letter is practically in the same words addressed to the secretary of the Street Company with reference to a transfer from Lawson to me of 2,500 fully paid shares, and the third letter is in the we terms to the secretary of the Trust Company with reference to transfers from Lawson to me for 2,000 debentures and 2,500 fully paid shares in the Trust Company; that is Exhibit 30—I received a card of invitation to a dinner to be given at I he Hotel Cecil on September 20th, 1901—It recites this:" Sir J. Kenneth D. Mackenzie, Bart., of Tarbat, A.M.I.C.E. (chairman), and the directors of the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited request the pleasure of Alfred J. Paine, Esq.'s company at dinner at the Hotel Cecil on Friday, 20th inst., at 7.30 p.m. "That is from 34, Victoria Street; S.W. "R.S.V.P."—I did not attend the dinner; I was too late, being at Brighton—I saw a report of it in the financial papers: this sheet of the "Financial News" of Monday, September 23rd, is one of the reports I saw—(Produced)—I saw set out the speech of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, and afterwards I received this document from Hooley when I was at Walsingham House a few days after the dinner, or the meeting of shareholders—I saw about 20 other copies there at the time; they were lying flat on the sideboard, and there was a lot of the Blackpool Electric things, which had been there for some time with a lot of plans showing the Lytham and so on—Hooley and I discussed it, and he saidwhat a fine thing it was; what a lucky chap I was to have bought shares in it, and what a fine future there was—on the first page of the document there is a lot of letterpress: "Authorised by Acts of Parliament; Authorised by the Light Railway Commissioners. Orders obtained and being applied for"—" £5,000,000 of new electric tramways and railways in England. Important conversion; of horse tramways and construction of town tramways," and so on—then: the districts named: "Blackburn 1, Great Harwood, Clayton-le-Moors, Whalley, Rishton, Padiham, Burnley, Chorley, Horwich and District to Wigan Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Nottingham, Beeston, Long Eaton, Derby, Mansfield, Exeter, Luton, and Bedfordshire. The Electric Tramways and Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. Report of meeting held at the Hotel Cecil, Strand, on September 20th, 1901." "Reprinted from the Financial News, September 23rd; 1901: The Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, engineers, Sir Frederick Bramwell, Bart, M. Inst. C.E., F.R.S.; H. Graham Harris, Esq., M. Inst. CE. (Bramwell & Harris): John Fell. Esq., J.P.: Thomas Parker, Esq., J.P., F.R.S.E., M.I.C.E., Electrical Engineer Metropolitan Underground Railway; Directors: Sir J. Kenneth D. Mackenzie, Bart, A.M.I.C.E., Gordon Hunter, Herbert George

Thomas Secretary, Charles Edward Osborne, 34, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W."; that is on the second page—(The Report was then read, in which the Chairman, Sir J. Kenneth D. Mackenzie, Bart., was reported to have mid that he announced a dividend of 6 per cent., and a bonus of la. 2d. per chare, and that the company had close upon £100,000 on deposit and in hand at its bankers)—I read the statement of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie as to the dividends, and the amount of money at the bank—I certainly thought they were true—I had parted with my contract under which I had rights, the 30,000 shares on June 5th preceding—I do not remember how many share I had left at this time—I had more than 3,000: and 2,000 I got in June, making the 5,000; and I bought a lot more; I also had debentures under my contracts in June—I told Hooley I wondered I had not received my dividend, and he sand, "That will be all rights. Have a little patience"—then I spoke to him again about it. and I found that they had paid Sir Henry White his dividend—then I saw Lawson later on and Hooley together, and they said there had been some bother with the Blackpool South Electric Company and directly that was over they would pay me—I gave Hooley a transfer of 500 shares after the announcement of the dividend, for which he gave me 1,750; instead of giving me the money he gave me 1,750 Paramo shares that he never had—I got that from the company; I went to the particular company—the bargain was that he was to give me £2,000 for them—he saidthey were worth £6 each, and I said: "Well, I snail be very glad to sell some at £4"—he saidhe had got a client who would buy some at £4—I then gave him the transfer, and he and he could not pay me the money then; that he was very hard up, but he would give me these Paramo shares, and I bought the balance of them and paid £250, and I sold them ex div—that was after I had heard of Sir Henry White having his dividend—this is the document I got in respect of that transaction (Exhibit 37) it is? dated Oct 11th, 1901: "A. J. Paine. Esq.,—In consideration of you handing to me transfer in blank for 500 Electric Construction shares ex dividend, I hereby transfer to you my interest in 1,750 Paramo shares held in the pool, together with the previous contract you have, which makes 3,500 coming to you. For Annie M. Hooley. E. T. Hooley, her agent"—that is on a stamp which is initialled "E. T. H."—I never got those Paramo shares—Exhibit 138 is a transfer that I gave to Hooley for those 500 Construction shares on October 11th—I handed it to him in blank in my name, simply, with the 500 shares—I was to gave £2,000 for them, as the Barings wore about to take the thing over, and there was a talk of the Pierpont Morgan railway—I never had the shares—I never had the transfer—we could not get the shares, and my solicitor made a search at Somerset House, or he consulted Messrs. Wontner & Sons—Exhibit 34. I think is the letter sent to Lawson; it is dated October 7th: "Sir,—We have been consulted by Mr. A. J. Paine, of 4, Eastern Terrace Marine Parade, Brighton, with reference to the circumstances under which he was induced by you in the early part of the present year to give up the benefit of his contracts with Mrs. Hooley relating to one-fourth of 245,000 shares in the Electric Tramwarp Construction Company. We are instructed that in exchange for the

handing over of the benefit of this contract to you by Mr. Paine you agree to give him 2,000 ordinary shares and 2,000 debentures in the Electric Tramways Company, 2,500 ordinary shares and 2,500 debentures in the Blackpool Company, 2,500 ordinary shares and 2,000 debentures in the Electric Tramways Trust, and 2,500 ordinary shares in the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited. Transfers of all these shares were executed by Mr. Paine in the June of the present year, and were acknowledged by the secretary of the Construction Company. Notwithstanding the very protracted period which has elapsed since the arrangement was come to between you and Mr. Paine, our client has never been able to obtain possession of the scrip or share certificates of the various companies which he is entitled to, and so unsatisfactory has the position ultimately become that Mr. Paine became very uneasy and looked into the matter. He now finds that he has been made the victim of what he regards as very gross misrepresentation on your part First of all, there are no debentures in existence of the Electric Tramways Construction, Company, which you must have well known at the time you entered into the arrangement with him. Secondly, the Electric Tramways Trust, instead of being as you represented to him, a thoroughly good reliable and going concern, is a wretched little company, which as you admit in your letter to Mr. R. W. Kemp, of September 27th last, is only now being formed, and which company, as an inspection of the register at Somerset House shows, was only registered in December of last year with a nominal capital of £100 in 100 £share. The whole history of this transaction appears to us to be open to the gravest suspicion, and our instructions are to demand from you at once the return of the contract which Mr. Paine parted with to you, so that he may stand in the original position he occupied under his agreements of December 3rd, 1900, and January 24th, 1901, with Mrs. Hooley. We beg you to give immediate attention to this demand made by us on behalf of Mr. Paine, for if it is not complied with forthwith our instructions are to advise Mr. Paine as to whether he has not a remedy for what seems to us to be on Mr. Paine, instructions a very serious deception.—Yours obediently, Wontner & Sons"—that is addressed to the office of the Construction Company, 34, Victoria Street, Westminster—the reply to that is Exhibit 143 from Messrs. Beyfus & Beyfus, dated October 8th, 1901: "Dear Sirs,—Paine and Lawson: Mr. H. J. Lawson has brought us your letter to him of yesterdays date and consulted us about the matters to which you refer, and from what he tells us it seems to us that you could not possibly have been in possession of the facts or you would not written us as you have done. It appears that the complaints contained in your letter are unfounded, more particularly as they are based on the supposition that an arrangement was made between our client and Mr. Paine. This is not the case Our client asserts most strongly that he has never had any dealings with Mr. Paine of any kind, and further that there is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that misrepresentations were made by him and he also says that the further suggestion that the latter gentleman has been made a victim is quite absurd. We suggest you should go more fully into the matter, when we trust you will find you have been mistaken.—Yours truly, Beyfus & Beyfus"—that is addressed to

Wontner & Sons—Exhibit 238, dated October 8th, is also addressed to Wontner & Sons: "In reply to your letter of to-day, I beg to say—(1.) That I have never seen nor am I aware of any contracts between your client, Mr. A. J. Paine, and Mrs. Hooley"—that is untrue—you may take the pooling agreement and the settlement when, he took the contract over—the alleged pooling agreement—Exhibit 25, which has the two statements, "I swear this is a true copy," was handed over to him—the statements were made at the bottom for the purpose of verifying it: "All my transactions have been with Mr. E. T. Hooley in the matter"—that is not true; they are not, not with regard to anything over the contract—originally I bought a share of the contract, from Hooley, and shortly after that Lawson came there and knew that I had got the contract, and advised me to buy the other half—Exhibits 101 and 102 are the transfers 42 to 46 by Lawson to you; they are all signed by him on June 9th: "All my transactions have been with Mr. E. T. Hooley in the matter, and my correspondence with Mr. Paine is in consequence of Mr. and Mrs. Hooley having in some way given to him the benefit of my arrangements with Mr. Hooley. I am entirely ignorant of what the arrangements are between the parties, and my deal is strictly with Mrs. Hooley, and Mr. Hooley as her agent"—that is not true; not as regards those—(2.) The document referred to was obtained from me on the entirely false representation that Mr. Hooley would and was in a position to obtain the Stock Exchange quotation and make considerable dealings in the shares. The document was in no way transferable, but was entirely to Mr. Hooley as the agent of Mrs. Hooley, the representations, as I can bring several witnesses to prove, being that he was about to deal largely in the shares, (3.) On June 5th, no dealings having been done in the saidshares, I cancelled the arrangement with Mrs. Hooley and Mr. Hooley on her behalf, and the letters which passed are signed by Annie M. Hooley and myself, and I herewith enclose copies of them. We were the two principals. (4.) The consideration was arranged between myself and Mr. Hooley, and consisted in an arrangement for me to transfer to him various debentures and shares as and when I received the same. Some of them were in companies not then formed, but being formed, and of which I can prove he had full knowledge as he was taking part at the time in the formation of the same. (5.) My usual method of formation of companies is to register a small syndicate of, say, £100, just to protect the name, and then increase the same. There were no debentures existing in the Blackpool Tramways Company nor in the Trust Company, as both companies were in the process of being formed. Tins Mr. Hooley was fully aware of, and it was explained to him at the time. As a proof of this, the Blackpool Company was at the time nothing, but has since been formed, and the debentures and shares will he handed to Mr. Hooley or Mr. Paine as his nominee, in due course. All the rest of the scrip will bet handed to Mr. Paine, as I have already informed him, in the course, but companies cannot be formed instantly, and it will take a little time to carry the deal through. The capital of the Tramways Trust has since been increased, and debentures and shares will be issued both by the Construction Company and the Trust Company, which are, both of them, very valuable companies in hand at

the present time. If Mr. Paine has any remedy it is against Mr. Hooley, as I have nothing whatever to do with him"—I met Lawson with regard to the letter of October 7th from Messrs. Wontner & Sons—I saw Hooley first at Walsingham House a few days after the letter was written—I said that both my solicitor and Wontners had advised me that they ought to be prosecuted; that they had robbed me—he laughed and said it was all nonsense; I was talking nonsense—he saideverything would be all right; he would speak to Lawson and see that it was put right—I said it was a very serious thing—he did not seem to think it was serious, but I did—I did not want to make a row—I was so deeply involved—then I saw Lawson and he saidhe would arrange matters with Hooley—the result was that they gave me 12,000 preference shares—they stated they would give us more shares—a few days after Hooley met Lawson, and Hooley said that he would make an arrangement with him—Lawson was not there then—Hooley told me he had made arrangements, and I think afterwards I saw Lawson and it was corroborated—Hooley told ma that he had made the following arrangement with Lawson: That I was to give up the shares with the exception of the British Electric Street Trams, which I was entitled to under my original 3,000 shares, and to keep the 2,000 of the Construction Company and give up the other in exchange for 12,000 preference shares in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, and they promised to pay my dividend as well, and any dividend that accrued on the preference shares—the transfers, Exhibits 101 and 102—all of those marked 101, A, B, C, D, and E bear the words "Cancelled by E. T. Hooley, agent for A. J. Paine," across my signature—those are the shares which were cancelled under this agreement of the 8th, or subsequent to October 8th—I do not know when, between the dates they were sent for registration and the date that I got my preference shares—Exhibit 239 purports to fix the date of this transaction—it is on the pape of the Construction Company, 34, Victoria Street, and reads in these words: "Cancelling £2,500 E. T. Trust £shares, £2,000 ditto debentures, £2,500 preference B. E. T. South, 1,000 ordinary shares E. T. C."—that has got the date October 8th, 1901, upon it—and the note of interrogation, "Is this agreement cancelled, A. J. Paine?"—I know nothing about that document—that is not my signature, and nothing like it—I do not know whose handwriting it is—it has got my name upon it; to identify the transaction, I have no doubt—Exhibit 110 is a transfer of 10,000 preference shares—there are two transfers; one of 2,000 and one of 10,000—the one for 10,000 is dated January 7th, and is a transfer of 10,000 6 per cent preference shares identified by numbers—I suppose it is from Lawson to myself—the other transfer is for 2,000 of the same class of shares identified by numbers from Lawson to myself, dated January 17th, 1902—those make the 12,000 preference shares which I was promised, and got about October 8th—Exhibits 107 and 108 are two certificates for the same shares, each dated February 5th, 1902—that is about the date I got them—I see my signature to document Exhibit 195—I remember the circumstances under which I signed—of course, I do not know that I signed it on October 14th, 1901; the date is not in my writing, neither is the other side, the 5,000

shares at 4 1/4(Read): "The Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. We, the undersigned, being the principal majority of the shareholders in the above company, for the consideration of this arrangement, which is deemed to be advantageous, hereby agree to pool our shares, and to lodge the same for six months renewable for £1,000 each for a further six months in the names of trustees to be elected by the undersigned, such shares are not to be sold for less than the prices named opposite the respective signatures hereto, unless we otherwise consent in writing. On being sold, the shares are to be delivered pro rata from each of the undersigned in exchange for cash, which is to be forwarded to them"—then there are a number of names which appear to be typewritten: "Henry Times, Gordon Hunter, C. Jarrott, Herbert G. Thomas, H. J. Lawson, E. Rawlings, S. F. Edge, Charles Chadwell, T. Robinson, C. Osborne, Sir J. Kenneth D. Mackenzie"—then comes my name, A. J. Paine, 5,000 shares at 4 1/4—the "A. J. Paine" only is in my writing—October 15th, 1901: "White, 2,000 shares at 4 1/4"—that is also in manuscript, and is in Sir Henry Whites handwriting, I think—"H. J. Lawson" is in manuscript; it is Lawson's signature—"Charles Osborne" is the secretary; that is his signature—Witness, E. T. Hooley, October 15th, 1901"—that is Hooley's handwriting, I think, and that is the same date as mine—Hooley and Lawson asked me to sign the pool—they said it was a syndicate connected with the Barings, who were taking the whole thing over; and it was just on the eve of completion, and I believe at the time the railway they spoke about as well was being taken over, and that they did not want people holding shares to put them on the market, because they would become very valuable: and would I enter into an undertaking not to sell any shares during the time these negotiations were pending and for the time stated in the agreement—I locked at it and sand, "Will the other shareholders, consent?"—they sand, "Here are the names of those who have consented"—I said, "What about Sir Henry White?"—I knew he was a holder of a considerable number of share?—he sand, "He has given his consent"—I said, "Well, if that is it, I will consents" because I did not want to do anything detrimental to the others—I think the Barings were going to take over the concern at £6, and they were to go up to £10—the share were to go up to that—it was explained to me that directly the public knew that an eminent firm like Barings & Co. had taken the thing over it would be sure to make the thing very valuable, and they would be sure to go up in price—I do not think I was told at what price Barings were taking it at—I had nothing to do with that; they might have mentioned the sum—Messrs. Pierpont Morgan were mentioned at the same time, in connection with the matter—Exhibit 3l. is my cheque, dated January 10th 1902: "Pay to Mrs. A. M. Hooley £250"; it bears the stamp of Fosters Bank Cambridge, and is endorsed by Mrs. Hooley and J. Sims White—Exhibit of) is a transfer of 500 fully paid £1 share in the Construction Company from J. Sims White, undated; it is not filled in with the name of the transferee—that was a transfer that I got; I paid £250 for it to Hooley, and got that transfer for it—Mr. White had lent Hooley £250, or so he told me and Hooley asked me to buy the share from Mr. White—that is how Mr.

White's name came on it—Exhibit 217 purports to be signed "Ernest T. Hooley"—there is no signature, except in type—I have seen the original of this document—the signature, "Ernest T. Hooley" on this document is in Hooley's writing, dated November 28th, 1901, addressed to J. Sims White (Read:") In consideration of you having paid me the sum of £250, hereby hand you transfer from H. J. Lawson in blank for 500 shares in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, which amount. I guarantee against loss. You are to receive the amount of the purchase money on the resale, and any sums that you may have lost over British Motor shares, then the profits are to be equally divided between us"—my cheque was made payable to Mrs. Hooley, endorsed by her and Sims White, but went into Fosters bank—the transfer was from Sims White in blank, which I promised I would not send, in—Exhibit 32 is my cheque: "February 12th, 1902. Pay to J. Sims White, Esq., £250"—that is endorsed "J. Sims White," signed by me—"No. 3 Account" appears upon it; all my transactions were on that account—there may have been one otherwise but I do not think so—Exhibit 33 is signed, "Ernest T. Hooley for A. M. Hooley, in Hooley's handwriting; it is dated Walsingham House," February 12th, 1902, and reads: "Received from A. J. Paine. Esq., the sum of £250 for 500 shares of £each, fully paid, in, the Electric Tramway Construction and Maintenance Co., Limited, to be transferred from Mr. Redfern or his nominee. Such, shares were the property of Mr. Redfern before the dividend was declared"—I remember purchasing those shares from Hooley—"A. M. Hooley "is Mrs. Hooley—the last sentence: "Such shares were the property of Mr. Redfern before the dividend was declared," means, because I bought them cum dividend—Hooley said he would sell them cum dividend—what he meant to say was that I was to be entitled to the dividend that had been declared—Exhibit 100 is a transfer dated March 17th, 1902, from Frank Mills to me, of 500 Construction shares in consideration of £250—those are the shares referred to in that cheque—Frank Mills is a nominee of Mr. Redfern, and I believe an articled clerk to Redfern & Hunt, solicitors—the execution of that transfer is witnessed by Francis Redfern, 13, Abchurch Lane, solicitor—at the time I bought the two last lots of shares I believed in the truth of the statements made by Sir Kenneth, Mackenzie with regard to tins last lot, I bought them cum dividend—Mr. Redfern said I should be entitled to the dividend—I had seen Mr. Mills himself—they had not had the dividend, and I was to have it—I never got any dividend in respect of those Construction Company shares, or any of those that I held—I brought an action for my dividend—Exhibit 252 is a cony of an affidavit that I swore in the action—(Mr. Isaac submitted that the affidavit briny only a copy, and an affidavit made by Paine, in an action against the Construction Company, could not be evidence. The Solicitor General submitted that it was admissible, as it was found in Lawson's possession. Mr. Justice Laurence ruled that it was admissible, as it was evidence as to the state of Paine's mind, although it was not evidence of the statements contained in it)—it is beaded: "Between Alfred John Paine, Plaintiff, and the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Defendants. I, Alfred John Paine, of 4, Eastern Terrace,

Marine Parade, Brighton, in the county of Sussex, licensed victualler: the above named Plaintiff make oath and say:—(1) The above named Defendant Company was at the commencement of this action and still is justly and truly indebted to me in the sum at £1,183 6s. 8&, the amount of a declared dividend and bonus due from them to me in respect of 10,000 shares held by me in the send Defendant Company; the saiddividend and bonus were declared by the saidcompany on the 20th September, 1901. (2) Particulars of my said claim appear by the endorsement on the Writ in this action. (3) A report of the meeting at which the saiddividend and bonus was declared is now produced and shown to me marked A. This report is printed, published and circulated by the Defendant Company, as appears by the imprint thereon. (4) I verily believe that there is no defence to this action;—that purports to be sworn on June 6th, before a commsisioner for oaths—this is the office copy of the reply sworn by Osborn, the secretary: "I, Charles Osborn, of 34, Victoria Street, in the County of London, make oath and say as follows:—I am the secretary of the Defendant Company and have acted in that capacity for nearly two years. I have read what purports to be a copy of the Affidavit of Alfred John Payne, sworn June 16th ultimo, and I say that the Defendant Company is not indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of £1,183 6s. 8d., the amount of the dividend declared and the bonus, nor in any other sum whatever. No dividend or bonus was declared by the said Company on September 20th, 1900, or at any time since then. The Exhibit marked A is not a report of a meeting of the Company, but it appears to be a report of some remarks by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie at a dinner which was given to various persons interested in electric engineering. It was net a meeting of the shareholders of the Company. The said Alfred John Payne is well aware that there has been no dividend or bonus declared on his shares, although it was certainly hoped and intended that a dividend and bonus would be declared, but subsequently unforeseen circumstances prevented this being done. I have not seen the Exhibit A referred to in the Plaintiffs affidavit, and do not understand what is the imprint thereon which Plaintiff alleges, and shows it was printed, published, and circulated by the Defendant Company. The statement of the Plaintiff is inaccurate. I verily believe the Company have a bona-fide defence to the action"—that is sworn on July 1st, 1902, by Charles Osborn—this is my letter of May 9th, 1902, from my address in Brighton to Mr. Osborn, the secretary or the Construction Company: "Dear Sir,—I shall be obliged if you will forward me at once your company's cheque for the dividend on the shares I hold in the company"—this is the letter I got in reply: "May 16th, 1902. Dear Sir,—In reply to your request for a dividend on your shares, we shall be very pleased to forward it whenever such dividend is officially declared, but at present we have not been able to pay the dividend that we anticipated a few months ago. Had there been one officially declared after the transfer of your shares, we should have sent, it to you with a great deal of pleasure, but this has not been the case. We are still hoping, however, for a good stroke of business to come off successfully. This we are now engaged in.—Yours faithfully, Chas. Osborn, Secretary"—I was made a defendant in an action jointly with Hooley in the Chancery Division

—the writ was issued on March 27th, and the statement of claim delivered on May 8th, 1903—the action is between the Construction Company, plaintiffs, and myself and Hooley, defendants—the statement of claim reads: "The plaintiff company promoted the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, under an agreement dated November 1st, 1900, made between the plaintiff company of the one part and the British Electric Street. Tramways, Limited, of the other part, the plaintiff company became entitled to a considerable number of shares in the capital of the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited. In the months of February and March, 1901, the defendants represented verbally to Henry John Lawson, who was interested in the plaintiff company, that they were in a position to render considerable service to the plaintiff company as follows—namely, that they could procure responsible brokers to obtain an official quotation for and find purchasers of shares in the plaintiff company and the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, and they promised verbally to the said Henry John Lawson on behalf of the plaintiff company to render such services, and that they would procure responsible brokers to obtain official quotations for and find purchasers of shares in the two companies herein mentioned. In reliance on such representations and in consideration of the defendants promises mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, the plaintiff company by the said Henry John Lawson, acting as their agent, caused to be delivered to the defendants or their nominees 250 fully paid shares of £10 each in the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, and 27,750 fully paid shares in the plaintiff company, and certificates for such, shares were duly issued to the defendants and their nominees. The following are particulars of the shares so delivered, the persons to whom, and the dates when they were so delivered—February 18th, 1901, 3,000 ordinary shares in the Construction Company to Mr. Ormerod: those were my first 3,000 shares bought on November 26th, for which I paid £1,500—July 24th, 2,000 shares in the Construction Company delivered to me; those were the 2,000 I got for the compromise or agreement of June 9th—September 25th, 2,000 shares to Sir Henry White; I had nothing to do with that—November 18th, 1,250 shares to J. A. Malcolm; I had nothing to do with that; I do not know the gentleman—January 14th, 1902, 4,000 shares to me; that consisted of 1,000 shares that I purchased during 1901, and 3,000 shares that I got under a contract relating to an action brought by Mr. Holroyd Smith—February 3rd, 2,500 shares to F. Mills; I had to do with 500 of those only; I purchased 500—February 5th, 500 shares to Sims White; I purchased those—April 7th, 500 to Sir Henry White; I had nothing to do with that—February 2nd, 10,000 preference shares of £each to me, and February 3rd, 2,000; those are the 12,000 preference shares I have given up; 27,750 shares altogether in the Construction Company—July 26th, 1901, 250 shares of £10 each in the Street Company, J. Paine; I was entitled to those shares because I held my 3,000 Construction shares—if you look at the prospectus of the Street Company, it tells you there—that is what I assumed I was entitled to—that was under the terms of the prospectus of the Street Company—my memory is not very clear now, but as far as my memory serves me it is this: The

Construction Company had so much money and so many shares; it was a bonus out of the Street Company's shares; part of the purchase money, I understood—I think the prospectus provided it should be distributed among the shareholders of the Construction Company—they were deferred shares: or if they did not subscribe, the balance of the shares were to be divided; I know it was one or the other—I claimed that I was entitled to than, and got them in June—paragraph 4 goes on: "The statements mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof were untrue, and the defendants were not in a position to render the services mentioned to the plaintiff company, and they have, in fact, wholly failed to carry cut their promise. They rendered no services to the plaintiff company and have not procured brokers to obtain an official quotation for, or to find purchasers of shares in, the plaintiff company, or the British Electric Street. Tramways, Limited, and the consideration for the transfer and allotment of the shares mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof has wholly failed"—we never promised to render any services of the kind described; the whole thing is a fabrication—the statement of claim then goes on to claim on behalf of the plaintiff company to have the shares retransferred and also claims damages and an injunction—it is delivered on May 8th, 1903, by "Ward, Bowie &: Co., of 7, King Street, the company's solicitors—Exhibit 276 is all in Hooley's handwriting, as? it appears to me—(Read:") Hotel Albemarle, Piccadilly. May 26th, "1903. Received £300 for 3,000 Construction shares and I undertake to settle with A. J. Paine. He Construction shares and the dividend thereon in exchange for other shares of yours and no cash"—I knew nothing about, that agreement: nor had I seen Hooley for a twelve-month previous to that, that I know of—I may have seen him once or twice in various actions he had brought—Exhibit 73 is a letter of June 16th, 1903: "Dear Paine,—I have been very bus) since I last saw you. I am sorry I was out when you rang me up on Monday. "Will you lunch with, me to-morrow (Wednesday.) Anywhere will suit me. I should be delighted if you could come here, but if you prefer anywhere else, only say where and I will meet you. I have something important to communicate to you. With kindest regards, Believe me yours sincerely, Ernest T. Hooley"—I had met him up in the Courts; I am rather in a fog about, the date; I think it was in April or May, 1903—I got this letter which I remember well: "Hotel Albemarle, June 5th, 1902, to J. Paine, Esq., Brighton. Dear Sir,—After the disgraceful way you have been talking about, me, I shall be exceedingly glad if you would not civil at my flat any more. Any communication you may think it advisable to make on business matters I shall be glad if you would address to Beyfus & Beyfus, 69, Lincolns Inn. Fields, London, W.C.—Yours faithfully, Ernest T. Hooley"—I had seen him between June, 1902. and June, 1903, at the Law Courts, and he called upon me; that was the result of a meeting at the Law Courts—a fortnight before the letter of June 16th, 1903, I saw him up in the Law Courts, and the result of that was that he came to my public house and said that he would pay me all the money I had spent with Lawson in the Electric Tramways Construction Company it I would give him time, and that I was stopping him getting his living: a lot of bosh all bluff—I have been robbed of a very large amount of

money by these people and have nothing for it; I am sorry to have lost my temper—I think I saw my solicitor the same afternoon on which, I got the letter of June 16th, and replied by telegraph, "Without prejudice, will meet you"—not to lunch but to meet him; that was enough for him; he did not want anything more—I did net get any reply to that telegram—the meeting proposed did not take place; and it is untrue about ringing up on the telephone—I never saw anything of Hooley from the date of the letter of May 26th, excepting up in the Law Courts when I was a witness—the statement of claim in that action in which Hooley was my co-defendant never came on for hearing—Exhibit 78 is the second edition; I got that—I was made defendant in that action:; it was also in the Chancery Division—the writ was issued on December 24th, 1903, and this statement of claim delivered on February 16th, 1904, by Ward, Bowie & Co., the same solicitors as the other; and also at the time I presented a petition to wind up the Electric Tramways—the plaintiffs in this action are the Construction Company and Henry John Lawson; I was the sole defendant that time—I took proceedings to wind up the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company—the petition was prepared, and I believe it was filed; but they moved their office, and we could not find them; they moved to Regent Street, and one place and another, and dodged about, and we could not find! them—it was not served before December 24th, 1903; my solicitor can given evidence about that—that petition is still pending; and the action is still pending; they have both been adjourned until after the result of these proceedings; we have had four or five adjournments; the writ has achieved its object—in this letter book of the Construction Company I sea a copy of a letter of mine (Exhibit 281), dated November 19th, 1903, and before the issue of the writ in that last action: "A. J. Paine, Esq. Dear Sir,—I am directed to inform you that at a meeting of the directors of this company held on the 9th inst., the following resolution was passed: That the agreed consideration not having been received by the company for the shares transferred to Messrs. Hooley and Paine, and no money whatever having been paid for the same, the secretary be instructed to apply to them for the surrender of the shares, and at the same time to call their attention to the fact that they have failed to render the services which they agreed to render to the company in exchange for shares. "In accordance with the above resolution I hereby apply to you for the return of the following shares of this company"—and then all the shares: 3,000 ordinary, 2,000 ordinary, 1,000 ordinary, 3,000 ordinary, 500 ordinary, and 12,000 preference shares are set out—"For the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited"—it is not signed in the copy—Exhibit 282 is a letter in exactly the same terms, addressed to Hooley: this document is signed "Ernest. T. Hooley": it is typewritten; and is dated November 23rd, 1903, written from the Hotel Albemarle, Piccadilly, and addressed to the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited: "Gentlemen. I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inst, and for the life of mo cannot understand it.—Yours faithfully, Ernest T. Hooley"—I received that letter and handed it to my solicitor; the one addressed to me—I signed Exhibit 232, dated September 4th, 1901,

addressed to Mr. Parford: "Dear Sir,—Referring to your letter to Mr. Sims White of June 12th last, I am extremely astonished not to have received transfer receipts and certificates for the shares mentioned, with the exception of the transfer receipt for £2,500 B.E.S.T. shares which I have received. I must ask that this matter be attended to without any delay. It seems to me most unbusinesslike that three months should be allowed to elapse and a shareholder get nothing for his money, and unless I receive these at once I shall apply to the Court"—I have never sold any of my Construction shares, or parted with any of them, except those 500 for the Paramos on October 11th, 1901.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have been, in business for twenty-four or twenty-five years—I consider myself a business man; otherwise I should not have had the £24,000—I consider myself of average smartness—I have had a good deal of experience in buying and selling in public houses; not shares and stock; very, little, except in railway stock—I have had one or two transactions; it represented £30,000, and cost about £23,000; they were Chatham shares—I did not resell at a profit; I resold at a loss—I went into it with the idea of getting a dividend and selling at a profit, of course—I must have lost about £7,000, I think; it was through the war and the price of coal—I held on for eighteen months, unfortunately; it might have been less—I have had some experience of the law—I started my career in a solicitors office; at the bottom of the ladder, of course, as a boy in the office; I rant away from home—I do not think the salary given then would be calculated to keep me; I ran away to get a situation, but I stayed at home—I ran away to get my own living, but I was at home—I continued in the solicitors office for five or six years—I worked my way from boy to managing clerk: it was; a very small office, you know; there were only about two besides, myself—then I left and went into the public house business; that is, buying public houses and keeping them—I have had a good many, about twenty: I do not. Think twenty-five: you are asking me extending over twenty years—I did not have these all at the same time—I did not buy one and then work it up; it did not need any working up; if you have a genuine business you do not need to work it up—I bought it and then resold, after the lapse of a few years in some cases—during the few years I do not think it was worked up—I sold some of the houses and kept some—I have sold them, except the "Windsor Castle," which is the one I have now—I have an interest in two others—except the "Windsor Castle," and the interests in two others, I have sold all the rest—I do not think that I am particularly fond of gambling; like all other men, I like to buy anything and sell it at a profit, if I can—I do not like having a bet at a racecourse, but. They got; me at it—I think it is only fair to me to explain that I never had a bet in my life until I went to Brighton; I used to come to London two or three times a weak, and he got me to go to the race meetings; I had nothing to do, and I went to the race meetings, and naturally, like other Englishmen, I had a bet—"he" is my friends: you know I had a run for my money; my horse ran—I did not win; there are very few people who do—I have my run, but lose my money—I have not had to do with a sporting paper: I lent a man some money in connection with it—at least,

he told me he was bringing out a paper; I knew very little about it—that was called the "Sporting Profit"; I never saw a copy of it till it was produced at the Police Court—there were 2,000 or 3,000 questions asked me at the Police Court, and I have never seen my depositions or had an opportunity of refreshing my memory, and also the Treasury have got all my papers; so I have not had am opportunity of being able to see what the name of the paper was in the depositions—I am going to tell the truth now to the best of my recollection, if you will accept that—I never had an interest in a paper called the "Sporting Profit"—I know Mr. Welch; he stole my glasses on the racecourse; he was never a friend of mine; he was a customer—I have met him at race meetings, and we had a system of backing favourites—that turned out very badly indeed—I do not think I lost about £1,200 on it, on something very near it; I think, what you call it in sporting phraseology, I went down twice—we had a pool; we had £500, I think £250 each, and when that was lost there was an end of it, and we could start again if we liked; I think I was fool enough to start a second time, and I lost again—I should think I must have lost £1,000 then; I promptly turned it up afterwards—that was in a fort-night; I followed it up for a fortnight—as far as my memory carries me, I should think it was in 1899—I know a man called Hobson; so does Hooley—Welch put £100 into "Sporting Profit": I do not know what Mr. Hobson put—it is untrue to say I put £100 into the paper—Welch tried to get the money back off me—I cannot tell you what Mr. Hobson did with the £100; I lent him £100, and he saidhe was starting a sporting paper—before I lent this £100 I may have read in the! paper about "Stoddarts Sporting Luck"—probably in reading the paper I may have done so—I did not know that "Sporting Luck" was a sporting paper which had a coupon competition—I do not know whether I did or not; I do not think I did—I did not know that "Sporting Profit" was to be started in opposition to "Sporting tuck"—"I do not know anything about it; I never saw a number, I believe, and I am told there was only about three numbers—very likely I swore at the Police Court I had heard of "Sporting Luck"; and very likely at that time I may have heard of it—I think my memory is as good! now as it was at the Police Court—Hobson sand, "I am going to bring out at paper"—I said, "What sort of paper?"—he sand, "A sort of sporting Tit-Bits; I want some money to bring it out. Will you lend me) £100?"—I said, "Yes"—I lent it to him, and he sand, "I will give you a good return"—I was to get a part of the profit—I have lent Mr. Hobson money before—I do not say Baboon put £100 in; he may have said so; I think he told me he put more—I swore at the Police Court, "I put £100 into the paper, Hobson £100, and Welch £100"—Mr. Hobson may have put £200 in—I had nothing to do with the paper, but I understood it was to be published abroad:—Welch! applied to me to repay the £100 when the paper failed; I quite understand that—I did not know the paper was to be published abroad, because there were coupons in it—I did not know it was illegal to publish a paper with coupons in England—I did not know that Stoddart, who was the owner of "Sporting Luck," had been sent to prison for that very thing; I know now that "Sporting Profit" was a coupon paper, because it was shown

to me at the Police Court—I did not know then, that the whole object of the paper was nothing but to carry on what is called the coupon system—I expected it was a sort of "Sporting Tit-Bits"—I see the paper has, "Sporting Profit Weekly. Only address, Amsterdam, Holland"—very likely the whole object, of it was to carry on a gambling system that would not be allowed in England: if you say so—I should think very likely the whole object of it was to carry on a gambling system that object is to carry on a gambling system that would not be allowed to go on in England"—the same sort of question was put: Did I know about Stoddart's, and so on—what I swore at the Police Court was true; I should not swear any tiling that was untrue if I knew it—I think a good deal of racing business that cannot be carried on in England is carried on in Holland; there are plenty of circular going round—I knew a Mr. Walter Cole, of Brighton; he is a bookmaker—I did not put money into his business—I lent him money to buy some furniture, not to put into his business—I went with him to pick out some furniture for the office he was, to use as a bookmaker at Brighton—I paid for that furniture for the time being—I did a very large business: with some people in the furniture business; I think it was at Finchley—Messrs. Hopkins & Co.—and he wanted some furniture—h said to me, could I get him some furniture at trade price or through the trade?—he went down and picked certain furniture out—he went down, but they would not trust him, and I paid for it—then I had a bet with Mr. Cole and lost a sum of money, and he gave me a cheque for the balance—I had known Mr. Cole for some years as being a publican in, the same business as myself, and in the same neighbourhood—when I was introduced to Hooley he told me he was an undischarged bankrupt, and also how badly he had been served by the people whose fortunes he had made—he made no secret of the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt, but told me so when I first saw him: he always made that a rule with everybody—he told me that for that reason the contract for anything he did would have, to be in his wife's name—in the transaction I had, I bought 5,000 Siberian shares, the Gold Mining Companys shares, at 12s.—that is the transaction of October 12th—at the same time that I bought those shares: he gave me his wife's guarantee to take them back from me for 12s. if they had not been sold by December at a sovereign—if I had sold them for 15s. or 16. he would not have had to buy them back at 12s.—I should have been very pleased to have made a profit—there was no obligation on my part to sell them; it was he to sell them for my benefit—if he had said to me, "Now, Paine, I cannot get a pound for them, I have sold them at 16s.," I should have been delighted—what he was doing wax, he was indemnifying me against loss—I understood that he guaranteed they would be sold at £1 a share—I got the guarantee: it was on behalf of the wife—that was the contract with reference to the transfer of the 5,000 Siberian shares—I do not remember if there was a word about guaranteeing met a profit—I should like to see the document; I should think not—my impression was that I paid £3,000, and that Hooley would sell them for £1 share about Christmas—I do not think there was ever any guarantee in writing from Hooley or his

wife as to selling them at £1 a share—I do not think he pledged himself to do so, became he said himself it might be 30s.—he was acting on behalf of his wife, and I suppose he could sell these shares for £1 or 30s.—there was the guarantee of the wife—I got that guarantee, and it was put into writing as well; it is dated October 12th—(Produced)—there is not one word in it setting out the terms between me and Mrs. Hooley as to selling the shares at £1 or 30s., but Hooley guaranteed me himself; he mentioned as much as 30s.—I did not expect it might fetch that—he told me he had sold some at £4—he personally guaranteed I should be able to sell them at £1 or 30s.—he sand, "I will sell them at £1, and I may get 30s.—that is not what I mean by guaranteeing; only that is what he said—if he took them back at 12s. by December 15th, I had no claim against him, except what he told me—when you have got shares I know it very often happens in this guarantee business that they are taken back—I got a transfer for these shares on; October 12th—I did not know who Mr. Ormerod was at that time—I found out some little time after: they kept it dark for some considerable time—I knew who Mr. Ormerod was about a fortnight after—I did not know that Mr. Sims White was in Hooley's employment until I called up there—Hooley had a client who wanted money, and he wanted to sell some of these shares—I did not understand that client to be Mr. Ormerod at the time; I did after, when I saw the transfer—I did not get the transfer within two minutes—I agreed to buy the shares from him on October 12th because he had a client who wanted to sell them; he saidthat he had a client who wanted to sell some—I brought the cheque in the time it would take me to go to Walsingham House from Victoria Street; but it is four years ago, and I am not going to swear to a thing four years ago—in fact, how should I have known that Mr. Ormerod was on the premises at the time?—I never knew of the existence of the man when I went first; I may have seen him and yet not known him—I suppose I swore at the Police Court: "I said I would take the shares on the terms he offered me; Mr. Hooley went out and brought in a form of transfer, which was already signed by Mr. Ormerod when he brought it to me; Hooley was away two or three minutes; Mr. Ormerod was on the premises"—I may have sand, "I will buy the shares and have gone back and got a cheque—it is correct that Hooley went out and brought in the transfer within two or three minutes—this is the transfer I received (Exhibit 47)—these numbers, of course, have been added; they were not in it then—I see here "I, Ernest Berkeley Ormerod"—the names "Ernest Berkeley Ormerod" are in print—I do not know if that is an unusual thing to see on a transfer; I have no experience of them—if you buy railway stock of brokers they do not trouble you with transfers until you are selling—I did not notice the fact.—I see it is so now, and I now know that Mr. Ormerod had two or three thousand shares in his name—I do not remember if Ormerod was present when the transfer was executed—it was not executed that day—the transfer was given to me, and I think I put it in my pocket, and I think the next day I signed it, because they took it—I said, "Well, what about this going to the company?"—and they sand, "We will do all that, pay the stamp and everything"—I notice that Ormerod witnesses my

signature on the transfer, giving his address at "Walsingham House—I left the transfer with them for it to go to the company—I did not know that Ormerod was in Hooley's employ—he informed me he had very large sums of money invested with Hooley—a considerable time afterwards I knew that Ormerod was acting as nominee for Hooley—it might have been a month or six weeks, because I did not go there very frequently—I should not think it would be before I entered into the contract of November 26th—it was certainly not then, because I remember distinctly, I did not know who Mr. Ormerod was then—I did not know him for two months—I think It was two months; it might have been longer—the Christmas intervened, and they go away for a fortnight at Christmas enjoying themselves—it was certainly before Christmas, I should think—I may tell you now I know that Mr. Ormerod was kept away from me for some reason, which, of course, I know now—it would certainly be correct to say that between October, 1900, and January, 1901, I had seen Ormerod on the premises at Walsingham House thirty of forty times—I only had a casual glance of him, and I perhaps should not know him again—there were a lot of people dodging about; they were all in and out; it was like a rabbit warren—I had seen the person who was described as Ormerod by January, 1901—I may have seem him thirty or forty times between October, 1900, and January, 1901—it is impossible to say; there were so many there—I cannot tell you how many times I had seen him—I am not in doubt about his being kept out of my way—at the Police Court I said, "Between October, 1900, and January, 1901, I had seen him"—that is, Ormerod—"on the premises at Walsingham House, I should think, thirty or forty times"—I might have seen him half-a-dozen times in a day—if I said I thought I saw him twenty, or thirty, or forty times, I was under the impression: I had, and I know no reason ten doubt that I may have seen him that number of times, but I only thought so—I say there, "I think I had seen him"; it is difficult to tell—it was my impression at the time I gave my evidence at the Police Court.; otherwise I should not have said it: now I should think it is rather too much; twenty would be nearer—it may have been thirty; I will not bind myself one way or the other—I should not think it was thirty—I did not make any complaint to Hooley that I had been deceived by Mr. Ormerod being represented to me as a "distressed client"—I had been left with the shares, and everybody, if they are selling anything, makes some sort of excuse, otherwise they would very seldom sell; they must give a reason for selling which is a little exaggeration, as a rule—I do not say that I do not expect them to tell the truth about it; there may be some germ of truth, in it, and it becomes a very large plant when you want to get anything for the shares you bought—when I discovered that Ormerod was a clerk, or secretary, or whatever he was, or Hooley's, he did not put it very strongly about the "distressed client"; he merely said he had some shares to sell, and that a client wanted some money, and I assumed that if the man was selling shares he wanted the money—I felt perfectly safe—I had bought 10,000 shares, and I had got a guarantee—I had no cause of complaint against Hooley until I found the shares were not worth the paper they

were written on—I did not make any complaint about it—on November 26th he had sold me 3,000 shares for £1,500—that is, the 3,000 shares for 10s. a shares—I represent now that the Construction shares are worthless paper in a paper company; I do not think they are worth the paper they are written on—if they did have any assets at all, which I very much doubt, I do not think that the company would ever get the benefit of them; it is in the wrong Lands—I do not think there is anything to come to me in respect of the shares that I hold; I hope there will be; and no dividend of any kind to come to me on my shares—I do not know where it is to come from—I am a little doubtful that if the company were wound up, there would be nothing to come to me—I think there has been, some nefarious business going on that I know nothing about—I have no grounds for thinking that there would be a substantial dividend to come to me—whether there is sufficient to pay the debts and liabilities is a question for investigation—before I say if I think there would be enough to pay the debts and liabilities, I should like to know what the debts and liabilities are—I do not think my view is the same now as it was at the end of December, 1903; I think it looks a bit more ominous—in December, 1903, I thought that there might be some assets; I had heard rumours; in fact, I had heard of this Nottingam and Derby Tramway—I could hardly hold the view that at the end of 1903 there was sufficient to pay the debts and liabilities of the company, considering they owed me the dividend—I do not remember what it was—I had the documents before me, and I was in consultation with my solicitor, but the petition will tell you what my view was—I think that there would be a substantial dividend to come to the shareholders after paying the debts and liabilities, if it had its rights, because it would have the money of the British Electric Street Trams—on December 22nd, 1903, I only swore to some parts of that petition; the facts that were within my knowledge—the other part is information obtained from the file—I was the petitioner in the Winding-up Court to get this company wound up on the ground that it had not paid me my money, and that it was a creature of Lawson's—that was not my reason for having the company wound up, so that I should get the money; I am not such a food as that—I presented the petition cm the ground that they owed me my money and many other grounds—I said, in December, "The assets are of considerable value, having in view what I thought they had got, and if prudently realised will be sufficient not only to pay and satisfy the company's debts and liabilities, but to pay a substantial dividend to the shareholders"—but the expenses are so very heavy—counsels fees, and that sort of thing—that was my honest belief at that time—I thought that this Railway Bill might be of some value, and I had heard that they were promoting the Nottingham and Derby Tramway by that time—I was not on friendly terms with Hooley and Lawson—if a man stole your watch would you be?—they had £24,000 out of me—it was net what they were saying to me at that time that was influencing me, but I had heard it sand, not by them; God bless my heart, they would have told me it owned the whole of London—what I was dealing with was what I had heard from my solicitor, Mr. Joseph Davis, of Liverpool Street; he

represented me in that matter—I went to him specially, because he had had these people through his hands—I was recommended to him—I trusted him—he know a great deal about it—he came to the conclusion that there was sufficient to pay a substantial dividend if prudently realised—in December, 1903, I believed the statement that I have got in my petition—the part I swore to I certainly believed, otherwise I should not have sworn to it; I do not think my solicitor would have allowed me to—a substantial dividend to the shareholders would be, I should think, about 6 or 7 per cent.—if wound up, I should assume they might get 5s. or 6s. in the pound, but there were very few; I was the only one—Sir Henry White and myself and Lawson were the people—it is all subject to the "prudently realised"—I do not know that I should have included Lawson's lot, but bona-fide shareholders—I cannot say that it was my view that there would be a return to me of 5s. or 6s. a share; I thought there would be a return of something perhaps—if you come to the conclusion that you have shares in a company that has got nothing, if you get only 2s. it is not bad—Mr. Joseph Davis is acting on the petition now; he is still acting as my solicitor—he represents me in this particular thing, but in nothing else—I was recommended to him—he represented me on one occasion when he came to me and said Laws—on would give me £5,000 to withdraw the petition—in anything connected with this company he would represent me to a limited extent now; one has to be very careful—he represented me in connection with the affair? of the Electric Tramways Construction Company—I should think I now hold about 21,000 shares in the Construction Company—that would include these 12,000 preference, you know; the 6 per cent.—I paid £1,500 for 3,000 shares on November 20th, and £5,450 for the half interest in Hooley's contract of November 26th—I have paid £250 for 500 since, and another £250 for 500, but I have paid more than £7,450—I can tell you of about £1,400 or £1,500 more through the Construction, which is the same thing, because I parted with this money for the second contract—I have not received £250 for 500 shares that I sold, and that is my complaint—I have not received £500 as my share of the profit in the dealings in Construction shares; it is all nonsense—that money was given to me really for the changing of a post-dated cheque, or six post-dated cheques and knowing what I know now I would not change them at the price—I have seen this document; it is signed by me—(Read): "Ernest T. Hooley, Esq., Walsingham House, Piccadilly, V., London, December 21st, 1000. Dear Sir,—I have this day received a cheque from you of H. J. Law-sons for one thousand pounds, made payable to Mr. E. B. Ormerod. and endorsed by the gentleman, dated February 10th. I have handed you my cheque for five hundred pounds, and I am to retain the balance—five hundred pounds on account of profits re Electric Construction"—the only part of that that is true substantially is the giving of my cheque for £500—I do not mean that I put my hand to a document that is not true—I mean to say this: that there was no cheque for £1,000—it was made up in this way: Lawson's cheque for £500 and five post-dated cheques, a very long time post-dated—it is there and there is proof of it—as far as I know I knew of no profits nor of any deal

in Electric Construction—I am doubtful about it—this is my signature, an acknowledgment; it begins, "I have this day received a cheque from you"—but I did not receive a cheque; I received £1,000, but I did not receive a cheque for £1,000—I should think that this statement that I received the cheque from Lawson for £1,000 made payable to Ormerod, and endorsed by Ormerod, dated February 10th, is not true, and I will tell you why; one does not lose a thousand pound cheque—there is no such thing as a thousand pound cheque that you can trace—I know this, that I had a £500 cheque of Lawson's, postdated, and I had five £100 cheques, and they were all post-dated, and they were-all handed back to Hooley in discharge of the £450 which was due on the contract to be paid on December 31st, and Hooley gave me his cheque for £50—there were five post-dated cheques for £100; I cannot say whether they were made payable to me, but I never had them in my possession—and one for £500, I think that was to be presented in February—the £1,000 cheque was not. given on. December 21st, 1900, and post dated to February 10th, 1901—that is what is said in this document—five cheques of £100 each, and one of £500—not cheques given in February, 1901, when in fact, Lawson did not meet, the cheques of £1,000 and had to enter into that arrangement with me by giving me those five £100 cheques and the one of £500—I do not accept that explanation: I could not accept an explanation from you without I had proof of it; I mean Hooley, of course, to me—I do not remember it, and what is more I do not think it is true—I did not receive £500 on account of profits re the Electric Construction, because there were no profits in Electric Construction as far as I know; and my reason for saying that is that I do not know that there was ever any transaction as regards profit of the Electric Construction, except between the two men—I suggest that I do not remember "on account of profits are Electric Construction" being there when I signed the receipt—I will say no more—I do not wish my Lord and the Jury to understand that those words have been added—I say I do not remember them being there when I signed this receipt, and I take that in conjunction with the fact that I do not remember a cheque for £1,000 or any deal in connection with Electric Construction—I swore at the Police Court that I believed those words had been added since I signed it—I will not say if I still believe that: it would be unfair for me to say that, perhaps, but I do not remember them being there—(Exhibit 75)—this is my counterfoil cheque book—(Producing Exhibit 96)—it is dated December 21st, 1900 in the counterfoil of my cheque book, and under date December 21st, 1900 there is a cheque drawn for £500 which agrees with what is stated in the document: "I have handed you my cheque for £500 ": there is my return cheque—there is a counterfoil which shows, a cheque in favour of Sims White, and it has words which originally appeared and which have been struck out, and which I believe are in my clerks writing—the wordy—that are struck out are in my clerk's writing: "Exchange for cheque of £1,000, payable February 10th, 1901, being £500 profit re E.M.C.C. ": what we call for short the Construction Company—I do not agree that if that bad not been struck out, and had

remained as it is there, it would be an absolute corroboration of this document under date December 21st, 1900, because there is no £1,000 cheque—if the counterfoil had not been struck out the words that do appear there would be what one would expect to find if this document had in fact been signed and executed on December 21st, 1900—the document and the counterfoil say it is a £1,000 cheque, "being £500 profit re Construction Company," and is what I do not agree with—on December 21st, 1900, apparently a, cheque is drawn, according to the counterfoil, for £500 in exchange for the cheque of £1,000, dated February 10th, 1901, retaining the other £500 as profit in the Construction Company; that is what it looks like—"re E.M.C.C." has been struck out on the counterfoil: it has been struck out in pencil, and by me—I went through the counterfoils of these cheques not necessarily for the Public Prosecutor; I was going through the thing at some previous time; this was not struck through at the end of last year; I think it was done a long time ago—I had a list of my cheques which I have paid to Hooley and these people a long time before that—I said at the Police Court., "Since I was cross-examined as to the words in Exhibit 57, on account of profits re Electric Construction, I have looked at my counterfoil cheques; I went through those counterfoils for the purpose of preparing my statement for this case"—"this case "was this prosecution—I did go through my counter-foils for the purpose of preparing my statement in this prosecution, and I had been through them before; as evidence of my stupidity, I had been through them three or four times, but not without noticing it—I went through my cheques, and I wanted to find out what the amounts were paid for—I came to this, and the very first thing I did was to look in my paying in book to find a cheque for £1,000, and I could not find the cheque for £1,000—it them occurred to me that I owed Hooley at that, time swine money—it was not due, but ho had a happy knack of getting it before it was due, and I knew that on December 31st I had to pay Hooley £450—I then found in my book about this time a cheque for £50—says I to myself, "Why, this is the £450 I have paid Hooley, and he has given me the £50 back ": but that was not so—really what happened was this, and the reason why I was muddled was this; that I had the five £100 cheques; I had never had them in my possession, otherwise they would have been in my paying in book, and I could not make out that payment, but it really was that Hooley took the five £100 cheques red hot as they were, and at the last he sand, "There is £50 for you"—that was on my £450. That is the answer, because a £1,000 cheque does not disappear, and I could not understand what that meant, "by profit on Electric Construction," because I knew I had no deal in them—my clerks name is Charles Watford: this counterfoil is in his handwriting—the Treasury have got a cheque which corresponds with that for £500—looking at that counterfoil the words, "on account of profits in the Construction Company" may have been in this document on December 21st, 1900, when I signed it—looking at this counterfoil would not make me think so but very probably they were—I do net remember them; that is all I can say

—this is very likely what would have happened—the counterfoil is in my clerks writing—I would say to my clerk, "Give me a blank cheques" and he would say, "What for?"—I would say, "It is going to be drawn for J. Sims White: I am going to change a £1,000 cheque re Electric Construction"—I might have said that to him, because Hooley would have said the night before, "I shall want to see you, Paine"—he frequently did so, especially when he wanted any money—"Bring up a cheque with you; I want you to cash me a cheque for £1,000"—if you produce the deal in the Electric Construction and produce the £1,000 cheque I will give you an answer at once, but you know there is none in existence"—as I understood my explanation is that I would have given my clerk the instructions which would have caused him to make that note on the counterfoil, thinking that I was going to have the £1,000 cheque, but I did not have it—I do not say I did not get £500; I do not say that at all—what I complain of is that, it is "Profits re Electric"—I am £23,500 our, instead of £24,000—I do not know that it-matters particularly, but I do not remember it—if I got the £500, I do not remember in what deal it was, and I do not remember any deal in the Construction—the words, "Profit re Construction Company" may have emanated from Hooley the night before to me, and I told my clerk—that agrees with this document, but I do not remember those words, and I defy you to produce the £1,000 cheque or show me any deal in it.

Thursday, November 24th.

ALFRED JOHN PAINE'S cross-examination continued. I was not aware that the Construction Company was a promoting company—within a few days of my purchase of the shares—the only evidence I had was that they were connected with a company called the B.E.S.C,—The British Electric Street Company; that they were promoting the British. Electric Street Company—I believe they were selling something to these people, and forming a company on it—they were promoting a company which was going to take something which they had, out of which it was thought that the Construction Company would make a profit both in cash and in shares; but I did not knew that at the time—Hooley told me—if you see the prospectus it will show you—I was told of that the day before, when I purchased the 3,000 shares—on November 26th, 1901, Hooley said that they were bringing out another company—I understood they had some powers—I understood from Hooley that the Construction Company had got powers to run trains in various parts of England—that was from Hooley, "but as a matter of fact I do not think it was so—he may have told me the company were applying for powers—he showed me the plans of the City to Walthamstow Railway—that is the railway which I came to know as the City and North Eastern Suburban Railway—he saidthat he thought that that was a certainty that they would get the powers; and that if they had got those powers it would be a very valuable thing: one of the most valuable suburban lines that there could have been—that is my opinion—they cannot at the present moment deal with the traffic at Liverpool Street, it is so enormous—if that was carried through as proposed by the Construction Company, I do not know that that would mean

that the Street Company's shares would be very valuable, and the Construction Company would reap the profit—with honest men in the ordinary course, if nobody diverted the profit which should come to the Construction Company, it would be then a valuable thing for the Construction Company—I know now that there were other schemes on paper—I should think about that time they had got nothing ready but the plans—as a matter of fact, I do not believe they got the deposit—I understood there was a deposit to be put up—I know they stated that a great deal was done subsequently to this company, and I believe later on, two or three years afterwards, they did have something in the House, but it fell through—the scheme was partly an electric tube railway scheme, and partly an open line—I believe some miles of it were open—I saw the plans at Walsingham House in turning them over—they were merely plans of the different neighbourhoods they were going through, as they would have to do, of course, for the purpose of getting their Orders and for the purpose of promoting their Bill in Parliament—at that time they were also about to promote the British Electric Street Tramways—I think Hooley showed me a prospectus of that with a lot of tremendously tall writing—that was a scheme going to be promoted, only it was thought there was going to be a profit which in the ordinary course would go to the Construction Company—the prospectus reads: "That the company was formed to construct and work lines of electric railway and tramway licensed by special Act of Parliament or by municipal or other authorities, and to extend the service of tram vehicles in the town, and to construct electric tramways upon them overhead, overhead wire and trolley system, formed to take over and equip electric tramways," and so forth. Substantially, it was to be formed for constructing and working tramways and to get Acts of Parliament for them and to equip old tramways into electrical tramways; to do everything I should think in connection with that sort of thing, and did nothing—part of the scheme was of issuing the Street Company so that there was a Founders Syndicate to be formed also for founders shares—I do not know that the subscribers are the subscribers to the founders shares—the prospectus does not seem to be very clear; it does not say so—I take it it means in connection with this company—it 19 the names that attracted me with respect to both the Street Company and the Founders Company—it begins with Sir Hiram Maxim; then there are some very old names—in connection with this scheme those who applied for shares in the Street Company had a right to a certain number of shares in the Founders' Company—that appears on the face of the prospectus—I do not know if there is anything unusual about that—there was no mention by Hooley that if the various schemes were successful there would be a dividend of about 16s.—he told me definitely that there would be a dividend—there was no discussion about it, simply a statement that there would be a dividend of 16s. a share—I am very sorry-to say I did believe it—I was fool enough to believe it—I did not go-into the question of whether it had been made—I accepted Hooley's statement—we did not know before this that he was anxious to get my £1,500—I once thought I was a smart business man—I knew nothing about Construction shares until Hooley

said they were worth about £3—I had had a very short; conversation at that time—I think he said there would be a dividend of 16s.—on November 26th I think Hooley told me that part of the dividend which we were speaking about at this interview would come out of the promotion of the Streets Company—I will not be sure whether he saidit on the-26th on the day after the receipt of the telegram—I came up the next morning and saw him, and I think he may have said that on that date—do not think he saidthat they were promoting another company, and a part of the dividend would" come out of that company—if I said that before I must have thought so then—my remembrance was so closely pressed on" one and another that it was impossible to absolutely be certain about it—I knew they were promoting another company; you twist and turn me about so—that may have taken place on the 27th; it also took place on the 26th and was repeated—he told me about the whole thing very much further the nest day when I was going to enter into the contract with him—the statements that he made were about the value of the concern—I was purchasing the shares, and he told me statements which made me purchase them—he repeated all the statements next day and enlarged upon them—he told me they would be paying 16s. in a few days; I should take that to mean at once—I think he told me that it would really come out of the company and some other things that they had got—he told me there would be the 16s. dividend on the 26th—I do not think I asked him where it was coming from; he told me all I wanted to know without, my asking any questions; that was to get me to buy the share—I cannot remember the exact words a man said four or five years ago—he may hare said at once or in a few days—he told me about the dividend first, and he may have said that the dividend was coming partly out of this other company—I think we discussed it generally, because it was a big dividend; it looked an enormous dividend, but I am under the impression it was "Construction"—it would be a very natural thing for me to ask him—I may have heard where the dividend was coming from—I think he showed me the prospectus of the Streets Company: I understood it was the company they were bringing out—I was to buy 3,000 shares £1 fully paid, at 10s. a share, for £1,500 upon which a dividend was to be paid in a few days of 16s. a share, and he saidthey were worth £3 or £4 each, and it was only at a sacrifice he sold them to me because he had got some accounts due: he had to pay some farming accounts, and there was his life assurance, and buying land and that sort of thing and he wanted money—I should think the dividend would certainly depend upon whether or not this Electric Street Tramway were a part of the scheme—it had not. occurred to me that the 16s. dividend had been earned; I was under the impression it was for managing any tramways and-contracting for tramways—all I have spoken of is with reference to schemes; that is to say, provisional orders, orders to be applied for, orders that they had, and powers that they had to run trams: not one word about owning a and or anything of that kind; I was never told that, it was my impression; bad heard of the thing—that is the view I got myself: they did not tell me that—I do not think they said anything to me at that interview about"

shares in the Street Company being distributed amongst the Construction Company's shareholders besides the 16s. dividend in cash—I say "they," but I had only seen Hooley at the time; I do not think he said anything about it—all that was to be received or that was spoken of was the 16s. cash dividend—I do not remember if he said anything at all about any dividend in shares beyond the 16s; I have a vague remembrance, but at all events I cannot speak with any certainty, that he did mention something about that—I do not know if I said at the Police Court anything about Hooley having told me on November 26th, 1900, when I bought the shares, about their being worth £3 or £4—if I was asked I should have said so; I should think I was not—all that was said was said in the presence of Mr. White, and he said he was making a great sacrifice—when I was asked here yesterday or the day before as to what took place on the 26th, I did not say one word of Hooley having said at that interview that the shares were worth £3 or £4; but he said at every interview that I had bought them at a great sacrifice and they were worth very much more, a general statement which I was fool enough to believe: I admit I was a fool—I swear at that interview on November 26th he told me those shares were worth £3 or £4—I was never asked the question before—it was never asked me about every share he sold, but he has told me they were worth four or five times as much—every share he sold—I do not think I have ever been asked that question as to what Hooley said as to the value of the shares—I do not think he has sold a share to anybody that he did not make that statement to—I was there, and Mr. White was there—if I were to mention everything that took place at that interview we should be here for a month, all the tales I was told and all the lies—I cannot give you the details of everything, but I can give you the gist of it; it was a very-short interview—but you may depend he said that, otherwise I was not quite such a fool as to swallow 10s. for 16s. shares—he represented to me they were worth £3 or £4 at that time or would be worth it, and he quoted his Dunlops and everything at that time and at every time—I was buying shares at that time, as he was pressed for money, for 10s. a share, which were worth between £3 or £4 a share, and upon which a dividend of 16s. a share in cash was to be paid in a few days; that was the tale I was fool enough to believe, I admit—at the interview on the 26th he said to me that he was going to see the man who had a lot of these Construction shares, the bulk of them—I knew before I left there on the 26th that he had told me he was going to see that evening the man who was the owner of the bulk of the shares—he-did not say it was for the purpose of business that he was going to see the owner of the shares; he said he would be seeing the man that night—he did not tell me he was going to see him with reference to the Construction Company—he had already told me that they belonged to a gentleman who held nearly all the shares, but it was previous to my buying the 3,000—he said that he got the 3,000 off this gentleman; that he bought them from him—he never said that he was going to see him about the shares the same night—as a matter of fact, he did not want me to let anybody know—he said, "You must not let anybody know that I have sold these to

you"—before I left I did not know who was the owner of those shares—lie did not tell me it was Lawson, the little man; he did not use that expression—lie did not explain to me that "the little man" was Lawson—he said that the next day because I asked him what "the little man" meant in the telegram—I got a telegram from him on November 26th, sent off apparently in the evening to Brighton and received at 9; it begins, "Just seen the little man"—I did not know who he was—I said, "Who do you mean by the little man"—he said, "'That is the man I spoke to you about having the largest number of shares"—that was-after I had bought the 3,000 shares—he told me at the interview that Henry Lawson was the man referred to as "Mr. Lawson"—I remember now he said, "Mr. Lawson, the man who made nearly half a million out of the British Motor"—he said he had done a lot of business with him—he said, "Harry J. Lawson, who owned nearly all the shares in the Construction Company"—I do not know that he said "Harry J."; I think it was "Mr. Lawson"—he told me on the 28th that his wife had got a contract with-Lawson with reference to the Construction Company's shares—at the Police Court I said "Hooley said, 'Now, I will tell you what I will do: my wife has got a contract with Mr. Lawson with reference to the Electric Construction and Maintenance shares: I said Yes; I will speak to you to-morrow about it,' and the matter passed off"—that is correct; nothing else took place about the Construction Company—I pledge my oath that Hooley-told me on the 27th that Lawson had made half a million out of British Motors—he may have said so on the day before or the day after, and that was corroborated by Mr. White—the day before yesterday I swore Lawson had made a quarter of a million out of the British Motor; it has not grown from the day before yesterday from a quarter of a million to half a million"—I should think half a million is true—I have given the source of the information—it may have been a quarter of a million; I do not know; he said something about it—I do not know which is true; my source of information is from my solicitor—no, it was half a million—you are not to understand that when I make an answer about this conversation it is from what my solicitor told me—my solicitor had investigated Lawson's affairs—when I said half a million, I was thinking of what my solicitor said—there was no reason really for my saying that, except, of course, it was all the tales told me; there was no truth in them—I swore that Hooley told me at that interview that Lawson was the gentleman who had made half a million, or a quarter of a million I should say, out of the British Motor—Hooley told me a quarter of a million—when I said half a million I should have said a quarter of a million; that is all; my memory does not play me false—I was thinking of what my solicitor told me—I saw Hooley on November 28th—that is the date I gave as the date upon which the contract was arrived at by which I acquired the half interest in his contract with Lawson—at that interview he produced to me the contract dated November 26th between him and Lawson—when he produced it I observed that it was dated November 26th, 1900—so the contract, which is alleged now to be bogus, was put before me, and I saw that it had been made on the very day on which I had made my contract for the

3,000 shares: and I knew at the time that Hooley told me that he was going to see that night the owner of the bulk of the Construction Company's shares—I knew that he had seen him that night by his telegram—I did not know that this contract had been arrived at on the night of November 26th—I should assume by that being the date it would be—I do not remember his showing me the contract on the 27th; he showed it me on the 28th—I do not think I had seen it before—when I gave my cheque on the 28th I saw it—I do not think I saw it on the 27th—if I swore two days ago that he showed me it on the 27th must have been under the impression I had seen it then,—I am rather confused about those three days; it is four or five years ago—I am rather confused as to whether I had seen that contract or not—I have a pretty fair memory as to what took place as to the statement made by Hooley; I am quite certain of that, otherwise I should not have paid my money—I bought the shares on the statement of Hooley, and I thought I had bought a good thing—I thought they were valuable shares—on this 28th, when he showed me that contract I observed that in that contract there are "fifteen Dublin Distillers' Company, Limited, shares, which he was given according to this contract for the right, whatever it was, that he acquired under this contract with Lawson—I understood that is what he paid as purchase money, subject to a further sum lower down—he did not point it put; I read the contract—he had given the 1,500 shares for this right, and was to get a quarter of the proceeds made out of dealing with 243,000 shares; those are the words from the contract; that would be selling the shares—the words are: "Agree to divide the proceeds made out of dealing with the 243,000 shares"—before Hooley could get any share of those proceeds he had to pay out all his shares of the proceeds, £3,500; I think it says there, that Lawson was to have something—before any proceeds could go to Mrs. Hooley, £3,500 out of her share of the proceeds would be deducted by Lawson: "Three-fourths to Lawson"—this is the division of the profits—"one-fourth to Mrs. Hooley, Mrs. Hooley not to receive any money until she has paid to Mr. Lawson, out of her proceeds, the sum of £3,500"—that means that £14,000 must be realised before any money comes to Hooley—I thought if Mr. Lawson had sold 3,500 shares, which I considered he could sell at £1, then Mrs. Hooley would be entitled to her certificates—I have a very different impression now, of course—I do not admit that it means there would have to be 14,000 realised before Mrs. Hooley would receive anything in respect of her share—what I think is "That if I had been Mrs. Hooley, I should have said: You have sold 3,500 of These shares: now give me my certificate: because I should have considered Lawson had had the balance: "Now give me the certificates or my share, or the transfer"—I should have wanted them then if they had been paid—my view was that after 3,500 shares had been sold she was entitled to demand her transfers and certificates for these shares, or her title, or something of that sort, notwithstanding their being under the control of Lawson—what I am now swearing is what I swore was my view when this agreement was made of November 28th, because I should have wanted my property, my share—of course, this is a matter as to whether Mrs. Hooley

would have insisted upon taking the first lot that he sold and saying: Now I have cleared you off; or Lawson saying: I shall sell so many before I come to yours; sell three-fourths and then come to yours—I cannot quite remember if Hooley told me anything about the Dublin Distillers' shares being quoted on the Stock Exchange; he said they were readily saleable at £5 each—I do not think anything about the Stock Exchange stuck in my mind; I think the Distillers impressed me most—I am prepared to say Hooley said these shares were worth £5 each—I was not at all suspicious about it; it was merely casual, of course—since I have heard it is different, but before I trusted him—then I had no suspicion; it is self-evident by the proof of my cheques—he never said that these shares were quoted or dealt with on the Stock Exchange—I do not know if he referred to the Stock Exchange at all; I will not say, I forget for the minute-7 I do not think he said anything about the Stock Exchange in connection with it—I cannot tell; I do not know that he did; my impression is that he said nothing about the Stock Exchange—if my memory serves me right, he said nothing whatever about the Stock Exchange—I know now that these shares were quoted in the Stock Exchange list; I wish I had known then what I know now—I did not look at financial papers in November, 1900—the only paper I should look at would be the Telegraph, to see the price of the railway stock; I was rather anxious previous to that time, because I had already lost my money—I do not think I asked him what the shares were, because it was clear I knew about this—I saw then that they were £5 shares fully paid—he did not tell me that under this contract he would be giving £5,000 to Lawson; this document showed me what he was giving—I assumed Lawson got these shares and would get this money; then, I thought he would be entitled to a share—my contract of December 13th was this, summarising the situation; I was to get half of Hooley's interest in that document of November 26th, and for that I was to give up 5,000 Siberians, pay £2,000 and £450 by December 31st—Hooley was to deposit the contract of November 26th with me which he made with Lawson—I was to have the charge and custody of the contract, and he agreed to divide with me equally all the profits that he made in the transaction; meaning thereby, I take it, that anything he made in selling the shares I was to have half of; and I take it if he did not do anything, I was to take half my share—I reckoned, when I bought a fourth of Mrs. Hooley's interest, I was entitled to 30,000 shares so soon as this latter part had been paid, this £3,500—after the £3,500 was paid I should have expected my shares, because Hooley might say, "I refuse to do any transactions"—I notice that under the contract the shares were to be sold from time to time, and that Lawson was to have the arranging of the price at which they were to be sold; if he had carried that out, I should have had no complaint; if he had been able to sell them there would have been no argument about it—I notice it is in the proceeds of the shares that I was to get the profit under the contract of November 26th and that if the shares were sold I was to get the money they fetched—the words are: "I agree to divide with you all the proceeds I make out of dealing with the shares"; the 245,000, and then the proceeds are to be

divided in certain proportions which are there stated; my contract with Hooley as agent for Mrs. Hooley of December 3rd, 1900 (Exhibit 14), correctly describes the transaction between us—when I got it, I raised no objection to it—my view was that Hooley sold me half the profit resulting from the sale of the 245,000 shares—that is what I mean after payment of what was due; the £3,500—the £450 under that was to be paid on December 31st—there was no cheque on December 31st—I did not in fact pay it until somewhere about February—I saw Lawson after November 28th and before December 6th; he called up at Hooley's, who spoke about the pooling agreement—I saw Lawson; he gave me some information about the Construction Company—I knew then that he was the principal person in the Construction Company, or I was informed he was—there was not a great deal of discussion—he told the of the company's potentialities and that sort of thing—and that the Railway Bill was going on well—that he thought it was sure to pass—that the—shares would then be very valuable—that I would then be a rich man, and that he should advise me, if I could get a chance, to buy the others—he definitely stated that he should advise me, when Hooley was hard up, to buy from him the other shares—I never knew Hooley but what lie wanted money—I assumed that all that was contingent upon the railway scheme going through and being prosperous; and the other business of the company—the shares would not go up, naturally, without the business was prosperous—as far as my knowledge now goes, what Lawson told me at that time was not true—certainly I must say that a part of his statement is true and some is not—they were not doing a prosperous business—they had done nothing except having a large sum of money—I said at the Police Court, "As to what Lawson told me on the 10th December, 1900,"I made a mistake in the date at that time, "It is true as far as my knowledge now goes that the Construction Company had orders in various parts of the country and were applying for others, and that they were doing a good business, and that the Railway Bill was going splendidly and was sure to pass"—I believed that in June, 1904, but I have heard something since—I found out that orders I thought they had got they had not got—I had been through my books and counterfoils for the purpose of making out my statement—Lawson may have told me at that interview that he thought there would be big dividends—I do not think that he told me that he thought there would be a dividend shortly; I rather think he said that the expenses were very heavy, and that they had not got as much money as they anticipated. He led me to believe it was very expensive getting these orders, and the Railway Bill, and all that—I suppose that is true if they did the work, but I had no means of knowing whether they did—I was naturally looking for the 18s.—I do not think at my first interview with Lawson that we discussed dividends—there was hardly breathing time for the man—it was only a few days afterwards. You do not expect that I was going to put a pistol to his head and say, "Give me my dividends. "It was only two or three days—he may have said something about an ultimate dividend; I am not sure about that—he might have said: "You will be a rich man, and these things will pay big dividends," but I should

not say anything about that particular dividend, because it was only two or three days—it is generally announced by letter when a dividend is going to be paid or at a meeting, or in the newspapers, in an ordinary company—I do not think anything was said by him about that particular dividend being paid, because, you see, the company was on the tapis then, or really I think it was brought out—I mean the British Electric Street Trams—he did not tell me that they would be getting a dividend, and that the dividend would come really out of the Street Company—now I remember, I think he was a little bit upset—there were some hostile criticisms about the company in the newspapers—he never mentioned the Street Company. If there was a dividend it would come generally—he may have said on December 10th that he expected there would be a dividend shortly, because it would come mainly out of the Street Company—he may have said it—I will admit perhaps he said it. Good gracious! I cannot tell exactly what the man said—I do not know that it might not have been two or three days later—he said—that there would be big dividends, and I took it they would mainly come out of the British Electric Tramways Company—you twist and turn about so, you do not ask me straightforward questions; or you want to make it appear that I do, for your own purposes—I have no desire to say anything unfair—why should If—you pick out little things, and after five days in the Police Court; it is your duty to make me out as bad as they are, and to make me as bad as possible—I know that whatever you are going to make me is founded on answers that I am making on oath in the box to the questions you are putting to me, and nothing else; I have nothing to complain of—he may have told me at that interview that the Construction Company had promoted the Street Company, but I knew it—really, I do not know if he told me—he mentioned a lot of big names, gentlemen whose names appear on the prospectus, first-class men—I understood you to say that the names on the prospectus belonged to the Founders' Syndicate—I said I thought they belonged to the Street Company—I think what you said was correct—you know best which it is, because you have all the papers before you—you have documentary proof of what the real facts are—I was duly impressed with the names—under my contract with Hooley I was to have deposited with me Hooley's contract with Lawson—and that was deposited—on December 21st there was another transaction—I have never seen Exhibit 56 before—(Read): "Walsingham House, Piccadilly, December 21st, 1900 Received from H.J. Lawson, Esq., transfer and certificates for 1,500 shares Dublin Distillers and £1,000 cheque' dated February 10th, 1900,-in full payment for bill in the hands of Beyfus re Ormerod and Lawson and Mundy for £2,000.E. Berkeley Ormerod"—I have got my counterfoil of December 21st, 1900; the words "See £450 paid for these shares November 28th "are in my writing, y-id also £50 loan to Hooley to be repaid at once"—the £500, according to the counterfoil as it now stands, is said to have consisted of two sums of £450 and £50; the £450 to have been the payment to Hooley under the contract of November 28th, embodied in the document of December 3rd, and the £50 being a loan, according to this counterfoil, by me to Hooley—at that time, when I went through it, that was my

impression of what it meant—that is inaccurate, and was made under a misapprehension, and I fully explained to the Treasury how the mistake octurred—at the Police-Court I was asked about the cheque; I was not asked about the counterfoil until later—I said at the Police-Court, "I believe, in face of this document I swear, that the words above mentioned, I am to retain the balance £500, on account of profits re Electric Construction,' have been added since I signed it"—that is the receipt. "I observe there is a comma after £500.I suggest a comma can cover up a full stop. What I say is that, in my opinion, the words I have mentioned have been added since"—I think you are incorrect when you say I swore that those words that you have read are added—I swore at that time, and I believed at that time that the words "re profit Electric Construction "were the only words, but you have read a long statement—"I do not think the receipt was in the words just read to me. If the words and I am to retain the balance, £500, on account of profits re Electric Construction are at the end of the receipt I should say they have been added since"—when I suggested that those words had been added I did not remember anything about the counterfoil; I did not think it referred to this counterfoil—I knew I had struck out of the counterfoil the words "on account-of profits re Construction"—when I was being cross-examined I had only the cheque before me and no counterfoilit never occurred to me during that cross-examination that I had struck out those very words in my own counterfoil cheque book no more than the notes I made when I was going through the thing—I did not strike those words out in that counterfoil cheque book about the profits re Construction when I was preparing my statement for this prosecution, but previous to that, when I was going through the cheques and trying to find out what they were paid for—when I was preparing my statement for this case I did not go through my cheques; they were already prepared—I said at the Police Court on July 7th: "Since I was crossexamined as to the words in the Exhibit 57 'on account of profits re Electric Construction, I have looked at all counterfoil cheques; I went through those counterfoils for the purpose of preparing my statement for this case"—that is true—"and I was then not able to trace the credit of £1,000, or identify this cheque; I look at the counterfoil of a cheque dated December 21st, 1900: as it originally stood it was in the handwriting of my clerk Matford; produced is the cheque of which this is the counterfoil—the counterfoil as it originally stood written by my clerk before I drew the cheque of 'December 21st, 1900, J. Sims White exchange for cheque of £1,000, payable February 10th, 1901, being £500 profit re Construction Company; having looked at this since I gave my answer as to the words 'on account of profit re Electric Construction,' I think now that very likely those words were there"; those were the words in the receipt—"I still say I have no recollection of the words being there; I have no recollection of any profits being mentioned on the Construction Company in connection with that transaction; there is an addition in ink on this counterfoil, See £450 paid for these shares, November 28th,'made by me when going through my counterfoils for the purpose of my statement"—I went through the counterfoil for the

purpose of preparing my statement for this case—twelve months previous to that I—went through my cheques for the purpose of tracing the payment of that £450 which was due under the contract made November 28th signed December 3rd, 1900—when I could not trace that cheque for £4-50 I made the alteration in ink which appears as the addition to the counterfoil of December 21st, 1900—there was no question of a criminal prosecution then—looking at the counterfoil and at the contract of December 3rd under which I had to pay £450, it would appear from that counterfoil that that £450 was paid in respect of that transaction—that was so, and that, when I wrote it, was my impression—with that impression that was my object in making the entry for-my own information—I went through these cheques before, and then I should naturally go through them when 1 was preparing my statement—I said just now I went through these counterfoils for the purpose of preparing my statement for this case twelve months ago—and twelve months before that I had been through them—I may have added those words of £450 twelve months ago—that was when I found out there was a £50 cheque paid me by Hooley—I thought that was money I lent him, because I constantly lent him small sums—you can-see that from the books; as a matter of fact, I was entirely mistaken, and it was in reference to this receipt of £1,000, and the reason I made the mistake was that I could not find the £1,000 cheque, and I knew nothing of any deal—I cannot tell you how long after that it was that I added the pencil words "to make up the £500"; I cannot pledge myself—it is evident I had left that £500 in abeyance; I did not know what it was until I looked through my paying in books, and I found this cheque, and that is what I thought it was; as a matter of fact, there was a £50 cheque that Hooley gave me later on, and it is easy for you to clear it up by showing me this £1,000 cheque—in February, 1901, there are five post-dated cheques from Lawson of £100 each drawn by H.J. Lawson—the receipt is dated "Walsingham House, Piccadilly, London, February 25th, 1901 Received from Alfred John Paine, Esq."—I did not receive them—it is "Received from me"—"Received from Alfred John Paine, Esq., the sum of four hundred and fifty pounds sterling, as per agreement of December 3rd, 1900, by five post-dated cheques of £100 (one hundred pounds), each drawn by H.J. Lawson, should all or any of such cheques be returned unpaid no liability is to attach to A.J. Paine"—I gave five post-dated cheques of £100 each drawn by Lawson to Hooley, which he accepted in payment of the £450 due under the agreement of December 3rd—it was arranged there like that, but previous to that I' had given £500. This particular £500 was in exchange for a cheque of Lawson's, but it was made payable to Hooley. The question of the £4-50 was mentioned, the £450 that I had to pay at some later date; on December 31st, and not February, and Hooley said: "That will do: these being post-dated cheques, not one of them comes due until a "week after this time."So we put the matter straight. Really, he had hypothecated this money at that time on the 21st for what was payable on December 31st, and we put the matter straight by him giving me £50 out of it, which, by-the-bye, it says nothing "about here; so that you can imagine how incomplete these things are, and that settled, up the

deal—those five £100 cheques if met, of course, would be £500 for £450 only, they were not owing by me: I do not admit that; it had already been paid, although it was readjusted there, because Hooley had used this £500. It is not as if I had a cheque from Lawson when I gave Hooley one payable to him. I gave the cheque to Hooley on December 21st—I do not think there were five post-dated cheques at this time which were weekly cheques, that is, dated at week's dates from February 10th, 1901.I should ask you to look, because that would mean that one had been paid and I could not have handed it over to Hooley—there was a cheque of £500 which was paid, I think on February 8th or 10th, and that was the cheque that was given—on February 23rd, 1901, there was a payment of £500 by a cheque of Lawson's. That payment would be the cheque that was handed to me on this date, a post-dated cheque—that is another thing altogether; that was a loan to Lawson at the request of Hooley—the cheque in my paying-in book on February 8th is Lawson's cheque dated February 22nd—this is the counterfoil which appears here; it is in my writing—the counterfoil of the 22nd says: "Re transaction of December 21st one cheque £500 and five £100's; Hooley took these for £450 due under contract Construction Company; gave me £50 cheque for balance"—I wrote that when I found out about this cheque—I got this book from my bank—they have had it all the time, and a lot more—I do not know the month when I made this note in pencil on that paying-in slip—I should think eighteen months ago; it was when I found out this mistake on the counterfoil—you will see lots of notes in pencil. I will show you some more, but they have nothing to do with you: not that I care—there is nothing that I am ashamed of. I say there are other pencil marks there—if you look through the book and draw my attention to it I will tell you what it is—there is nothing in that book now which is connected with this case—I do not mind if you are seeking to find out anything more—I do not know that this pencil entry on this counterfoil of February 22nd, 1901, correctly represents the transaction; I did not make it for you; it is my own private note—I may have missed two or three words out—if I am asked to answer a question on a document which you read, I am entitled to look at it—notwithstanding it I say that Hooley had his money on December 21st—the ultimate result of the transaction that represented, but notwithstanding that, the man had had his money before it was due, as he usually did—it does and it does not correctly represent the transaction, like a man having a coat—it does fit and it does not; it is all according how he stands—that does not correctly represent it, because it had nothing about the £50 cheque in there—it was such a novelty—I never had the cheque on February 10th, 1901, for £1,000 which is referred to in Exhibit 57—my reason for saying that is that I can find no trace of it—it would have gone in the ordinary course into my bank, but I can find no trace of it—that cheque was not in existence to my knowledge; I could not find any trace of it—I did not think it had any existence; a man does not take a £1,000 cheque and lose it—I do not think I gave notice of dishonour of that—I do not think it ever presented it—I do not think it was presented—I did not bring an action on it—

Mr. B. Walker Kemp was my solicitor—this is a letter from him to Lawson: "February 11th, 1901, to Mr. H.J. Lawson, 40, Holborn Viaduct Sir—I hereby give you notice that your cheque for £1,000, drawn on the National Bank of Scotland, Limited, Nicholas Lane, E.C., dated February 10th, 1901, and made in favour of Mr. Ormerod, and endorsed 'by him to Mr. Paine, has this day been presented for payment and returned dishonoured. Unless the £1,000 be paid to Mr. Paine, or to me, as his solicitor, by 12 o'clock to-morrow, I am instructed to proceed against you to recover the same. Yours, etc., B. Walker Kemp"—that is the cheque referred to in Exhibit 57, which says: "I have this day received a cheque from you of H.J. Lawson's for one thousand pounds, made payable to Mr. E.B. Oemerod, and endorsed by that gentleman, dated February 10th I have handed you my cheque for £500, and I am to retain the balance, £500 on account of profits re Electric Construction"—I now see that letter for the first time; but what happened was that as a matter of fact these cheques were given in exchange—I said it never existed; I did not know of its existence; it is the same as I thought it was; the £450 for the other—I mean I had forgotten all about it—to tell you the truth I have had to see Lawson on several other cheques, and I got confused—the £1,000 cheque dated February, 1901, when it became due was dishonoured, and in lieu of that I received a cheque for £500 from Lawson and five post-dated cheques of £100 each—there is no doubt about it, but I should like to see the returned cheque—my solicitor or I to my knowledge have not had it, and there can be no personal object in my solicitor keeping it—I asked Lawson himself about the £1,000, and he did not know anything about it, and he will tell you so, no doubt—there was a writ issued on February 16th, 1901, by me against H.J. Lawson and E. Berkeley Ormerod—you will find some Writs' about with the same name, "Berkeley Ormerod"; that confused me; I had forgotten all about it absolutely—the endorsement of the writ is: "The plaintiff's"(that is me) "claim is for £1,000 and 5s. due on a cheque drawn by the defendant, H.J. Lawson, and endorsed by the defendant E. Berkeley Ormerod; and interest as hereinafter specified. Particulars 1901, February 10th, cheque drawn by the defendant Lawson on the National Bank of Scotland of this date in favour of the defendant E. Berkeley Ormerod, and endorsed by the said E. Berkeley Ormerod to the plaintiff, for value. Principal due, £1,000 Expenses, 5s. Due notice of dishonour of the said cheque has been given to the defendants respectively. The plaintiff claims interest at 5 per. cent, on the said sum of £1,000 from date hereof or until judgment"—this is the notice of dishonour—I do not know if I told my solicitor on February 26th, 1901, that this action had been compromised; he would know it, because he would have the costs—I had other actions against him; it might have been in reference to that; if you will show me the letter I shall know—I may or may not have told my solicitor, Mr. Kemp, that a settlement had been arranged of this matter, and that cheques had been given to me settling this debt for £1,000, because the others were post-dated, and it would not have been settled, I take it, if these cheques had come back—that would be my opinion of it—I do not know if instead of the £1,000 cheque on which I was bringing, an action I took a cheque

for £500 and five post-dated cheques, and from February 10th, 1901, for £100, that' that would settle the matter of the outstanding action for the £1,000—if those cheques had been dishonoured I should have considered the action would not have been settled—this is the letter from Mr. B Walker Kemp to H.J. Lawson, Esq., dated February 26th, "Sir,—Paine r. Yourself—I understand from my client that you have arranged a settlement in this matter and that you have paid cheque settling the debt, £1,000, leaving the costs to be paid. I am willing to agree these at five guineas. Please send me cheque by bearer or during the day. You will, of course, understand I' must proceed to judgment for the costs if not paid—Yours truly, B. Walker Kemp"—I do not know that I had instructed Mr. Kemp to that effect; I am not responsible for that—I suppose-1 told him it was settled, and he wanted his costs as—he was entitled to—he had to get substituted service I suppose—I do-not know whether I told him so; it does not impress me in any way—I took the £1,000 and Mr. Kemp wanted his costs and he was entitled to them—I should think this is Mr. Kemp's receipt for the five guineas costs closing the matter;—it looks like his writing; it is dated March 5th; a long time past the day I notice—the five post-dated cheques which were received as part of this settlement by me were handed over to Hooley according to the receipts; that is when I got them; on that date; that gave Hooley cheques for £500, and as I only had to pay £450, he gave me a cheque for £50 balance, having had the previous £500—he had the £1,000, and gave me £50 back, and £450 settled that was owing on the other—as to the receipt of February 25th, there is no doubt I have made a very serious mistake there; I admit it: I had forgotten all about it, and I have made a mistake, and I am very sorry for it; there is no doubt when I gave that evidence I was under that impression—I denied the existence of the £1,000 cheque; honestly I did deny it; until you produced that letter I did not know of its existence—if you had not produced those letters I should have continued to deny it, because instead of £1,000, it was in six cheques instead of one—that is all; it is practically the same thing, although I am sorry I made the mistake—I said in reference to the letter of December 21st, 1900, about the account of profits, Electric Construction: "The only part of that that is true substantially is the giving of my cheque for £1,000"; and I believed it then—as to the £1,000 cheque, I must have gone to the bank, having kept it in the safe till it was due, and taken up a slip of paper there, and asked them to put it through quick—I had forgotten all about this £1,000 cheque when I made the entry in the counterfoil on December 21st—whatever object should I have in making an entry of this sort—I had forgotten it right up to the date when you told me—I have got my paying in book for February, 1901—I keep three banking accounts; one a collecting account, what we pay in (that applies to changes and that sort of thing) and two others—I have been looking for the counterfoil of the paying in slip for the £1,000 cheque—it is impossible for me to tell if I paid it in, because I cannot trace it—you shall have the other paying in books for February, 1901; I did not bring them this morning—I think I have looked through them: they are numbered there: they are all in one account, from May 1st, 1900, until October 13th.1902: "they relate to

only one account—the counterfoil of the paying in book is what you have in your hand—I do not think that there are a number which are not dated at all; there is the stamp on them; there is no other date; there is no object in having two dates on—I should think the probabilities are that I did not present the £1,000 cheque myself—if it was not an open cheque I should not present it; I could, but it would be no use, being a crossed cheque—the chances are this would happen: Sometimes one might pay it into the bank at once; what could ordinarily happen would be this: It would lie in the safe until it was due to pay it, the day before perhaps, and what I think did happen in this particular case is that I took the cheque out of my safe and went over to the bank, which is quite adjacent to my place, and paid it in—being a post-dated cheque I wanted to get it in quick, and I should not enter it in this book—I should get an ordinary slip from the bank—it would go through then, and they would let me know in the afternoon—I should certainly consult my solicitor at once, because I was assumed to have £500 profit, and at that time I was £500 out—in connection with the Construction Company I becaue acquainted with Mr. Holroyd Smith in December, 1900, I think was the date; I saw him a good many times thereafter—in reference to lodging my transfers I saw him for the 3,000 shares that I purchased on November 26th—that is the name up—the offices of the company were opposite to me: "Mr. Holroyd Smith"—but the real offices of the company were in Mr. Holroyd Smith's place—they had not changed; they were not in the same building; they were on the opposite side of the street—he told me that he was the father of electric traction; he said that he had sold some patents; I do not know that he said of value; he may have told me that he had sold a lot of valuable patents to the Construction Company—I have no doubt he did, because all patentees would call their patents valuable—I do not know anything about motor matters; I did not hear him speak about those—I did not hear about a motor wheel—I never knew this company had anything to do with motors—I do not know that Mr. Holroyd Smith had sold these patents to the Construction Company for 55,000 £1 fully paid shares—I understood he was buying some shares, but I really cannot tell you the number—he did not tell me that 40,000 of those shares were in respect of those on which he had given an option to Lawson—I knew only of one of 15,000—I knew he had given him an option for £15,000—not at that time; I knew ultimately, of courser—I knew by the winter of 1901—I knew by the autumn of 1901, if you like; and I knew he was going to get something from Hooley and could not get it—in the beginning of September, 1901, I purchased from him over 15,000 shares—I gave him £100 for the right to purchase that 15,000 for £2,000—I think, if I remember rightly, the £100 was to be deducted off—that was the option; I was to give him £100 to acquire the 15,000 shares for £2,000, and if I did acquire them I was not to pay the £500; it was to he reckoned off the price; I should only have to buy another 1,900 shares—I do not recollect if that would be for the purchase of shares at 2s. 8d. per share—it is only a question of arithmetic; £2,000 for 15,000—during the time I knew Mr. Holroyd Smith I do not think I had a number of conversations with him about the Construction Company; I had more with

Lawson, I think—on December 13th, 1000, there was the transfer of the 3,000 to me from Mr. Berkeley Ormerod—we had a long conversation, but generally he was mostly talking about himself and what he had done, thinking I was more interested in it, I suppose; not with reference to the Construction Company; with reference to the Blackpool Company, the real Blackpool—that comes later: the promotion or scheme or reconstruction of that was referred to as the Blackpool (South)—the Blackpool had been already constructed by Mr. Holroyd Smith—from September, 1900, until September, 1901, when I made this contract for the option, I did not see him fairly frequently—I saw him in the twelve months occasionally—lie was away in Vienna for months, and I did not see very much of him: I might have seen him a dozen or twenty times altogether—when I said Hooley had said anything about Barings in January, 1901, I may have been making a mistake and confusing it with what happened in the summer of 1901 when something was said about it—very likely it might have been—there was the I to Syndicate they mentioned, and several other things—it was not in the latter six months of the year; I think it was before that—I think Hooley mentioned that these people were going to take it over, and that caused me to buy the second, I think—Hooley did say something to me about Barings taking over the Construction Company before January 24th, 1902, or if it was not Barings it was somebody else; it might have been the Ito Syndicate—I am rather inclined to think he mentioned the Barings then and not later: he mentioned it later on: it was a general discussion in the place what a fine thing it would be—my impression is it was mentioned—that is all; I will not swear, but my impression is it was—the effect of the transaction of January 24th, 1901, was that I got the right to all the interest in the contract of November 26th between Lawson and Hooley subject to my right to cancel this deal by giving notice fourteen days before the maturity of the bill; I had the option of taking the balance—it amounted to this: that I had the option from January 24th, 1901, at any rate for at least three months, to determine whether or not I would take the half which he still had of the interest in the contract of November 26th—what had happened was, he had got his interest, with Lawson, I had got half of it under the contract of December 3rd, and under this contract I was to have the op-tion to acquire the remaining half which was in Hooley—for that I was to pay him by a bill of £1,200 at three months and another bill for £3,800 ar six months—I elected not to go on with it before the first bill became due, then the contract was to be cancelled, and Hooley was to meet the bills: really he wanted the money—he said it would be a great accommodation to him, and he would make the sacrifice: he always called it a sacrifice—if I elected to cancel, as I had the right to do, then I was to retain out of Hooley's interest in the half 5,000 shares as my bonus for the transaction: but I never had them—if I had not elected to cancel, as I did in April, 1901. the result would be that Hooley had to meet the bill and I had not to pay anything: but I got landed with £800 and £750—under the contract Hooley had to meet the bills—supposing he had met the bills and the thing had all been carried out as if was there, I should have got a bonus of 5,000 shares in the Construction Company for having lent my name to

these two bills—my share that I was to get for that was another 31,000 shares, making (51,000—the whole of Mrs. Hooley's interest—I had an interest under December.3rd agreement for.30,000 to.31,000, and the other half was in Mrs. Hooley—according to my story, at this time Hooley had told me that Barings were taking over these shares, and that they would be worth £5 or £6 each—if that is right, taking it at the lower computation, that would make these shares worth about £150,000—I believed what was told me, but it was all subject to realisation—I thought I was in clover, there is no doubt about that: I admit that; there is no doubt I thought I was going to get rich very quickly—I was not getting the right to £130,000 for accommodating Hooley in respect of two bills for £5,000, altogether for three and six months; I was getting £30,000 for £5,000; accommodating, I was paying the bills—if the thing was carried out without my cancelling the option, the effect would be that I should have paid £5,000 in three and sir months for what I—was told, and believed at that time, was worth £150,000, and what I had paid was more than the whole company put together had coat—that was a very remarkable transaction—I was delighted—like the Siberian Goldfields were to he £20 each; they are 2s. Old., with a 2s. call—on the other hand, I came to the conclusion that I would not go on with the deal; that is to say that I should have time to find out whether Barings were going to take it over or not—I could then elect not to go on, but I had no means of finding out whether Barings had taken it over—I did not find out: I was told so—I cancelled the contract: that is to say, exercised my option not to buy the half interest, because I found out that Barings were not going on with it; that it is self-evident—they did not come to the front and take it over—that is why I am under the impression that the Baring deal was mentioned then, because it was on that that I thought I had got such a good thing, and as the time went by and these bills were maturing, they were supposed to have taken it over—I found three months went by and I heard nothing, and I thought to myself, "I have got enough shares in this thing: I am not having this second contract,"and I was a little bit doubtful about'it—I only ascertained that Barings had not taken it over in the way that they had not taken it over, but I did not go to them—if I am right about the date, Hooley was giving me an option, to purchase for £5,000 what was worth £150,000 to £180,000, arid I was to have time to find out whether it was true; I could elect by the date of maturity of the bill not to go on, and got a bonus for 5,000 Construction shares, hut I was liable till the bills were met; my name was on the bills—that was the position—that I was haying this magnificent offer—all I can say is that I am under the impression that it was Barings—it may have been the Ito, and he mentioned Barings during the running of the pool, but I am under the impression that he mentioned Barings to me, and not the Ito Syndicate at that time—I signed a pooling agreement on October 14th, 1901: still the Barings wore about—I think really what took place was that Barings were supposed to be negotiating for the offer in January, they did not take it over by this time—I saw no evidence of. it, and I did not like it, but another syndicate came in, and I believe Mr. Alfred Beyfus aeted for Lawson for another syndicate—whether it was the Barings

with them or not I do not know, but the negotiations still ran on, and then when I was asked to sign that memorandum I understood they were very nearly liquidating—I think Hooley and Lawson said to me when I was being asked about signing the pooling agreement in October, 1901, that there was a syndicate connected with the Barings who were taking the whole thing over, it was coining to a head then—I do not think I put my shares into the pool at 4 1/4; I did not know they were going in at 4 1/4—no doubt I signed—in Exhibit 19;"), I see October 11th, 1901, and my signature in the middle, 5,000 shares at 4 1/4—I signed that, but not when this was here; it does not matter—I will admit I should have been delighted to have 4 1/4—when I signed that this writing was not there, but it is quite possible that they might have asked me and I agreed to it, and therefore they would have put it down afterwards, and what leads me to think so is that Sir Henry White agreed at the same time—I do not know whose writing it is, but Hooley's, I should think—I agree that is what I was willing to sell them at; some of them, of course—I do not call this a pool: I call it an undertaking; but by the document, 5,000 were to be sold at 4 1/4—the document itself calls it pooling, but it is not like that first one; calling it a pool does not seem to be explicit enough: "Hereby I agree to pool," it says, but as I understand that other document, it is a different thing altogether; it allows you to have your shares out at a certain time—I understood it is an undertaking not to part with my shares except at a certain price—what it really is is to allow somebody else to sell our shares for us not under a certain price, and whatever shares are sold, the proceeds were to be distributed pro rata amongst us; that is the object of it, I suppose—I should have wanted to know something more, because Lawson was a very large shareholder, and we should have got about half a share when he sold one hundred—I mentioned in connection with the railway that there was an American firm also connected with it, and I referred to Mr. Pierpont Morgan in connection with the railway—I know now that in fact Messrs. J.S. Morgan & Co. came into the scheme of the City and North East Suburban Bill—I was told that Sir Clinton Dawkins, a member of the firm of J.S. Morgan & Co., went into the box to give evidence before the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on this Bill—I am told so, and I believe it is true, and that Sir Clinton Dawkins, for Messrs. Morgan & Co., undertook before the committee to finance the railway to the extent of two-thirds; I have been told so; I do not know whether it is true—there was a joint committee sitting for the purpose of considering this question—I remember there was a great Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons that sat to consider the various tube schemes; I remember reading that in the papers, what was described in the papers sometimes as the battle of the tubes—two opposite parties, Mr. Morgan and his company being one and Mr. Yerkes and associates being the other—I believe there was a scheme put forward bv Messrs. Morgan & Co., Messrs. Siemens & Co., the electrical engineers, and Mr. Hill, of the Thames Ironworks Company, to build a tube from Hammersmith to the City, and then on to Walthamstow; I do not know that, but if you say so I accept it—the City and North East Suburban Railway Bill was also before the same committee—for short,

we have called it the Walthamstow Railway—I do not know that these two schemes were to go from the City to Walthamstow, and that the difficulty was that there would be two lines running from the City to Walthamstow, or that it was in consequence of that Messrs. Morgan having lost this part of the City to Walthamstow that they came in and took up the Construction Company's scheme of the City and North East Suburban Railway Bill; but if you say so I will accept it—if the Bills were passed and the scheme of the City and North East Suburban Railway Bill was allowed, and they take on the other scheme from Hammersmith to London, that would give them a complete scheme from Hammersmith to the City, and from the City on to Walthamstow—I have heard that there is a good deal of expense in promoting a Parliamentary Bill; I am told it is very expensive—I am doubtful if the Construction Company promoted this Bill of the City of London and North Eastern, because at a meeting when they wound up the British Electric Street Trams, said they had spent £20,000 on that—the Construction Company or the Street Company had promoted that Bill, which to some extent would be the same thing if the Construction Company properly applied its assets—I know about it being the same thing; I said if it properly applied its assets—I said that for the purpose—I have no evidence except the plan that they had commenced working up this scheme in the autumn of 1900—they had got the plans referencing the route to be covered—they looked to me like copies of an ordnance plan—I do not know that f) per cent, upon the proposed capital would have to be deposited before the Bill could go to Committee—I have heard there was a deposit; I did not know it was 5 per cent.; I knew they had to deposit some money—I think now that the promoters would have to deposit a large sum of money before being allowed to promote that Bill before Parliament—I was told there was a difficulty with regard to this scheme, which we call the Walthamstow Railway—the amalgamated schemes of Morgan's and the City and North East got to a difficulty owing to the dispute that arose between Messrs. Morgan & Company and Mr. Yerkes—that is what I understood, and I further understood that the financial part of the Bill was not passed—I should have thought either of them would have been good enough—I think the Street Company was registered on October 18th, 1900, or about that date—I do not know if the Street Company was to get a half share in the promotion of the City and North East Suburban Railway Company—I heard that the Street Company also promoted a Bill of the Exeter Tramways—I do not know if that was to run tramways in Exeter—I heard they had something to do with Exeter—I do not know if that Bill succeeded before the House of Lords Committee, and was passed—Lawson at the meeting said the thing was worth about £800—that was the first I heard of it at the liquidation.

Friday, November 25th.

ALFRED JOHN PAINE'S cross-examination, continued. I have my paying in book for February, 1901, the No.3 account—I have not got the counterfoils of the paying in book for 1901, for the simple reason that the account laid dormant and I could not find it; neither can I find the pass book for the London and South-Western Bank, but I have written a, letter to the

manager and sent it on this morning asking him to make an inquiry and give a certificate as to whether there was £1,000 paid to that account and it will be here presently—No.5 you will see laid dormant—I will explain the reason of the numbers—it was this: When I had different public houses, I had different accounts and I numbered them—those that had gone on and those that had been sold—I have carefully examined them—there is another book there, No.5, which has not been touched—there is nothing in February—it goes on from 1900 and then 1902—you wanted the books I had got and three accounts—two of them are there and the result of the inquiry as to the other will be here, shortly—there was no No.1 account for some two years later—the accounts were distinguished by numbers—at the beginning of 1901 there were only three accounts, No.3 and No.5, and what I call "the collecting account"—I remember one thing about the shares of Hooley, but I think it was with reference to the obtaining of the 12,000 preference—I know that is in the petition, in which probably I referred to the agreement of November 26th, 1900, between Lawson and Mrs. Hooley—I do not think I put in the affidavit or petition one word about Hooley having represented the £15,000 Distillers' shares as being worth £7,500—it would be a statement to my solicitor, not to put in the petition—in the petition I think the word is to "defraud," or "deprive"—I told my solicitor the whole of the circumstances, my recollection of the facts—I remember swearing to the petition and objecting to some of the statements which were not within my knowledge—I read through the petition carefully—it is probable I mentioned some of the statements that induced me to enter into the contract of December 3rd, 1900—if I had put everything in the petition it would have been ten times as long—the statements in the petition to which I swore on December 22nd, 1903, correctly represented my view at that time, I should take it—my solicitors drew it, I did not—I understand he swears to some of these things, because he went through the file and found out about these shares—he might, and he might not, think it proper to put the statements in the petition; I think it is pretty strong as it is without anything more—(Read): "Your petitioner says the said contract of November 26th, 1900"(the contract between Mrs. Hooley and Lawson) "was part of the combination between the said Lawson and Hooley to deprive your petitioner of large sums of money, and that lie was induced by means of the said contract and a telegram of the same date from Hooley, saying that a dividend would be declared of 18s. per share, to purchase many thousands of shares which was on the faith of the statement contained in the said agreement, to the effect that Lawson and Hooley were the owners of 245,000 shares, purchasing the interest of the said Mrs. Hooley under the provisions of the said agreement"—that is true, on the faith of the telegram and the surrounding circumstances—that statement is definite: but in my affidavit it is sworn to "to the best of my knowledge and belief"—I do not make any qualification—I swore the usual form of affidavit—it refers to documentary evidence—inducements were held out to me and that is why I parted with the money—I "was told a Street Company was going to be formed: I did not know of the promotion—I knew afterwards Ithat notice had been issued to the public—shortly afterwards I

entered into this contract for the purchase of the Construction-shares—I had the proposed prospectus, undated—I was told the Streets Company was being promoted; I did not know what issuing meant then with reference to a company—they did bring it out—that was shortly after my purchase of my first lot of Construction shares—I knew that when, it was brought out there was a considerable amount of money subscribed by the public, and that between £49,000 and £50,000 was subscribed, in addittion, I take it, to what was subscribed by the founders: £60,000 altogether, I think—I Lave admitted I have made a mistake—the £300 profit was for discounting the cheque, I understood, for £1,000—the document is Exhibit 56, page 29, and that is the document from Walsingham House, Piccadilly, dated December 21st, 1900, and signed by Ormerod: (Read) Document received from H. J. Lawson, Esq., transfer and certificates for 1,300 shares Dublin Distillers' and £1,000 cheque dated February 10th, 1900, in full payment for bill in the hands of Beyfus re Ormerod and Lawson and Mundy, for £2,000 '"—I never saw that In my life before—I do not see that it says that I treated the Distillers' shores as £1,000—it is taking the Distillers' shares at £1,000—if they had been treated when they were transferred to me from Lawson as worth £1 each it would have made for the 1,500 Distillers' £1,500, if the parties had completed that matter—if Hooley got those back within a few days or within a month at £1,000, there was a profit of £500 upon the transaction, a profit of £6,000 to Hooley for half of his share—I do not know anything about this profit—you say it was £2,000, but there is a profit here as of £1,000 for the Distillers' shares, I understand, on that £1,000 cheque—where is the profit of £500 when you get a £2,000 bill for it, and that helps me very much—as a matter of fact, I believe they were 10s., my solicitors tell me at that time—they had means that I had not of ascer-taining what the shares were worth at that time—I had many conversations with Hooley: it was all conversation—I had never seen this document before it was handed to me at the Police Court—I never remember anything about a bill of Lawson and Mundy's—I do not remember having a conversation with Hooley before I signed this receipt of December 21st, 1900 as regards profits of electric tramway concerns—I do not recollect any except the ordinary conversation when a man is parting with his money—I do not remember him telling me that the Distillers' shares were coming back to him, that he had got them back from Lawson—that is an absolute fabrication; also that he had taken the Distillers' shares at £1,000, and therefore there was £500 profit, that the transaction had been done with me upon, the statement by him to me on the basis of £1,500 and £3,500 deductable under the contract of November 26th—it would have occurred to me if anything like over £1,500 that he had £6,000 or £7,000 for it—there were no profits in the Electric Construction deal—Lawson himself told me that he had handed these Distillers' shares back to him eighteen months ago, and I did not believe him—Lawson told me that he had handed to Hooley the Distillers' back, and that he got nothing for the contract—I am quite clear no discussion at all took place about this: there was nothing at all like it—I do not remember the words in this receipt, "£500 on account of profits re Electric Construction"—you

insinuate I know they were added—I do not suggest that, but I do not remember them being there when I signed the document—I never knew anything about that £500 on account of profits re Construction Company—I do not admit that I retained the profit—what I say is this, that that was practically a paper profit—the five cheques of £100 each never entered into my possession, except to sign the back of them—I had received a £1,000 cheque post-dated—assume it was paid, there was a profit of £500, and the £430 to Hooley on the contract of December 26th, £430 was a balance due to be paid on December 21st—Hooley may have had that £300 for that purpose—it has nothing to do with me, only I wanted to explain it—I got it, but it went to Hooley—I never said otherwise, but it never went to my bank: it went to pay for these rotten shares—I had not paid for the rotten shares, that was the balance to pay for them—that £430 was not paid until February 25th, but it was paid out of this cheque, and as a matter of fact Hooley could not claim anything off me—that "500 he had as part payment, and as to the £1,000 cheque, that was before it was due there was never any trouble after I found out the mistake at the Police Court—I received the cheque of February 10th, 1901, for the £1,000 on December 21st, and paid out a cheque for £500—when that cheque of Lawson's became due on February 10th, it was not paid—I gave notice of dishonour and brought an action—on February 21st it was compromised—instead of that there was the cheque for £500 and five postdated cheques from February 10th for £100 each—the cheque for £500 went into my bank on February 22nd according to the paying in slip: I said so—the five cheques for £100 were still left and were paid by me to Hooley to settle the £450 due under the November 28th agreement to writing on December 3rd—the £50 which was left from that was paid by cheque of Hooley's to me—I got the full payment of the £1,000 in a way—I have said dozens of times it was for cashing the cheque—let me tell you there was nobody in London, I think, who would have parted with £500 at that time for one of Hooley's at two months: that is my opinion of it, and that is why they were prepared to pay heavy for it—I cannot say that that struck me with any surprise at the time; a man that was to give me a large sum for the accommodation of £500 for two months—I thought it was a very good thing if the cheque was met, but when it came back I was not so satisfied with myself—I did know that Lawson was not flush of money at the time—I found out all this since—there are many, many men of very good position who have got money coming at a certain time and want to anticipate it, and as a matter of fact, that was the explanation given to me: that Lawson had so much invested—I know now that company promoters will give £1,000 for three months—I do not say very rich men, but they are men who are in want of money and will pay very heavy for it—you need not emphasise "the rich"; it is what people call rich: it is all according to the man; he may be a very rich man, and have-a debt to satisfy—rich men may be short at the time—I have known people take securities to a bank, and I have heard of money-lenders lending £300 and charging £1,000 for it, the richer the better for them—I thought it was a very good thing: that is how I will answer your Question—I cannot sav that on December 21st, the statement

surprised me, because I had been buying shares at about 4s. that were supposed to be worth £4 each—notwithstanding that on December 21st, 1900, one of the inducements that was made to me by Hooley was that Lawson was a very rich man, and that he had got a lot of money ed up in different companies, in different things that he was in—there was no necessity to say that—if I was to tell you all that Hooley has told me with the hundreds or thousands of shares I have got I would never be done—I did not tell everything at the Police Court—I mean that the statement "profit re Electric Construction" should have been, according to my understanding, discount for the cheque; they paid more money than that—that is what I thought it was, and why I discounted the cheque for Hooley for a few days, and he has paid me £30 for it—I was in the habit of attending Hooley's office pretty regularly from December, 1900, to March, 1902—after I had done my work I would go round there two or three times a week when I was in town—I could not always pop in—I suppose you may take it I was there three times a week, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, as a rule—I wrote letters from there and had my own note-paper headed Windsor Castle brought to Walsingham House to write letters from there; Hooley told me if I wanted to write a letter at any time I could have the use of his typewriter, and Mr. White also said so—I did use his typewriter a few times, and kept a copy letter book there—my letters may have been-copied. Mr. White had them copied very likely—they were in connection with these company things, sending on the transfers and these sort of things—for instance, the letter that was written to the company, and one or two other letters, were dictated by me—that state of things continued throughout the whole of 1901, and to March, 1902, but I was getting very suspicious—the latter part I may not have been at the office three times a week, but I thought it was very important I should be on the scene—I was looking after it to try and find out what was being done—I believe the latter part of the time one or two people did come in, and I told them not to do any business with Hooley—after October, 1901, I had transactions with Hooley in some Corunna shares, and I think three or four or five transactions down on to February, 1902, the last two letters of Electric Construction shares—the letter of January 24th, 1901, to the Construction Company, was dictated by Hooley; I wrote it before I signed it, and rather objected to it, but he said he did not want Lawson to know about it—he said, "I do not want Lawson to know what I get for those shares; it does not matter to you, because I can pay for the registration"—they always paid the stamps and that sort of thing—in this particular case I took the transfer myself—I foolishly allowed myself to sign that letter, but I trusted him then—I believe Hooley dictated it to his typewriter and brought it in to me; I showed him the letter I had—I was not in the habit of signing things which Hooley dictated or wrote, only you have got this particular incident—that "I purchased the 3,000 in your company, transfer of which you have had a considerable time, from a friend of mine for shares in another company, which, can be proved at any time,"was not true—that is Hooley: as a matter of fact, if they had come to me and asked, I should have told them all about it—that letter was meant to mislead Lawson, no

doubt; it was not to let Lawson know that we had sold these shares for £1,500—the letter was intended by Hooley through me to mislead Lawson as to the price he was giving for the shares—the words "which can be proved at any time," was a distinct lie, I think—I do not know what was in his minl; he wrote it—there was very little in my mind about it at, the time; I did it to oblige Hooley; it did not get me anything—I did not think about it at all, except as obliging him—I was signing a document that, he dictated to me and brought to me; no doubt "it is false, but it was done to oblige Hooley; remember I trusted him then; he hypnotised me, he had a magnetic power over me which was extraordinary; not now though—I continued on friendly terms with him for a considerable period after this, and he has said so—I am not going to admit I was terribly shocked—it was an improper thing to do, of course—it was doing a friend of mine, whom I trusted at the time, I thought a favour—my first letter to him was asking for my certificate, for "which I waited two months, not an unreasonable thing to want your certificate, I should think—the latter part: "I know nothing of any pool, and am not a party to any,"is perfectly true, and "and unless I receive my certificate during the next seven days I shall immediately place the matter in the hands of my solicitors"—Lumley & Lumley were the solicitors—the real object of this letter was to prevent Lawson knowing he had had £1,500 from me—Hooley wrote that letter trying to force Lawson to register my transfer for the 3,000 shares, with the reply of the company before him; I had given the reply of the company to him—I had brought the letter round to him, and asked him the meaning of it—Hooley is dictating this letter in answer to a letter from the company of January 22nd—the object of the letter was to protect himself—lie and Lawson in affidavits are swearing each other to be the biggest scoundrels, and going to luncheon together—I have supplied the affidavits to the Treasury—there is nothing in that—the letter of January 30th, 1901, was my own letter, I think; it contained what I thought to be the truth, but it is different to the circumstances of that last letter—the words "my interest, both in your company and the British Electric Street Tramways Company" mean that if I had had what I was entitled to, I was entitled to a large number of shares under the contract—that letter contains what I thought Lawson had given me information about—I never asked to qualify the other letter—I have been perfectly open about it: I say that it was wrong to do as he asked me to do—I am stating here what I was told—I had seen Lawson several times—that letter is typed, I think, by the same machine—I must say the suggestion of taking the note book round to Hooley emanated from Mr. White, who was a friend of mine: he was the man who suggested my buying the shares—if anything cropped up I used to use Hooley's typewriter—it was Mr. Sims White who introduced me—the statement that Messrs. Barings were taking over the shares of the Construction Company, or taking over the concern at £5 or £6 a share was mentioned before October, 1901, I think—I think it varied according to the time running a little, but it was some time before that; it was made in October, 1901, I think about the time we suggested that undertaking about the shares: that is the time they told me the shares were going to be taken over at £6,

and they would go up to £10, in consequence of the eminence of this firm—"they were going to"; they had been going to since January—I do not know what they were going to do—there was another syndicate about—Mr. Alfred Beyfus, I believe, had something—Hooley told me about a syndicate with Mr. Alfred Beyfus, the Ito Syndicate—it was not suggested Barings had agreed to take it over; I do not think it went as far as that; I am not sure about it—I should think it would depend upon whether I was buying any shares just then—my answer would depend upon the statement made by them—you may take it they had not taken it over—the statement was that they had taken it over—I do not know that they had definitely agreed—I do not know that they "had taken it"—that is all I know—they might have said at one time they had taken it over, or that it was very nearly finished, but the exact words I cannot recollect; after four or five years it is difficult to say; there were lots of statements made about it, but in addition to that there was the railway pool, of course; I cannot remember now—alter this statement from them in October, 1901, I agreed to pool shares or 5,000 of them for sale at £4 or £5—on the strength of their taking ft over the people might go on selling their shares to somebody else; that is not an unusual thing—supposing it was agreed to take over the shares at £6, it does not follow you could get £6 for them, because they may not take over the things for months after—I joined in the pool, by which I agreed with a number of others to share pro rata in any shares which were going at £4 or £5, and this was the gigantic thing represented, but it would take many months to get completed—I should have been then delighted to take £4 10s. for 5,000 of my shares—I had got 10,000 or 12,000 in reserve—I do not know what "taking them over"meant; that and "paying for them "are quite different things—it may not go further—an agreement to take them over and pay for them is different: I think I should be pretty cute in taking £4 10s. for them, having others in reserve—there is no-innuendo, it is an absolute fact—Barings put up the Ito Syndicate about October, 1901—I think about that time Barings and the Ito syndicate were all at it, according to their account; when there were any shares for sale—three or four can try to buy; that is negotiation—on no occasion was I ever told that Barings had refused it—I discovered that Barings had not agreed to take it over, about four or five months after the statement about them—after October, 1901, I think—I have been in communication with Lawson this year: he met me at the Law Courts—he has been in communication with me and my solicitor, too—Mr. Joseph Davis, who acted for me before, and is acting for me now in the petition business, and who acted as my solicitor in the Construction Company matter and the British Electric Street Tramways—I met Mr. Lawson at the Law Courts when they brought; the bogey action against me—this year, after the committal; when the action came on—there had been three or four adjournments—within the last six weeks, I should think—I met him in the corridor of the Court; within the last six weeks—I talked to him—I do not think I shook hands with him—in fact, I should think it very improbable—he wrote me the letter you have there—they are all there; I have handed them to the Treasury—I do not know whether it was before or after, but I was walking

down Cheapside, and he jumped out of a cab—four or five weeks ago—I should think there were three interviews at the Law Courts; we were hanging about there for a long time—I could not prevent him jumping out of the cab and touching me on the shoulder—that is one interview in Cheapside and three at the Law Courts—you cannot call them interviews; the man was walking about the corridors—perhaps on two occasions I spoke to him; the other times I might have passed him by—he certainly spoke to me first—very likely I spoke to him, all about the Construction Company, you know—as a matter of fact, he brought out a lot of plans to show me, and was trying to convince me that they had a lot of orders up in the north, and as a matter of fact, I think that is so; since this thing has been going on there has been something done, or assumed to be done—I will not say that it is done—I mean in getting an order up Lancashire and Yorkshire way—he brought out the plans—he said he wanted to convince me that this thing would be a valuable thing, and kept repeating to me that he had never had any of my money, he had called a meeting; of the company—there is no secret about it, but it was in the presence of my solicitor—Mr. Walker Kemp was there—he was not acting for me; I met him there—I nave other matters of business, not all litigation, and I told him he would find me there—I should think on one occasion Mr. Davis was there, but the other time Mr. Walker Kemp was there—the interview in Cheapside lasted three or four minutes, not more, standing on the kerb—it was in the evening, on a Friday, since the committal—Lawson tapped me on the shoulder and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Paine, you are quite wrong in this matter: so and so, so and so—I want you to attend a meeting; there is going to be a meeting of the shareholders, when a statement will be put before you, and I hope that meeting will prove to you that this company has valuable properties"—I said, "I must consult my solicitor, Mr. Lawson"—and he said, "Will you give your solicitor instructions to attend?"—I said, "I really cannot enter into this matter with you, but I will report to my solicitor what you say"—I had a telephonic message—I gave my solicitor instructions to attend, but I do not want you to leave it there—I had a notice to attend the meeting—the proxy was altered when it was sent on to me, according to my instructions, for him to attend and report simply, not to vote—he did attend that meeting, and sent me on a statement of a speech that Lawson was making to the shareholders—it was really to me, because I do not know of any other shareholders except Mr. Lawson and myself, and I sent my solicitor a written reply—he sent the documents on, and a report of what was done, which I have handed in—the documents will tell you the date of the meeting, and I shall not have to worry myself; I have had quite enough of it for five years back—very likely it was on November 7th—the documents will tell you again—I think it was adjourned, but I am not sure—I do not know the date of the last communication that was made by me or my solicitor to Mr. Lawson—my solicitor may have made a communication to him without my knowledge, but there is a letter there—the documents will give it—all the interviews at the Law Courts were relative to the same matter—about what they were doing—he was trying to satisfy me as to the position of the Construction Company, and he kept telling me he

had had none of my money, and how he had been deceived—there were 21,500 shares which I now have as the result of what has happened—I hold 300 that I bought from Hooley through Mr. White, that I have not registered—that is the ultimate result of all these various transactions—in the contract they made me take shares which came to £1,600—when the bill became due for £3,800, Hooley could not pay it all—he did not pay any of it, as a matter of fact, but I paid £800, and I had to pay that £800 because he could not—when the other bills became due I paid £800 and got a renewal for two bills of £1,500 each—one Hooley paid and the next one he only paid half and I had to take shares; that is £1,350—I am taking each item I paid for shares—I never got all I bought—the payments made directly or indirectly for Construction shares I make £10,200—in respect of the 21,500 Construction shares which I now hold; all directly except £1,550—I had bought 3,000 shares at 10s. on November 26th, 1900, for £1,500—on November 28th, Lawson was parting with 61,000 shares for his £7,500 to Hooley subject to the £3,500 deduction that had to be made—I was paying very nearly as much as Hooley was paying for the lot; he got home nearly at once—it was about 3s. 6d. a share—only two days after I had made the contract at the 10s. a share, and two days after I had had the telegram saying that the dividend was going to be 18s. a share—I had not purchased the 30,000—that was only done to bring me on—if I had 30,000 and was going to have a dividend of 18s. a share, it is reckoning £30,000 less £3,000, which is £27,000, which is 2s. a share—I had been told the shares were worth £3 or £4, I think I said, but, however, it does not matter—they are an expensive luxury now at a 20th of a penny—30,000 shares at £3 a share would be £90,000—with a dividend added of £27,000, it would be £117,000—I do not wonder at Mr. Avory calling me a cunning financier at the Police Court—if I was buying for £5,450, Hooley was doing better; he got them for nothing—I can understand your anxiety in trying to get that contract back.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. I do not consider there was anything at all improper or dishonourable in our speaking to each other at the Law Courts—you came to me with an idea of trying to alter what I had in my mind as to the value of the shares or the Construction Company's property—we had an action on; we were bound to meet—I do not like you any better for mentioning two actions; one is bluff—there was no profit in Electric Construction—I do not remember seeing you about the five £100 cheques—they were paid—after all thy witnesses answered questions in the Police Court, all the answers were read over to the witnesses by the Clerk of the Court, and each witness signed 'the sworn depositions—there were only one or two little things that were corrected—Mr. Bodkin asks, and I answer, "The first time I ever saw Lawson was on December 10th, 1900. By that date I had been fifteen or sixteen times to Walsingham House, and Mr. Hooley and I had constantly been talking of the Construction Company before that date, and its prospects. Before that time I had met Mr. Holroyd Smith several times. He had told me he was engineer to the company, and that he was the father of electric traction, and had laid down the Blackpool tramway. He was a very interesting person to talk to "that is about right—the only time I saw you was just

before Mr. Cox came in with the pooling agreement—(Read): "As to what-Lawson told me on December 10th, 1900, it is true us far as my knowledge now goes that the Construction Company had orders in various parts of the country, and were applying for others, and that they were doing a good business, and that the Railway Bill was going splendidly and was sure to pass, and that the shares would be very valuable, and that I should be a very rich mail: this I should assume would be contingent upon the company being prosperous"—that is perfectly correct—Hooley told me from time to time of orders that had been got, not as you got the orders—(Read): "I have heard of the Exeter City, and also the Walthamstow Railway; I do not know that the Construction Company was actively engaged in all these projects"—that was my knowledge of what I had ascertained up to date—I could not find out what you were actually doing unless I was a director of the company—I agree with that—on two occasions you gave me five £500 post-dated cheques, whether at the instigation of Hooley (I daresay it was) I will not say—you had a cheque from me which went through my bank, and I can produce it now, for £2,490 in exchange for a cheque that Mr. Redfern was supposed to have bought shares with in the Electric Tramways Construction, as Hooley told me—the balance of the money was in settlement of a judgment and costs which you owed me on one of those dishonoured £500 cheques—that was paid in connection with the Construction—I will tell you why—when I was told that a gentleman of Mr. Redfern's position was putting £3,000 in this thing and buying an interest, it naturally improved my opinion of the concern—I did not buy the shares of you personally, to my knowledge; you owe me nothing—I said in answer to Mr. Bodkin, "I understand that the Construction Company is a company which has promoted other companies, after acquiring Acts of Parliament and Provisional Orders, and these subsidiary companies would provide the capital for the undertakings and take them off the hands of the Construction Company"—that I found out at that date—there is nothing on the surface of Mrs. Hooley's contract that shows me either whether it was all the shares or whether you were to give the call—I think all you did was to sell Mrs. Hooley a fourth share for 1,500 Distillers' shares and an ultimate payment of £3,500—that is all I know—I now know that if a man has a company and a new undertaking that he is trying to float he has to go to stockbrokers in London and get them to take it up—I cannot agree with you about making a market—that is the most nefarious thing that is allowed—they make markets with shares one from the other, and there is nothing in it at all—make as many markets as you like if you have the foundation and the shares are worth it—the contract has been lost and has been cancelled by mutual consent, it appears, on the face of it—it was cancelled in June, 1901, I think—I had a consideration for cancelling it—there were so many shares—it was absolutely done with, as far as I was concerned, and you, too, it appears by your letter and the notices you gave to Mrs. Hooley—what happened was that Hooley handed it to me; I handed it to him; he handed it back and took a receipt—the next time he had it I never saw it again—that is all I know about it—I do not know about it being lost—it went out of my possession, and I do not know what became of it—

(Read): "In consideration of your having transferred to me this day 1,500 shares of £5 each fully paid in the Dublin Distillers Company, Limited, I hereby agree to divide with you all the proceeds I make out of dealing with the 243,000 shares in the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, on the following terms"—that is a very important part, the division of profits: "The shares to be sold from time to time and the proceeds to be divided in the following proportions: Three-fourths to H.J. Lawson and one-fourth to Mrs. Hooley, but Mrs. Hooley not to receive any money"—I know now that when contracts are taken to brokers that is the ordinary common arrangement for memoran-dum of agreement—I did not know it then—according to the document you paid yourself—the shares are to be sold from time to time by you—it says you were to sell them, I think—I understood that you were to pay yourself—it says you are to deal with them—the object of giving this contract is to sell the shares—Hooley sold me 3,000 about that date, for £1,500—he never paid you anything to my knowledge for these shares—I should not know really what took place between you—as far as I know I have no evidence that you received anything—I understood from Hooley that for years you have been doing business together and had some very large transactions, and that you had got a lot of money out, and that he was constantly doing business with you—hardly a client—in things together I should have taken you to be according to what Hooley led me to believe, and I know that is so—I was at the Walsingham three times a week in the afternoons—during the year 1901 I saw you, allowing a fair margin, not over twenty times—perhaps you might have been twice in a week, and then not have appeared again, but I have seen you several times at your office—I have 21,500 shares I think—I am the owner of some shares of Mr. White's: not Sir Henry White—there is a transfer of 500 not registered which belong to me—it is the last purchase—Hooley did the deal—you told me you had given him a traction engine; if you remember, I mentioned at that time, and that Hooley owed me a sum, £1,000, because it appears on your note—you transferred the 2,000 ordinary—you bought 3,000 in this first deal, for which you gave the £1,500—later on, I bought two separate lots of 300 each, for which I gave two cheques of £250 each, and then 12,000 preference—that makes 21,000—that-has been my complaint all along—that I have never had my shares—you have heard me complain about it, and make a row about it, that Hooley sold me shares I never got—the shares I got he reckoned were really no gift from you, but that I was paying for them—there were 500 I gave away to Sir Henry White, or transferred—Sir Henry White gave 500, so he wrote and told me—I never had a penny for them—I did a deal with Paramos—Sir Henry White did not pay me or my nominee, or agent—I did not know they were going to Sir Henry White—I gave a blank transfer—Hooley said he was selling them to a client—I can only tell you the cheques I paid for Construction shares—I do not allege that you have had any of my money—I complain about your assisting in the 12,000 preference—that is set forth in my petition—and the shares that were exchanged for the others—I took 12.000 preference and 2,000 ordinary in full settlement, but it was because

I could not get the others—I only know of one person, Sir Henry White, and I do not know that he attempted to sell the shares—I knew you were negotiating with some brokers; I think it was a Mr. Baker—I do not know what happened over that first pooling agreement in December, about the 3rd—I saw you just before and you told me Mr. Cox was coming up—there was no attempt to float a company on the public, so far as I know—knowing what I know of you, and knowing the number of years you have been associated with Hooley, and the large amount of deals you have had of enormous magnitude, the enormous sums of money made by you in conjunction with Hooley and Mr. Bradshaw from Beeston Tyres, as it is reported against you, I do not think the transaction was unreasonable between you and Hooley—you have lost 21,000 shares, assuming the company belongs to you—on November 26th, 1900, I saw Mr. Holroyd Smith—his name appears in the prospectus as having sold patents to the company, and I believe he was appointed engineer—he mentioned one invention that I thought was a valuable one in connection with the overhead wire system—it was a system that when the—wire broke the current was cut off automatically—that rather impressed me as good—lie was a very interesting man, and we had some interesting discussions—he used to speak about the Blackpool trams—I should think the conduit system is very much in front of the other; it is not so unsightly, and I do not think with an invention of that sort it would be so dangerous—it does away with poles and wires and all that sort of thing, and is a very valuable system—I have seen it in progress at Clapham and at Westminster Bridge—the London County Council have taken up that system in preference to any other, and they are always in trouble with it, I am sorry to say: still it is a good system—my experience is half the companies are ruined by having fools for directors and riot business men; all they think is of collecting the directors' fees, and they do nothing for the shareholders; they are mere nonentities—Mr. Holroyd Smith showed me a book containing several illustrations of the Blackpool tramways—your photograph opening it and driving the first tramcar is in the book—there was a large crowd of people round the tram—Mr. Holroyd Smith called himself the father of electric traction, and he said that he put the first tramway up or managed it, so we have to put it down that it was through his invention, and that the first tramway in England was at Blackpool—you said at the time you took this company over you knew very little about electric traction—now you know a lot about it—you are in the same position as myself as regards companies—Mr. Holroyd Smith told me you had promised him some money, I think, in respect of the Electrical Construction Company—it was a very old registration—he said it was originally your company, and that you had appointed him, I think, electrical manager, and had paid him some money—perhaps I am wrong, and he was to be manager of the British Street Trams—I know he was manager to the British Electric Street Trams or appointed manager—I understood that he had been appointed electrical engineer to both companies—I knew you had been in America, but I thought it was over the British Motor—I had a conversation with Mr. Holroyd Smith about electric traction, but we did not discuss that thing very much—I should not have bought the option when I found he

could not get the certificate—he said, "You have an option, I think, for £1,000,"and I gave him £2,000—he told me when your option expired 1 could take the shares—he could not get the certificates, and the result of it was that when the action was brought by Holroyd Smith you paid his costs—what costs I had incurred, and gave back the £100, £50 of which I gave to Hooley, because he was to have half the option, and the other part of the money went to the solicitors—that 35,000 were to be given to him for all his patents I know now, but he did not tell me at the onset—it might have come out twelve months afterwards, but not at the time—it would have been impertinent of me to have asked him—(Read): "Agreement of February 14th, 1899, between Michael Holroyd Smith, of 161, Trinity Road, Upper Tooting, in the County of London, Electrical Engineer, and the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, whose registered offices are at 46, Victoria Street, Westminster," and for dealing with patents—that is where I took my transfers; it was the registered office on December 13th; you had not changed then—I have never done anything with patents—since these plans I have had a lot of others, but I do not know how to get my money back—I should not touch any patents because my experience teaches me that directly anyone invents a patent someone else goes and infringes it, and it is litigation the whole of the time—I knew a Mr. Green who had an engine, but I believe that is in America: he offered. it to me—patents are sometimes of very, very great value, if they are useful—Hooley never told me that I brought him this company to promote it—I have heard Hooley has raised millions—I think, having regard to Hooley's condition now, and from what I now know, his was the very worst place you could have taken it to—the Siberian was not being financed; it had got no working capital, and no written assignment of the concession, and it was merely selling the shares, and the shares had no right to be sold—there was no official recognition and no working capital—this was gone into at the Police Court—I have heard that he had raised millions of money before his bankruptcy, but you knew him four or five years before I did—I cannot tell you the reason—to take a company to Hooley, knowing what you must have known of him, I should think was an absurd thing for you to do—it will kill anything you do—on November 26th, I understood all the work had been done by the plans that I saw—this looks very much like the book I spoke about; it is the City and North Eastern Suburban—I see a plan of the route, and know that every single foot of the road has to be measured, laid out on parchment, drawn, planned, levels taken, and breadth of the road; that every little petty property along the line, each house, has to have its foundations taken and put down on paper, and every owner of property all along those lines of property has to be met and negotiated with, his lawyers seen and put into communication with our lawyers, and enormous bills run up—I thought you merely sent your Notice to Treat so that you should get the line; then you commence your operations—I did not know that they compensated the owners of the property first—I think I told you somebody told me there were 29 oppositions to the Bill—I do not know all you did; I heard some of it at the Police Court—at the "Windsor Castle"they did not discuss many railways; they rather come in

and rush out again to catch the trains—I understood the promoters had done a goodish bit with the railways and had some Orders—I heard you had done something: Blackpool (South) I knew about—I suppose if you were going to do away with the old company it would be the Construction Company, if they were trying to put the thing through: who was the Construction Company goodness knows; I have been trying to find out; it has been a mystery to me: I appear to be the only man who has put in anything for shares—it was your company, and the directors were your creatures—I know something about the Blackpool by that plan and the shares I had, and the prospectus—the line has been built, is running and thousands of people during the holidays have been unable to get on—if properly administered there ought to be a profit on the Blackpool Company—I have not seen this list before, but I should think it might be the same list; I thing there are one or two added—it was in the prospectus of the dinner, the meeting—the Leeds and Wakefield Tramway was spoken about at Hooley's generally—I should see that I had the finances right before I started on the job if I were going to do it—there would be first money spent, but it would be as well to arrange beforehand when it is coming on: you may have your scheme on paper, but how are you going to finance it?—people would say: "If you pass it we will finance it, or help you to do so '—I do not know the district—I do not know about it being reasonable: I only know by what was published, and I assumed then that really the money was there: I could not imagine for an instant that that thing would be published without it—I think three years is a reasonable time within which to make dividends—I should have thought you might have made something before this: the Orders are saleable, and if you cannot work them yourselves, there are plenty of people to take them over—I know nothing about it except what I am told; I assume that there are heavy expenses in this sort of thing—its objects are important, no doubt—I have no evidence what arrangements are made or what the company is to derive—five per cent would be very satisfactory to me after waiting so long—if you have the same directors and the company is under the same management it is an utter impossibility to pay a large dividend—I thought the directors administered the affairs of the company—if these things are all made going concerns of course it is a good thing—I should be delighted to hear it—I do not know what you mean; you say if one of these tramways or one of these orders is floated and constructed and paid for, it would be a good thing: certainly it would—nothing is impossible—(Plan-produced)—I know nothing about Blackburn, Warley, or Burnley; Burnley, I believe is a large place, and I have heard that Blackburn is a large place—the other day you told me the whole of this large system belonged to other companies, and you talked about joining them—Hooley has never shown me any receipts for money that he has paid me for Construction share—I think on the occasion when you said you wanted that contract changed I said that I had paid a lot of money—there was an interview before June.1901—I never told you the exact amount—if Hooley and his friends told you that I was dealing with Siberian and Construction shares, exchanging and that sort of thing, doing jobbing, he told you an

untruth, because I never parted with a share—when, through the company's secretary, you asked me what I was giving for the shares, I replied that it was only paper shares, and that you were being put right off the track, and I take it that you know why that was done; you told me yourself you did not know Hooley had received any money for these shares, and that you had never received a penny of it—I do not say you were a party to deals in the Construction Company's shares, except in the chopping and changing of the preference, the June and October business, but outside that I do not know that you were a party—I very-seldom spoke to anybody about it except since this case has-been on: then I have discussed the Construction Company—there were a lot of Blackpool circulars as well at Walsmgham House, and plans; the Street Company's prospectus was later on—I do not think you have been going to Parliament in order to enable Mr. Hooley to get money out of me.

Re-examined. In reply to my letter to my bankers to see if at the particular account at Chelsea there had been any lodgment of £1,000 during the month of February, 1901, I got this letter: "Chelsea, 25th November, 1904. Alfred J. Paine, Esq., 'Windsor Castle,' Victoria Station. Dear Sir,—In answer to your letter of even date, we beg to certify that we received no credit from you during the month of February, 1901, for £1,000"—that is signed by the manager of the London and South Western Bank, Chelsea Branch; the account was changed; if you read the letter I wrote to the 'bank you will see what I asked; at that time it was at Chelsea, and it was changed in March—since this prosecution arose I have been in correspondence with Lawson, or have been meeting him only at the Courts, and the one time I have told you of—shortly after the prosecution arose I got this letter from him: "30th May, 1904.79, Queen Victoria Street, Cheapside, London. Dear Mr. Paine re Prosecution. I am so thoroughly broken down in this trouble, I should esteem it a favour if you let your solicitor attend the meeting to confirm me in keeping things together for the company, and save out property from (being entirely lost. If you help me, I can get you all your money back again as a shareholder of the company. Yours truly, H.J. Lawson.—P.S. Of course you know Hooley never paid me a shilling of all he got from you"—that was the first communication from Lawson after the prosecution was instituted by the Treasury—the same day this letter came from the same address, signed by the Tramways Construction Company. I think with that letter. (Tim was dated if May 30th, 1904, and was a notice of a meeting at the Cannon Street Hotel, next day):—"To express sympathy with Mr. Lawson in his present difficulties, and confidence in his innocence of the charge brought against him, as well as to gain confirm his actions in carrying on the business of the company"—the last notice I had had from the company to attend a meeting was some 18 months or two years before—something about converting some pre-ference shares, or making some debentures, or something—I did not go it, and it is a long time ago—there have been no annual meetings if the company—at the time of my petition for the winding up of the construction Company I had no means of investigating the affairs of the Company; my solicitor saw the file at Somerset House; I had never

received from the company which I took shares in in 1900 any balance-sheet or any accounts of any kind, and I had no knowledge of what, the capita of the company was, or whether they had any capital, or what had been done with any moneys they had received—the nominal capital is on the prospectus—at the time of my petition to the Court of Chancery I had no knowledge whatever of what had really taken place about the Distillery Company's shares—the first time I heard of the Distillery shares was when a gentleman got up during the Treasury prosecution at the Police Court and Mr. Muir was questioning him as to what was transferred; Hooley prepared the typewritten document headed "Walsingham House, Piccadilly, W., London, 21st December, 1900"—I never had it or any counterpart of it—there was never any conversation between Hooley and Lawson and me about any profits in the Electric Construction—this was about three weeks after the agreement of December 31—under that agreement until Lawson had got £3,500 there were no profits—it has never been suggested or put in any account furnished to me that Lawson ever got that £3,500, or that my time for profits had ever commenced: I made many claims subsequently against Hooley and Lawson, trying to get my money—no document but this produced suggests that I got any money as profits from the Electric Construction, unless it says something about it in the Writ—I do not think it says anything there; there was an action pending about the Electric Tramways Construction where they claim all the shares back—I gave this cheque for £500 the same day that the receipt bears date—it is in Sims White's writing at Walsingham House, and is signed by me—the counterfoil is in my clerk's writing—I always carry a blank cheque in my pocket, loose—I think my clerk came to Walsingham House twice; somebody called for me, and he came round to fetch me; he is now in the mounted police police in Canada—I produced that counterfoil at the Police Court—I have given it to the Treasury—that was after my mistake about the receipt, and for the purpose of correcting it—I was unable to trace the £1,000 in my banking account, as stated in the—depositions, and up to the present day I have never been able to trace it in my banking account or paying-in slips, so I made the alterations upon the counterfoil, not with the intention to deceive, but a long time before this case—I had been through them shortly after 1902—the original writing is merely scratched out in pencil—there is nothing to prevent anybody seeing what was originally there—I have never received more than the £1,000 on the foot of that cheque—I have received £500 and five post-dated cheques—the £500 I received paid back the £500 advanced on December 31st—£450 of the £500 post-dated cheques went in payment of Construction shares—he gave me back £50—any "profit I got was really the shares that that money represented, the Construction shares—five £100 post-dated cheques went in payment of the £400 that was due on the contract and £50 Hooley gave me change—of course I never had the £500—I hare been through my books, and could not trace anything; I thought that that £500 was a loan to Hooley, I have frequently lent him £50, because I could find no other explanation for it; I saw there was a £50 cheque in my book, and I thought that was it, but I had asked Lawson, find singularly enough I had telephoned to my solicitor to know whether

he knew anything about the £1,000 cheque, and he did not know although in his own possession he must have had that writ; I asked Lawson himself, and he could tell me nothing about it—I never saw any-prospectus of the Construction Company—I think the objects of the Streets Company and the Construction Company were much the same—I do not know—no reason was ever given to me by Lawson or Hooley as to why the Streets Company was formed—I thought I was getting shares, after, the payment of the £3,500—Cox and Lafone, I think, were acting for Lawson—I received this letter: "Herewith we send you, as promised, one copy of the proposed pooling agreement between yourself and Mr. Lawson. We have sent duplicates to Mr. Hooley and Mr. Lawson. "We have also sent Mr. Hooley a short acknowledgment to be Signed by you as to the shares which you will hold on behalf of Mrs. Hooley,"and the agreements referred to—it was never suggested I had not an interest in the shares up to this trial—Hooley suggested the shares were to be sold at 4 1/4—I do not remember the 38 opposite Lawson's name—being there; I do not say it was not there—it is not opposite the signature—there is no doubt I did pay cash—I put in shares at Hooley's suggestion—Hooley had undertaken to lodge the transfer for me, but he did not do it, and I went myself to the office—it was the letter from Hooley's office by Sims White, in which he says: "I shall be glad to see you and put you in the way of making some money quickly"—that first brought me to his office—I believed his statement—on November 26th I got the telegram in which Hooley says: "Just seen the little man, says will be 18s. per share divided at once, Hooley"—I went up post haste the next morning.

Monday, November 28th.

ERNEST BERKELEY ORMEROD . I am a manufacturer, living at Deepdene, Grove Park Gardens, Chiswick—in 1900 I had the authority of some relative to invest capital—I wrote to Hooley, and afterwards had an interview with him—that same month I entered his service on the terms of the agreement produced, dated May 29th, at £500 per year and a commission on all business done, to be arranged at the time the business was closed, settlement to take place each month—Mr. Hooley did not tell me when he engaged me what my duties were to be—I attended Walsingham House daily from Mondays till Friday to sign transfers and give exchange cheques through my banking account with the National, Piccadilly—I gave cheques to Hooley, and afterwards I received cheques from him and paid them into my banking account, and drew cheques from my account to give him in exchange—the-first amount of capital was invested at one time in Siberians—I have looked at the letter dated September 12th, signed by Hooley, and after that date I did not hold any Siberians on my own or any account except for Hooley, and I also executed transfers of these on behalf of him in my name—I executed a transfer dated October 12th to Alfred J. Paine of 5,000 shares in the Siberian Goldfields Development Company, Limited—my name appears printed at the top—the shares did not belong to me—the name of the transferee was not always-put in when I executed the transfers—the cheque for £3,000 drawn by Alfred J. Paine to E.B. Ormerod bears

my endorsement, but I do not remember the time when it was done, as I had no personal interest in it—usually when I endorsed a cheque made payable to me I handed it back to Hooley, and, as far as I can remember, that is what I did on that occasion; it was not paid into my bank—I did not have much to do with bills, but simply endorsed them—I had no knowledge of bills of exchange or in what capacity I signed them—I did not keep any record of the bills I signed, but the transfers I did in a small note-book that I kept for three or four months, when Hooley asked me to show it to Mr. Redfern's solicitors, and that was the last I saw of it—I asked Hooley to return the book, as it was the only record I had of what I had signed, and he told me he had left it with Redfern, and so I am unable to give any information of the transfers I signed—I have no acquaintance with Lawson, although I have occasionally seen him at Walsingham House—I had a room of my own for a short time, but was generally in Hooley's flat, which consisted of a drawing-room, a dining-room, and an office—I was generally in the drawing or dining-room, hut not in the office, for I did no clerical work—I know nothing of the transaction referred to in my letter to H.J. Lawson of November 20th—I received no transfer of the 3,000 shares in the Electric Company—I had no interest in any bill in the hands of Beyfus and Beyfus—I know no more than that I generally signed documents for Hooley—this is his copy letter-book—the words "Not to be put on the market for three months," are in Hooley's writing—Hooley arranged everything, and would say,"This matter was arranged,"and the letter would be sent—I read the letters I sent, but did not understand them—the body of the letters is type-written by Hewitt—I did not pay £1,000 to Lawson—I have no recollection of executing this or any transfers in the Construction Company—I had no interest in Construction shares—I first heard of that company in 1901—I do not remember this transfer of 1900—I think I signed transfers in 1900. Things were done in such a hurry sometimes that we would not have time to go through the transfers—I do not know Lawson's writing—this cheque of November 28th, 1901, for £2,000, is endorsed "J. Sims White,"and appears to have been paid into the National Provincial Bank of England, St. James's Branch, where I kept my account, but it might not go through that account—I find by my pass-book that on November 29th £2,020 was credited to me—in the analysis of my banking account I have one item of £2,000 and two of £10 each, but no record of what the £2,000 cheque was for—it was not my own money—about that date I drew cheques for like sums—Hooley would give me the cheque—W.R. Burton was his secretary—his cheque is crossed Foster's Bank, Cambridge—I made it out at the time that Hooley gave me the cheque for the £2,000, and I gave him these four in exchange for it, post dated some of them, to enable the cheque for £2,000 to he cleared at my bank—they were all drawn on the 23th—Hooley told me who were the payees of the cheques—Robotham was Hooky's colleague—another cheque was payable to J.A. Bradshaw—I cannot give any reason for the four cheques being drawn in different names—Hooley gave me none, nor any reason why the original cheque for £2,000-should not be paid through his own bank—Foster's bank was Mrs. Hooley's bank—I

believe Hooley had no account in his own name; he never told me about—looking at this document, I never received the transfer and certificates or 1,500 shares in the Dublin Distiller's Company—I had no interest in hat company—I never saw the certificates, and do not remember seeing he transfer—Hooley used my banking account in this way for about even months to the end of 1900—our relations came to an end actively bout the end of October or the beginning of November, 1901, and during hat year it was a hanging fire sort of business—I refused to sign one document—he wanted to know my reason why—I persisted in my refusal—he said if I did not sign it I should not receive the £16,000—back which had put in, and ultimately he lost his temper altogether, and said we would kick me out of the flat, and a hundred and one threats, and said we would force me to, that he would break me in a fortnight, and that sort of thing—I did not do it—I never went back to the office.

Cross-entwined by Mr. Isaacs. I knew something about dealing in hares before I came to Hooley—I had dealings on my own account—I ad been in a stockbroker's office to learn the business—I did not learn—it would not have been any use to Hooley if I had learnt it thoroughly—I was in a stockbroker's office going on for twelve months—I did not peculate—I left the firm on the very best of terms to go to another, and in a large amount of capital—I bought £250 worth of shares—I id not have to pay differences—I did not owe them when I was with a stockbroker—I left about seven years ago; I think about four years before went to Hooley's—I bought a few shares, but never dealt in them in ie way your question might mean—I paid for them; also some I carried her—during the four years, for three months while I was at another bussiness, I might have bought and sold some shares, but to deal in them quite another matter; I was simply investing a small amount of money—you seem to imply I was making my living by speculation—I did not buy ocks and shares—I was not devoting my whole attention to it—I had me money that I was not using at the time—I had money to pay my differences—I may have bought more stock than I could afford to pay for it right and take up, but if the market went wrong I should have closed and paid the cheque—when I went to Hooley I owed a small amount differences, but it was not my fault, it was not my dealing; the firm me about £1,400 and I was owing about £30—I was on the Commitee of Investigation to inquire into the affairs of the stockbrokers—applied to Hooley with the object of making money through him—I very little of him—I knew he was an undischarged bankrupt when wrote to him—there was a typewriter in the office—Hooley would see people in the drawing or dining-room—his secretary was in the office, and books were kept there—I did not know I was acting as the nominee Mrs. Hooley—my name appears in transactions I know nothing at all about—some of the papers shown to me I know nothing about—the signature are mine—I know I was the nominee in the Siberian matter—I was nominee apart from my holding—I had about £16,000 I was Mr. and Mrs. Hooley's nominee—I did not represent self at all as in any capacity—sometimes my name was printed on transfers—I do not know whether I saw Paine before October 12th,

1906—my evidence at the Police Court is cunect, and I am endeavouring to give you a correct answer, just as I did at the Police Court, to the best of my memory—I remember going to the "Windsor Castle" for a cheque, but I did not know that I had signed the transfer previously—I remember Hooley asking me to go with Mr. Paine—I saw Paine frequently—he came Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but I should not see him every time he came—I saw him a dozen or fifteen times before Christmas—he did not come to see me—I sat in Hooley's room—I had the whole run of the Hat: I could not have been treated better had I been a prince—I was never in the room during any business discussion—the business part of the day took about an hour, the rest was "Hail, fellow, well met," and I was only present while that was going on, unless it was to sanction transfers—Hooley got £16,000—I thought the best of him at that time, and that he was very much maligned—there was a banking account of Mrs. Hooley at Foster's Bank, Cambridge—I have an account at a London bank—I drew cheques against it which I gave to Hooley, according to his directions—one of Paine's cheques was dated November 29th—I wrote one cheque out on the 28th—it is credited at my bank—Bradshaw was a stockbroker in Liverpool—I never copied a letter for Hooley, and I could not identify his book—I should think this is his book—you asked me to identify a book I never opened before—I have signed documents I have no recollection of, and if you include transfers I should say hundreds—I do not remember the bill drawn by Mundy—the document of November 20th shows others were signing and apologising in my name—I did not give directions; they were given on my behalf—I was nominee, and the proper person to sign the transfer under our agreement.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. You called as a client—I saw very little of you; I think not more than a dozen times—I have no idea of your deals with Hooley beyond that you had something to do with the Electric Construction Company—I do not think there was any official quotation for any of those shares—I never saw any deal between you and Hooley.

Re-cross-examined. After type-written correspondence with his secretary 1 went to see Hooley—in my letter of May 22nd I stated "It is in regard to a considerable sum of capital which I am anxious to employ to an advantage"—that is true—Mrs. Hooley came pretty often—I never got any directions from her—I was never consulted before any of the transactions took place, and beyond seeing these transfers here I do not remember or know anything about them—Mundy's bill was not my personal transaction—when I endorsed bills I got no security for them—action was brought on Mundy's bill, so I learned this morning—I know nothing about it, and I was not consulted about it—Hooley was going to do wonders with the Siberian Goldfields Concession—I thought he was a financier with brains, and I wanted the benefit of them—I did not know much about him—I used the expression "a go-ahead man"—our first conversation was with regard to the amount I would put in—it was a sort of payment for the extra trouble I should go to in regard to taking sundry shares of his in my own name—with regard to these Siberian shares, for instance, about 58,000 were mine and about 100,000 were his: I took the lot into my name, and it necessitated a good deal of extra work in

signing transfers for his shares—I did not sell any of mine, he sold them all, and for the extra time it took and the trouble it put me to at Walsimhain House he paid me a retaining fee or salary, or something of that sort; he said I should be useful to him in many ways—he never raised my suspicions of any friction going on—when he was out Paine and I talked together—Hooley told me Paine was a very wealthy man, and he told Paine that I was the same, I heard afterwards, but I did not know at the time.

THOMAS FRY HARDING . I am a clerk at the Southwark Branch of the London and Westminster Bank, where Alfred John Paine had an account—I produce a correct extract from the ledger of that account—in it I find the entry of a payment on October 15th, 1900, to Ormerod of £3,000—it corresponds with a cheque of Paine to Ormerod of October 12th, 1900—the next payment is on October 18th to White of £3,000, then on November 9th there is a payment to Campbell of £1,500.

ALBERT JOHN CHIVERS . I am an accountant in the Capital and Counties Bank, Cambridge, with which the old bank of Foster and Co has been incorporated, and the books of the old company are now in the possession of the Capital and Counties Bank—Foster and Co. was taken over on January 1st last—Mrs. Annie Maria Hooley's account with Messrs Foster and Co. is continued with our bank—I produce a correct extract; from the waste book of Foster and Co—it shows particulars of payments in, one on October 13th, 1900, of £3,000 by a cheque drawn by Paine to Ormerod on the London and Westminster Bank, Southwark, one on October 18th, 1901, of £500, drawer White, payee White on Coutts Bank—the last column is for "cash and country cheques. "

JAMES REYNOLDS HOLE . I am accountant's assistant in the National Provincial Bank of England, Piccadilly Branch—Berkeley Ormerod had an account there—I produce an extract from the waste book of November 29th, 1900—it shows that on that date there was credited to Ormerod £2,020, including a cheque drawn by Paine for £2,000 on the London and Westminster Bank, Southwark.

CHARLES WILLIAM HOLLAND . I am a clerk of Wontner & Sons, solicitors, Ludgate Hill—I produce their letter book covering October 7th, 1961, containing a copy of a letter of the firm addressed to Lawson (Demanding an explanation on the instructions of A.J. Paine with reference to thf Electric Tramways Construction Company and other shares)—I also produce a letter of October 8th from Beyfus & Beyfus in reply (Repudiating any dealings with Paine or any misrepresentations by Lawson.

ALBERT CHRISTOPHER CHARLES DUNN . I am manager of the London and Provincial Bank, North Finchley-Branch—I produce an extract from the waste book of October 12th, 1901, showing particulars of a credit to William Robey Burton of £559 17s. 7d.—it includes a cheque for £500 drawn by White in favour of Osborne—the reference to Foster's Bank means that the other cheque of the credit was drawn on Foster & Co., of Cambridge.

JAMES HARLICK . I am a minister—I have lived at 31, Hillfield Park, Muswell Hill—I live now at Biggleswade—I have known Lawson fifteen or sixteen years—about a year and nine months I was with him—I was paid

about £13 a month, and my house rent and rates were paid by him—when 1 came to London Lawson asked me if I would go to his office, 34, Victoria Street, as I knew Lancashire and the routes of the Tramway Construction Company, and I was helpful in pointing out several things about different roads in Lancashire where I had lived many years—I was one of his directors for the Construction Company—I read the documents, looked at the plans, and advised Mr. Chadwell, the engineer, about the routes, and so on—I was engaged to be a director of Lawson's Syndicates—I had no knowledge of what I had to do—I had to do what he told me, I suppose—he simply said I was to come to him, and he would give me so much a month for what use I was—I was his servant—I was a director of the Construction Company and various other little syndicates—I cannot name them from memory, there were so many—there was some talk of Harlick it Company, but nothing was done—probably bills of exchange were signed in that name—I do not remember what they were for—the ether directors, I suppose, appointed me—that is the general rule of their work, they appoint one another—I think it was about November, 1902, that I was appointed—I went to Lawson's office in 1901—I read the Memoranda and Articles of Association of the Construction Company—Lawson put 250 shares in my name—I do not remember that the directors' remuneration was to be £1,500 per annum, nor that whenever the company paid a dividend exceeding 10 per cent, that the directors should receive a further remuneration in the proportion of £200 for ever 1 per cent, dividend so paid—I did not study the Articles of Association closely—the company had their engineer, directors, and staff—the clerks were Lawson's—he was the largest shareholder I understood—I do not know whether he was a director—he is an engineer, and we looked upon him as being able to cany the whole concern—the other directors and myself believed in his abilities—I took orders from him—Lawson and Thomas were my fellow directors—I attended the office four or five times a week—Lawson was generally there the latter part of the time: I had an idea he was a director with me—I saw Thomas at the office two or three times a week: he was not there quite as often as I was—there were several whose names I cannot remember who came on and off—I remember Sir Kenneth Mackenzie; he was not a fellow director with me that I remember—I may have signed documents that he had already signed, but not at the same time—Mr. Hunter was a fellow director—I saw him at Victoria Street two or three times or more—he is dead—according to this minute I was appointed on November 15th, 1901—I had attended Lawson's offices probably six weeks or two months—my services were rendered in friendship, and Lawson was kind to me—before that I was a mechanic in a shop in Lancashire, and I had been helping to construct the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway as foreman over the workmen—before that I was in a cotton mills a few years, making and repairing machinery—I had not done any clerical work—I continued to be, I believe, a director of the Construction Company until September 18th—I was also a director of the Electric Tramways Trust, Limited, whose offices were in Victoria Street, at 63, I think, and at 39 before that the offices of Mr. Ramskill, Lawson's solicitor—rhe minute of my appointment as a director of the Trust Company on

November 25th, 1901, would be right—I continued to be a director to June—3rd, 1902, when I resigned—I became again a director on November 8th, 1902—I resigned on December 8th, 1903—my fellow directors, I think, were Mr. Bois, Mr. Likeman, or Mr. Thomas—I do not think I saw Mr. Kohler above once in my life—there was a Mr. Baker—Mr. Ward came. I think, after I resigned—Mr. Parford was the secretary of the Construction Company—he was a servant of Lawson—I did not know Mr. King; I just knew Mr. Dove; I thought he was Ramskill's clerk—the Construction Company's banking account was kept at the London and Westminster, Victoria Street, I think—I signed cheques, I believe, for things due from the Company, but Lawson was the largest shareholder, and we had confidence in him to control the whole of the business—I was in control of the company's affairs, but I did not know what was going on—Lawson's judgment was believed in—we gave our permission to purchase Provisional Orders when we signed them—I first knew Chad-well, the engineer, as a contractor—we had no appointed manager; we all managed—as a rule, we were there, and Lawson did what there was to do—Parford drew up the agenda—he used to see Lawson—I cannot say I was present at any of these meetings of the Construction Company in January, 1902—I remember a contract to buy up the assets of the company, but who negotiated that contract I do not know—I believe there was a deposit—Osborne was formerly Lawson's secretary—Kirby was a director of one of the companies—"I know nothing about the agreement of February 3rd, 1902, with reference to the £25,000—a resolution was passed, but I cannot tell you what happened—the secretary told me something about it—I was instructed by Osborne—I never asked to see the books, because the secretary knew more about them than I did—he would be in a position to know more than I from his years of experience in the Construction Company's work, and from the lots of companies that he had been in before this—I was a director of both companies—I do not know what the agreement for £50,000 was for; I might have heard something about it at the time—I believe I spoke to Lawson with regard to my responsibility for transfers, and he indentified me from any responsibility—the effect of what he said was, "I shall indemnify you from any payment or from any responsibility"—my position was to be his director, and he used his judgment—I was a nominee, but the other directors nominated me a director—I was Lawson's nominee—I was to do what he suggested to me so far as I thought them right.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I remember the deposit which the Ito Syndicate had to pay to the Construction Company of, I think, something over £20,000, when they entered into an agreement to purchase a number of Provisional Orders from the Construction Company—I think the Leeds and Wakefield Tramways was one of them and the Dewsbury another.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. The directors employ contractors, an engineer, and have to call in the services of other people, and the contractors sublet to other contractors—I am familiar with engineering works, and with the roads in Lancashire, and I had other information which was useful to you—I advised Mr. Chadwell as to the best routes

—I had the maps on the table for hours, and I knew every place they were going to—I knew that whoever acted as directors of the Construction Company had to consider that the things had to be settled by a majority of shareholders—I remember Hooley's deal in iron at the Imperial, when he introduced us to members of the New Zealand Government—I do not remember one deal between you and Hooley that was dishonourable; you worked for, and paid each other—every contract of the Street Company was submitted to the shareholders, and was properly signed at the Westminster Hotel—I attended two meetings as a director—you told the meeting the agreement between the two companies was an advantageous one—the vote was passed after two hours' discussion—Sir Kenneth Mackenzie was to be chairman, but his wife was taken suddenly ill, he could not attend, and you took his place—Paine was present, and opposed the proposition to transfer the Street Company's patents—he had three votes, and after much argument we had the whole of the rest of the meeting of 50 to 60 persons with us—I think that was about the middle of 1903—Houldsworth and Taylor were in the Ito Syndicate—five or six solicitors were present, and we sat in a room at 34, Victoria Street, from 9 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., waiting for the syndicate to execute the different Orders. and see if the Bills in Parliament were dealt with properly—Burn and Berridge, and the clerks of Beyfus & Beyfus, and of Ramskill, and a number of others were present: the room was full: they did bring out a company, or go as far as the prospectus, or undertaking, and they were going to call it the London County Electric Company, with the abject of buying the principal part of your assets, and it was stated that a very eminent financier would guarantee the whole issue of £60,000—I have not seen this document in its entire form before, but I have seen several of these names—this is a schedule of the property the syndicate was going to purchase—the underwriting was going to be done by Messrs. oates, whose name is on the prospectus, and the contract for underwriting is enumerated in it—Mr. Houldsworth was to be allowed to purchase our properties on the underwriting of Coates—the contract price ras, I think, £220,000, either in cash or debentures of the corporation—s a director I was present four or five times a week, and I met the engineers who were actively engaged in the Leeds and Wakefield promotion—I met Mr. Green, the solicitor from Wakefield, the Town Clerk, and several of the Council, who called at our office, as well as several other people in reference to the Nottingham line—we several times met the light Railway Commissioners, the Town Council of Nottingham, and the 'own Clerk, and Orders were obtained—No.3 is the Blackburn, Wakefield, and Burnley district—the price of that was £12,000—I remember also the Andover district, No.5, and the Grimsby—among the contracts is ne between the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Leeds and the Wakefield district—there are many contracts in this schedule—these orders were bought from the Light Railway Commissioners—Mr. Fell and her engineers arranged with the Wakefield people for the tramways, for hich this is the original Bill, signed by the Board, and this is the con-tract of October 8th, 1901—Gordon Hunter was a nominee—several rectors signed a trust deed making out that they were only nominees

of the Construction Company, and they had to give up every interest they had in the Bill coming before Parliament, as shown in the document produced.

Tuesday, 29th November, 1904.

JAMES HARLICK , cross-examination continued by Lawson. There were four rooms at 34, Victoria Street—in the outer office was a boy, and afterwards a junior clerk, seventeen or eighteen years of age, as well as a commissionaire—in the next office were one or more typewriters and two booking clerks—then in the secretary's room was Mr. Osborne—in the Board room would be Mr. Hunter, or any of the directors, so that there would be nine or ten people drawing salaries, to start with—you paid my rent and taxes for several years—that had nothing to do with the Construction Company—I was not ashamed of that company—I know of no one who put money into it and lost it—I have heard no one say so—Paine never gave a shilling in our company to you or me—I went to the Construction Company's meeting, having a number of shares in the Streets Company—the resolutions passed for winding up the Streets Company were merely to reconstruct the company by putting the share holders into the National Electric Construction Company—only three persons opposed the meeting, Paine and two of his friends—I believe Kirby was one of them—I do not remember their names—I rather thought Kirby was neutral—I remember the Ito Syndicate floated the Leeds, Wakefield, and District separately—there were four Orders altogether—Ashurst. Morris, Crisp & Co. are the solicitors to the company who took it over—the shares are £1,000 each—I know the Leeds and Wakefield line was constructed, and it would go to allotment necessarily—the Ito Syndicate in one way or another paid the whole of the purchase money, £30,000—you created that line—you paid Fell, Pritchard, Green. nnd myself—I know Harrison, Beaumont, and Smith—you have given cheques on your own bank to the men whose names have been mentioned of £100, £200, and probably more—sometimes there would be over £1,000 in cheques payable to those who were interested in the profit of it or ii promotion—sometimes you financed the company—I know Accrington and the towns in that district—they are thickly populated—one single svstem of electric traction there would be most valuable, I think—I see the signatures of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, Fell, and Kershaw on the contracts produced—the directors are named as individual promoters—I see Chadwell's signature to the agreement of March 14th, 1902—he has been many times in our office—I paid him thousands of pounds—he has been our engineer in a great many tramways—I remember many railways that he constructed; one through a part of Lancashire to Accrington, also one to Blackpool; and he constructed one at Portsmouth, I think, and Bath, but other witnesses know more about them than I do—I know nothing about deeds of trust: I trusted, as all directors do, those to the Solicitors—the secretary was an able and experienced man—I relied on Gordon Hunter, Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, the secretary, and the solicitor—I expected I was quite safe in taking their advice—Holroyd's system is the conduit system, and goes over the ground: the other system goes over

the head—I went two or three times to Walnut Tree Walk to see the Motor Traction Works, at Kennington—there was a large car or 'bus, which was in the London and General Omnibus yard, running with part electric and part petrol—that is known as the Ebstein's system, whose patents belong to the Construction Company, for which they issued 25,000 share—I do not know about the shares, but I have ridden on the 'bus—I know the petrol motor wheel well—I have driven one to Margate, and I drove you to Norwich and back—the motor wheel is one of the greatest inventions, in my estimation—it is a system by which one wheel has the power, and can run any kind of vehicle—I believe the result will be that, instead of great cumbersome motor cars, which cost £500 or £1,000, we shall be able to put on the mechanical wheel for about £10 or £12 (A photo of this invnition was produced)—this is an ordinary dogcart or pony-car, and the motor wheel is attached to it to show it can be attached to any vehicle—the wheel can be taken off and hung on a wall—I know that a large sum of money is being offered, and has been offered, to the Construction Company for the invention—I believe Mr. Edge offered £25,000 for it—this is a photo of the 10-guinea motor wheel—it is a greater invention than the safety bicycle—I know from the illuminated address presented to you many years ago in Coventry, with the leading cyclists' names inscribed thereon, that you were the inventor of the safety bicycle—the address contains the names of twenty leading cycle manufacturers of 20 years ago—I have read in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" that you were the inventor of it. and I have seen in the "History of the Reign of Queen Victoria" your photo as the inventor—I attended the House of Lords while the City and Suburban Railway Bill was on three or four times with you.

Re-examined. Since my examination at the police court I have not communicated with Lawson—I have seen him once or twice, and we have talked about, other matters, just mentioned something was coming along, but he has-had no influence over me—I have not been going through these various documents with anybody, nor spoken as to what I had to say since this case was at the Police Court—I do not know that I have seen Lawson above once since—about a week ago I had to come to town on business, and I saw him about five minutes in the street—I have seen the secretary of the company, but only for about five minutes, and never talked these matters over with him—I saw him in the office when I called to see Lawson on business—I have not seen anyone else connected with the Construction Company—I just caught sight of my co-director, that is all—if I swore at the Police Court I do not know any business done by the Construction Company" I am sorry—its truth depends a how the thing is put, especially with a short experience of a year with company business—the questions Lawson put to me I could answer properly because they were put properly; you can leave these matters for those coming after me with more company experience—I was never asked about all these things at the Police Court—it is not true that "I do not know any business done by the Construction Company"—the rest of what I said is true, but you leave out some things—some of the Ito Syndicate agreement was carried out, if not all—as to the Wakefield

and District Railway Orders, the lines are completed and running—the name "J. Harlick" on these Orders is mine (The Wairfield, Herefordshire, Watford, and Warwickshire Orders)—there was an arrangement by trust deed of April 16th, 1903, between the Electric Tramways Trust Company, Limited, and the National Electric Traction Company, for £10,000 and other considerations, to give the option of purchase of Orders and tramway projects to the Construction Company, but I left that class of business to the secretary; he was a great expert in companies, but I do not understand them—the Construction Company negotiated for the purchase of those patents, and paid a deposit—I believe they are the owners of them: I cannot tell you what came of them—the patents are valuable assets to-day—I do not know the duration of them; I know they were valuable when they were bought—I have stated that I never knew of any creditors of the Construction Company—the writs and judgments referred to in the letter from the Electric Tramways Trust would be little things, solicitors, &—I left all those things to the secretary; I have no recollection of them now—the company's moneys wore paid into the bank; Lawson did not receive them all—I did not know Lawson's terms were £100 per cent, for advances and a similar bonus in shares—during the time I was a director considerable sums were paid to Lawson, including £5,000 on January 10th, 1902—the secretary asked for and, I expect, always had documents showing what the amounts were for—I was present at the Board meeting that accepted Lawson's license for £25,00—I suppose it would be valued by the persons who offered it—it was worth it—the Construction Company was Lawson's originating; I suppose it is his private business until it goes to allotment and he asks the company for money—I took that view as a director—I know he financed the company all through; but he would not take out money unless he asked the directors, and we should naturally grant that he who found all the money had a right to work the thing, but not to take money out without consulting us—several times he was refused money at first, but he had it eventually—I know Gordon Hunter refused many things—the idea of the Construction Company was to bring things together and get contracts to construct, not to construct—they maintained what they purchased.—I ceased to be a director on September 18th, 1903—the office was then at 34, Victoria Street—some meetings for little matters may not have been entered in the minutes; I cannot remember the last meeting, apart from those minutes.

JOSIAH HARRIS . I am an engineer, of 8, Union Court, Old Broad Street—here is my commission: "Colonel in the Peruvian Army"—I am known as Colonel Harris—I first became acquainted with Lawson by becoming a director of the British Motor Company, of which he was the prime mover—I believe it is wound up—while a director of the Motor Company Lawson asked me to become a director of the Construction Company, I had the memorandum of association to examine, and I became a director on October 2nd, 1898, if the minute says so; but I am over eighty—I acted as chairman for the first time about December 3rd, 1898 there was no permanent chairman: we elected one at our different meetings—I acted as chairman at several—I purchased 250 shares—here is

the bankers' receipt for them—that was my qualification—this is my cheque for them, paid through my bankers—September 17th, 1901, is he date of my resignation, but I did not attend any meeting of director for some time previous to that; I was not summoned—I believe I was chairman on October 24th, 1900, but I can only go upon the minute—I know the minutes were properly entered into, and a resolution passed respecting the British Electric Street Tramways—I cannot bring my mind to bear upon the resolution "That Joseph Harris be and is hereby elected chairman of the company"—I think I acted, but cannot say when I last attended—I cannot charge my memory with the agreement now; but I know those minutes were properly entered into, and a resolution passed respecting this particular company—I took no part in the proceedings of the company apart from what I did at the Board meetings—all I know is there was no manager appointed, and we placed implicit confidence, which I do now, in Lawson, and representations were made by him that it would be a great advantage to the Construction Company that this agreement should be entered into—sometimes we asked Lawson's opinion as to certain things, and he gave it—I took the chair at the meeting on August 21st—I was not present at any' meeting after that—the next month I resigned through inquiries I made in the meantime—looking at the minutes of the meeting of September 13th, at which a resolution was massed to hold a dinner, and at which it was recorded that Sir Kenneth Mackenzie had agreed to join the Board, some days previous I found I vas not invited as a director of the company; that raised my suspicions; made inquiries, and found statements would be made that I—would not agree to, and I might have spoiled their digestion if I went there—I found that a person of the name of Paine was a publican, a sinner, and a dealer in evil spirits, and that he was to have a large stock of shares, and I thought that any stockbroker, who had a large lock of shares would be very detrimental to the company, and therefore sent in my resignation—I had heard Sir Kenneth Mackenzie was to be appointed chairman of the company, and that he was going to make a very flourishing report at the dinner—I never conversed with Lawson outside the Board room—I stated that if I could assist them in any way I would do so—my letter of September 17th, 1901, to the Construction company is true, but in letters of resignation you do not generally put the reasons why—after the dinner I saw a report of Sir Kenneth mackenzie's speech, and I immediately wrote to the papers saying was no longer a director, having resigned previously—Twrote Lawson the letter of September 23rd, 1901, to see him at his earliest Convenience, but received no reply—I have never seen Lawson but once the last two or three years since this letter was written, and then not on any business—his statement as to 12 per cent, dividend, and as having £100,000 in the bank, were made after the last meeting of directors, and therefore I am not responsible: nor do I know anything at took place afterwards, only from Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's speech—as a director up to September 17th, and this arrangement was made September 20th—I do not know what the condition of the company because the engagements were made with other companies after the

last meeting that was held of the directors—I cannot say whether Sir Kenneth Mackenzie was justified or not in his statements—up to the time that I ceased to be a promoter of the company there had been no discussion by the Board about preparing a dividend—a transfer was lodged with the company, and I think shares were transferred after I resigned, about which I know nothing—I never got paid one shilling for my shares—I had given a blank transfer two years previously; it had been arranged that no director should traffic in shares at all, and it was put in the form of a pool—I had handed in a blank transfer to show my bond fides in joining the pool—my letter to Lawson of October 16th, 1901, is quite true (Requesting a meeting, and an explanation with reference to his shares)—I got no satisfaction till I inspected the register of transfers, when I found of my 250 shares 200 of them had been transferred to Mr. Osborne and 50 to a Mrs. Robinson, of Brighton—I got nothing for my shares, although I had paid £250 for them—I never expected a dividend at that time—during the whole time I was a director of the company 1 never knew anything of Hooley, I never saw him, and no representations were made to me as to any negotiations that were going on between him and anyone else.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORT. I became a director of the British Motor Company not through Lawson, but a Mr. Wace—after examining the articles and memoranda of association I inquired of Mr. Holroyd Smith as to his patents—as an engineer I examined them, and put questions to him as to how the matter could be carried out; I made up my mind it was a very good thing, and was likely to do a great deal of good to the shareholders as I saw it then, and I consented to become a director—I think Mr. Smith was present at the directors' meetings nearly every time after that—I always had the benefit of his opinion upon matters that arose at the meetings—I recollect saying at Bow Street "At the Construction meetings I think it was Mr. Holroyd Smith who managed the affairs of the company," but the question was put in a way that it was the only answer I could give, because it was only he who gave us particulars, except Lawson, at these meetings—I cannot say that he was manager, because there was no manager appointed; the directors were the managers—what I mean was that Mr. Holroyd Smith by his advice' controlled my actions to some extent—I was of opinion that this company had good prospects before them till I attended the & meeting of directors, in 1901—in October, 1900, I was still satisfied that this company had good prospects before them—I now believe the patents are very valuable—I was asked if I would pool my shares with others, so that no traffic should take place with them on the Stock Exchange, and I consented—I had known Hooley 'by sight and by speaking to him about seven or eight years ago—I have never spoken to him since.

Cross-examined by Lawson. I resigned on September 17th, three days before the dinner, by letter—I do not recollect using the expression "Unless a miracle takes place "with reference to the justification of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie declaring a dividend of 12 per cent.—I was astonished when I heard the declaration of 12 per cent, dividend—supposing I had known that on September 17th there was a balance at the bank of

£81,24' I should have been astonished at its being there, when I could not say how it was obtained, because I did not attend the end of the meetings—if it was known to Mackenzie he was perfectly justified in saying what he did—I think you introduced the Black pool (St. Ann's) Railway—you were constantly away in the North of England, and in the latter part of the time running down to Exeter, during the time I was a director, for the purpose of obtaining the Exeter trains, and other things that you thought would be of benefit to the company—you brought then before the Board and suggested they would be good things—I think Mr. Osborne managed the business of the company between the Board meetings—this is the first time I have given evidence for over 60 years; oh yes, I gave evidence as to Beck's innocence—he was with me in Peru; he was a managing engineer there, and I saw him from 1887 to 1881 on business.

Re-examined. I believe Lawson to he innocent—I noticed on the articles of association that the Construction Company was formed in December, 1886—it was registered in 1888—I did not ask what had happened in those twelve years, nor what they had been doing, nor whether the capital had ever been offered to the public—an arrangement was made after I joined, with Holroyd Smith, I do not understand the agreement made before then—I am a patentee, and I know a patent lasts fourteen years, unless renewed, but it was not only Holroyd Smith's agreement, but the information that he gave the Board at its meetings, that induced the Board to carry out any agreement, that might be entered into—I was not very friendly with Lawson all through, I was an acquainttance, I had the pleasure of meeting him at the Board meetings, because he was very explicit, and never in one instance did he approach me for his own advantage—this is my letter of May 21st, 1001, and in my writing (Asking to he appointed a director, and concluding: "I have always paid great attention to my day meetings, and have always studied your wishes, and will do so")—if they were proper wishes I would carry them out—I know nothing whatever about £81,000 being at the bank—at the time I joined the Board, the first of Holroyd's patents had only two or three years to run, but there were subsequent patents, and my memory is not so good as it was a few years ago—I had the impression that Holroyd Smiths patents did belong to the company, I did not know it—the later patents belonged to the company from the assignment I believe—he agreed not only to assign, but to give every assistance he possibly could to the Construction Company.

JAMES LIKEMAN . I live at Molland House. Wrenstead Road, Sutton—I have known Lawson many years—I was in his service thirteen years ago as a clerk for a short-time—I was employed at 40, Holborn Viaduct, as a salesman for the British Motor Company, and assistant secretary—Lawson was in and out very frequently—I went to Blackpool in the summer of 1901—I remained there a year in the employment of the Construction Company, as an assistant secretary or manager—about June, 1902, I came to London—I became a director of the Construction Company shortly afterwards, in October or November—I attended the office at 34, Victoria Street—this letter dated November 28th, 1902, is

addressed by me to Lawson "Dear Mr. Lawson, In consideration of your having introduced me to certain directorships, I agree to draw only £156 per annum in respect of fees as director on any companies; and that if any further fees come to me I will hand the said surplus to you."—the understanding was that my qualification should not cost me anything, but that I should receive that in addition to fees—I accepted that low fee in consideration of my being provided with the qualification—the shares were to belong to me without payment—I had a number of them—they are still in my name—I am a director still—I was already in a traction company—I had joined, I think, the National Electric Traction Company—I attended a meeting of that company on July 25th—I am still a director of that company—I am also a director of the Street Company, and some minor companies that we registered for the sake of securing the name—three or four minor registrations were not carried out, they were not put before the public they were syndicates—some of them dropped out—the Scottish Colonial was one—some are in existence now—I attended the meetings of the Construction Company—Mr. Harlick was there as a director—I believe Lawson attended sometimes, I have an impression that I remember seeing him there once at the Construction Company's meeting—he discussed with the secretary the business he brought into the company—as the principal shareholder he worked on his own account, and introduced the business to us—it was to some extent done that way—. I may have consulted him, but not as a regular thing—we looked into everything very carefully before we took Lawson's advice—his suggestions were profitable to us, and they were acted upon I think invariably—Mr. Parford was secretary to one or two companies—he acted for Lawson in some of his private business—he got his directions from the chairman—I think he got some directions from me as to the agenda paper—I do not recollect any instance, but it is very possible that, besides sitting and voting at the Board meetings, I did take part in managing the company's affairs—I signed cheques and agreements—possibly I "negotiated business—the Board and the secretary were managing and dealing with the projects submitted by Lawson and other people—the secretary was a very able man—both Osborne and Parford carried on the company's formal business, and Lawson was its competent engineer—he did the outside business very largely, and brought his schemes to us for passing—I have seen Hooley at the offices of the Construction Company but very rarely—I understood he came to see Lawson—I do not think I spoke to him there—on 1-february 27th, 1903, the Trust Company paid large sums to the Construction Company, recognising these minutes as apparently correct, but I do not remember it personally—I think I remember issuing the debenture produced to the Trust Company, under the agreement of November 6th, 1901—I cannot tax my memory with the number of preference shares issued under that agreement, it is probable I knew at the time of going into the matter at the Board meetings, and took steps to see what was done under the agreement, and that I ascertained from the minutes and from the register that 25,000 preference shares were issued to the Trust in February, 1902, and from the Trust to Lawson.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I went to Blackpool on behalf of the Construction Company to look after the Blackpool South Tramways Company in floating the shares, and obtaining what I might call the sinews—if war—the registered office of the new Company was at Blackpool—I saw that a great deal of material had been collected for reconstructing the line—a gas motor tram line was already in existence—the Order obtained was to convert that line into one of electric traction—the line had to be doubled, and even-thing renewed—I think! I had not seen Hooley before June 1902, at any rate, to know him—that is what I swore at the Police Court—Hooley had no connection with the Construction Company's affairs as far as I know.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. I have known you register a name at Somerset House to secure it for a company, and afterwards leave it there without going on with the company, after paying the registration fee—I have been in London eleven or twelve years—I have been connected with companies fourteen years—I have known you thirty years—we worked together at the safety bicycle soon after our acquaintance began—I was enthusiastic on engineering, and we had a shop with tools and machinery, and I served time in an engineer's shop, and we brought the safety bicycle to a state of perfection—I possessed twenty-five or thirty houses in Brighton—I put money into our bicycle experiment—you have paid me all back with good interest—I went to Coventry once or twice—I do not know of one failure in any of the Coventry companies with which you were connected—I stayed with you a month when you were manager of the Rudge Cycle Company—you brought it out to the public—it paid 15 per cent, dividend—on the prospectus you were managing-director—you promoted the Humber Cycle Company, and assisted in the promotion of others—I have seen your testimonial from the shareholders at Preston's Distillery Company and this gold watch (Produced) from the Rudge Company—many syndicates in the City would gladly pay you 25 per cent, for guarantees of £200,000—I here known cent percent, given on many occasions for putting up capital—you have put up large sums, £17,500 to one solicitor, Mr. Webb—100 per cent, is not a disgraceful thing considering the risk—the Epstein patent is going on—I 'believe you bought every share in the Trust Company—I know of no creditors of the Electric Tramways Construction Company—the Trust Company is not to-day a creditor of the Construction Company, there has been an agreement settling all debts—I was a director at the time of the minute of that agreement—our hope was to obtain a Bill for a main line to Leeds and Wakefield, and work it with subsidiary lines at a profit—the obtaining of Bills in Parliament, and payment of other patent and other fees, would be a consideration for the issue of the 25,000 shares.

Wednesday, November 30th.

JAMES LIKEMAN'S cross-examination, continued by LAWSON. I was down at Blackpool for some months and to a large extent am familiar with the methods and system that you adopted in forming the Blackpool Electric Tram (South)—you had obtained a guarantee signed by very rich men for £150,000 in debentures, and £50,000 in shares—I know the names of

those men—they were undoubtedly very rich men—one at least is reputed to be a millionaire—one of them is an official of the Bank of England—I have heard so in conversation; I do not know of my own knowledge—the guarantee signed by those men would be as good as cash—as a matter of fact they paid off any little difference—probably some £8,000 or £10,000—that was to be subscribed—they went and saw the Blackpool bankers, and paid into the bank at Blackpool the applications and subscriptions and guarantee, and produced it to the manager and left it at the bank at Blackpool—the applications for £150,000 of debentures with their cheques appended for the amount that was due, and which was afterwards paid as it fell due, were all paid into the London City and Midland Bank, Blackpool branch—that would be six weeks-before the dinner—every application for shares that the Construction Company received had—on the face of it the amount in pencil that the applicant would have "to puy up—if a man applied for £1,000 worth of debentures, and he was a good man, and it was under that guarantee of the £150,000, it was practically cash and was certain to be paid—the total amount of the debentures was £150,000—the exact amount subscribed was £150,000—the whole of it was subscribed; the whole of it was guaranteed, and there was a little balance made up by the guarantors, who signed applications for the whole lot of the £150,000—I went to the bank at Blackpool, and saw the manager with you, and signed for the whole of the £150,000—I am sure that was prior to the dinner—I cannot say offhand what the total amount of the subscriptions for preference and ordinary shares was, in addition to the amount of debentures—it was very large I know—I cannot say how much the total capital of the company was; I have not had occasion to. remind myself of it—I know that the total amount was-nearly approaching £250,000—it went into more than £200,000; it was more than £200,000, I know; I believe including the debentures it was something like £243,000—it was largely above £200,000—that was agreed to be paid up, and, as far as I know, was paid up—there were some arrears as, usual; a few shareholders for some reason or other, poverty, or a change in circumstances, could not pay in the proper time when due—you were in Manchester and Preston and all those towns buying up the shares of the old company—that occupied months—there were hundreds of sharerholders—it would not have been necessary for you to have written up and have entered in the books in London every detail and every transaction that you were doing with all those people—it would have been very inconvenient and have involved a lot of labour—it is not likely we should have expected you to do so—sometimes very large cheques would come in for hundreds of pounds in one day and several would come in on the "lie day paying up in full—those cheques would go to the London office, 34, Victoria Street—you would wait for a day or two until a fair number had accumulated, and then send them up to the Blackpool office, where I was—I should take them down to the bank and pay them in—it would be three or four days before the bank would give us credit for those cheques being country cheques—that was a country branch—if a cheque comes from Wales, it takes a day or two to get it there; then it has to be

paid, then it has to go a regular routine before it gets credited into the Blackpool branch of the bank—that is what my experience was over numbers of cheques; not only with that company, but in others; we sometimes had a cheque for a week before it appeared in the pass book—the full amount of money that we really did hare on the night of the dinner would not be credited in the bank books until probably a week afterwards—it would be impossible—I believe a clerk was placed to take and receive all fares from the passengers; they were banked, and when there were any repairs and that sort of thing they had to refer to you in London, because you were the real owners; but that did not come under my immediate notice; I did not have charge of that—I often rode on the trams, and saw them collecting money, and so on—I knew that and important question had to be settled by you in London; I was credibly informed so; I am not certain of that—I met you at Blackpool many times—when you were going down to the Board meetings of the old company; you and Mr. Osborne were directors of the old company, and maintained trams—you have only been going three years in active work—from what I have seen of the enormous delay and labour and time occupied in obtaining Bills and surveys going through Parliament, and getting them thrown out, and then going back there again, it is not fair to come to any decision as to what this company's prospects are from the present three years' work; it is only fair to think that from what it has done it would certainly have a decided chance of doing well; it would be fair to decide that it would have a chance of doing well—you obtained estimates from road men and engineers and Westinghouse and numbers of electricians and manufacturers as to what the cost would be of laying down the new line; that did not come through me because that was done in London, but I know that was so—I saw Mr. Nevins on several occasions; he was an American millionaire, and had built many lines of tramways; a famous man rather—he told us he had built thousands of miles in America—he had enormous estates in Ireland—he entered into a contract with us for the converting of the line for £70,000—that—would have left a very large profit—there was a reason why the Blackpool Tramways should be capitalised: I suppose there is no other town in England that would compare with the crowds, the hundreds of thousands of visitors that crowd into the town and choke the streets—I have lived there for some time—as to the Fleetwood branch., it is a fact that the shares of that company were freely dealt in at £30 each—that justified you in capitalizing our company at a very large capital—there are practically no villages between Blackpool and Fleetwood, which is 10 miles away, but on our road there is a village or a town every two miles, St. Ann's and Fairhaven—that is a very important town—we got hold of an extremely good thing when we got hold of that—you were universally congratulated; I know dozens of company promoters down there would very gladly get it away—that is something the Construction Company did—you put it before the Board, who adopted your scheme or project—in buying up the shares and other things you paid out of your own pocket many thousands of pounds—you did not consult the directors at all; you simply went and did the job, and when it was done said, "Here you are"—I

should say you have a perfect right to charge them for doing that work; and if they did not pay you, you could sue the company if they adopted your project—if they adopted your proposal, and granted you a release from all liability on certain terms, they had the power and the perfect "right to do it; the power to come to any bargain they liked—the names of the contractors who really built the Blackpool tramline have escaped me now—I cannot say from memory who the engineer of the new company was—Nevins fell off his horse and was killed—after Nevins there were several people tendering to receive the contract—there were two or three engineers whose names are in my head, but I cannot for the moment remember—it was our own engineer who took the contract; his contract was drawn between the two parties—I know Mr. Chadwell—I have seen him dozens of times, and paid him moneys—you have paid him thousands of pounds through your office for years—I remember now that he built it; I had confused him with some others—I recognise the street and the cars in these photographs of Blackpool; they represent exactly the place and the trams—that will be the new undertaking—I do not think that I knew that the Blackpool Corporation made a very large offer for the old company if you could sell—I do not think I knew that the Blackpool Corporation sent out for estimates for reconstruction to Westinghouse and other people, and that they themselves suggested a quarter of a million—I should not call the Construction Company a paper company—in the other Court I used the word "paper "company; that was with reference to some small registrations—it gives a wrong impression to call them companies at all, I think; they were simply registrations; they necessarily had certain shareholders holding £leach, signatories; clerks in some solicitor's office; their names were on paper in the articles of association; that constitutes them the company, so I called them paper companies, because they were registered as signatories to secure a name for one particular purpose—all companies have to commence in the same way—it does not matter how genuine and honest they are, they have to begin as paper companies until they have taken over their properties—the Construction Company has never been brought out to the public to my knowledge—right through we have been preparing to get it into a condition which would be fit, and honest, and fair to float and put to the public—that is our object—from what I know of syndicates and paper companies, all companies are done in this way in the City until they are brought out and floated; they are absolutely private companies, run by one or two men, with the nominal seven shareholders—I think it would be a more proper name for our company if it was called "The Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Syndicate"—we did not register it: we took it over—if Nevins had not met with that fatal accident we should have paid a very large dividend—we should have earned at least £50,000 or £60,000 profit in the year; I always said so: I was not a director, but I know that is the fact—at his death we were obliged to come to some other arrangement—we could not get a contractor like Westinghouse or any of the big English contractors to build a line as cheaply as the American contractor—I do not see any prospectus sent out by any City promoter in which all

the contracts we were buying, as well as what we were going-to get and charge, were all set out in full; it is generally summarised in a few line—that is a feature in your companies that your prospectuses have that—I have heard it called in the City a "Lawsonian "prospectus—it is a term in the City known today—one of the features is that you put on the sheet what you charge for the profit and also what you gain—nobody could be much cheated in that, way—it is like a jeweller putting in his window how much the things have cost him when he was going to mark them, so that people could see how much they were going to pay and how much the profit would be; it is your custom to disclose the profit—in any company prospectus you disclose your full profit—I believe that is a thing that Hooley has done on one or two occasions, but I do not know—in the second column of the prospectus of the Blackpool (South) there is a copy of an agreement for the construction—it commences by naming the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company; then: "the contractors (hereinafter called the contractors)" I notice that—as a matter of fact, the contractor is a contractor for the construction of the line—the Construction Company contract is to construct the line; that is our Construction Company that is now being talked of, and which entered into a contract to construct the new Blackpool line—that does not convey to my mind that the directors would have to go and dig up the road, and so forth—you would either supply workmen or else responsible contractors; it would be as contractors as far as I understand—this was the contract given to Nevins and Chadwell—upon this contract the line has been built—the last clause of this contract reads: "The prospectus intended to be issued to the public as respects the debenture stock and share capital of the new company would be solely at the risk and on the responsibility of and by and on account of the contractors"—the contractors were the Construction Company—"' to whom by virtue of this contract such capital in fact belongs ": that was the understanding—therefore the whole of this capital was our property, and all that we had to do under this contract was to give them a line fully equipped and pocket the difference, which will be a very large sum of money—after you had done all this we got the money paid in, and then there was a dispute, but I do not know the names—Mr. Rutherford and his friends, the other guarantors, came down and received a very large sum of money for commission; he suddenly came down and demanded the whole amount of his commission, £30,000, before we had taken one sovereign out of the bank for our sale of shares—we were advised by many solicitors that you had a perfect right to the whole of the money, and that all we had to do was to give a new line: I do not know whether Mr. Rutherford got a signature, but he obtained an Injunction with the other guarantors; late one night he went to Manchester and got an interim Injunction from the Judge in his private room or at his residence to prevent their taking the material away—he did that in the name of the company, without consulting the directors—we were very indignant, and took action at once; finally, after much trouble and weeks of litigation the whole thing was amicably settled, but not so much to your advantage as it would have been had we carried out the terms of the contract: they were powerful

men, and they made a great agitation and secured some money to themselves—I believe part of the terms of the compromise was that the company should take over all our contracts for the line—that reduced our profits very much—still, we thought it was worth while to get free of the whole thing—the date of the compromise was June 24th—so far as the company is concerned and yourself, I consider it was an honourable deal throughout—this took place during the next twelve months after the dinner; the dinner was in 1901, and the trouble, I think, began in August—at the time of the dinner we were all on friendly terms; I am speaking of the agitation there was at the first flotation of the company, then everything was settled up immediately, and then there was trouble afterwards—I never heard there was trouble over the share capital; we had paid all we had to pay—then we said: If we give you a new company and a new contractor we have done all we agreed to do; if we give you that you have got all you want, and the rest of it belongs to us—it was never seriously suggested that we had no right to the share capital—I always understood the trouble was confined to the debentures—there was £81,000 odd at the bank at the date of the dinner—at the time of the dinner everything was going on amicably—Mr. Rutherford, even while he served the first Injunction, resided with me at the same hotel, the Metropole, Blackpool—all the time of the dispute we were on the most friendly terms—they argued it out every night; a very clear understanding was come to before sending out the allotment letters; the trouble was all cleared up before it went to the public; the trouble I am referring to occurred before the flotation of the company; when exactly the trouble occurred I do not know, because I was in London—we had a perfect right to draw on the capital—under the contract we were advised to—Ward Bowie acted for us—I knew the facts as well as anybody, because I was on the terms that I had most of the money passing through my hands; it would becoming from the bank, and I should know of it—£80,000 was the amount that was left of the debenture moneys out of which to pay preliminary expenses and so on—Paine received two for one—we should have all done remarkably well, there is no disguising that fact—£80,000 would have been the profit out of the debenture money, which would have belonged to the Construction Company, out of which they would have to pay for the company; but you had to pay, and the company itself even borrowed money from Hooley to help us pay out the two-thirds on the three-fourths of the old company's shareholders' £10,000—the £80,000 would have been profit, quite outside what we were getting from other sources—about £90,000 was coming in from shares—the real dispute winch arose after the dinner, which has been talked so much of, was that we were supposed to draw of the debenture money—I do not think I attended a meeting that was called at the Hotel Cecil to try and settle the matter of the debenture holders of Blackpool (South) in January, 1902, but I have heard of it, when Mr. Rutherford and all his people came up to London, and we had finally a meeting and threshed it all out—at the time of the dinner we considered we had made £100,000 profit—I know Mr. Rutherford has stated that we made on the basis of this contract £60,000 in cash profit—we had £243,000 subscribed; we had nearly

£200,000 of it guaranteed and as good as cash, that is in debentures and shares; we had close upon £100,000 in hand at the bank, and apart from the £70,000 that we should have to pay for constructing the line, the whole of that would be available for just what you liked, to pay the expenses and profit, therefore every penny we had would be available for the construction of the line—it would take £6.000 to pay 12 per cent. on the Construction Company's capital, so that we had it dozens of times "over—it was a great success, and is a great success, and is of great public utility and advantage—it would be quite impossible, so far as the London books are concerned, and it would not be necessary for me or you doing all this work down in Lancashire, to have all that recorded in detail in the books in London—we should not think it was reasonable that you should have to write up the whole of the detail in the books of the London office, the whole of the details—I think the summary is already there—I never heard it Colonel Harris was writing to the company for his shares, or making any claim of any sort or kind to the shares—I should have heard if he had complained or written—I never heard of his writing to the solicitors that I held shares of his after he left—all this work that is done for the Construction Company is done on this line; you are an independent shareholder in the company, and go and get the work done and then make the best terms, you could, and then go to the Board and they take it up—I remember the difficulty you had to get the Blackpool district—I believe there was an interview with Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, and that we were being persuaded to let the Construction Company take it up; I was not present, but I believe that was the fact—I think I was in the outer office—that would be about the time we were buying up the shares: it was in the spring of 1891, I think—I believed that you were an independent shareholder, and brought business to the Construction Company and got the company to take it up—I have a strong impression that you spent thousands of pounds at Manchester while you were at that work, and that you had some difficulty in getting the Construction Company to take up the Blackpool Company—I looked into everything when it came forward and examined it, and if it turned out to be wrong I should not have sanctioned it, but at the same time I relied largely on the advice of the solicitors—I formed my opinion with the assistance of their advice and also your explanations; I relied largely on your explanations sometimes—when this company started in active operation four year ago or three and a half years ago it had absolutely nothing—it was four and a-half years before you started to work at it, and it was then really a paper company: but prior to the date of Holroyd Smith's contract, when he gives his patents to the company, it was really a paper company, a registration company—and for many years it had been so—Holroyd Smith probably kept it up in the hopes that somebody would come along and take it up and buy it, but, I do not know—while I was at Blackpool I saw the old conduit mains lying in the road, and they are there now, I believe that Holroyd Smith and Parker and other eminent engineers laid many years ago—they were laid claim to be the first conduit tramway in the history of the world—the conduit system is practically the same system which is now being carried out by the London

County Council—of course, the original patents have elapsed'; it is only improvements that we can claim—I know you put some thousands of pounds in it in cash £4,000 or £5,000, I think, it was—that would be £100 or £200 at a time, as it was wanted to put it on its legs—I remember your going to America about it very well; about twice, I think—I believe that was before you took it to Hooley—I do not know exactly when you took it to Hooley, but I never heard of hint in that connection until some time after that; not until you had come back from America I had never heard of Paine at that time—this would be the end of 1900—I do not think I saw him until in connection with this case or a little before—I think he called at the office at Victoria Street several times a little before; I think some twelve months ago, perhaps; I do not remember seeing him before then; I may have seen him and not recognised him and not known that it was he—he never said to anybody in our office that he had any objection to the company or objection to you—he has never alleged that you conspired with Hooley to defraud him in any way to my knowledge—I have seen him at the office during the last few months; I may be wrong about the time, but some little time ago, some months—I cannot swear to having seen him more than two or three times; I should probably have heard from Mr. Parford, the typewriters, or the commissionaire, and other people if he had called—he has called—I have never heard him allege anything against you; I never heard that he did—we were all thoroughly astounded when this prosecution was begun; well, I speak for myself—I do not know that I had anything to do with a letter that you addressed to the Treasury; I do not remember seeing it—I do not think it ever came before me when we were pressed for money, law expenses, and all that sort of thing, and must have money in the office but had not got it—I remember you coming up or Hooley coming up to the office—I had the impression that he was lending, or was putting up money to help us in our schemes—there was never any complaint about him in our office—I did not understand your relations with Hooley very intimately, but I had the general impression that they were strictly business relations—I never heard of you travelling about with him, or holiday-making, or being a friend in any way; I have known you visit him; I cannot say anything about the extent of the friendship at all; it was rather outside my knowledge when you visited him: I thought it was for the purpose of borrowing money, or something of that sort—I have seen the Articles in our company—to my knowledge Mr. Paine would not have power to call a meeting of our company; he has never written—and asked for a meeting; I should be likely to see the letter if he had, but not as a certainty; it might not have come to me—he has not done so since I have been a director, or ever hinted that anything was wrong—I have heard of his action that he brought; the petition to wind up the company—that was brought nearly a year ago—I do not know any of the facts if it, but I know that while the petition was on, and since it has been going on, Mr. Paine and you have met many times; I have heard so, hut I do not know that I have seen you and him together—nobody else besides you could buy these schemes and bring business to our Construction

Company—the company has never made any claim against me, I being a director—prior to my being a director the Board was more dominant, I think; they exercised more restriction, perhaps; I might say self-assertion—I was not on the Board at the date of the dinner: I came on in the autumn of 1902: the dinner was in September, 1901, therefore it is only recently, so to speak, that I have been a director, two years, but I have been familiar with the facts, being on the staff in the office, sometimes by absolute hearsay and sometimes by observation—walking. through the Board room dozens of times a day, and sometimes by personal observation, I was bound to see what was going on; I could not help it—at a meeting of shareholders under the articles I know that Mr. Paine has, by his holding, the same number of votes as you—there is an article that says that no man in the Construction Company shall have more than 5,000 votes, therefore Paine could vote just as much as you could—if he did not like anything he could come to the meeting and just do what he liked—you would be on equal terms, although you put the money into it—he has never put a shilling in; that is a fact, I believe; not since I have known anything about it, at any rate—with regard to the law part of it, that these companies have, as a corporate body, a separate existence legally, they have what they call an entity but no soul—although practically they may be one-man companies, still that one man is different from his company, and his acts must be ratified and vouched by the company formally—I know there was a deed of release in January, 190.'i—I am one of the signatories—the deed of release for the consideration of the public wheel patents, as far as I remember the terms of the agreement, gave you an absolute release as Mr. as that corporate body is concerned; an absolutely legal release from every liability in connection with you and the Construction Company up to that date—the company does not make a claim against you of any sort at the present time—to make a technical act, with full knowledge that it is only a technical act, we called a meeting of the shareholders of tins company two or three weeks ago, and we sent Mr. Paine and Colonel Harris and everybody else notice to attend—there was something more than a quorum there; not very many: there are not many shareholders; eight or nine; only three or four, to speak of, in addition to the signatories—at that meeting we legally and technically passed resolutions—Mr. Paine was represented by his solicitor, Mr. Davis; he is a pretty difficult man as a rule: very difficult—he had signed a prosy at that meeting—we authorised and passed a resolution, that is, merely legally and technically passed a resolution, that solicitors should be instructed in the prosecution to retain counsel to hold a watching brief on the company's behalf in the above case, with instructions that this company makes no charge or complaint whatever against Lawson, but, on the contrary, that the company disapproves of the proceedings of the prosecution in this matter, and sincerely sympathises with Lawson; that was carried without dissent—Mr. Davis said that he would vote neither one way nor the other, but he spoke very strongly in favour of it: he said that Mr. Paine's sentiments were with the resolution, but that he was instructed to vote neither for nor against it; it was a question in some other action

—I assisted in posting the notice of this resolution to the shareholders: "Notice is hereby given that an extraordinary general meeting of the members of the above-named company will be held at the Cannon Street Hotel, London, E.C., on Monday, the 7th November, at four o'clock in the afternoon, for the purpose of considering (1) the general position of the company; (2) the actions at law now pending: (3) the passing of such resolution, if any, in connection with the above as may be deemed advisable"—I do not think I could swear to Hooley's writing; I have seen the papers about the actions we brought against Paine, but I could not speak to them from memory; I have looked into them occasionally; I leave those matters to the solicitor, and rely on his advice largely—Mr. Ramskill has rarely acted for you in the purchase of some property or other; in that case he may have represented you personally, but he is the company's solicitor—I have known you employ sundry solicitors for occasional work; Ward, Bowie & Co., they do an your work practically; I do not remember any others lately—on difficult occasions, such as the row with the Blackpool Company, they would be consulted; I saw Mr. Ward at Blackpool on several occasions on the subject—Mr. Ramskill is merely a solicitor who is employed; he is convenient and handy; we pay him a retaining fee to attend Board meetings and carry out the instructtions of the Board in such things as he may be directed, and to advise the directors—any big action would be given to another firm—during the whole of the time that I have been connected with this company there is nothing in the whole of the transactions that to my mind is of a suspicious character—there are no creditors of the Construction Company—the Trust Company does not owe the Construction Company anything to my knowledge; I believe the Construction Company does not owe any money to the Trust Company—I did not have anything to do with the 25,000 shares that were issued fully paid to the Trust Company years ago—as far as I am aware there are no complaints from anybody.

Re-examined. I am still a director of the Construction Company—I am not in Lawson's employ; he pays me something amounting to something like the fees of the company; I get a cheque from him, irregularly, whenever I need it; some year or two ago I received my fees by cheque from the Construction Company—that has not happened since 1903—in October, 1903, the balance was £15 12s. 8d., and the same balance is apparently there still; there have been apparently no cheques drawn upon it since: whatever moneys have been received by me in the meantime hare been received from Lawson—I have been helping him since I gave evidence in the Police Court-with his defence; I was glad to have an opportunity of helping an old friend of thirty years' standing—as far as I know, it was never intended to put the shares of the' Construction Company before the public; I never heard of any intention to do so—I was a director in 1903—I remember an action Wing brought by our company against Mr. Paine and Hooley—the Statement of Claim says in that action: "In the months of February and March, 1901, the defendants"(that is Paine and Hooley) "represented verbally to Henry John Lawson, who was interested in the plaintiff company" (that is our company) "that they were in a position to render

considerable services to the plaintiff company as follows: namely, that they could procure responsible brokers to obtain an official quotation for and find purchasers of shares in the plaintiff company and the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, and they promised verbally to the said Henry John Lawson, on behalf of the plaintiff company, to render such services, and that they would procure responsible brokers to obtain official quotations for and find purchasers of shares in the two companies herein mentioned"—that was while I was away at Blackpool, and before 1 was a director—that action was brought when I was a director, and with my assent—the case that our company was making there was that Hooley and Paine were to procure responsible brokers to obtain official quotations, and to dispose of these shares in February and March, 1901; that is an instance that escaped my memory when I said that I did not recollect, and that as far as I knew he had had nothing to do with it; that is one instance in which he apparently has had something to do with it; apparently it was intended in February and March, 1901, that these shares should be disposed of to the public if they could be; I will read you the words: "And they promised verbally (that is, Paine and Hooley) "to the said Harry John Lawson on behalf of the plaintiff company to render such services, and that they would procure responsible brokers to obtain official quotations for and find purchasers of shares in the two companies" I cannot say if it was the intention of the Electric Tramway Construction and Maintenance Company to get these shares on to the public, and get quotations: I was not a director then—I looked into this matter then, and found that there was a ground of action, and I acted, as I said just now, under the advice of the solicitor, who said there was a ground of action—I cannot say now who it was told me they made these representations to Lawson—this is a letter from the secretary of our company to "E. T. Hooley, Esq.": "Dear sir,—I am directed to inform you that at a meeting of the directors of this company, held on the 9th inst., the following resolution was passed: 'That the agreed consideration not having—been received by the company for the shares transferred to Messrs Hooley and Paine, and no money whatever having been paid for the same, the secretary be instructed to apply to them for the surrender of the said shares, and at the same time to call their attention to the fact that they have failed to render the services which they agree to render to the company in exchange for the shares '"—I cannot say from memory what was the "agreed consideration"—I cannot say if it was the same allegation as in the Statement of Claim, that Hooley and Paine were to have made a market—I cannot tell you where that resolution is to be found—there were minute books—I cannot say if there was ever such a resolution—I cannot give you any assistance as to where I can find it in our books—I am still at the office and still a director—I take it there was such a resolution; I do not remember it—our company issued another Writ on December 24th, 1903, leaving out Hooley as a defendant, and they say: "In the months of February and March, 1901, the defendant" (that is Paine) "together with one Ernest Terah Hooley approached the plaintiff, Henry John Lawson, who was interested in the plaintiff company, and represented that they were in a

position to render considerable services to the plaintiff company, and could procure responsible brokers to obtain an official quotation for and find purchasers for shares in the plaintiff company, and they promised verbally to the plaintiff, Henry John Lawson, on behalf of the plaintiff company, to render such services, and that they would (inter alia) procure responsible brokers to obtain official quotations for and find purchasers of shares in the plaintiff company"—that is the Statement of Claim in the action, filed upon the records of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice—I am not sufficiently legal to know whether that could have been drawn by the solicitor without consultation with me as director—I knew the action was brought, and doubtless at the time I knew what it was about; I do not remember that I did; it is not likely such an action would have been brought without my then knowing it, and it is quite natural that the details may have slipped my memory—I do not remember any discussion about the intention in February and March to get an official quotation and put these shares on the public—this letter is signed by Lawson (Produced) or on his behalf; I think it is not his signature; it professes to be signed "H. J. Lawson,"and, I think, "W. P. "or "EL P."is under it; it looks to me as though it is signed by Mr. Lawson's secretary on behalf of Mr. Lawson. It looks like a "P "at the end—I suggest it may be Parford: he has several styles of handwriting, but I think this is his handwriting—this is not his usual handwriting; I think this is one of his unusual handwritings—while I was a director, the company did not try to get a quotation on the Stock Exchange—I have no recollection of anything of the kind—I am very familiar with some phases of the Blackpool (South) flotation—remember I was at 'Blackpool, and a great deal of the work was done in London—I have given some evidence about it, and some of the things I know only by hearsay—I cannot from memory refer to any minute of the Board of the taking, over by the Construction Company from Lawson of the Blackpool matter—there was Mr. Chadwell's advice as engineer—he was an important engineer whose advice was taken, and there were the solicitors—that is all I remember now—I was under the impression that there was a difficulty in getting the company to take up the Blackpool but I was not on the Board—Mackenzie and Hunter were with difficulty persuaded there were the plans on the floor, I do not know that Mackenzie was not a director at all in 1901—I am not certain of the names of the directors, I was speaking of Board meetings, when I could not say who was a director—I knew something about it, and I knew that certain directors there were difficult to deal with, but as to which gentlemen they were I could not tell you; when I said Mackenzie and Hunter were there, and were with difficulty persuaded, I take it then I was careless in accepting those, two names—I accepted the statement from Lawson that the directors would come to any bargain they liked with him—I cannot tell you what bargain they did come to with him—I was not a director; even if I were I should not remember at this date without reference to the minutes, probably—the Construction Company were the means of the construction of the line—they

were not the working contractors—I cannot swear from memory whether they employed the working contractors, or whether they arranged with the new company to employ them—I will not say they had to be got rid of before one single bit of work was done, but I remember the terms of the compromise were signed, I think, on September 24th, 1902, which got rid of the Construction Company altogether—before I went down from Blackpool a great quantity of materials had been collected, but the road had not been touched then—I believe Nevins made a start; I never knew anyone but Nevins—I will swear that there was material collected there except the old road—I can say I saw material collected there that was represented to me to be the material—I did not see it carried there—my work was at the office—I occasionally went to their depot and this was pointed out to me as being a ready to start—when I spoke about material yesterday I was not representing that the Construction Company had in some way supplied that material, but their contractors—I came South at the end of June—I do not know the date of Nevins' death, I have always considered that their taking over this Blackpool business from Lawson was of benefit to the Construction Company—I cannot tell offhand what the Construction Company made by it—I do not think they lost; I never entered into it to my memory—I may have gone into it—I cannot, say what they made or what they lost, I do not know, personally, if Lawson made anything by it—I do not know what the Construction Company gave him—it was before my time as a director—I do not know if he was paid before my time—he is the chief shareholder—I do not think there have ever been any dividends paid by the Blackpool South—I am not certain—I do not know when it opened, a year ago perhaps—it is a very new thing—I think I have heard of it that the capital had to be reduced—the agreement was made between the Construction Company and the Blackpool South on June 26th, 1901—under the terms of that the Blackpool South were to issue to the Construction Company 150,000 debenture stock, 100,000 5 per cent, preference stock, 150,000 ordinary shares, all fully paid except 30.000 of the shares—I believe the Construction Company were for getting that capital to buy up and pay the shares, debentures and liabilities of the old company—they were also to convert the line to electricity, and have the new company £5.000 cash for working capital—the proceeds of the 150,000 debenture stock, without deduction were to be placed in the names of trustees, and so much as the engineers certified as necessary was to be retained to be used for the completion of the line—it may be that the underwriters Rutherford and Company claimed to be paid £30.000 as their agreed commission—I am not sure of the date—it may be August 3rd, 1901—I was there the Saturday before the Bank Holiday—I do not know that Lawson or the Construction Company was unable to pay that £30,000—I was not the secretary—the secretary was there also—I am not certain that it was in consequence of their not being paid, that the parties brought a writ for an Injunction to stop Lawson or the company drawing out any part of the moneys that had been paid on the issue of the shares—I can suggest no other reason—I do not know that on December 14th, 1901, Mr. Rutherford and his friends

alleged that there was a breach of the agreement of August 7th.—litigation ensued between the parties—it was litigation which was terminated by the deed of September 24th, 1902—I cannot swear that on September 20th, when the speech was made at the dinner, the Construction Company were able to deal with a single shilling of the Blackpool funds; I can only say that I understood that £80,000 was to their credit—I do not think I knew the details of these documents even so much as I do now, and it was not my business to—I was not a director at that time—I was not at the dinner—I do not know the amount that stood in the names of the debenture holders' trustees—I do not know the amount; there was a fund in the names of the trustees for the debenture holders—I cannot say whether the Construction Company made a profit or a loss out of the transaction—I cannot say from memory whether anybody made anything out of it but Lawson—there was a meeting of the shareholders a few weeks ago; I do not know who suggested it—the secretary discussed it with me; he brought it to my notice first; I do not say that that was the first suggestion, I do not say that it came from his own initiative—I cannot say if it was done with a view to this prosecution; apparently it was—the shareholders who were there who passed this resolution were Mr. Holroyd Smith, Mr. Ramskill, who is a shareholder and also the solicitor, and I was there and Mr. Griffin, who is a shareholder—I do not know how many shares he has; he is at present a director as well as a shareholder; I personally do not know whether his name is on the share register yet; he has not long joined; only a few weeks, since the commencement of the prosecution—we have done very little for the last year or 18 months; I cannot say that we have done nothing at all—the object of this shareholders' meeting was to express the company's sympathy with Lawson; to get the shareholders together; all the shareholders were notified, and they could have attended and carried the meeting whichever way they wished, and no doubt they did, in sympathy with Lawson; they always spoke of him very nicely, and were friendly with lam—I do not remember now if there were any more there—I do not know whether Mr. Parford is a shareholder; he was there, and Lawson was there, of course—I do not think Mr. Harlick was there; I do not know that he is a shareholder; he is not a director now—Sir Kenneth Mackenzie was not there—I think perhaps there were more than six there: seven, perhaps—Lawson was present; Parford, Griffin (he was the chairman), Holroyd Smith, myself, and Ramskill (he is the solicitor); I do not remember any other now—there was Davis, who did not vote, representing Mr. Paine—I have known Lawson for thirty years, even since I was seventeen years old; his influence on my life then and ever since has been for good, and I verily believe that he is incapable of the offences with which he Is charged.

SIR JAMES KENNETH DOUGLAS MACKENZIS . I am an Associate Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers—I know Lawson—I first became acquainted with him in the winter of 1900, I think—I agreed to become a director of the British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, at his request, 'and chairman of that company—I was present at the Board meeting of the Street Company held on November 14th, 1900—at that

meeting the final prospectus which was to be issued was approved and initialled by the directors—at the same meeting 415 shares were allotted to the Construction Company and their clients upon these terms: that the company undertook to accept the return of the application money if the Board were unable to secure a satisfactory number of responsible applications for shares—at that meeting I was appointed one of the committee for the purpose of passing resolutions for alloting further shares—this looks like a copy of the prospectus—it states: "The public subscription list will open on Wednesday, the 25th day of November, 1900, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, and close at 4 o'clock on the Saturday following"—that has the dates filled in so that shares were being offered to the public—it states, after the words "Electric Underground Railways: London Electric Tramways": "This company will be in a position to tender for the electric work in connection with underground electric railways, London electric tramways, and other important contracts"; the heading is in large letters the name of the company: "The British Electric Street Tramways, Limited, Construction and Maintenance Company (Parent)"—I should say that meant it was promoted by the Construction and Maintenance Company "To acquire electric running powers in populous districts where none now exist; to construction underground electric railways; to take over and equip old tramways with modern electric systems, and sell the same to new companies; to connect by electric tramways leading suburbs with large towns: to purchase modern improvements, licences, patents, inventions connected with mechanical traffic of all kinds: to buy and sell municipal grants and rights of construction: to obtain permissions and concessions for the construction and maintenance of new tramways"; those were the main objects—"Nominal capital £300,000, divided into 30,000 shares of £10 each, of which one-third is for working capital ": that is £100,000; "every 10 shares subscribed carries the right to apply for one £10 share in 'The Founders' Syndicate, Limited' issue of 30,000 shares "(that is the whole 300,000)" at par, payable £1 on application, £4 on allotment, and the balance in two equal monthly instalments after allotment. In connection with this company a syndicate is being formed, called the Founders' Syndicate, Limited (capital 6,000 shares of £10 each) "(that is £60,000)." This syndicate is to form new companies and promote Bills in Parliament for new railway and tramway undertakings, which this company will have the first option of building and constructing": the original intention may have been that the Street Company was to be an engineering and constructing company and the Founders' Company a promoting company—I authorised this prospectus with others—"A syndicate share of £10 will thus become entitled to the promotion profits (debentures, cash, or shares) which it is expected the syndicate will derive from the formation of these railway and tramway undertakings, which are now wanted in many towns. The above arrangement meets the frequently expressed wish of shareholders to participate in the substantial profits made by pioneer syndicates (such as the Electrical Pioneer Syndicate, Limited, which has just divided over £375 "per cent, amongst its shareholders). In view of the high prices ruling in

Electric Tractions and increasing traffics, these Founders' Syndicate shares should Rave a prospective value in excess of anything that can he foreseen "to-day, as the syndicate may reasonably be expected to make large profits in respect of its various promotions"; then there is the heading "Premium on Founders' Syndicate shares ": "the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, Westminster, London, S.W., has agreed, if required, to buy these Founders! Syndicate shares at a premium, on the terms mentioned in the contract for sale to this company, a copy of which is set forth on the back of the application form, enclosed herewith"—the idea was that the Construction Company would buy every £10 share for £15—I think the object would naturally be from the prospectus that if you can sell these Founders' shares at a premium promptly it would be a good turnover—r—to form an attraction for the shares—every 10 shares of the Street Company that were subscribed you would have a right to apply for and get a syndicate share, which syndicate share you could dispose of to the Street Company for £15—I cannot recollect exactly now, but 1 should imagine the object would be an inducement naturally to—everybody to purchase, and some people did avail themselves of it—there is set out the present price of a number of successful Electric Companies, Thomas Parker £17, and so on; amongst the first subscribers a number of names are given—I subscribed, according to the best of my recollection; I think for 150 or 200, something like that—it was ray own money; I invested it; I remember I was one of the first—I believe we had the consent of all those people who put their names on the prospectus; you must not forget that this prospectus was very carefully revised for the Board; they took the very best legal advice they could to see that it was right: it was in the hands of Messrs. Lumleys, solicitors, and it was very, very carefully done—I do not-recollect that any of the people complained that their names had been put on the prospectus without their consent—evidently Canon Robert Bruce wrote about it, because I say to him in this letter of November 7th, 1902: "I am quite at a loss how you could have formed such an opinion as to the shares in your name at the time the company was formed"—I have no recollection of this—I do not recollect the name—I see there the name of Lockyer; was that Norman Lockyer's son? because I remember afterwards there was a little trouble with Mr. Lockyer on behalf of his father—then I see Sir William Preece's name and Mr. Cardew's; there was some trouble about the name of Lockyer, I know; it was a long time afterwards, too—the prospectus says: "This company is formed to construct and work lines of electric railways and tramways licensed by special Act of Parliament, by municipal or other authorities, and to extend the service of traction vehicles in large towns, and to construct me said electric tramways upon the overhead wire and trolley system. It is also formed to take over and equip old tramways with modern electric systems, and sell the—same to new companies: to connect leading suburbs with large towns by electric tramways: to purchase modern improvements, licences, patents, inventions connected with the mechanical traffic of all kinds; to buy and sell municipal grants and rights of construction: to obtain permissions

and concessions for the construct ion and maintenance of new electric tramways. This company will commence operations at once, sufficient working a capital having already been guaranteed"—it must have been the Construction Company who guaranteed the working capital, as far as I can remember now, on promises of support—I do not know now or whether I knew then, that the Construction Company at this time had any working money at all—Messrs. Lumleys inquired before we issued this statement to the public as to what the value of the guarantee was—I was a director—every one of these statements was gone into—the working capital is stated to be a third of £'500,000, that is to say £100,000, and it says: "Tin's company will commence operations at once, sufficient working capital having already been guaranteed"; that must have been so, or else we should not have passed it—the guarantee. I should say, must have been through the Construction Company—"How difficult electric tram shares are to obtain just now is well known to all would-be buyers upon die market Shares which but a short time ago could be bought at small premiums now find buyers at high prices. Subscribers who had sufficient foresight to apply in the early days of such companies can now make very handsome profits. Indeed, there are few things like traction and tramway shares with such a safe future Street tramways worked by electricity are now becoming so profitable that they almost present the desirable features of an old-established business"; then: This company will tender for and buy up horse-drawn tramways, equip them with its electrical systems, and resell the same to new companies at a profit ": that was the object of the company—(Mr. A vary stated that there was no allegation in the Indictment of any misrepresentations as to the Street Company. Mr. Justice Lawrence said he very much doubted under this Indictment whether the question of what was stated in the Streets Company prospectus had any relevancy. The Solicitor General said he would not press the analysing of the prospectus)—on November 15th, from the minutes, I attended a meeting of the Streets Company—80 shares were allotted to the Construction Company on the same terms as before, that was that if there was not a sufficient subscription the money was to be returned, "Eighty shares be and are hereby allotted to the Electric Tramway Construction Company and their clients as per list"—"On the same terms as before, "I think, means that the subscriptions coming from the public came in through the Construction Company and their clients—the terms are that the money is to be returned if a sufficient subscription does not follow, but these are public subscriptions allotted to the Construction Company and their clients on the same terms—on November 21st there was a further 102 shares on the same terms—all those were before the prospectus was actually issued, on November 28th—upon November 28th the first public subscriptions came in—some of these subscriptions on November 15th and 21st are probably those prior subscriptions named in the prospectus and before the issued of the prospectus—these subscriptions were allotted from time to time a-s the applications came in from the public—£31,730 was by the public—on November.'50th I see a minute referring to a letter received from Lumley and Lumley with reference to a statement in the "Financial

Times "of November 20th as to modification of the capital of the company, and also a letter received from the Construction Company undertaking to indemnify the company in respect of allotments pending an official statement as to modified terms referred to in the "Financial Times"; what that is is shown by the minute of December 3rd, 1900, at which I was present—on that day a letter was authorised to be sent to the "financial Times" stating—that their announcement in their issue of November 29th was not quite correct, but that the vendor company, that is, the Construction Company, had agreed to defer such shares as may be payable under the purchase agreement as regards dividend until the company had paid a first dividend of 5 per cent, on the first capital, subscribed by the public; the effect of that was to defer all these shares which they got by way of purchase money so far as dividend was concerned until this company had paid a dividend of 5 per cent. 'to the "public—on December 10th there was a letter from the Construction Company to nominate Lawson as a director of the Street Company, and the matter was deferred until a general meeting—on December 21st Mr. Thomas Parker, who was one of the directors, resigned; I was not present; I see, at that meeting, but a letter was received from Mr. Thomas. Parker resigning subject to the agreement produced being confirmed—at the next meeting" at which I was present, on January 3rd, I was appointed chairman: there is a proposition by Mr. Huth and Mr. Gordon Hunter; and Lawson was appointed a director—by the next resolution I and Mr. Huth, another director, were appointed a committee to execute the documents with the Construction Company—"It was proposed by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie, and seconded by Mr. Henry Huth, and carried unanimously, that Mr. Henry John Lawson be and is hereby elected a director of the company, in accordance with a resolution received from the Electric Construction and Maintenance Company, dated December 10th"—the solicitors reported the completion of the purchase of the business from the Construction Company had been arranged to take place; the documents were an assignment to the company of Holroyd Smith's patents; an agreement between the vendor company and this company modifying the terms of the original contract, and the conveyance and assignment to the company of freehold land and works of the Car Company (that is Purker's company); an acknowledgment about a conveyance and a deed between this company and the Founders' Syndicate securing to this company (that is the Streets Company) the first option of constructing' any electric railways and tramways to be promoted by the syndicate. The agreement is one of November 1st, 1900, between the Construction Company and the Streets Company, whereby it is agreed that the "Construction Company shall sell, and the Streets Company "buy, all the interest and full benefit of the vendor company in the contracts, copies whereof are set forth in the first schedule, and the inventions and patent rights in the second schedule, and some models in the said schedule, and be sole benefit in London and Middlesex, and half the benefits elsewhere of all negotiations, concessions, and contracts entered into, obtained" or to do obtained, by the vendor company in regard to the said patents, me iii consideration of the sale the purchaser company'(that is the

Streets Company) are to allot to the Construction Company, or their nominees, 20,000 fully paid-up shares in the capital of the purchaser company of £10, each, or cash in lieu of such shares, or partly by such fully paid-up shares and partly in cash, provided that out of the subscriptions for shares in the capital of the purchaser company prior to completion of this agreement there shall be £30,000 retained by the purchaser Company to be applied for working capital"—(The first schedule to agreement of November 1st, 1900, and an agreement between the same companies, dated January 8th, 1901, were then read)—it is provided by paragraph 10 that the purchase is the completed on February 15th, 1901—it is provided by paragraph 16 of the agreement between the Parker Company and the Construction Company that if they fail to pay the purchase money in full the deposits are to be forfeited, and possession is to be given on October 6th: on January 8th there was a supplementary agreement between the Construction Company and the Street Company, which provides that the £200,000 is to be payable as to £20,000 in cash and—as to the remainder in shares—the total amount subscribed by the public Vas about £50,000, so that in order to leave £30,000, £20,000 was the most in cash that could be paid; that was January 8th, and according to the minute, completion took place upon that day, although it was fixed for February 15th: I cannot remember how it came to be accelerated by more than a month; on January 8th the solicitors reported that completion of the purchase had been arranged to take place, and it was done—on January 11th there is a minute about the Exeter Tramways: "Resolved to take over the contract of January 10th, 1901, between F. Burt and Co. and the Construction Company, relating to the Exeter Tramways, and to pay the Construction Company quarter net profits that may be derived by company In "connection with matter"—the Street Company never derived any profits from the Exeter Tramways to my recollection—a second resolution at that meeting is to acquire an interest in the Walthamstow Railway for £2,50O—on January 21st there is a resolution by our company to apply to the Founders' Syndicate for a loan of £8,500; it is a letter dated January 14th from Walter Webb it Co.; we got it the same day; there is a resolution to accept Mr. Chirping Brown's offer to take over the works at Wolverhampton, pay all outgoings, and pay also a rent of £10 for 28 days—those were Parker's works—I do not think our company had given £20,000 for Parker's works fourteen or thirteen days before: at any rate, I remember the disposal of the works or giving them up was done on a question of profit for the company; we were supposed to have made a profit over transferring the works back to Parker; this resolution says: "Resolved to dispose of the Wolverhampton Works" (that is Parker's works) "machinery, land, it, except land adjoining Patterson and Gear factory, for £2,500": March 18th, 1902: "Resolved to sell the land at Wednesfield for £1,800 ": our company had not given £200,000 in cash and shares for those works and land—there are other things set forth in the prospectus; Holroyd Smith's patents and models and Parker's works: apart from the patents, I do not think that is all the company gnve £200,000 for—my recollection is that the works and land

were a very small part of it—on February 1st, 1901, our company advanced to the Construction Company towards deposit expenses, &c., in connection with the Blackpool and Preston Tramways, £5,000; there was a letter from the Tramways Company to the Street Company about it—the terms said: £5,000 to be returned in cash, a cash profit of 100 per cent, which is to be paid out of the promotion of the Blackpool and Preston Syndicate, Limited, and a further profit of £2,500 in shares of above syndicates, and a further £2,500 in snares of a company to be formed—that would be the Blackpool South—I ceased to be a director of the Street Company about March 19th, 1901—up to that time work had been done by the Street Company—I remember two businesses that took a good deal of time; the Exeter Tramways was one, and while I was on the Streets Tramway Company the Walthamstow Railway business was also going on, and I was connected with that—neither of those matters brought any profits to the Street Company—during; the time that I was a director there were a good number of projects on foot, tramway business being considered—it did nothing in the way of building—I suppose they lent money to the Construction Company beyond this £5,000; they took an interest in the Walthamstow Railway to the extent of more than £2,500: there were other moneys after then—I cannot say if before I left the company there was more than £2,500 put into it—"Resolved to acquire an interest in the City and North East Suburban Railway Bill to the limit of £2,500, and a contract to this effect was executed and sealed; that is January 11th; the contract about the Walthamstow Railway was with Walter Webb, the solicitor, I should think.

Thursday, December 1st.

SIR JAMES MACKENZIE'S examination continued. I wrote this letter dared February 24th, 1901, to Lawson (Exhibit 68), marked "private": "Dear Mr. Lawson,—With reference to our conversation of yesterday, I think the best way to arrange the matter will be for you to buy from me 250 of those E.T.C. shares during the course of this week, and the balance of 150 on April 1st, on which day I can also sever my connection with the B.E.S.T. and F. Syndicate as chairman, when there will be due to me for director's fees £70 for the two months from the B.E.S.T., and £41 13s. id. from the Founders' Syndicate for the five months. As it is necessary by the articles of association of both companies to give not less than one month's clear notice of resignation, I cannot resign before April 1st now, so I will hand in to the secretary my resignation for both companies on Friday next at our next Board. Then any moneys due to me from the two companies will be paid on the same day as I shall receive the balance of the shares from you, and this will suit me better. I hope you will not forget me in connection with the big tramway undertaking you have in hand in the north, and about which you spoke yesterday, for if I can be of any use and there is money in it I am game for what is to be done. I would like you to write me a private note as to this, as it will put the matter in proper order. I have really got such a lot to do now that I cannot devote the time I ought

to the B.E.S.T. and F. Syndicate. But I would like to work with you in any other business that may come along if it be to bur mutual advantage."—I became a director and chairman of the Construction Company in, I think, September, 190, at Lawson's request—there was a dinner going to be given, and he asked me to preside—I do not remember anything particular beyond his asking "le to act as a director—I had no shares in the Construction Company at that time; I asked him whether he would give me some, and we arranged for 0,000 shares—he was to give them to me: I was to keep them altogether—nothing was said about a dividend; I understood it but there was nothing said about it; the conversation was only a few days before September 20th—I wrote Exhibit 69 on September 17th to the secretary of the Construction Company: "Dear sir,—I shall have much pleasure in accepting a seat upon the Board of your company, and also act as chairman of the same should they be pleased to elect me. Very faithfully yours, Kenneth Mackenzie of Tar bat, Bt."—that is just before the dinner—it must have been a few days before that that I arranged with Lawson to take the chair: I cannot recollect exactly—I do not think I knew anything at all about the state of affairs of the Construction Company before September 20th; I do nor think I knew any details—J got the materials for my speech at the dinner from Lawson: in the form of a draft, I think, probably the day before I made the speech, either at his office or it may have been sent to me; I cannot remember: I think it was manuscript: I probably discussed it with Lawson, and very likely with the secretary—I do not remember what I said about it to Lawson, beyond asking him whether everything was right, and everything of that nature, and whether the money was there: that I had to satisfy myself about—I spoke about the dividend to Lawson: I do not remember what I said about it—I took steps to verify the statements in the draft; I asked the secretary for authority, or what was his authority, or what authority could he give me for making the statement that there was so much money in hand to pay this' dividend—he gave me. If I recollect rightly, two bank slips, two notices from the bank; my recollection was that they amounted to close on £100,000 to the credit of the Construction Company; there was no other statement in the draft of sufficient importance to require verification; they were general statements—I made my speech on September 20th: in it I said: "I have the pleasing duty to perform of announcing a dividend of 6 per cent, and a bonus of 1s. 2d. per share, or about another fi per cent., making together a dividend for the shareholders at the rate of about 12 per cent. I know that a larger distribution has been urged, and would have been popular with those people who always look at the cash balance as a guide as to how much dividend is to be paid"—it is hard to remember now who had urged the larger distribution: I was told that was the case by Lawson: that is probably exactly what was written; I made no alteration—I saw a good many copies of the speech at the offices of the company: I probably had a copy myself, and probably I have now—Lawson was not present at the dinner: I do not think I knew that he was not going to be there, but I think, as a matter of fact, he was not there": his name is not mentioned among the guests at all;

I did not know exactly who were going to be there, except some engineers and professional people—I see in the report "American capital declined"; I do not recollect what the meaning of that was unless it had something to do with Mr. Nevins, who was an American, I think—I do not know that at" this time the Construction Company was negotiating for a loan of £30,000 from Mr. Lot Craven, at 100 per cent, per annum, paying £15,000 in six months for a loan of £30,000—I do not know if I was present at a Board meeting of the Construction Company on October 1st when the loan was actually made—I do not know a loan was made on October 1st—I was a director and chairman, of course, at. That time of the Construction Company, but it was a very few days afterwards; I was not told of the loan—I do not think I have ever seen Mr. Lot Craven—in Exhibit 71 I wrote: "Dear sir,—I have your note of yesterday, but 1 am now off to Cowes for the purpose of laying up my yacht for the winter, and shall not be home till Tuesday night. What is the meeting on Monday about? I am sorry I cannot see 'Mr. Lawson that day, but my arrangements have been made some days ago, and I must do what has to be done. You can write or wire me to the Royal London Yacht Club, Cowes, if necessary. Am glad the dinner went off so well last night, and hope the results will be satisfactory"—when I wrote "I hope the results will be satisfactory "I meant that everything gave a fillip to the business; that everything went off properly—I did not know at that time the moneys in the bank at Blackpool had been arrested there by means of au agreement of August 7th until £30,000 had been paid to the guarantors; I thought the money was available—I did not know that on September 4th the company had been unable to pay a loan made by Hooley or (Mrs. Hooley to the company of £3,000; I never heard of it—I did not know that the Construction Company on July 17th had about £3,000 from Mrs. Hooley; how should I know it? I had nothing to do with the company until tie 17th—I did not know that on September 4th that loan was repaid by means of post-dated cheques—I did not know that Lawson had guaranteed the repayment of that loan, or that Hooley had received a cheque for £100 in consideration of accepting post-dated cheques; I knew nothing about Hooley on September 4th—I remained a director until, I think, June, 1902—on June 18th, 1902, I wrote to the secretary of the Construction Company: "Dear sir,—As you mentioned this afternoon that you would not have much to do this week in consequence of the City and Surrey Electric Railway Company not coming out at once, I suggested to Mr. Gordon Hunter that we should have a Hoard of the E.T.C. and M. Company called for Saturday morning next, and this be agreed to immediately. So will you kindly call one for 11 o'clock on Saturday, the 21st? Both Mr. Hunter and I wish to have a Board meeting of the company for the simple reason that we have got entirely out of touch with what it has been doing for a long while back; and I must say for myself that I have not the least idea what engagements or liabilities the company has entered into, or, in fact, anything that has been done since I consented, to be the chairman. This may seem a most extraordinary statement to make on my part, but when it is considered how the company is conducted, and how it is managed entirely

as a private concern, it is not to be wondered at. As, however, the directors are responsible before the law for the conduct of the company, and us I, as chairman, am the one who is held mostly so, I must be put in possession of the actual position of affairs, or otherwise I cannot continue in that position. I wish to raise no objections or occasion any difficulties, but is only right to myself that I know how we stand, and so I wish for a Board to ascertain exactly everything concerning the company's financial state. Kindly, therefore, arrange as directed.—the meeting was not arranged—I resigned my directorship, and the chairmanship of the company—I gave instructions to my bankers to return the 5000 shares to Lawson, or to the secretary of the company, and they did so; they executed the transfers and sent them to the bank—I see the minute book of the Construction Company, on November 15th, 1901—(Exhibit 185)—I and Mr. Thomas appear to have been the two directors present—"The following letter, which had been received from Mr. H. J. Lawson was read, and after due consideration it was resolved that the terms of the said letter be and is hereby agreed to: 'The directors, the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited. Dear sirs,—I should be glad if you would come to some definite arrangement as to settling up the matters between us, as there is a considerable sum of money payable by the company to me. I propose to accept the sum of £20,000 in full settlement and payable within twelve months from this date, provided a cheque for £5,500 is paid on account, and the company executes a Deed of Mutual Release. Yours faithfully, H.J. Lawson.'—the Deed of Release referred to in the above letter was produced and ordered to be sealed and signed,—which was accordingly done. A cheque value £5,500 on account in favour of Mr. H. J. Lawson was drawn. The meeting was adjourned until after the extraordinary general meeting."—I have a very faint recollection of that transaction—I do recollect something about this letter from Lawson—I think the state of accounts between Lawson and the company was to have been rendered, or the account was to have been sent in—I do not recollect now if any account was sent in—I attended very few Board meetings of this company after I became chairman; in fact, there is not one minute signed by me at all—everything is done by Mr. Hunter, who was the one who took the greatest amount of work in connection with the company—I was chairman, but it was a private concern, and Mr. Hunter had been connected with it for a much longer time than I had and he really attended to it—it was not a public company—I do not recollect ever seeing the account that was to have been rendered—I see Mr. Hunter seems to have signed all the meetings as chairman—"Gordon Hunter, chairman"—to all intents and purposes I was the chairman of the company for the dinner and the dinner only—a cheque was to be drawn for £5,500 after vre had sent the account—I should say I did not see the account—this is a copy of the Deed—it is an agreement made November 15th, between the Construction Company and Lawson, and it recites: "Whereas the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company. Limited, are owners of various Tramway Orders known as the Lancashire Electric

Tramways. And whereas the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, have advanced to the said Harry John Lawson various sums of money in the furtherance of business being carried on by or through the said Harry John Lawson for or on behalf of (directly or indirectly) the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, in connection with the said Lancashire Electric Tramways and otherwise amounting to £25,343 or thereabouts And whereas the said Harry John Lawson has from time to carried on by or through the said Harry John Lawson has from time to time advanced to or on behalf of the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, sundry sums of money, and has under various agreements become entitled to be paid various sums of money by the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, for services rendered by him to the said company under letters of agreement or verbal agreements large sums of money in excess of the said £25,343."I do not recollect that I saw a list of agreements; "And whereas the said Harry John Lawson has it in his power to introduce to the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, a company which are taking steps to obtain a project known as the Nottingham, Derby and Ilkeston Tramways, and will use his influence to induce the said company to sell and transfer to the said Electric Tramways Construction and 'Maintenance Company, Limited, the said project with all Orders, etc., when obtained. Now this agreement witnesseth that in consideration of the payment on or before the signing of t-his agreement of the sum of £5,000 by the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, the payment whereof the said Harry John Lawson hereby acknowledges, and in further consideration of the sum of Fifteen thousand pounds to be paid to the said Harry John Lawson within twelve months from the date here-of by the said Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, they, the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company Limited, and the said Harry John Lawson, do hereby agree to release and discharge each the other of them from all and every charge, claim or liability or liabilities of every description or kind that may be upon them or him towards the other of them up to the date of this agreement. And further to execute a further deed of discharge or other document that may be deemed necessary."—I have no recollection of asking for any verification of the statements made in the document, but if can remember something about this deed was done or executed then—I have a recollection of that—Lawson acknowledges he has received the £25,000, and he says he has paid more—my recollection is that a proper account was to be made up; the account had been made out, and Lawson being in this Construction Company, and being in the other company too, and the whole work being done together, it would be done naturally by the same clerk and handed in—I did not investigate it prior to this—I did not know on November 15th that Lawson was indebted to the company to the extent of £39,000 in cash and shares, or that he was credited in the books of the company on the same day under the terms of the agreement with £59,000 and upwards—I do not recollect

anything about it—I understood that Lawson was practically the only shareholder; that is why I asked him for 5,000 shares casually; the number of shares issued was. I think, a quarter of a million—I was present at a meeting on October 29th, 1901—I find an agreement was executed on that date with the Tramway Trust, and on November 7th a further agreement was executed, according to the minutes—I knew nothing about the agreement between the Trust. Company and the Construction Company: I have no recollection of it—I know from my experience as an engineer that the things it is proposed the Trust Company should do would involve the possession of very large capital—I do not know that the Trust Company at that time had a nominal capital of £107: I know nothing about the Trust: I know now that it had an actual capital of £7 at the most, because you have told me so before, but I did not: know it at that time—they might have a capital of sixpence to begin with—the nominal capital was a million—the consideration is: "In consideration of the Tramways Trust agreeing as mentioned in Clauses 1 and 2 hereof, the Construction Company will pay to the Tramways Trust such sums of money as shall be equal to the unissued capital of the Construction Company less the cash proceeds of 70,000 of each issue, namely, debentures, preference and ordinary shares which, amounting to £210,000, shall be reserved to the Construction Company for working capital, or will issue to the said Tramways Trust, or other persons nominated by the said Tramways Trust, the whole of the unissued share and debenture capital of the said Construction Company as afore-said at par, or fully paid, the proceeds of the said sums payable to the Trust, and the balance to be applied by the Construction Company as and for their working capital"—I see the first notice in the minute of the meeting of October 29th is "A cheque value £45,000 was ordered to be drawn in favour of the Blackpool Trams. "

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I have had a good deal of practical experience in engineering in the old days, and been associated with electrical work—there are statements in my speech at the dinner which are founded on my own experience: those founded on my own experience are statements which arc true, and which I am able to speak to with regard to my own knowledge, apart from what anybody ever said to me or sent to me and apart altogether from the facts and figures which were supplied to me by Lawson; I gave the company the benefit of my experience to the best of my ability whilst I was a director—Sir Alexander Binnie attended that same dinner—he made a speech, and in it said, "Great enterprises, in which novelty is concerned, I speak from many years of municipal experience, must always be promoted by those who are prepared to take the risk of financial failure, and I think I am not saying too much when I remark that, coupled with that is a desire, and, let us say, looking at the whole private enterprises in this country, a well-founded desire to obtain pecuniary advantage"—there is not now much doubt about cither of the facts stated by him—I believe the statements to be true which were made to me by Lawson, and which were repeated by me at the dinner, and so far as I knew I knew of no reason why everybody

else should not believe them to be true—if I had not believed them to be true I should not have made them—so far as I know there was no reason why Lawson should nor believe them to be true—I never knew that Hooley had anything to do with the company; I never heard of him in connection with the affairs of the company; I never heard that he had anything to do with the management or the internal arrangement of the affairs of the company until the prosecution started this theory that Hooley had anything to do with the management or the carrying on of the Construction Company—I never saw him at the office or even knew that Lawson knew him—at the time that I was dealing with the affairs of the Construction Company I believed that there was a good future for the Construction Company—I have, not had any direct experience in companies that have been formed and carried on the business of obtaining Provisional Orders first, and getting Bills in Parliament and Acts, and getting them floated into separate companies, though I know the principle—I know that it is carried on to a very large extent in the country—the first thing is to get your Provisional Order, which means a certain amount of expense—that is something in the nature of a concession, only the Board of Trade never looks at it in that light; they are Acts of Parliament really—of course, Provisional Orders are not looked upon in the light of a particular concession: concession is a foreign tiling altogether; the Provisional Order is something of the nature of what in a foreign country would be called a concession—it is a right under certain conditions to do certain things, which you must get from the authority certainly, and which when given confers upon the person who has it an exclusive right to construct anything in that part of the country, or, rather, to carry out the Orders; and if in the particular place the scheme is a valuable one, to construct, we will say, a tramway, and the right is obtained by this company by virtue of a Provisional Order to carry on that work, it confers upon them the exclusive right, but it requires financing to carry out—I have carried out a Colonial one myself in the same way—that is the business of the company when the parent company has got the Provisional Order and then floats a subsidiary company which is to carry out, equip, and maintain that particular tramway or a number of them as the case may be: you may either have one Order or a number of Provisional Orders; that is done every day—it the capital of that company is invited for the purpose of being used with regard to the Provisional Order or Orders which it is intended to float, then the ordinary practice is that the parent company gets a profit mi the sale of the Provisional Order; the parent company then floats it, and it makes provision for the sale of the Provisional Orders for the flow company, and it gets something pecuniary from the new company under the contract for the expenses incurred in the promotion, and for the profit, and for everything in connection with the original Order, which has to be floated or used by the new company; that is the general way rf doing it.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. I have been an Associate Member of the institution of Civil Engineers for twenty years, and have carried out some

similar work myself—that is why I was interested in the Street Company and the Construction Company—it is very profitable work, and very risky sometimes: it is work that could only be done by very few people indeed; it wants a lot of energy and knowledge—there are very few successful tramway constructors and engineers in England to-day.

By the COURT. I do not know why three companies should be used, but two companies undoubtedly, because the objects of the first company may be solely that of promoters, not as constructors—in many ways there is more money to be made out of a second company; they are the first company simply acting as the promoting company; it has acquired and spent so much money on obtaining a certain right; then it has power to sell that right for the most it can et, and may perhaps make a large sum out of it, whereas if they had acted simply as the constructor the engineer could only make those trade profits a-s a contractor—in one case there is only the trading profit; there is the trading profit in making and building a line, whereas the financial profit comes in in financing the whole business—a man might obtain an Act or an Order, say, from a foreign Government which cost him £1,000, and he may be able to sell it for £10,000; these are, of course, empirical figures; a thing is worth what it will fetch, that is all—the third company can only come in in the case of the construction: you must not, of course, confuse it with this company; I mean a constructing company; it may be the Finance Company and the Constructing Company—I think the Westinghouse Company do a great deal of work like that, as they have got a Promoting and a Construction Company; the legitimate purpose is to make money, I suppose; I do not know that there is any other purpose—I think it is the regular routine.

By Lawson. There are many little private syndicates of gentlemen in the City who are willing to put in money for running a Bill in Parliament for obtaining a Light Railway Concession or Order, men who will put up some £4,000 or £5,000 for a Light Railway Order, or put £1,000 a-piece up to £20,000 for the expenditure in obtaining a Light Railway Order—that is entirely different work, and a different class of investor to a man who would put up money for such things as constructing trams, and building tramways and engineering them; they are two totally different things, one a syndicate which runs the Bill and reckons it is going to make 300 or 400 per cent, or, perhaps, lose its money, and the other which is only done by a little millionaire company which has got plenty of money to carry on the construction—there is a totally different kind of syndicate to these, which simply bring it out as a company and get their profit out of the commission on the flotation—the little syndicate that put up fhe £5,000 or £10,000 to get the concession, obtain the Bill or the Act, would next go to the common company promoter to raise the capital for the carrying out of the Bill—having got the capital, or got it to a certain extent, they go to the constructors, who go to men like Westinghouse or Dick Kerrs, or any great engineer, or a small man like Chadwell, who goes and sublets his contract and does the constructing—the construction is a totally different kind of company; it does the building, the digging up of the road, and all the rest of it, and it builds

the line right through—very often when a line is constructed and built like that it is re-sold again to a traffic company; that is to say, it is re-floated to people who really want to make their profit out of the fares of the public; that is a regular routine done to-day; there is no law against it, and if they are done legitimately surely they are legitimate; it might be elaborated still more than that—sometimes it pays very well; it is risky, of course—if it happens to be a good paying business it pays—the man who invests his money in the traffic company is the man who will generally be satisfied with five or six per cent.; it might be a trust concern—he wants debentures or to have a good security for his money—he has a line that is a going concern, that is taking money regularly from the public, but that is not the kind of man who will put up £100 hoping to get £400 or £500 for it at the first preliminary stage—the Parliamentary work is only the work of lawyers and counsel and engineers—those professional men, such as Sherwoods, the Parliamentary agents, would be no use at all in a traffic company; it is not in their line—the directors of one of those companies would be no use at all, as a rule, on the other company—I should be no good on a traffic company; it is a different line; but I have had experience on the Parliamentary company in the preliminary proceedings—that is a legitimate reason why the companies must be divided—the first one would be only a small one, and if it was left with that there would not be enough capital to run it—each of those four departments, if they were successful, would make a substantial profit—I do not know of any one company that does it; they have sub-companies even themselves to do it, even with big companies—it is more profitable and more easy, and customary to have one syndicate and one company for each Bill—I should say very seldom there are several Bills promoted by one; it has generally each one separately by itself—any of these Orders that I have been speaking-of at the dinner, any one of those schemes, would have a capital of £400,000, and some of them £500,000—the Leeds and Wakefield is a very big one—at Blackpool the cost of building would possibly be over £200,000; I do not remember the mileage now—I was introduced to you in 1900 by Mr. Kirby; I think Mr. Kirby brought me to Holborn Viaduct; I remember it was the day after the C.I.V.'s went through; he met me at the Caledonian Club; I remember he telephoned down to me; it would be the autumn of 1900, after the return of the troops—the first transaction I did with you was the purchase of 1,000 Construction shares; that was the very first meeting. I think, when you told me about the company—it was not in the sense of a cash sale—I did not pay you £1,000—I do not know if you ever sold your Construction shares to anybody for cash; I have no recollection of it—I never knew you ask anybody to put money into the Construction Company—the Street Company had certain men as engineers—I was chairman, and there were certain eminent engineers who joined us in the formation of the Street Company, Sir Frederick Bramwell, Sir William Preece, and Major Cardew—Major Cardew used to be electrical engineer to the Board of Trade; he was with Sir William Preece; he had been for many years advising electrician to the Board of Trade—you could not possibly get the co-operation of a greater or more reliable man—Sir

W. Preece was the Government electrical engineer; he was the head of the Post Office, the technical part of it, for many years; you could not possibly have obtained the co-operation of a better man, not one known better—you and I met him many, many times—Thomas Parker is of Wolverhampton and London; he is probably one of the most eminent engineers in the construction of railways and tramways; he acts for the Metropolitan District, I believe, or the Metropolitan Railway Company—at the time we formed this company there was a very large project which we hoped to be engaged in through Thomas Parker and Mr. Macrae, the electrification of the Metropolitan Railway—I remember going to breakfast many times at Mr. Maerae's—Mr. Parker was acting for the Metropolitan Railway—I do not remember that Mr. Parker was selected as the arbiter in the dispute between the Metropolitan District and the Metropolitan; I know he had a great deal to do with it—I do not think that men of that sort would all join together with us for a mere device, to put money into your pocket—Mr. Macrae at that time when we were forming this Street Company was himself in daily consultation as far as we knew with the Metropolitan Railway for a great scheme in connection with this electrification—I have not seen you since the last Police Court proceedings—if Mr. Macrae and Mr. Thomas Parker, Sir W. Preece and Major Cardew had brought about the project that they were then engaged upon, the Street Company ought to have been a very rich company to-day—I was chairman—the idea was that, instead of the electrification being done in America, as it is now being done, it was to be done in London, under Thomas Parker, our engineer; under the Ganz system, which would have brought us lots of money; that was the expensive arbitration that was curried out afterwards between the Metropolitan Railway Company and the District Railway Company, about two years ago, to settle which system was to be adopted, and Mr. Parker lost it; if he had won thousands of men would to-day be employed on this very project—I should have had nothing to do with you if I had had any suspicion that it was a mere device for putting money into your pocket—the solicitors of the Street Company were Messrs. Lumley & Lumley; the directors left to them the drawing up of the papers; Mr. Harper, one of the partners, acted—they took counsel's opinion on everything, and they were very, very particular about it—a very respectable firm of brokers was employed and put on the prospectus, well-known stockbrokers, bur I had "Forgotten that—as chairman I allowed this prospectus to be used, and on it it says that sufficient working capital had already been guaranteed: I "Understood that was the case, and that is why we knew, before the company went to allotment, that it would certainly go to allotment: the working capital was guaranteed—I believe that the profit which we made was all paper, all shares—I think that the inventions of Thomas Parker, electrician and electrical engineer of the Metropolitan Railway, would be likely to prove of value—Thomas Parker, of Wolverhampton, is paying large regular dividends, and he has a very prosperous company indeed: the Elwell Parker Company it is called—that was founded by him, and he was engineer to it at this time—I think he was engaged at that time in bringing out an altogether new system of electrical

traction, which was put in our prospectus—I gather that I went down to Wolverhampton; I have been to the Wolverharnpton works several times, but whether I went down on that occasion I do not remember—knowing him to be what he was, and knowing that his works in Wolverhampton and his business paid so uncommonly well (it states on the front page of the prospectus what the dividend was), we were perfectly justified in believing that we had got a good thing—I do not remember if the Midland Syndicate was one of Thomas Parker's syndicates—we made all our paper, or most of it, our shares that we had to take for profit in the flotation of this Street Company, all deferred scrip—that was the suggestion of Mr. Macrae, who was the proprietor of the "Financial Times"; lie subscribed, or underwrote, £10,000 in the company—he came out on morning with an article in which he put this scheme at full length in the "Financial Times," the ordinary shares being made deferred shares, so as to give subscribers an advantage over our paper that we had to take as our paper profit—the Construction Company had to take this paper profit, and we willingly stood behind and let the public come in first if there was any dividend—there is nothing very fraudulent in that—the company had a half share in the Walthamstow Railway: that was the arrangement made—I was chairman of the promoters of the Walthamstow Railway, therefore I knew every single thing about it—we started this work of running this Bill in Parliament, and with the money we got from the Street Company the Construction-Company began to run this Bill—the Walthamstow Railway was the most beneficent scheme and project that could possibly be suggested for Bethnal Green and East London, owing to the overcrowded condition of the population there; it was part of our idea that we should have halfpenny electric fares for the poor people, to take them right out into the country, where they could get cheap dwellings; of the various Bills that were being promoted at the rime it was well known that the City and North East Suburban Railway was the pick of them all—I, with the other gentlemen whose names were in the Bill, signed a small trust deed by which the Bill was the property of the Construction Company, and the Construction Company agreed with the Street Company that half of it belonged to them: that is my recollection—Mr. Walter Webb drew it—the original, if I remember, was with Messrs. Walter Webb & Company, and it would be a copy with the Construction Company—the Street Company put in £2,700 towards the promotion of the Bill—our expenses would not come to £5,000 in January, 1901—nobody else had any interest in it but us until a long time afterwards—Mr. Wack put £1,000 in; that must have been in 1902; I cannot recollect if by that time our two companies had paid Mr. Webb alone about £17,500; I know there was a great deal of money paid over to him—my recollection is that we had paid for costs in this Bill at the time 1'ierpoint Morgan came in, two years afterwards, well over £20.000—I believe up to the time that Morgans came in others had foundfunds for The promotion, other than the Construction Company, the Street Company, and the Founders' Syndicate—I recollect this American, Mr. Wack—two or three others came in; Mr. Webb brought in several people to help—I think there was somebody else who put money in; I cannot recollect

who it was; those other persons did not put so much money in as Mr. Week: I remember Mr. Webb said he had found somebody to put some more money in—my recollection is that the Construction Company and the Street Company practically owned this Bill proportionately between them; that is also with the Street Company including the Founders' Syndicate: they were part owners too—this is a copy of the bill: it say: The Company incorporated; Sir James Kenneth Douglas Mackenzie, Bart., of Tar bat, Henry William Tigwell, Nathaniel Fortesque, Edward Thomas Heed, and Gerald Ward Martin: those were the original promoters of the Bill—a trust deed was signed saving that you were the owners of the Bill; whether all signed it or not I do not know, but at any rate the necessary quorum signed it: I recollect the deed quite well—the proposed capitalization was over three millions—I do not recollect what Sir Douglas Fox swore before the House of Lords what the profit would be; it is a big sum of money; 10 per cent., I think, would be allowable on a matter of that nature; it would be a most moderate profit—10 per cent, on the cost of construction in this case would have been at any rate £'500,000—I think it was, 3 1/2 millions for building the line—if there is an excessive profit the Bill is thrown out; it is one of the objections to it—in this case we should have had over £'500,000 profit", probably—I think Sir Clinton Dawkins stood up in that Committee and gave evidence that he would find over two millions of the money—he represented J.S. Morgan k Co.; it was really a guaranteed undertaking—I know Walter Webb's signature—(letter read): "To Charles Osborne, secretary. Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited, "54, Victoria Street. Dear Sir. City and North East Suburban Electric Railway. We enclose you the estimate lodged on the 31st ult. As you know, the deposit has to be made on the 13th inst., namely 3 per cent, on £-1,950,000, that is £97,300 has to be paid as a deposit in respect of Bill Xo.1"; we had two bills; there was another one brought in afterwards;"3 per cent, on the second Bill, namely, on £966,202, being £48,.'511, total deposit £143,811"—that was the total deposit we had to lodge in cash in the Bank of England; and we did it; I was one of the signatories—"The Alliance Insurance Company, as we have informed you, have agreed to advance the amount upon the same terms as last year ": we had been through it all once before: "namely 2 per cent, and the usual brokerage. Tin's will amount to a little over £'5.000, which you will let us have in due time. We enclose you two more copies of the hand map ": as a matter of fact, with the brokerage it cost us nearly £3,000 each time simply for the loan of the money—I do not recollect if I went with you and saw Mr. Pierpoint Morgan's private solicitor in New Inn: Mr. Webb saw the City. Morgan's solicitor, the City house—this railway would have given us a profit of £00,000; we should have had no difficulty afterwards with Morgan's guarantee: we could get the rest, because it would be debentures—we came up at two Sessions for certain, and then it was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament: that Taint Committee had all the tube railways in London brought before it, and after much cross-examination and any amount of hard work day and night, they threw out the majority of the railways

except ours—I do not remember if the Lord Mayor of London, the Bishop of London, and the Corporation of the City of London all supported our view; it had very great support: I do not remember who supported it—we all felt and expressed the opinion that it was almost an iniquity that this railway was thrown out, because it would have relieved the whole of those ten people in the room business in Bethnal Green; it was more the Great Eastern Railway and the North London Railway, who admitted at the time they were unable to cope with the traffic, and we afterwards bad their support; of course it was not really a tube railway; if was only a tube for a short service, then it became an ordinary electric railway; that was why it was to be built cheaply—if we had succeeded the British Electric Street Company shareholders would have had a good dividend; they would have had about £150,000 profit, and I should say (he Construction Company would have had £l. 0,000 profit, probably, and this prosecution would hardly have taken place—I believe that this railway belonged to the company and to the British Street Company; I believe the two companies were jointly interested in the concern—the books only show about £2,700 paid by the Street Company—the money did not come from Mr. Webb—when the company had not got any money you constantly put up your own cheque for £1,000, and Mr. Webb has had dozens of your cheques—I did not know any of the details of the Construction Company until a day before the dinner; of course I heard of it ever since I met you—the letters show that I wrote to you asking that I might have an interest in the great tramway scheme at Blackpool—I went down with you and Mr. Osboroe to Blackpool: I remember riding on the top of the old-fashioned gas tramway with you and Mr. Osborne—I do not recollect that we had our photographs taken on the top—this was when the Construction Company was buying up the shares, or you were buying up the shares for the Construction Company, and the Construction Can any was beginning to find money to maintain the gas tramway—it was run, I believe, by the Construction Company for some time prior to our taking it over for the Blackpool South—I never attended any Board meetings in Blackpool of the old tramway—I believe the Blackpool Company Travel got the new tramway—I do not remember the details of what they have, but I know dividends were paid to them—I signed a lot of dividend warrants for the Blackpool Company; I do not remember what they were—for a little time I was director of the new Blackpool South Company—it was a very respectable, good, sound, solid company, with plenty of money in it—it was brought out by you and the Construction Company; I was not on it when it was brought out, but soon afterwards—I do not know if anybody but you and the Construction Company and the underwriters ever brought out or promoted this Blackpool Company—Mr. Hunter was the dominant power in the Construction Company at that time; he was a very active director, and did most of everything; he was really chairman of the company, and that is why I wrote to him that, letter which was read; it is a most unfortunate thing for us that he is dead and unable to be present—I do not know that no shareholder has given up a shilling, and float the capital of the Blackpool Company has not been reduced with the exception that all the unissued shares, and

those that the Construction Company took up, those that we had coming to us fully-paid paper, had been written off—I relied to a certain extent on what Mr. Hunter told me—I do not remember that we ever issued to the public any document of any sort or kind with my name as chairman unless it was. In connection with some of the Nottingham Bills, but there were no circulars sent round except the dinner invitation; no application to the public that I know of—it never has been offered to the pubic; it has never been floated or brought out in the ordinary way—relieve has never been any public money subscribed to my knowledge in the Construction Company for shares: I have always believed the Construction Company was a private concern altogether—when I first saw you the subscribed working capital of the Construction Company had been supplied solely by you: Colonel Harris put £2.10 in, but you have done all the work of the Construction Company—my name was never used publicly and there are no public in it—I never knew you to be in a fiduciary relation to the Board, acting under the instructions of the Board and acting as a paid manager you were never a servant nor a paid manager—you worked these schemes up and brought them to the Construction Company, and made proposals and propositions to take them over—I know that you are a member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and would be fairly entitled to charge the Construction Company and send in an account for any work you did, although it is like charging yourself, in one way; still, for the purpose of formal, regular order and book keeping, there ought to be some record—I do not know of any creditors of the Construction Company—as a professional engineer you are entitled to send in a bill in the ordinary way—if I brought you a proposition, with £100,000 capital, it would be perfectly lawful that you should have a share for the introduction of the business—I suppose almost half the City make their livelihood out of commissions for the introduction of business—I should charge as much as I could get from you for commission, but I should say at any rate 10 per cent.; that would be 10 per cent, on £100,000—I consider, as a civil engineer, that a man is lawfully entitled, and has a lawful right, to charge a syndicate or a company £10,000 for introducing a £100,000 project or scheme, if it is a good business; of course it is not an engineer's fees, an engineer does not make 10 per cent.: but it is commonly paid, and if they agree to it that is sufficient; it may not be payable in cash, if it is a success it would be—if the company take it over it is a common practice to say: "If you adopt my scheme I shall want so much down in cash and the balance when it goes through, "otherwise you would be tying it up, and would get nothing for it and perhaps lose the scheme for nothing—you had a right to do the same thing with the Construction Company—usually, with a £100,000 scheme, company promoters would make about 25 per cent, profit; you would not get anybody in the City to take it up unless it shows about 25 per cent, profit—we should expect the man who brought it to us was honestly entitled to at least £10,000 out of it, especially If he had devoted time and given work to it: a mere commission agent would not get that—if you had sent an account at that time on to the Electric Tramways Company, properly made out on the rate I have said, you

would have been entitled to have received a very-large sum of money, much larger than anything they have ever paid you—the Blackpool shares were selling at that time at a good price, and the company had made over £100,000—that is my recollection—therefore you were entitled to a good share of that profit—if you had not held 50,000 shares you would have wanted to have been paid, and if they had not paid you, and you had sued them in the ordinary way, you would have got it—I suppose you introduced Thomas Parker to the company; nobody else, to my knowledge introduced the Street Car Company of Wolverhampton—you would do entitled to charge for many interviews and negotiations in going down to Wolverhampton, paying the railway fare out of your own pocket, staying in the hotel, and seeing all the different people in the Car Company, and for introducing buyers of shares of the Street Company—if you sold 20,000 shares you would be entitled to charge a commission—you would be entitled to charge for introducing the Exeter Tramways, and for interviews, hotel and travelling expenses to Exeter, and living there for a week, introducing and negotiating the formation of the new Exeter Tramways, and attending town councillors' meetings in Exeter—I saw the town clerk and the council men—you would be entitled to charge for arranging with local authorities, selecting the route, surveying, meeting landowners, engineers, Parliamentary agents, solicitors, commissions paid, all those sort of things—I cannot answer yes or no as to 10 per cent, on the introduction of the scheme or project: that would naturally depend upon their amount—whatever the out-of-pocket expenses came to you would be entitled to charge a fair price for—the Electric Tramway Construction Company was not sham two years ago—it is not true to say that it never had a penny, that it has not a penny, that it never could have a penny, and that I never will have a penny—I know Mr. Cotterel, the engineer; his valuation as to what this Blackpool reconstruction was to cost was greatly in excess of what Mr. Nevins estimated—I met Mr. Nevins; he was an Irishman and a very jolly fellow; he had a great experience of tramway building; he was a well-known man in New York, and had a large business there—we were not obliged to be bound by Cotterell's estimate—if we could build it any cheaper so much the better for us, and all the profit over the actual cost of building the tramway, and the £5,000 working capital, and the obtaining of the old company would belong to the Construction Company, if that were the terms of the arrangement—I do not know if at the time of the dinner no balance-sheet had been got out; I never saw one—when I was discussing as to what the announcement, was I was going to make at the dinner I wasn't basing my estimate upon any figures in a balance-sheet—you told me that you were going to declare a dividend of 12 per cent., and that you would be glad if I would do it for you; you were responsible if it was based upon only an estimate that we had heaps of money—I suppose Hunter and the other directors who talked of the matter were estimating that we had plenty of money—to pay 12 per cent, would cost about £6,000 on the capital—when I stood up at that-dinner I said there was close upon £1 Of),000 capital, and the vouchers for that sum I had seen, or approximately that sum—they were shown to me—I have a recollection

of seeing two bankers' slips, but I cannot remember the exact amount in them—I know the contention of the prosecution is that I made a statement which was fraudulently misleading when I said "close upon £100,000"; but it is four-fifths, £1,000, just over four-fifths—it is quite enough to have paid the dividend, which is all I had to look to—I cannot see anything materially misleading in using the words close upon £100,000—£70,000 was the only amount we had to pay Nevins for constructing the line, and that left £11,000 and some shares, therefore £81,000 left a margin of £11,000; so that even if no more money had come in there was enough to have paid the dividend—the application form says: "I undertake to pay up the rest of the subscriptions"—I was not leading people to believe that we had a great deal more money than we really had; I was not leading them astray—I never said there was £100,000 free cash—I understood at the time what money was there was free to be dealt with, and certainly £6,000 could he had, and it did not state when the dividend would be paid—there is no statement in the speech that it would be paid this week or next—at the police court I said it was available for the purposes of the company, but one of the purposes of the company was building the tramway, therefore the whole £100,000 would be available for the purposes of the company, and for the payment of the dividend only £6,000 was wanted—we considered we were entitled to draw on the money that came in from the Blackpool Company, because all the shares and debentures we were selling belonged to us, and we had them in our office—I have a recollection of hour saving that you had money, cash in hand at any rate available: I do not recollect whether you said it came from the Blackpool subscriptions—I have a recollection of a meeting having been called at the Cannon Street Hotel, but when I do not remember; it must have been after the dinner, because the dinner was so soon after I came to the company—I do not recollect that you had found out that Mr. Rutherford had never been authorised by the Blackpool Trams to insist upon an agreement being drawn between you and Rutherford and the directors of the Construction Company—I do not remember anything of the meeting—this agreement was entirely set aside, and there was a mutual arrangement ending amicably, and Rutherford and you and all of us shook hands, and everything went on as merry as a marriage bell; but that was subsequent; there were several meetings—I do not know the builders of the present Blackpool line—I know Chad well—I do not know that you got him to build the present line and arrange the contract.—I do not know whether the share moneys were absolutely free for the payment of the dividend; I do not know one way or the other, but I know this, that Mr. Hunter surely would have told me: he knew the ins and outs of the company far better than I did, and had there been anything of that kind he would have warned me against it and told me of it, I should think—I remember attending a meeting when the final settlement with the Blackpool Company was come to at 3i, Victoria Street—I think it was a final one—I remember it lasted about two days, or a day and a night—I think there were seven or eight solicitors present—at that final settlement cheques were given both for and against, and everything was cleared up and each one paid over, and there was a small

balance which came to us, and the thing was amicably arranged—the shareholders in the Blackpool Company did finally get their tramway, I believe; I do not know; I have never been to Blackpool since, so I cannot say very positively about it—seeing that we raised the capital to form the company, and got the tramway built, that is in my mind sufficient for our company to do, except to please the shareholders by paying a dividend—I do not know when it was completed—as a rule, tramways run for nine months to twelve before they pay dividends—if it never pays a dividend I should say we have robbed nobody if we have carried out our business in a legal and proper man from all that I know of the business it has been done properly—on the night of the dinner the company was going on most: buoyantly and prosperous—about £150,000 profit would have come to the Street Company—I think, if I remember the speech I made then, I said that I went on the Board of that Railway Company for the benefit of the Street Company; that was one of my main objects in joining Walter Webb, so as to have a control over the Walthamstow Railway Bill—at that time, when the dinner was on, the Street Company had every prospect of pulling off the big coup—in September, 1901, there was no reason for our wrong down the shares of the Street Company as being of small value, to my knowledge; I do not know what the financial position of the Street Company was at that moment—I knew of the railway; we had that asset—with that asset in the coffers there was no reason why we should say that we had lost the money or that the shareholders had lost the money, or that we should write down these things as money lost—I cannot express any opinion as to the value of the Street Company shares in September, 1901—the railway was certainly strong at that time—I do not remember now what was the reason of my resignation, except it was after my letter to the secretary; after that interview with Mr. Hunter we decided that we should and ought to have a meeting called; no meeting was called, and I think shortly after I sent in my resignation; I do not remember any further meetings or discussions about it—I did Not send it in because I thought something suspicious was going on with the Construction Company, but being in the position of a director, and knowing nothing about it, I thought I had better be relieved of that responsibility, whatever it amounted to, and that is why I left; I do not know if Mr. Hunter left about the same time; I think so—there was no row; there never had been any row or any reflection on the company that I know of, except that we thought we ought to have some information, being in a responsible position—I do not know if the Blackpool Company-was on at the time of the dinner—I cannot tell you where you were at that time; it is possible you were in the North of England—I do not remember that the Company involved an enormous amount of trouble, running about, and all that sort of thing—I remember what the secretary had to do, Mr. Osborne: there was a great deal to do—if we had available cash, and had seen the bankers' slips, and all that sort of thing was in my knowledge, it would seem very strange and would cause a great deal of suspicion that we should be unable to pay £2,000 or £3,000 to Hooley if we owed it—there are many syndicates, with heaps of money who are quite willing to renew on terms, as well as private people: the only thing starling

when speculating in these Orders would lie with the lender of the money—it Hooley was willing to renew at a fee there was nothing suspicious about it—the name of Lot Craven seem familiar to me, hut I never saw him I have heard of the Ito Holdsworth it Taylor and Burn & Berridge were the solicitors for the Ito—I do not know that the Ito is Lot Craven and Lot Craven is the Ito in the same sense that you are the Construction and the Construction is you—what it meant to imply is, suppose, that they have raised £30,000 from Lot Craven, which is the same thing as raising £30,000 from the it Syndicate—not locked up in it, part of it free, because we had close upon £100,000, and over £100.001) coming in, which did finally come in—there is no reason why we should refuse £30,000 cash to be paid in—I may have heard of the Leeds and Wakefield Company, floated by the Ito Syndicate—I do not know it—I have heard that the Leeds and Wakefield has been established recently—I know that this very same deal ultimately led to the Leeds and Wakefield being opened a few weeks ago—I do not think I have ever come across reports of my speech in other people's hands—I do not recollect them—I never saw them in anybody else's hands but ours—none of the projects which I spoke of at the meeting could have been built-for less than £100,000, capitalized anyhow; if' none of them could be built under £300,000 or £400,000, there would be a very large profit on that—the Blackpool railway was ours, and the Leeds and Wakefield is ours—I thought there was a great deal of value in certain of the tramways that you had—I made you the proposition that if you would give me the option for a certain time of a block of these tramway shares, I thought I knew where the money Could found for them—this is a list of the Orders that I took with me to Messrs. Norton, Rose and Norton—there are more here than I had—there were about sixteen or seventeen altogether—there are twenty-seven here—it was a-list, like this that I took of our Construction Tramways to Messrs. Norton, Rose and Norton—I saw Mr. Turton Norton, the senior partner, and told him about the connection with you, and that I had got from you an option of these tramways, and asked him whether he could finance them, knowing he acts for big firms and for very big people in the City—he told me that he thought he could—I gave him a list, and he instructed Mr. Farish, one of his partners, to go thoroughly into the whole thing on their behalf, and Mr. Farish, I think, came down to your office once or twice aid went into these matters and made a report to Messrs. Norton, Rose and Norton—I understood everything was in perfect order, and that they were ready to carry it through, but Mr. Norton wrote to me and asked me to get the matter held over for a little, owing to the illness of his client—after waiting, I think, for a fort night, my recollection is that you would not give me any longer time and I lost the deal with Mr. Norton—that was, I should think, early in 1002—Mr. Norton took a good deal of trouble with it—I had a dozen meetings I should think—he went into it very thoroughly, and flint satisfied me at the time that those properties were in hand, but it was a £300,000 syndicate ho was gainer to find, and you, if I remember, wanted £300,000 cash for it—they seriously entertained it and thought it was

a fair bargain; that was the basis of the arrangement—they are a very big firm, and I think they act for the Morgans as well as Sir Ernest Cassels—I had a great many meetings with Mr. Farish, and they, because we could not wait any longer, they went on with the Ito—I know I was very disappointed at the time—we went with the Ito on the Leeds and Wakefield deal.

Re-examined. Lawson gave me the option that I got for these schemes—I arranged with him as the Construction Company, and at the Construction Company's offices—that was his own place and the British Street Tramways—I cannot answer if it was Lawson's office, as his name is not there—it was the British Street Trains' name on the board—I did not see anybody else to get an option from but Lawson—I did not give him anything for it—no, it was a dry option—it was in writing—I considered he was authorised to deal, certainly, and he satisfied Mr. Farish that he was authorised to deal—this was after I had become a director—I think Larvson signed the option—I have it put away somewhere—I know his writing—the writing on the back of this cheque looks like Fish—from October, 1901, the Construction Company would be justified if they had £100,000 to deal with, to borrow from Mr. Lot Craven £30,000 for six months—it might have a few deals on—I think any company would be justified in declaring a dividend under such circumstances—I think any company is justified in declaring a dividend out of loose cash, borrowing £30,000 with a bonus of £lo,000 for six months, with £80,000, and the dividend only coming to £6,000—I do not know anything about Lot Craven—I do not know whether they were borrowing money from him, whether I was a director or not—I was the chairman of the company, and ready, of course, to do my duty as an honourable man—I certainly did not know of the loan of £30,000—I know the handwriting of Thomas and Hunter, the directors, and of Osborne, the secretary—I see those names on me agreement dated October 1st, 1901, between the Construction Company o? the one part, and Lot Craven, of Bradford, of the other part, and it says: "Memorandum of agreement made the first day of October, 1901, between the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited (hereinafter called the contractors), of the one part, and Lot Craven, of Bradford, in the County of Yorkshire, of the other part here by it is agreed as follows: (1) The contractors hereby charge all their interest in the Orders already granted and now Her subject of application to the Light Railway Commissioners for the construction of tramways between Leeds and Wakefield and Dewsbury District to secure repayment to the said Lot Craven of the sum of £10,000 advanced by the said Lot Graven to the contractors (the receipt whereof the contractors hereby acknowledge), together with the further sum of £20,000 to be advanced as hereinafter provided. (2) The said Lot Craven will pay to the contractors the further sum of £20,000 within fourteen days from the date hereof. (3) In consideration of the said advances the contractors hereby agree that they will repay to the said Lot Craven the sum of £30,000 in cash, together with a bonus of £15,000 in castle on or before the first day of May, 1902. As further security for the said £30,000, and bonus of £15,000, the contractors will charge all

the cash subscriptions to be received by them in respect of the sale of debenture stock", ordinary and preference shares of a company to be formed for the purpose of acquiring the benefit of the said Orders, and for carrying the same into effect as a first charge for the repayment of the advances and bonus. (5) The contractors agree with the said Lot Craven that they will procure substantial underwriting for at least £100,000 of debenture stuck, ordinary and preference shares of the new company, and will also charge such underwriting with the repayment of the said advances and minus—I do not think I was present at the meeting, because I never heard of Lot, Craven—the Construction Company had agreed to defer their shares to get 5 per cent.—prospectively they were worth something—I cannot say how much—I suppose the Street Company on September 20th, when I made that speech, had a shilling—they had not-spent their money—I was not a director of it, so I cannot say—I do not know what had become of all the money that had been subscribed by the public—I know what became of the money when I was a director of the company—it had gone in the various projects; for example, the Exeter, and payment to the Construction Company and various things: expenses—there was a tidy sum left when I left the company—I said that they had a very valuable asset in the Walthamstow Railway—I valued their interest at about a half—it ought to have been £100,000 or £150,000, it it went through—I do not know that I am asked to say what I should have valued it at—on the assets not what was in the bank—the value of the shares are not represented by that—at that time there was every probability of getting the Bill—if you want to know what the betting was I should say it might have been two to one—it is hard to say what the value of the interest of the Street Company at that time was—I should think they certainly ought to have had £50,000—it is the first time that I have heard that on March 8th, 1902, the Street Company gave an option to the Construction Company to purchase the whole of their interest for ' £5,000, and only charged them fifty guineas for it—this minute says: "A. letter dated March the 18th was read, which had been received from the Electric Construction and 'Maintenance Company, Limited, asking for a three months' option to purchase this company's interest in the City and North East Suburban Electric Railway Bills at the price of £5.000, thus showing in the event of the option being exercised a profit, of 100 per cent"—that shows that they valued it at more than £10,000; it was half—"after due consideration it was resolved to Currant an option provided they agreed to pay to this Company the sum of fifty guineas for same, and the secretary was authorised to sign a letter giving the option on receipt of a letter from them agreeing to those terms"—I say that somebody not a good bargain—as a director in the Blackpool Tramway Company I drew some cheques for dividends—I signed a number—I must have been one afternoon signing dividend warrants—the line was not running then—my name was never used in connection with the company, I think to my knowledge, except at the dinner—I knew my speech was published in the "Financial News"—I did not know who made arrangements for the publication of that—it was a Press dinner—Press and engineers.

DAVID PERCY LAWRENCE . I am a clerk to James William Vickers advertising agent and contractor, of 5, Nicholas Lane, Lombard Street—our firm had instructions to have a report taken of a dinner at the Hotel Cecil, on September 20th, 1901, and to cause it to be published—I think the instructions came over the 'phone—we carried. out those instructions, and sent instructions to the papers to send their reporters there—we received this cheque on account on November 25th, 1901, drawn by H.J. Lawson, payable to our firm for; £200—we had several items out against the Electric Tramways Construction Company that paid nothing-in particular—it was in respect of the dinner, and also in respect of advertising work done for the Construction Company—the figure in respect of advertising the speech at the dinner was £108 8s. 3d.

Cross-examined by Lawson. It is quite usual matter for us to report dinners and shareholders' meetings—I was given to understand the message came on the telephone—I do not know if they could tell whose voice it was—I cannot remember if the Construction Company had reports of other meetings—there is nothing unusual in it—I cannot say, but I should say there was more than £200 owing at that time besides the amount for the dinner—I am not sure.

CHARLES EDWIN FILBY . I am a journalist, of 7, Brake spears Road, St. John's, and am on the staff of the "Financial News"—under instructions I attended a dinner at the Hotel Cecil, on September 20th, 1901—I Heard a speech there made by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie—I did not take a note of the speech itself, I think it was supplied to me afterwards—I cannot remember at this time who supplied it to me—rill handed it in at the office of the "Financial News"—I produce a copy of the issue of the paper of the following Monday, September 23rd, Exhibit 125.

JAMES WATSON MILLS . I am a member of the staff of the "Financial Times," living at 13, Cheverton Road, Hornsey Lane—I attended a dinner at the Hotel Cecil on September 20th, 1901, and reported a speech then made by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie—that report appeared in the issue of the paper on the following Monday, September 23rd—I produce a copy.

CHARLES WILLIAM COOP . I am a journalist on the staff of "The Statist" newspaper, and produce a copy of the issue of "The Statist" newspaper of September 28th, 1901—it contains a report of a speech delivered by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie at the Hotel Cecil, on September—20th—I received instructions with regard to that matter from Lawson—I received the first instructions from the secretary of the company, Mr. Osborne; the payment for that insertion was 20 guineas, which was arranged with Lawson; it was a five column report at four guineas a column—I produce the order under which this "was done, Exhibit 142, dated September 26th, 1901: "Dear Sirs,—Please insert full report of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's speech at the dinner of the Electric Tramway Construction, etc., Company, Limited, in your next issue, to occupy columns at the rate of £1000 is per column"—it is initialled by Lawson—the first order is signed "C. Osborne"; that is one column at four guineas, and after that the order was extended to 20 guineas, and initialed by Lawson.

Cross-examined by Lawson. This was the first time I had seen you personally—I do not know that it was a common practice for the "Statist" to require your initials, but I think it was so—this was a limited company, and therefore we wished to have your initial to guarantee it.

By the COURT: We were paid by me Construction Company.

ALFRED THOMAS CAMDEN PRATT . I am on the staff of the "Financier and Bullionist"—I attended a dinner at the Hotel Cecil on September 20th, 1901, and reported the speech made by Sir Kenneth Mackenzie that appeared in the issue of our paper which I produce dated September 23rd, 1901—I do not know personally who paid for it—it is similar to the report in the "financial News" and "financial Times"; I and the "Financial Times "reporter collaborated in the report.

By the COURT. There is nothing to show that it is an advertisement; that never is done.

JOHN FREDERICK DICKSON . I am the secretary of the Dublin Distillers' Company—they have their offices at Thomas Street, Dublin—that company—was incorporated in 1889 with a capital of about £1,100,000—as regards the ordinary shares of that company they are £5 shares fully paid; no dividend has been paid on them since September 30th, 1893: the preference shares have not paid any dividend since June 30th, 1900; they paid 3 per cent, for the six months—I have got here the register of transfers of the company in November, 1900: Mrs. Hooley had as registered owner in the company 1,200 shares; on November 20th she had 1,200 ordinary shares standing to her credit; she afterwards acquired others—there were no transfers in the office in November; we did not receive a transfer until December 17th; I think that was the date; as a matter of fact, on November 24th there was a transfer for 300 shares sent from Mr. James Arnold Bradshaw, and it was received by me on the 26th—the date on the transfer was November 14th—there were shares subsequently registered in her name, which brought the total up to 2,320—I have not made out what is the consideration in the transfers for that number: she bought them at various prices: the amount she received for them would be £1,026; she sold them at various dates; she commenced selling about October, 1900, and she cleared them off by selling to a Mr. Francis Kedfern, on March 12th 1903—I do not find that any of her shares were transferred into the name of Lawson or Ormerod: the transfer is registered with us on December 17th from Ross and others to Mrs. Hooley, the consideration for that was £225 for 300 ordinary shares: that would be 13s. apiece—there is another, on November 20th to McCormack of Donegal; those were 50 ordinary shares for £37 10s.—there is another of the same date: Henry Richard Glynn, of Kilrush, to Mrs. Hooley, 100 shares for £75.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Shares are often transferred without our knowing anything about it; the transfers are only lodged with us for the purpose of registration in the register, and issuing a certificate by us: again and again there are a number of transfers that take place Maintains before we got to the registration of one—sales from one to the other before somebody requires to have it registered—the registration is not a proof of what shares a person may hold or may be entitled to—

although person is only on the register for a certain number of shares there may nave been a larger number transferred to him: as an instance, in November Mrs. Hooley had only 1,200 to her credit, but as an actual fact she had 1,300—I was called at the Police Court to prove that she only appeared in the register for 1,200, whereas she purported to transfer 1,500—if it had stopped there she was purporting to transfer more than she had—my attention was called that there had been a transfer of 300 more which had not been registered in our book at the time—that once and for all disposes of the point that she had not the shares she purported to sell in November, 1900, and proves conclusively that she had those shares which she purported to sell, and that she was capable of transferring those 1,500 shares as she had purported to do; she purchased 150 shares for £155 12s. from Carson, of Dublin: he was a gentleman who apparently managed to get the best price for his shares.

Friday, December 2nd, 1904.

SIR HENRY WHITE . I am a solicitor, practising at 14, Great Marlborough Street—I have known Hooley eight or ten years; in September, 1900, I advanced him £2,000 by way of loan—this is the cheque for 1950; I do not quite recollect how the odd £50 was made up—it is dated September 13th, 1900, pay to J.A. Bradshaw or order £1, 950, and it is endorsed by J.A. Bradshaw and paid into the National Provincial Bank of England, Limited, Piccadilly Branch; that is Mr. Ormerod's account—in September, 1901, that sum of £2,000 was still owing to me—the prospectus and the report of the speeches produced were shown to me by Hooley: I cannot say when—I was pressing him to repay the £2,000 which he owed, and he brought to my notice this Construction Company, which he thought was a very good tiling, and said if I would take 2,000, he thought he could get them for me; he then produced some plans and a list of the concessions of the company—I read in Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's speech the statements about the dividend and bonus, and the balance of £100,000 at the bank—I believed those statements—the first lot of shares I bought was a lot of £2,000—this is the transfer of 2,000 shares, September 24, 1901—I accepted these shares in satisfaction of the debt—this transfer dated September 11, 1901, from H.J. Lawson to Mr. Bradshaw is a transfer of all those shares identified by the same numbers—on the transfer to Bradshaw the consideration is stated to be 5s.—on my transfer the consideration is £2,000.

JAMES CUTCIXGHAM (Detective Sergeant G)—I got this letter book from Hooley's office at the Albemarle Hotel.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I first found these books (Produced) on May 10th, 1904, when I arrested Hooley at the Albemarle Hotel, when he was carrying on his business—I seized his books—that was the first notice that was ever given to him of any prosecution as far as I know—I found copy letter books kept such as would be kept in a business, a very large number, some 20 to 30 books, ledgers, and document, a large number of original documents, and press copy letter books, with indexes—one cab was 'sufficient to take them away—I found cash books, pass books, cheque books, paid cheques, counterfoils, and agreements

—I think Hooley assisted us in the search and he handed me over some documents, from his private safe—he assisted in every way—is secretary helped for several hours to take these books, pack them together, and take them away—there was no attempt whatever to conceal any of them—they were taken first to New Scotland Yard—they have been there ever since, and at the Treasury—they were taken from New Scotland Yard to the Treasury—they were at New Scotland Yard some weeks—while they were there they were examined by the Treasury official,—by the police—from there they were taken to the Treasury and there examined by numbers of the officials, I believe—on May 10th. formal evidence of arrest was given—the charge was proceeded with on May 17th and various dates after—I was not always at the Police Court during the hearings before Mr. Fen wick, each being whole days devoted to this case except, the first day, when only formal evidence of the arret as taken—from July 20th there was an adjournment to September 19th, the thirteenth day, and on September '29th, the sixteenth day, of the hearing at the Police Court they were committed—this book called H 4 is the letter book from July 12th to December 5th, 1901: that is marked on it—they are all the same kind of book—there are 1,000 pages here from July 12th to December 5th.

SIR HENITY WHITE (Re-era mined.) I applied for my dividend upon the 2,000 shares and got it—this is a copy of the cheque for £226: I have seen the cheque, and I know it is correct—this is the original cheque, signed by Mr. Thomas and Mr. (Jordon Hunter, directors, and Mr. Osbornc in the secretary, and the counterfoil says: "Dividend on E.T.C. shares"—I bought a second lot of shares of this company from Hooley; I asked him if he could get me some more—this is a transfer dated November 26th 1901: Lawson to Mills 2,500 shares in consideration of £2,500—and this is a transfer dated March 17th, 1902. of 500 shares in consideration of £250 from Frank Mills to Alfred J. Paine—it includes 500 of those shares—I know nothing of them, they are not to me, and I never heard of them: I do not know why I am asked the questions—this is the transfer of December 2nd of 500 shares by Paine to me—that was part of my second purchase of the 1,000 shares from Hooley—there is another transfer dated December 2nd of 500 shares for £500 from H.J. Lawson to me—that was the other half of the 1.000 shares purchased from Hooley, only these transfers seem to have been signed by Mr. Thomas, a third party who is mentioned in the deed, and what his signature is there for I do not know—that was signed after: how I do not know—what I stated at the Police Court was that I was positively certain that I paid £1,000 cash for those shares, but I could not trace the actual cheques themselves—I produced two cheques of about that date, and amounting to very nearly £1.000. and I thought they must be the cheques, because I knew that I had paid cash for them—since then I have had several interviews with a gentleman from the Treasury, and have now found two other cheques—I had a private account with Messrs. Coutts, which I very rarely used; I do not think there were 20 cheques drawn in the last four or five years—I found the two cheques for £500, and both marked "For Electric Trams"—the first one is payable to C. Osborne—it passed through the London

and Provincial Bank, North Finchley—that is Obey Burton's Bank, Hooley's secretary—the second one is dated October 17th, 1901, is payable to J. Sims White, and has passed through Foster's Bank, Cambridge—I have given the Treasury all the letters I have—the meaning of my writing that I would "bring the matter before the Court "was I was very dissatisfied because I could not get my transfers registered and get a certificate—I meant to take proceedings in the Chancery Court against the transferor: that is why I asked at the end of the letter for a full description of my transferor; I have put "transferee "in the letter, but that is a mistake—my shares in the Construction Company Hooley took off my hands for the price I gave for them, because I was very dissatisfied with the Company, and I told him that I did not like the way things were being done, and that they did not seem to be doing anything, and lie said if I was dissatisfied he would take the shares from me for what I gave for them: he offered to do that himself, I never asked him to—he told me he had not got the money at the moment, but if I liked to accept a small estate in Cambridge shire which he had belonging to his wife as payment, he would take the shares as payment for it—I agreed to that—I cannot tell you the actual date of the agreement; I can give you the date of the conveyance of the estate to myself, but there was no written agreement to accept the estate; it was carried out almost immediately afterwards—the date of the conveyance is April 29th, 1903, and the probabilities are that the agreement, which was only verbal, was some time before that: I should have to investigate the title of the estate to see if Mrs. Hooley was entitled to convey it to me—that agreement was probably a month or two before the conveyance—I gave him the certificates, and I signed a blank transfer—I remember Hooley producing this document to me in my office, and he asked me if I had any objection to refuse to sell my shares for six months under a certain price, and I said I had no objection at all—when I signed this document it never struck me that it was a pooling agreement at all;' I simply agreed not to sell for six months; I did not mind that; I was very busy, and I do not suppose I read it all through; it is a pooling agreement, and when I said in my letter to the Construction Company that I had no recollection of a pooling agreement, I had no recollection of this paper at all, and did not it was a pooling agreement: I see on looking at it it amounts to a pooling agreement—if I had had that in my mind I would not have put in my letter of December 26th, "your letter of the 2th inst. is the first. I have heard of any pool": all I remembered was that I had knarred not to sell for six months.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAC. When I asked Mr. Hooley if he could get me 500 more shares he said he would try—he came back some day or two afterwards, I think, and said he had got 1,000—I said I did not want 1,000: I only wanted 300, and "that I agreed to take 500 only; subsequently I said, "If you have had trouble to ret them", I will take the 1,000,"and I took the 1,000, but originally I asked for 500 only—he was not pressing or importuning me to buy shares, with regard to those last 500, certainly not—I thought Electric Tramways a very good investment—there is always more or less in

a company of that kind, in trying to get Acts of Parliament, and to carry through Provisional Orders, necessarily a certain amount of speculation in it—that is just the risk you take—it never struck me, at the moment, that what I signed was a pooling agreement—they sent me a copy of it when I wrote to the secretary, and I saw at once it was a document I had signed, and I quite admitted I had made a mistake, and that it was a pooling agreement—there is the word "pool "in it, I noticed that afterwards—my signature appears to lie after the signature of Mr. Paine, who signed, according to that, on October 14th—I signed on October 15th—Paine's signature was there when I signed it: it. Is above my own, and I would almost swear it was there: I have followed exactly his phraseology in signing it—I got 3,000 shares, for which I released a debt due mini Hooley of £2000, and I had paid £1,000 for 1,000 shares—I have no copies of the letters at-all—I did not treat it as a matter of business: it was a private matter—a general distrust of the undertaking seemed to be growing in my mind, and I told Hooley that I was dissatisfied with it—I thought the shares were not turning out as valuable as expected, and Hooley volunteered to take them back at the price given for them—he suggested it; I was complaining that I thought the thing was a failure and he said he still believed in ft, and if I was dissatisfied he would take them off my hands—it was a verbal agreement between us—I satisfied myself as to the title, and he executed the conveyance in pursuance of his word, cam-ing out the bargain in April, 1903, thirteen months before this prosecution, which was in May, 1904—I have not made any charge against Hooley in connection with the Construction Company's matters, or his sale of shares in it to me; I thought he behaved very well to me: he took them back and gave me what I gave for them—I have not suggested that he has defrauded me—I do not suggest it now—I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which he carried out this transaction: the estate was well worth what I gave for it: I had it valued: there was no suspicion as to over-valuing, because it was valued for mortgage purposes—I never made any suggestion against him at all.

Cross-examined by LAWSON. I do not think I ever saw you before—I have seen A.J. Paine once or twice—I have spoken to him—I have never mentioned these shares or discussed the subject with him—I never heard Paine's name in connection with the Construction Company's shares at all—I did not know he was making £500 profit.—I did not know who my transferor was going to be—I think you may say I do not buy those shares on that circular: my recollection of that circular is that it was shown to me some time after I purchased those shares: I do not like to swear one way or the other: all I can swear is that I saw it, and it was not amongst the documents produced to me on the first occasion—only the plans and concessions were produced, but I did not see that document; when I could not say.

Re-examined. It was not upon the faith of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's speech, or the statement in it, that I bought my first 2,000; I feel satisfied about that—nor do I think you can say the second lot, because I cannot swear when I saw the circular—my impression is that none of my shares were bought upon the faith of the statements shown me by

Hooley, but it is impossible for me to say positively, all I know is when the matter was first mentioned to me the documents produced to me were a list of the concessions and some plans—the first certainly were not, to the best of my knowledge; the second may have been, but I do not think they were; that is all I can say; it is three years ago since I looked at that document; I cannot say when—at the Police Court my memory was not nearly so good, I should think, as it is now, because it was all sprung upon me then, and I had not looked up the documents—that was September 20th, 1904—then I swore "Mr. Hooley said that he would obtain them for me at par, and he did so; before me is the transfer for those 2,000 shares, from Mr. Bradshaw to me, it is dated September 24th, 1901, the consideration is stated to be £2,000: it is executed by me; I cannot say whether the date had been inserted at the time I signed it; before that I had read the statements in the reprint of Sir Kenneth Mackenzie's speech, including the statement as to the dividend and bonus, and the statement that there was a balance of about £100,000 at the bank, and I believed those statements to be true and accurate—I cannot say as to whether I saw that before or after—I swore then to the best of my knowledge—I could not do more; those things were shown me at the Police Court and I was asked to read them and I did read them—when on December 20th, 1902, I wrote to the company: "How is it that a company which in 1901 paid 10 per cent, and carried forward £100,000,"and on the strength of which I purchased my shares, now pays nothing, and the shares are unsaleable?" I think that is a wrong expression, because I do not think I did purchase the shares on the faith of that: I may have done—I wrote "The whole matter is so unsatisfactory that I have decided to bring the whole state of the case before the Courts, as it seems to me the whole action of the company from its very commencement requires investigation."—That depended on whether I could get a satisfactory answer from the secretary—that was my impression at the time; that was my intention—I cannot say what was floating in my mind then—I am a solicitor—I was writing a solicitor's letter to the company putting forward my case—I was dissatisfied, and I simply wrote to the secretary to that effect—I have given you all the answers—I got my certificates after that, and I had great difficulty in getting those—I cannot say what the date was: that was the beginning of the trouble, and then I did not get answers to my letters—at the Police Court I considered to the best of my ability, and refreshed my memory as far as I could, and told the facts as far as I knew them—I had plenty of time—I got an intimation on June 22nd, 1904—I was not examined until September 20th—I do not remember my attention being called to the letter; it may have been—the addition to my statement I take to be the letter of the 18th, which I do not see; this may be correct for aught I know—if you show me the letter of the 15th and the enclosure I may be able to tell you that, but you put these written documents into my hands—I my have never seen it, or I may have seen it: I do not remember, I do not, say I did not—I did not bring the matter before the Court—I suppose I was satisfied—I do not know why—Hooley did not take my shares off my hands as far as I recollect until the beginning of the

next year; this was in December—I was evidently satisfied somehow or another—you have tin cheque before you which drives you the date of the dividend, and you have tin-date when I purchased the other shares; I do not remember the dates—J never made a surjection that I had been defrauded. I am perfectly clear of that: I never mentioned such a thing all I said was it was at his suggestion that I bought, and that he had put me into a bad thing—that is all: I never suggested fraud of any sort, and certainly it was never any suggestion of fraud on my part that induced Hooley to buy the shares.

THOMAS ROBINSON . I am a director of the Robinson Printing Company, of 1, Lombard Court—Lawton is my brother-in-law—our company has done punting for him and for the Construction Company—Exhibit 27 was printed by our company—the order to print it would be given by the Construction Company: I cannot specify any one in person—we do not appear to have any correspondence with regard to the order; many of these instructions came through upon the telephone—I remember very well that we printed this—the order was given, not to me personally, a few days after the meeting—finding that on September 24th, 1901, we are writing sending the proof personally to Lawson does not recall who gave the order; most likely we should have instructions through the telephone to print a certain article which appeared in the "Financial News" of a certain date to put it into type—it is to Lawson we send it, and of Lawson we make the inquiry as to what is to go on the front page with regard to capital—after supplying a few preliminary proofs we printed a thousand copies; the first lot sent, were 250 copies, part of the thousand——there was some error in them, in consequence of which the remaining 750 copies were not delivered; as a matter of fact, they were put amongst out waste paper, 250 copies being delivered about the end of September or the beginning of October—we have our order books where the orders were entered: we have a consignment book; I have not that with me, but from that consignment-book I find that only 250 copies were sent: I cannot tell you when to a day; we made a further delivery upon October 3rd of 50 copies, and evidently it would be between September 23rd and october 3rd—we sent a proof on the 21-th—there was a further consignment of 22."copies sent a few days later, between the 5th and the 10th—the 50 and the 22") which were afterwards sent were a second edition, with the error in the first 250 corrected—the total delivered is 525—I held 50 shares in the Construction Company.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. Referring to the letters, it is clear I cannot, have sent any proof between September 2(th and October 3rd—(fro): "The report of the meeting of the E.T.C. Iv Co. being printed on a very hard paper, we find they are not in a fit condition for folding to-night have, however, specially prepared 50 copies, and forwarded per passenger train, and trust they will reach you early in the morning. We hope to be able to dispatch completion of order to reach you during Thursday or Friday."—the ink would be too wet, therefore we specially prepared 50 copies and kept the balance, which were to be dispatched during Thursday or Friday—this is on very hard paper—I do not think they were used—October 3rd was the first delivery of the new lot, the

corrected lot—I saw the old copies lying about in the company's office in London for some weeks afterwards, in Victoria Street, in a batch, as they had been delivered.

Cross-examined by Lawson. We have printed prospectuses for several large-issuing houses in London for years—when you made a public issue you ordered 200,000 or 300,000 or 400,000; sometimes after ordering, say, 50 or 100 copies, or 200 or 300 copies of a scheme all cut and dried, yon left it and would never on with it—I think you have prepared, a great many prospect uses which you have never completed—I never saw a prospectus like tin's without an application form in it, if it was a prospectus; we always made up an application form and sent it with the prospectus, and if it was a date there would be the date of issue at the top when the lists were opened and when the subscriptions were made, and when it would be closed, generally: not. In the proofs, in the final issue, hut always in the prospectus when it was agreed and passed by the Construction Company—the delivery was stopped, and all the copies that we had were destroyed—the prosecution got nothing from our office—I do not remember seeing the circulars in anyone's hands but the directors of the company and our staff—I understood the thing was discontinued when we put away the type after the final delivery of the 225 copies—when I called at the office to see you I do not think I saw you; I was shown into the secretary's room where Mr. Hunter and Mr. Thomas were; they gave me the circular back with some alterations; whether that was before we printed the final copies or before we printed the first lot, which were wrong, I cannot say—you were not consulted in my presence; I did not see you: I think you were away generally three times out of four that I called at the office—this circular has been raked up although it was destroyed years ago.

LORD JOHN REVELSTOKE . I am one of the directors of Baring Bros. Limited, merchant bankers—our company has had nothing to do with Lawson or the Construction Company with regard to the promotion of any of its schemes.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. I believe Sir Kenneth Mackenzie did come to Bishopsgate Street, but I have no recollection of what occurred; I never looked into any business which he put before me—(Read): "I believe I did have the interview with Sir Kenneth Mackenzie which he Has spoken of in his evidence here. I have read his evidence which he have here; I believe it was a substantially accurate account of the interview which he gave"—that brings it to my mind as far as tile Police Court concerned, and I remember or—it was about October, 1901: I will not be litter sure of the date.

Re-examined. I never looked into any such proposal—I have a very dim recollection because the interview has left no impression on my mind, in I conceive the individual who came to me went away with the impresssion that I was even unwilling to look into the business.

RICHARD HENRY WARD . I am a physician and surgeon, practising at 46, Fetter Lane—I became a director of the Electric Tramway Trust Company, Limited—in the minutes of November 25th, 1901, I see that an agreement "November 6th was signed and executed between the Electric Tramways

Trust, Limited, and the Electric Tramways Construction and Maintenance Company, Limited: it. Is duly signed and witnessed—this agreement purports to be executed by myself and Mr. Kohler, in the presence of Clement Annesley, the secretary—that is duty signature—this is a transfer by the Electric Tramway Trust. Company of 25,000 preference shares in the Construction Company to Lawson executed 1) me—it. Is signed by Mr. Kohler, the secretary, and myself: it is expressed to be in consideration of the sum of "s.—I was present at the meeting on June 3rd, 1902—(Further evidence, on tins point won objected to by Mr. Isaacs, and wan ruled inadmissible by the Court).

HERBERT GEORGE THOMAS . I was appointed by the directors a director of the Electric Construction Company in September, 1900; I cannot-call to mind the names of the directors at the time—I was a director two years and two months; I left in November 1902—this is my signature to this cheque to Sir Henry White as a dividend on his shares—as a director we had announced that we were in a position to pay a dividend of 12 per cent.; I cannot go any further than that—it was announced at the dinner that we were in a position to pay that: it was spoken of generally at the Board meetings—we resolved at our meetings that we were in a position to pay a dividend if necessary—I was never present at any resolution that a dividend should be declared: I was told at Bow Street that a dividend had been declared—my authority for paying £226 of the company's money on that cheque was that the recipient of it was the only man who had ever put any of his own money into the company, and he was deserving of a certain amount of interest—Mr. Paine had not put in any, that I am aware of—Sir Henry White had purchased shares for cash in the company—the company did not get it—I paid Sir Henry White money of the company because Sir Henry White was holding shares in our company, I presume—Mr. Paine held shares; is one of the syndicate that was running the company—Mr. Paine's shares were pooled, I always understood, with Lawson's, and stood with Lawson's shares—this cheque is the 8th October, 1901—I presume the best thing would be to refer to the minute book: I cannot tell you now whether there was a meeting held in that date or not—(Read from the secretary's affidavit): "No dividend or bonus was declared by the said company on the 20th September, 1901, or at any time since then"—I presume lie would not swear an affidavit to that effect unless it was true: I have even' reason to suppose that what lie swore at the time would be true—I have never seen Hooley in our office: if I have never seen him how do I know he went there: he has never been in the office to my knowledge—my name is on this transfer of 500 shares from Lawson to Sir Henry White as passing the transfer in the ordinary formal manner, I suppose a director's duties—there is another signed the same day which does not seem to have anything of the kind on it—I do not find any others—with a similar signature—I do not know how my name came to be there, I am sure—I received my qualification: 200 shares I think the amount was: they were handed to me by Lawson in part consideration of directors' fees and in part consideration of money I had invested in another company with him—in the

Construction Company I received my directors" fees in due course—I got the shares in lieu of the fees; I received the shares in part consideration—I did not get my fees as well in full—there would be a certain amount that was not paid, and it would be written off that; I presume it would go back into the company, so far as I know, in payment for the silages—it is absolutely impossible for me to remember matters of routine three or four years ago—when I left the company, on November 28th, 1902, I did not sell them—I suppose they are still standing to my name in the company's books—I have not been a director since then—I did not get any dividend on the Construction shares; they would be in the pool with the rest of the shares—the reason I did not sell them was because I did not wish to sell them—I had no thought one way or the other whether or not they had any market value at the time—I said in the Police Court, "When I left the company I did not sell them; they had no market value"—possibly they had no market, value—I am quite willing to stand by anything I have sworn—we never applied for a quotation—Lawson's position was the main and only shareholder at that, time, I believe—he would do any work, and for what he did he was in a position to demand what payment was reasonable—I should say there was no arrangement with him; he was a perfectly free agent, I should say—he would be present now and then at the board meetings—he could or could not bring a scheme to the company, just as he Irked, I always understood—the secretary and the clerks carried out the instructions by the Board—the business of the company was'the general promotion of tramway schemes, and things of that sort—Lawson would luring a scheme before the Board and would submit it, and the Board would pass it, and say what was to be done with the thing—when Lawson rough the thing to the company it would be in a cut and dried state—I looked upon him more or less as a shareholder who was following his own money, and was managing his own money—I swore in my deposition, "I always looked upon him also as managing director"; that is quite correct—those were words which were, more or less, put-into my mouth at the time; they are capable of a certain amount of explanation; it is hardly fair to put it into a case of this sort, a criminal trial, that I absolutely looked upon that man as a managing director—I did leave it to Lawson to manage the affairs" of the company, in so far as his own interest was concerned, as he one man who had any hard cash involved in it—I did not say the words were sprung upon me; I adopted them, more or less; a good deal more. I should think, from my experience of it—you have "the minutes, and you know Lawson was never appointed managing director, and Lawson as not managing director—he managed his own money—when I gave the statement I explained particularly to the detectives that I was very un-certain about it, and it was promised that I should have a look through it before the depositions were taken at the Police Court, and then when the police Court proceedings were on I was cross-examined on that without having a chance of looking at it and correcting it—I told them I was uncertain about the facts I was stating there, that the matter was two wars old—I said 'I thought he was a director of the company"—I thought

so at the time, probably—as to advancing money by the company to Lawson, I cannot say anything about that now; I have no recollection of any transaction of that sort—I presume the letter of February 20th, 1900, from Lawson to "The Directors Electric Construction and Maintenance Company Limited "was brought before me—it apparently mean hat the proposal was that fur moneys which the company advanced he was to give either cash or shares as bonus out of his profits from the proposed companies—he was to take the profits of the proposed companies only so far as that letter is concerned: what that letter says of course I cannot go behind—Lawson would have money as he expended it—I really do not know about any particular agreement: we had two or three dozen agreements every week—we borrowed a la rue amount of money from Mr. Lot Craven: I believe £30,000—he got 50 per cent, for the loan: I did not say 50 per cent, per annum: 50 per cent, bonus—in the letter of July 17th we agreed to 100 per cent—he would get his bonus for introducing the loan. I suppose £30,000 or 50 per cent on that, one way or the other—I presume whatever the arrangement was it was perfectly right at the time, and everything was satisfactory—I can only go so far as you have cut the facts in black and white before you—the transaction would not strike me as a director particularly—we were dealing with thousands and thousands daily—it would be a matter of ordinary routine—we night have sent Sir Henry Whites £226 in the morning, and received the loan in the afternoon you know—we were in a position to pay a dividend if we were going to ret £30,000, and pay £15,000 for having it, and make another £20,000 ourselves—paying Lawson £30,000 was nothing to us at that time with my knowledge of the Company—I am serious—we had the finest assets that any Company could have—ran you yet £30,000 on a speculative scheme—those assets were speculative schemes, which, if worked properly, will become worth thousands and thousands of pounds—that is the way I looked upon the thing at the time—there may be something else, you know more of them than I do—we were not payintr £45,000 for £30,000—we were paying £15,000 for £30,000 to—the £30,000 to Lawson I think was all lumped in with the various things that the Company owed Lawson—the books will show you better than I can speak from memory—I do not think that Lawson had a tithe of what the Company legally owed him—there may have been also on that 1ti a commission, of £5,000 paid to Mr. Holdsworth, I really cannot say or there may not have been—Mr. Lot Craven was to lend £30,000 on October 1st, and it was to be repaid in seven months with £15,000—Houldsworth was to get £5,000, Lawson was to get 100 per cent, commission, which is £30,00 and Houldsworth was promised a further payment of £10,000 as part of his commission, when payable, as and when the Company received their profits from the Wakefield, Leeds, and Dewsbury Company, does not that show the speculative nature of the loan—you are bound to pay those terms for speculations of that sort—suppose that £100 now would be worth £300 to you in a month's time, you would be willing to pay £400 for it now, if you could do a deal which you could not do without an extra £100—this was October 1st, a few days

after the speech at the dinner, at which £100,000 loose cash was talked if or cash available for dividend—even one day or half a day might make a difference in a business of that sort.

Saturday, December 3rd, 1904.

HERBERT GEORGE THOMAS (examination continued). Lawson's agreement of. I think, July 18th, was that he was to have a commission on all business he introduced to the company—100 per cent, were the original terms, I believe—on a deal of the magnitude of the Blackpool Tramway Company, £100,000. he would alter the terms, as we did eventually—on £100,000 he would have to get £100,000, according to the agreement—if Lawson brought in such a deal as would produce £10(1,000 profit lie would be entitled to half the profit that the company made—that would be 100 percent—that is the best way you can work such an agreement out: it is always open to a little alteration as time goes on—the directors would determine the alteration, with Lawson's consent, I presume—possibly he would take the whole of the profit, I do not see why lie should not in his own company—the Construction Company was his property pure and simple, and that of the Syndicate, they were running it together—there was no public money—Paine and Hooley were going to turn it into a public company—Hooley was interested with Mrs. Hooley—Lawson put the company into Hooley's hands with the eventual idea of promoting, it at such time as we did good business—the company was floated as a public company when shares were issued to the public—Lawson. I believe, put a large block of shares into Hooley's hands, and Paine joined Hooley with the idea that the three of us should be interested in the eventual promotion of the company as a company when it was in a fit state—the agreement of November 26th, 1000, is what I have in my mind—probably I knew all about it at the time, but it is impossible to say four years afterwards—you have the minutes, you can answer that question better than I—the £30,000 introduced applied to various schemes—I do not think the company ever got that sum for the schemes—Lawson's letter of November 15th shows that the company was in such a condition that Lawson took whatever he thought advisable—I think the books show about £20,000 advanced to Lawson at or before that time—I do not remember the deed of release, but the figures—would most certainly be put on the table at the time—the deed of release would not be signed without we knew about the terms and went into the matter—you have the minute there and it purports, I presume, to be correct—I am not saying it is not correct—the "services rendered" refer to the fact that Mr. Lawson was finding and buying Tramway Orders and things of that sort—"could always reckon that he was entitled to a fair remuneration for the work he did, independently of his engineer's fees, and his commission for introducing business on the terms of his agreement—he never pushed the point of his 100 per cent.—he dealt fairly and honestly with us—I believe there was an agreement to share the profits when the company would eventually float the Tramway Orders—I cannot say if the agreement was reduced to writing—we had so many agreements with one party and another, it seems unreasonable to expect me to remember it

three or four years afterwards—Lawson was the person whose resources and energy we mainly depended—lie received his remuneration or would receive it-, in die future, whether there was an agreement or not because the whole company belonged to him—if he anted, £2,000, or £3,000, or more, he would have it on account of his future dividends, and the thing worked our all right—on the other hand, if he got rid of the Provisional Orders to somebody else I do not see that it-would have anything to do with the company, he was not retained to work for them, and was not their servant, receiving a salary, or anything of that sort—I do not believe there was any contractual liability to supply the orders through the company—I presume he could have done what he liked with the orders provided he got them.

Cross-examined by MR. ISAACS. The Construction Company in the way spook of as having been promoted, Hooley cannot have had anything to do with: it was to be promoted: it was a company in existence from 1SS.6; it was taken over in is Sir by Lawson under an agreement with Holroyd Smith—the first Hooley had to do with Construction shares was about October or November, 1900—Lawson, Hooley, and Paine were the only three men I knew to be interested in the balance of the Electric Construction Company's shares, 35,000—I believe I was present on November 22nd, and apparently the idea was that, after allowing for the seven signatories' shares and the 53,000 shares which had gone to Holroyd Smith that there was left a balance of 194,493, and the balance which made up the total of the 230,000 shares it was proposed to issue to Lawson for the purchase of patents, and the rights of the Motor Wheel—it was brought before the company, and approved, that Lawson was to get the right to deal with the 194,1-93 shares—at that time the Street Company's shares were about to be issued—that company, it was always understood, should be a great success—if so. It would mean the acquisition of a considerable profit to the Construction Company—I saw Hooley for the first time to my knowledge at Bow Street Police Court in these proceedings—I do not know that he was concerned in the management of the affairs of the Construction Company—I heard that suggestion made to me at Scotland Yard—I was asked whether I knew, or had seen Hooley, or whether lie had anything to do with the business, so I replied, "No," and that only on one occasion when Hooley and Lawson were going somewhere together Hooley called at the office for him—Hooley had nothing to do with the Street-Company—I know nothing about the Trust, Company—the loan from Mrs. Hooley of £3,000 to the Construction Company was the most reasonable loan that we obtained during the course of our business—a bonus was to be paid in the £2,000 preference shares of the Blackpool South—there was nothing in a loan of £'5,000 at 3 per cent., nor in agreeing to give for the use of that money £2.000 in shares out of the shares which the Construction Company was going to get as its profit for carrying out the Blackpool South—I saw nothing reprehensible or objectionable in that transaction—that bonus of £2.100 is the £'2,000 of Blackpool 5 1/2. per cent, preference, and the £100 given for accepting the post-dated cheques for £2,000 and the interest £38). 9s. 9d., the cash paid was £2,138 leaving a balance of £3,000. which represented the liability to Mrs. Hooley

as evidenced by the post dated cheques of October 16th and November 16th—the £250, I presume, was Mr. Oliver's bonus—the company did not pay cash when it could pay in shares—according to the balance sheet produced the tens of Cardinal Kebob, Oliver, and Mrs. Hooley were very dues—I presume they were about the best terms obtainable—the Founders' Syndicate borrowed £5,000, the bonus payable in shares and cash, and the promotion of the Blackpool was £10,000—Mrs. Hooley was lending upon substantially the same terms on which everybody else outside and unconnected with the Construction Company was lending money to that company.

Cross-examined by Lawson. The promotion of this Construction Company was abandoned—it has never been carried out to this date—the knowledge that the directors obtained from you was very useful to the business that was being discussed daily—several of the directors frequently met at the office to discuss the business of the Company—I was on an average with the Company at their offices three times a week, and matters were often discussed with the secretary, Mr. Osborne, who was a very able man, and I always endeavoured to do as much as I thought right in the interests of the company—my father's business was in the boot trade: I managed it for him, and I also had some interest in a Traction business—I have met a good many kinds of directors in the course of my business, and I should think that I knew as much about my business as they did theirs—Mr. Paine's shares were not bought, because he never paid for them, and I had not anticipated that he would ever pay a farthing for his shares—as far as I know he was friendly with everybody—I had hoped all along that the Company would get hold of something very good to float, and I always thought that was the Company's intention—in 1901 and after the dinner in 1902 the Company fell into your hands, and therefore became a private company absolutely—there were a dozen shareholders, but, as far as I know, not one of them paid a single sovereign in the Company—I remember a minute somewhere about October 8th, 1901, at a meeting at which I was present, when it was resolved "That 1.450 ordinary shares of £1 each, numbered 55,508 to 59,957, be and they are hereby allotted to Mr. H. J. Lawson, for which he has paid the Company the sum of £4,450"—I should think that a vote given by you would result in whichever way you wished it to—I understood Paine was interested in the future flotation of the Company—he came to tin? office several times to see how things were going on, thinking he was going to make a lot of money like the rest of us, who I think will do so even yet—I think I first knew Paine about the end of December, 1900—the general idea I thought then was that we were going to float the Company as a public Company, and it was common talk in the office that Hooley had floated other companies very successfully in which you had an interest—as far as I knew, you had never asked anything unreasonable or exorbitant in connection with the Company—we always thought that it paid the Company when we lent you any sum like £3,000, for when at the end of 1960 you first took up the Company, to the best of my belief it never had a shilling piece, but to-day it has several large schemes-and projects which have cost the Company over £20,000 in out of pockets,

and when I resigned in October or November, 1902, the assets were in a very rosy state—I should think roughly the greater amount the company advanced you was £5,000, but I do nor remember signing any cheque for that amount—I believe the work you did in connection with the Blackpool company involved a considerable amount of cash, and to my knowledge you had to £m about, and meet several shareholders to make. deals with them for cash, and that would amount in tens of thousands—I should think if the Wakefield, Nottingham, or the Blackburn project were going to be done properly, they would amount to over £5,000—as to the law expenses if has been publicly stated by Sir Douglas Fox in the House of Looks that £20,000 was a considerable sum for the costs of a great railway bill—the Leeds and Wakefield, to the best of my belief, has be