CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 9TH, 1905.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
MESSRS. BARNETT AND BUCKLER,
Short-hand Writers to the Court,
ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Booksellers and Publishers.
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, January 9th, 1905, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. JOHN POUND, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir CHARLES JOHN DARLING , Knight, one of the justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knight, Sir JOSEPH RENALS, Bart., Sir ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Bart., Aldermen of the said City;. Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knight, HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Esq., and WILLIAM CHARLES SIMMONS , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., J.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; LUMLEY SMITH , Esq., K.C., Judge of the City of London Court; and his Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner; His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
POUND, MAYOR. THIRD 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, January 9th, 1905.
Before Mr. Recorder.
115. CHARLES ELLIOTT (34) and ARTHUR HILL (28), PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the dwelling house of Philip Abrahams and stealing therein a bag and other articles; also to breaking and entering the dwelling house of David Phillips and stealing a watch and other articles; also to breaking and entering the dwelling house of William Thomas Cole and stealing four rings and other articles, ELLIOTT having been convicted of felony at Newington Sessions on October 21st, 1903, and HILL at Clerkenwell Sessions on July 4th, 1899. Four previous convictions were proved against Elliott and one against Hill. ELLIOTT twelve months, hard labour. HILL eight months, hard labour. —
(116.) ERNEST CHARLES ATKINS , to stealing, while employed under the Post Office, a letter containing a gold ring and six penny stamps, the property of the Postmaster-General. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] He received a good character. Three months' hard labour. —
(117.) LOUIS JOSEPH MORLEY (25) , to forging and uttering a receipt for £3 with intent to defraud; also to forging and uttering an authority for the payment of £1 4s. 10d. with intent to defraud. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Six months,' hard labour. —
(118.) ALFRED RALPH LINTOTT (18) , to forging and uttering an authority for the payment of £2 10s. with intent to defraud; also to forging and uttering a receipt for £8 with intent to defraud. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Nine months' hard labour. —
MR. PARTRIDGE. for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HEDDON Prosecuted.
GRAY GUILTY . Six months' hard labour. WARREN
NOT GUILTY .
NEW COURT.—Monday, January 9th, 1905.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.
BENJAMIN CHARLES IZZARD . I am a confectioner of 2a, Hannibal Road, Mile End—on December 28th about 11.45 p.m. I served Morris Corrin (see next case) with half an ounce of tobacco, Lambert & Butler's British Oak, price 2d., with which I handed him a box of matches with an advertisement of Pink's Table Jellies on it—he tendered 1s., and I gave him in change 6d. and four pennies—after he had left the shop I tested the coin in my hand, and found it was bad—I called to my friend Mr. Dungey, who was sitting at the piano in the parlour at the back of the shop, and we followed the lad out within six seconds—outside I saw the lad walking rather sharply and the prisoner a good way in front of him—Corrin was walking towards him, and joined him—when they met something passed from Corrin to the prisoner—they walked away together, and Corrin entered another shop—I saw him come out of that shop—the prisoner was standing about fifteen yards up the street, leaning on his stick—Corrin handed him something as before—they walked together into Jubilee Street—I followed on the opposite side of the street—they entered another shop, and exactly the same thing occurred—I afterwards went into the latter shop with Sergeant Girdler—the same thing occurred with five shops—at about the fourth shop I sent for a constable, who came in a few minutes—I told him I wanted to arrest them for uttering counterfeit coin—the constable said he would search Clements, who said, "You must not search me in the street, I have got nothing on me"—I handed the coin I tested to the officer—I believe the constable put his initials on it—these articles were found on Clements: two packets of Lambert & Butler's packet tobacco, and a match box corresponding to the one I gave him—this is the shilling—it has been broken since—I went with Sergeant Girdler to four other shops—I saw the till searched at Izzard's and the coin taken out and put on the counter.
THOMAS DUNGEY . I am an Insurance Agent of 42, Campbell Road, Bow—I was in the parlour at the back of Mr. Izzard's shop on December 28th—I saw Corrin in the shop—on Mr. Izzard calling me out I saw the
same lad outside, and the prisoner standing on the opposite side of the road—Corrin went and joined him, and gave him something—Izzard and I followed them from one shop to another, and afterwards gave them into custody.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I was about a stone's throw away and nearly opposite you.
ARTHUR ROBINSON (478 H.) On December 28th I was in Oxford Street, Mile End, when I was called by Dungey—I met Izzard, and Clements was pointed out to me with Corrin—Izzard said, in Corrin's presence, I give this man in custody for uttering a counterfeit shilling in my shop"—Clements said, "I have got nothing on me, governor"—I caught hold of his hand—he said, "You must not search me in the street"—Dungey put his hand in his pocket—I searched him at the station—I found on him 1s., 12 sixpences, and 6s. 8d. bronze, all good money, 3 1/2-ounces of tobacco, 1d. packet of tobacco, six packets of cigarettes, a 2d. packet of Paquet tea, a piece of chocolate, two boxes of matches, and a purse—when he was arrested, Izzard handed me this 1s., which I marked—I conveyed Clements and Corrin to the station—they were charged with being concerned together in uttering counterfeit coin—Clements made no reply.
SARAH GROBOFSKY (Interpreted). I reside at 117, Jubilee Street, Mile End, where my husband keeps a grocer's shop—I remember Corrin coming and asking for 1d. worth of tea—I do not keep 1d. packets, and served him with a 2d. packet like this, marked "Paquet "tea—he handed me a new shilling—I gave him seven coppers and a threepenny bit in change, but he refused the threepenny bit, and I gave him the whole 10d. in coppers—I put the shilling and the threepenny bit in the till, where there were a half-crown and two shillings—the policeman came and I showed him the till, where I found the bad shilling produced, and which the officer did something to.
FRANK GIRDLER (Detective Sergeant H.) I went with Izzard to Grobofsky's shop on December 28th about 8 p.m.—she turned out the till which contained a half-crown, a threepenny piece, and two shillings, one counterfeit—I marked the coin "F G 1," my initials—this bad shilling was handed to me by Sergeant Robinson, and has been in my possession ever since.
The prisoner, in his defence, said he gave the coins to Corrin who did not know what they were.
He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court in April, 1898, of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin. Eleven other convictions were proved against him. Five years' penal servitude.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted,
BENJAMIN CHARLES IZZARD , THOMAS DUNGEY , ARTHUR ROBINSON , SARAH GROBOFSKY , FRANK GIRDLER and WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER repeated their evidence in the last case, GIRDLER adding: I have known Corrin about three weeks—he has worked at his brother's barber's shop and seems to be a respectable lad.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said he became acquainted with Clements at his step-brother's barber's shop and that Clements accosted him on December 28th, borrowed money from him and sent him for the articles referred to from the shops, with separate new shillings, but he did no, know the coins were lad.
He received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
WILLIAM BROGDEN (Detective-Sergeant H.) On the evening of December 16th I was with Dessent in High Street, Whitechapel, when I saw the prisoner and another man, not in custody, standing at a corner of Cambridge Road—on seeing us approach they walked quickly away towards Holloway—at Cannon Place they separated and ran—Dessent followed the other man and I followed King—I said, "Holloa, Jack, where are you going?"—he said, "I am just going to jump on the tram, governor"—I said, "You seem in a hurry, I suspect you of having counterfeit coin in your possession, I am going to search you"—I found on him four packages which contained forty-two sixpences wrapped in tissue paper, nineteen of 1891 and twenty-three of 1895—I said, "How do you account for these?" he said, "That is very funny, the lad you just see run away gave them to me"—he was taken to Arbour Square police station, where he said, "Well, I must admit you have done it very smart"—he was charged with being in possession of forty-two counterfeit sixpences—I found on him 2s., 6d., and 5d. bronze, good money—he said, "That is my own money, that is good."
HENRY DESSENT (Detective H.) I was with Brogden on December 16th—at the junction of Cambridge Road and the Whitechapel Road I saw the prisoner with a young man about 19 years old—on their seeing us approach they crossed the road to the south side and went towards Holloway—at Cannon Place they separated, and the prisoner hurried towards a tram-car—I followed the other man up Cannon Place and Sidney Street, but was unable to overtake him.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he spoke to a lad about 16 years old in Whitechapel, who, when he left him, said, "Good-night, here is something that might be useful to you "and handed him the packets, when Brogden seized him; that his character was bad, but he did not deserve this, and he had heard that 6s. 6d. had since been paid for the lad's lodgings.
He then PLADED GUILTY to a conviction at this Court in May, 1899, of felonious possession of counterfeit coin. Eight other convictions were proved against him. It was stated that he was an expert coiner and had one year and 281 day a to serve. Five years' penal servitude, and to complete his former sentence. The Jury commended the police for their smart capture, with which the COURT concurred.
OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 10th, 1905.
Before Mr. Recorder.
126. HERBERT LITTLEWOOD (80) and PETER KELLY (41) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the warehouse of the Labour Leader, Ltd., and stealing therein a duplicator, their property. LITTLEWOOD, having been convicted of felony at the Mansion House on September 23rd, 1904, Six months' hard labour. KELLY received a good character, except that he was given to drinking. Judgment respited. —And
(127.) LOUIS CHARLTON (30) , to breaking and entering the ware-house, 61, 62, and 63, Houndsditch, and stealing certain watches therein, having been convicted of felony at this Court on March 21st, 1904. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] A large number of other convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. KLEYCESTER Prosecuted; MR. GREEN Defended.
HENRY CORBIT JONES . I am Town Clerk to the Borough of Holborn—I produce the current rate book containing the rate made on October 1st, 1904—the rated occupier of 16, Tower Street, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, is Paul Butcher—it is a dwelling house, the rateable value being £55—I know him by sight—the prisoner is the man mentioned—he has been there for some years.
PETER SHEPHERD (39 C.) Under instructions I kept special observation on 16, Tower Street, from December 5th to 10th between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m.—I was with Police-Constable Cole—we were in plain clothes—the house is a private dwelling house, the people using it were men and women, the latter being known to the police as prostitutes—I knew them myself—the men and women entered and left the house—I saw four different prostitutes—I saw some of the women going there on different occasions with different men—on one occasion only did I see one woman go there twice on the same night with different men; that was on the 9th—I saw her enter at 8.25 and leave at 8.55—she entered again at 10.45 and left at 12.25—on both occasions she left with the men—in addition I have seen the same woman taking different men there on different nights—they were admitted by either of the prisoners—sometimes the prostitute knocked at the door, and sometimes on a grating covering the basement with her heel,—altogether I saw twenty-three different men taken there—on December 5th I saw four couples enter and four leave—on the 6th I saw two couples
enter and one leave—on the 7th I saw three couples enter and three leave—on the 8th I saw five couples enter and four leave—on the 9th I saw six couples enter and five leave, and on the 10th I saw three couples enter and two leave—they were not doing a very big business—I have seen the male or the female prisoner leaving the house with prostitutes and go to public-houses—the prisoners are Germans and all the prostitutes are foreigners—I followed them to the public-houses and have seen them having drink, and have seen the prostitutes giving the prisoners money—I saw that about three times during the six nights.
Cross-examined. I had no conversation with the prisoners between December 5th and 10th—I had not been in the company of either of them—the male prisoner had seen me in the street near his house twice—I do not think it was two nights in succession—he saw me about 11 p.m.—I think he knew that the house was being watched—Tower Street is a narrow street; it is not very long—there are about a dozen lamps in it—I think there is one opposite No. 16—when I was keeping observation I sometimes stood opposite the house—when the street door was opened I saw that there was a light in the hall—I am quite sure about it—it is not at the bottom of the hall—I could see it—it is not a very dim light—while I was watching I did not only see the women's backs—I did not speak to the prostitutes or put their names down—I did not know their names—I made this note of December 5th on December 5th—on the 8th I put down, "No one seen"—that was that I did not see who opened the door—I think there are two rooms on the ground floor, but I have no note of it—I think they are both bedrooms—the prisoner and his wife occupied the front room—I am not aware that the back room is occupied by a lodger named Emery—I have not seen men going into the house unaccompanied by women—I have seen the man who lives on the top floor going in there—I think three men live there—I have seen lights in the front room window on the first floor—the sitting-room is in the front—it is a large room—there was no light in the room before the women entered—the gas may have been turned down and then turned up—the second floor is occupied by Miss Bentley and her father—I do not suggest that that floor was occupied by these women, the Bentleys lodge in the front room only.
Re-examined. There is the ground floor and three above it—the lodger on the top floor is a respectable man, and his mother, I believe—when I spoke of couples I did not include any of the men lodging in the house—I knew by sight all the men lodging there.
ARTHUR COLE (81 C.) I watched with the last witness during the whole time he was watching 16, Tower Street—I saw that the two prisoners were using the house—four prostitutes frequented the house, entering and leaving—they took men there—sometimes one and sometimes the other of the prisoners let them in—I made notes of the number of people I saw on the different evenings.
Cross-examined. I made my notes somewhere in the neighbourhood very shortly after seeing the people come out—Shepherd and I were together; we made our notes at the came time—I did not read mine to him
—on the 5th four couples entered and four left, on the 6th two entered and one left, on the 7th three entered and three left, on the 8th five entered and four left, on the 9th six entered and five left, on the 10th three entered and two left—I never said to Shepherd, "How many did you see go in?"—it was not necessary, because I made my note and he made his—I never thought it necessary to see if I counted them properly—from the 5th to the 10th I did not see a man go into the house unaccompanied by a woman except the male prisoner—I was with Shepherd outside the premises; perhaps he might be at one end of the street and I at the other—I did not know that there were male lodgers at the house; I never saw them go in—I think there is a lamp-post on the other side of the street about three or four yards from No. 16—the male prisoner came and pushed his conversation on to Shepherd and myself—I do not know what night that was—I did not make a note of it; it was one of the nights we were on duty, we were both together—I think he said." Is there anything wrong?"—I am not sure of the exact words—I do not know if I made any reply—I think Shepherd raid something, but I did not hear it—he and I were in plain clothes—when the street door opened I could see a light in the passage, but I did not notice where it was—I never saw a light on the first floor before I saw the prostitutes enter—I do not know where the bedroom was on the first floor—I did not go up there—I know sometimes a light went up in the first floor front room after a couple entered—I did not notice if there are a number of bells outside this door leading to the different floors—I believe a respectable woman lives in the house—I do not know what she is.
FRANCIS MACKAY (Inspector). About 11.30 p.m. on December 19th I went to 16, Tower Street, with a warrant—I saw the male prisoner outside the house—I asked him to come back with me to the house—he did not say anything then—we went together to the house—I knocked at the door—the female prisoner let us in—we all went into the front room on the ground floor, where I read the warrant to them—it was for keeping a disorderly house—the female prisoner said, "No dirty England for me, I will sell up everything and leave it"—the male prisoner said, "I do not keep a brothel; I knew you were watching my place; I have a prostitute living here"—I went over the house—there is a basement downstairs consisting of a kitchen and scullery; on the ground floor there are two rooms with a double bed in each; nobody was in them—the prisoners did not say who used them—there are two rooms on the first floor—the front one was used as a sitting-room and had no bed in it—the back room contained a double bed and had an entrance from the sitting-room; nobody was there then—on the second floor there are two rooms—the front one was occupied by Mr. Bentley and his daughter—they were in bed—she is about thirty, I think—he appeared to be a very old gentleman—I have nothing to say against them—there are two beds there—the back room had a double bed in it—there were several articles there which the male prisoner said belonged to him—there was nobody in it—on the third floor there are two rooms—the front one was occupied by Mrs. Richardson or Harrison—her two grown-up sons were there; they are working men—they were all in bed—the back room
contained a double bed—there was some property which the male prisoner said belonged to him—also some female clothing—nobody was in the bed—the prisoners told me they slept in the front room on the ground floor—I took them to the station; they said nothing more.
Cross-examined. There, were some handbags on the first and third floors which the male prisoner said belonged to him—I do not know that the ground floor back room is occupied by Mr. Emery—when the male prisoner said he had a prostitute there I understood that she lived on the first floor—I did not know her as Miss Kein—I know her—I did not see her then—she is a German—I do not know that the second floor back room is occupied by Miss Ada Richardson or that the third floor back room is occupied by a butcher named George Prow—the female prisoner did not say," If I have to sell up everything I will go against this."
Paul Butcher, in his defence on oath, said that he had lived at 16, Tower Street, for four years and paid £17 10s. a quarter for rent; that he saw the police officers in the street by his house; that between December 5th and 10th he had no prostitutes at his house; that he and his wife occupied the front room on the ground floor and a man named Emery the back room; that he (the prisoner) never during that time let his room or Emery's for any immoral purpose; that Miss Kein occupied the first floor; that he did not know what she was, but that she came home at different times; that she had been there about two months and paid one guinea a week for the bed and sitting room and attendance and lights; that he had never seen her bringing men there; that he did not know what had become of her; that between December 5th and 10th she was ill in bed; that Mr. and Miss Bentley occupied the front room on the second floor; that Miss Bentley was a milliner and had customers calling on her up to 11 p.m. for hats; that gentlemen came with the customers and waited in the passage; that Mrs. Richardson and her two sons occupied the front room on the third floor and Prow the back room; that between December 5th and 10th he did not open the door to prostitutes with men; that he had never received money from prostitutes in public houses, and that he did not tell the inspector that he had a prostitute living at his house.
Lena Butcher, in her defence on oath, said that between December 5th and 10th she never let in prostitutes with men, that when she was at home she did not answer the door as they had a string from the kitchen to the door and told their friends to knock on the railings so that she knew they were people to see her; that she and her husband occupied the front ground floor room, and Mr. Emery the back room; that between December 5th and 10th Miss Kein occupied the first floor, but was very ill, but that when she (the prisoner) came out on bail Miss Kein had gone; that she had never brought a man to the house; that the front room on the second floor was occupied by Miss Bentley and her father, and the back room by Mrs. Richardson; that she had never brought men to the house; that the front room on the top floor was occupied by Mrs. Harrison and her two sons; and the back room George Prow slept in, and that what the said to the inspector was," Two years ago when you took us I was guilty; I never grumbled, and I have done nothing wrong this time, and if I lose my home I go against the two liars Cole and Shepherd.",
Evidence for the Defence.
MARTHA BENSTLEY . I am a milliner, of 16, Tower Street—I occupy the front room on the second floor—I work at home—I have a big business—my customers come to me—I have a number of women and girls call upon me, I cannot say how many a day—I cannot say how many hats I make a week because I do not keep a record—I do not keep an account of what I make a week—I take the money—when people come for their hats sometimes gentlemen accompany them—I do not allow gentlemen in my room, they would wait at the door—the street door would be closed, and the gentleman would wait on the doorstep outside—if it rained he would still wait outside—the ladies did not come to my room to try on their hats—they came into the passage and tried their hats on there—there is no looking glass, they have to wait till they get home to look at their hats in a glass—they never asked to come into my room—I very seldom saw Miss Kein—I cannot say if I saw her between December 5th and 10th—I did not see any loose women bring men into the house between those dates—Mrs. or Miss Richardson occupied the back room on my floor—I have spoken to her—I do not know what she was—she never brought men up to the room.
Cross-examined. I have been in the house for 45 years—I was not born there—I was there before the prisoner came—my father is an old man, he is not an invalid—he works at Stanford's, the map publishers in Long Acre—he is away from 8 a.m. till 4.45 p.m.—we have only one room between us—I do my work there—I do not go out to work—I do not know what Miss Kein did—I never saw her bring men there—I do not know what went on downstairs.
By the COURT. I used to occupy two rooms before the prisoner's time.
ADA RICHARDSON . I occupy the second floor back room at this house—I am a housekeeper—I have been out of work for the last fortnight—before that I kept house for a lady for two or three months—I was living at 16, Tower Street, between December 5th and 10th—while I was keeping house I sometimes slept at home on a Sunday; during the week I was away—I left my last employment just before December 5th—I never saw any men brought to the house by loose women—I did not allow anybody to use my room—I have seen the lodger on the first floor—I saw her downstairs between December 5th and 10th—I do not know her name (Miss Kein)—during those days she was unwell—I did not see her bring men to the house—I do not know whether she went out—I had a street door key and always admitted myself—I do not know who opened the street door as a rule.
Cross-examined. I have lodged there two and a half years—I do not know Inspector Mackay or Sergeant Shepherd—I seem to know Cole's face—I ceased to be a housekeeper a few days after Christmas—I was living at Tower Street at the same time that I was housekeeper somewhere else—I was at 9, Bedford Court, with Mrs. Lehey—she has left there now—I generally slept there—I was only at home on Sundays—what went on there
on week-days I do not know—I have been out of employment since the beginning of December—I made a mistake when I said it was only for a fortnight, since then I had a few days' employment in Fulham—sometimes I spend my evenings at home and sometimes out—I do not spend a great part of them walking up and down Shaftesbury Avenue or Leicester Square, or Oxford Street—I do not know Inspector Smith—I know where Vine Street is—I believe there is a police station there—I went to the lady at Fulham from the Thursday to the Sunday after Christmas—her name was Mrs. Karran—she lived at 26, Sidney Street—she has left there now—I did house cleaning.
EDWARD EMERY (Interpreted). I have been in England for six weeks—I am a musician on the stage and play every instrument—I have had no engagement since I have been in London—I live with the male prisoner—I wanted to go back to Germany, but on account of this case I cannot—I paid 8s. a week rent at 16, Tower Street—I occupy the back room on the ground floor—nobody else had the use of that room—I am always at home during the day writing music—between December 5th and 10th I used to take a walk for ten or fifteen minutes—when I was at home I stayed in my own room—no woman entered my room while I was at home—I retired to rest at eleven or twelve.
Cross-examined. I did not come in contact with the people in the house—I did not see anything of Miss Kein—I do not know what went on on the first floor—I went to the prisoner's room sometimes, but I do not know what went on in other rooms.
By the COURT. I went to the prisoners because my mother and Mrs. Butcher were acquainted in Germany.
GEORGE BROWN . I am a butcher and a German—I have been in this country for three years—I have been out of work since September—I have been living at 16, Tower Street—I occupied a room on the third floor—I had my meals in the kitchen with the prisoner and helped in the housework—when I was upstairs I opened the street door, but there is a string from downstairs—I was at home the whole of the days between December 5th and 10th—I did not go out on those days till 11.30 p.m. to a public house with the male prisoner—I got back about 12.30—I never saw loose women come to the house—I never let in men coming with women except friends of the prisoners; they were only men.
Cross-examined. On December 7th or 8th Henry Davis came, I think, with his wife—he came with her two or three times—it was always the same Mrs. Davis—I was last at work at a sausage factory in Kennington Park Road—that was at the end of July or the beginning of September—I was employed there for eighteen months—I have been looking for work since then—I stop at home all day because I cannot find suitable work.
GUILTY. They then PLEADED GUILTY to convictions at Marlboroughs Street Police Court, on January 14th, 1903, of keeping a brothel at the same house. The prisoners were stated to be associates of bullies, brothel keepers and thieves. PAUL BUTCHER— Twelve months' hard labour. LENA BUTCHER— Six months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, January 10th, 1905.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
MR. HARVEY Prosecuted.
THOMAS HOPE STEIN . I am Vicar of St. Matthew's, Essex Road, Islington, and live at 29, Douglas Road, Canonbury—on Thursday, January 5th, I left the church after evening service, the verger locking up, and everything being in order—I was fetched the next day to the church and found that it had been entered and that the lectern had been broken up and taken away except one piece of the stand—entrance had been made through a window, the lead work of which had been ripped—there was room for a man to get through—he lectern was worth about £30 to £35.
HENRY BURB (619 N.) About 7.45 p.m. on January 5th I was on duty in Ecclesbourne Road, in plain clothes—I saw the prisoner wheeling a costermonger's barrow—I knew him by name—he wheeled the barrow through several streets—he saw me, left the barrow and ran away—I followed and arrested him—I took him back to the barrow—I found there was brass on it—there was an inscription on the brass—I went to the church with an inspector and found a window broken—after examining the church we went back to where the lectern stood and close by the spot we found a piece of tip off the heel of a boot—it was afterwards compared with the prisoner's boot—there was a similar bit on the other boot.
The prisoner. I never had any tips on my boots.
WILLIAM SKILTON (Inspector N.) I visited St. Matthew's Church, Islington, last Friday about 8.30p.m., and found that an entrance had been effected through a broken window—I saw two pieces of a lectern there—near the spot I found this piece of heel tip—I examined the prisoner's boots and noticed there was a corresponding piece on the heel of the left boot, and from the heel of the right boot there was apparently a piece gone corresponding to the other—the prisoner saw me examining his boots—the Magistrate ordered the boots to be taken off—the prisoner had been meanwhile wearing them and had smoothed down the heels—the other piece of tip was then missing.
The prisoner, in his defence, said that he was standing in the street on the Thursday evening, when two men asked him if he would push a barrow for them, offering him a shilling for doing so, and as he was out of work he accepted it; that he was nowhere near the church; and that he never wore tips on his boots.
GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerken-well Green on February 23rd, 1904. Four other convictions were proved against him. The police gave him a bad character. Two years' hard labour.
MR. SYMMONS and MR. CURTIS BENNETT Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
ALBERT NEILL . I live at 49, Whibborne Buildings, Cromer Street, W.C., and am a tiler—on Sunday night, December 18th, about 10.45 p.m., I was alone in Cromer Street—I got to the corner of Tankerton Street, when the prisoner walked up to me and said, u What is the matter?"—I turned round and said, "I don't know what is the matter"—he struck me in my face with his hand—I had never seen him before—I do not know why he struck me—he then said, "Come on," and put his hand behind and took something out of his pocket—I do not know what it was—a little girl called out that he had got something behind him and that made me run round a post—a policeman came up, when the prisoner ran into a house in Tankerton Street—I stood there and saw the police-man knock at the door, but the prisoner would not come out—then a woman called out, "He has got a revolver up on the first floor"—the crowd that was there then ran away and I ran with them—I then heard the report of a pistol—I next saw the prisoner running down the street, with the constable after him—I afterwards saw him taken to the station.
Cross-examined. At the time I turned from Cromer Street into Tankerton Street there was nobody about—when the prisoner struck me I went to hit him back, but did not do so—I guessed he had something in his pocket because of the movement of his hand—when the constable came on the scene, a great crowd collected—they were not hammering and kicking at the prisoner's shop door.
Re-examined. A little girl called out that the prisoner had something behind him—I never saw it.
CHARLES GREEN (78 E.) On December 18th about 10.45 I was on duty at the corner of Cromer Street and Tankerton Street—in consequence of information received I went to 1, Tankerton Street, and knocked at the shop door—I saw the prisoner standing in the corner, holding a revolver in his hand right—I again knocked and asked him to come out—he went down on his knees and crawled across the floor to the window—I knocked again and the prisoner said in broken English "Oh, go away, or I will shoot you all"; or some words like that—I did not go away—he then ran up the stairs and opened the window—I could see by the light of my lantern—I saw the prisoner put his head out—I asked the crowd to get away as he had the revolver in his hand—I then went across the road and stood on the kerb in company with a man named Goldman—the prisoner kept shouting something partly in English and partly in a foreign tongue—I asked him again to come down—he refused—I turned my light on him and I saw him look at me and apparently pointing the revolver in my direction—he fired and I saw the flash come downwards—I rushed to his door, when the prisoner came rushing out with the revolver still in his hand—I followed him—he pointed the revolver in my face, saying, "You come, or I shoot"—he seemed to cross his less, and fell backwards
into the road—I then closed with him on the ground and tried to get the revolver from him—I had to use my truncheon, and strike him on his head and arms—I eventually got the revolver from him, and with assistance he was taken to the station—he was very violent—he was charged at the station and made no answer—the revolver was fully loaded in six chambers, one cartridge being spent.
Cross-examined. Four or five persons came up to me first, and in consequence of what they said I turned into Tankerton Street—there a crowd collected—the people shouted as well as the prisoner—I am clear the pistol was fired downwards and in my direction—no trace of the bullet has been found—when the report was heard the people scattered—when he ran off, followed by me, he was followed by a good many others as well—if he had any intention of hurting me he had every opportunity of doing so—he was very excited.
Re-examined. In turning round to shoot me he fell backwards.
JACK GOLDMAN . I live at 70, Cromer Street, W.C., and am a rough stuff cutter—on the night of Sunday, December 18th, I was outside my house—I saw the prisoner and Neill—the prisoner ran at him and smacked him in the face—Neill said, "What it this fox?"—the prisoner ran away into his house because a woman started screaming—just before, I saw Neill run round a pillar post which was there, the prisoner trying to get at him—I saw that the prisoner had something in his right hand, but I do not know what it was—a police constable came up and I spoke to him—I went with him and a lot more to the house—the constable knocked at the door and looked through the shop window—he then crossed over the road—I went with him—I then saw the prisoner at the first floor window—the constable told the crowd to go away—I stopped with him—I saw the pistol flash—I cannot say if it was fired up or down—the prisoner then ran out of his house and the constable went after him—the prisoner turned round and slipped—I heard the words, "Come on," and something else I did not catch—I think the prisoner had the revolver in his hand—he was then arrested.
Cross-examined. The first thing I noticed on this night was the prisoner jabbing at his window, taking enamelled letters off—they were rather low down and he was removing them—there were several people standing round—he scattered them away and went indoors—he came out again—he went towards Neill, who was in Tankerton Street, and struck him—then the prisoner went back again and the constable knocked at the door—there were a lot of people looking on, not kicking at the door—if the prisoner had wanted, he could have shot the policeman daring the chase.
Reexamined. The people were shouting, "Police," "murder," after he struck Neill.
home and there changed my things when I heard a woman scream—I put my cap and jacket on and ran into the street—I saw Green there—then was a crowd near the prisoner's shop—Green went to the prisoner's shop and knocked at the door and called upon the prisoner to come out—I looked through the shop window and saw the prisoner there—he then went upstairs, opened the window, and called out "Come on, come on"—I heard the report of a pistol and saw a flash—I cannot say in what direction it was—I saw the prisoner run out and helped to catch him—I made a blow at him and fell over—when I got up he was in custody—he was very violent part of the way to the station.
Cross-examined. I know the prisoner by sight and he knows me—when I passed his house the first time there was nothing wrong with him—he is a boot and shoe mender.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath (interpreted), stated that he had been in England about fifteen months; that upon the evening in Question there were some enamelled letters missing from his shop window which had been torn off by a boy who had run away; that he (the prisoner) then took the others off to put them higher, when he was annoyed by a number of people standing round; that Neill struck him, and he then went indoors and got a revolver as he was afraid the crowd would break the door in, and that he fired it simply to frighten the crowd.
Evidence for the Defence.
THOMAS DAVIS (Detective Sergeant E.) I have made enquiries about the prisoner—he has been in England about sixteen months and has been a peaceable and well-behaved man—his neighbourhood is a poor one—it is not one of the foreign quarters—it is rather a rough place.
Cross-examined. The people are not what might be called a "tough crowd"—the children there make a great noise in their play.
Re-examined. There are children about there at night.
CHARLES MILES I live at 2, Tankerton Street, next door to the prisoner—I heard a noise and looked out of the window—I saw my little boy standing outside when the prisoner rushed out and dumped him—after that I heard a banging at the door and a man using very foul language and calling the prisoner a bastard—the prisoner opened the door and there was a scuffle—the prisoner went in again and there was continual shouting outside when a policeman came up—I saw the prisoner fire a revolver straight up in the air—there are houses opposite with a blank wall—the crowd all dispersed—the prisoner rushed out of his house—I went out and found the crowd ill-using him.
Cross-examined. There was some quarrelling before the police came up—I did not see the prisoner strike a man, but the men there were using bad language—the revolver was turned up a little way and the sparks went up into the air.
ELIZA NAYLOR . I am the wife of Robert Naylor, of 73, Cromer Street—my husband is the prisoner's landlord's agent—the prisoner bears the character of a quiet and inoffensive man—he is a good deal molested—on the Sunday evening in question I heard quarrelling—I went out and saw
a man named Neill, not the one that has been here; I think he is his father—he was threatening the prisoner and using foul language and said to him, "If you come out here I shall play a game with you, I shall punch you on the nose"—the prisoner was then inside—two constables came and the men outside told them about the prisoner—the constables told him to come out—he did not—they then crossed the road, when I heard a report—I should think there were 100 people outside the shop then—I did not see the firing.
Cross-examined. The thing I noticed most was the man Neill threatening the prisoner.
NOT GUILTY . (See next case.)
MR. SYMMONS, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUITY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January. 11th, 1905.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
MR. SYMMONS Prosecuted; MR. HUTTON Defended.
(The evidence was interpreted where necessary,)
MICHAEL MCCARTHY . I am an officer of the Board of Trade, and produce the certificate of the British sailing ship Norwood and the log and everything connected with her—she is registered as a British ship, the port of register being Maitland.
JOHN SMITH . I was boatswain on the Norwood—I joined at Manilla, I believe, in July, 1904—I was second officer as well as boatswain—I took a watch—the prisoner joined the ship I believe on July 7, 1904, as an A.B. in Manilla—I was on board before him—I knew the chief officer Macintyre—he joined a little before I did at Manilla—the prisoner was in his watch—the prisoner is from Manilla—we had six others of the same nationality in the crew—there was on board the captain, chief officer, and myself, sixteen of the crew, cook, steward, and a lady and child—I had no difficulty in getting these men from Manilla to do their work—they were not competent; they were not seamen—I believe that was the cause of most of the trouble with the chief officer—in October I saw an occurrence between the prisoner and the chief officer—I do not remember the date—it was in the day time—their watch was on deck—I was below—I see the mate.
that is Macintyre, strike the prisoner with his fist at the fore-brace and knock him down—he then pulled him up by his collar—that same evening I was on deck, the other watch was also on deck, to set the fore topsail—the mate ordered the prisoner to go up and loose the fore topsail—he did so, but he did not overhaul the bunt lines—the mate told him to overhaul the bunt lines four or five times—the prisoner tried to do so, but they were wet and got stuck—he did not do it quick enough, so the mate climbed the rigging after him—I did not see him strike the prisoner, but I know he did—the next I heard was when it was my watch at 8 o'clock—it was the mate's watch below, but he turned the prisoner over to me to keep him up to scrub the deck house as a punishment—the prisoner was supposed to keep up, but I let him go and sit down until the chief officer came up again—the prisoner did not sleep, but he sat on the forecastle—I thought he was unjustly punished—I knew he could not do what the mate wanted him to do—I was relieved at 12 o'clock—I went below and as I was getting ready to turn in I heard a noise on deck—I come to my door and looked out—I could not see anything, but I heard blows and I heard the prisoner saying, "0 Christ,"—that was directly the blow was struck—I do not know no more—about an hour later the captain came to the door and called out to me to come on deck—I had turned in then—I went on deck—the captain said, "Go and find Leo; he has cut the mate"—I searched the ship fore and aft—we were not able to find him for three days—I did not see the mate go into the cabin, but I know he walked into the cabin and told the captain he was cut—he died on October 15th, and was buried at sea—on the 14th it was my watch on deck at 4 a.m.—I stood near the break of the poop—I was drinking coffee—I saw an object coming along the water-way—I see the prisoner come along the water-way—he come up to me—I walked down—I said, "Who is this?"—he said, "It is me, Smith; I have come to give myself up"—he told me he had been hid in the ventilator—I went to the captain and told him the prisoner had come up—the captain put him in irons—I heard the captain ask him if he cut the mate—he said, "I cut him in self defence."
Cross-examined. I did not hear the prisoner say that the mate was trying to kill him—later on me and the captain went down and asked him why he cut the mate and he said because he was trying to kill him—I don't know how many times I saw the mate strike the prisoner, because I am not on deck when the prisoner is on watch—I know the deceased behaved in an exceedingly brutal manner towards the prisoner—an officer is not entitled to strike any of the crew—the deceased struck mostly all the crew—I remember a man named Mike being on board—I did not see him struck on several occasions by the deceased—I heard of it—Mike did not throw himself overboard—he was missing—it was not supposed that he was drowned—he made a raft and escaped—one night I was on watch and missed some steps—I went back to the watch and said, "Where are those steps?"—they said, "We do not know"—we lay off the point where we were for fix hours—I had seen Mike sell his box and clothes to the bumboat-men—we were about ten miles from the
shore when he escaped—if he could live on the raft he would get there—the tide was running in when he left and there were fishing people about—I did not put off after him—I did not know he had gone until about fortyfive minutes afterwards—I believe another man fell overboard—I do not know that he threw himself overboard—I was below—he was drowned—I heard that the deceased had been knocking him about—I did not hear the prisoner say, "0 Christ! what are you doing?"—he may have said, "What are you doing?"without my hearing him—there were sounds of three or four blows—I did not see a piece of iron when I went up afterwards—it was dark—when the prisoner came in after the three days I saw a cut on his head—he showed it to me.
Re-examined. When a man is struck by an officer he is supposed to go and complain to the captain, but the men did not do it.
HARRY PERCH . I was an A.B. on the Norwood—I joined her on June 27th at Manilla—the prisoner also joined there—I was in the mate's watch with the prisoner and two other Phillipinos—as far as Manillamen go they were competent seamen—the prisoner was able to do a seaman's work except steering—I saw quarrels between the mate and the prisoner on more than one occasion—the mate was, from the time we left Manilla, very cruel to the prisoner especially, as well as to the other Phillipinos and the Japanese we had on board—there was no watch but they were beat about—the prisoner was beaten and punched by the mate—on occasions I have seen him beaten with a lump of wood—I have seen him knocked down on the deck and kicked about on the deck—for six weeks he always had a bruise or a out on his face—he had a sore on his ear and a bit of a filling—if it had been attended to it might have healed up, but the mate kept it open—things were going on like that right up to the time the prisoner turned on the mate—I am a German and an American subject—the mate was supposed to be a Scotchman—I got on first-rate with him—he never ill-treated me—I have been a sailor for eighteen years—I know my work—I never saw any of the men hit back—I guess I would have done so—on the evening of the day on which the mate met with his death we were called on deck at 6 o'clock—the second mate sung out to loose the fore upper topsail—the prisoner went up to do it—he loosed it and overhauled the bunt lines—there seemed to be something wrong with the lee bunt lines so that we could not hoist it properly—the mate sung out, "Overhaul those bunt lines"—the prisoner said, "They are all slack, sir"—the mate said again," Overhaul those bunt lines"—the prisoner said, "They are all slack, sir"—the mate said, "Stop hauling; I will go up and see he overhauls them to my satisfaction"—I see him step on to the yard and hit the prisoner—we set the sail and I went below—the sail went all right after that—th same evening the prisoner spoke to me in the forecastle about 9 p.m.—a light was burning, but not very bright—I said, "Is anything the matter with you?" and I asked him what he had to stay on deck for—he said he had to work on deck and said, "Feel my head"—I put my hand on his head—there was fresh blood on it—I said, "How did that happen?"—
he said. "The mate hit me with a piece of iron on the yard"—he went on deck and T went to sleep—I went on deck at 12 o'clock—a little after 12 we had to bout ship and I see the mate hit and kick the prisoner, who ran away—the mate went after him again and caught him and kicked and hit him again—I was working forward attending to the fore sheet and the next thing I see was something running round the hatch—I did not take any notice of it—I did not see the wound inflicted on the mate—the prisoner as a rule did not carry a knife—later on, when the prisoner was in irons, he told me he had got a knife out of one of the Phillipinos' bunks—Francisco we call him—he said he had borrowed it to scrape the paint off—the mate was a first-class seaman.
Cross-examined. When I saw the mate kicking and beating the prisoner he had been on duty continuously for twenty hours—I did not see any knife in his hand then—I did not hear any threats—I remained on deck till 4 o'clock—I did not hear the prisoner say, "0 Christ," or any words at all—when the mate was kicking him he was on the deck on his knees, and the mate was holding his head down kicking at his face—I saw that myself—the captain ought to have known what was going on, because the men were all disfigured—he ought to have seen it—if he had taken the trouble he could easily have found out—I remember a man named Mike—he went over the side just by Angey Point on a ladder—he had been brutally treated by the mate—I knew a man named Tokio—he went over the side in rather peculiar circumstances—he was drowned, I think—he had been more brutally treated by the mate than any other man on board the ship—he had complained to me about the way he was treated—he said the mate had twice threatened to kill him—I was only about five yards from him when he went over the side—I had just pulled him in once—I had my back turned to him—he was hanging over the side, trying to get a bucket full of water—While I was not looking he fell over the side—I do not know if it was accidental—it was accidental the time I pulled him in—he was not trying to commit suicide—he fell over about one and a half minutes after I had pulled him in—he had not got the bucket in—he had made complaints about the mate's treatment of him—the mate was not near him when he went overboard—I raised the cry of "Man overboard"—the ship came round—on the evening the mate was stabbed, two or three hours before it happened the prisoner went up the mast—I saw the mate go up after him and I saw him strike the prisoner.
Re-examined. I did not make any complaint to the captain of the way any of these men were being treated, because he would probably tell me to mind my own business—I had never sailed on that ship before—I had often been to sea before—it is a matter of chance whether the men are badly treated—this ship was a bad one—John Smith is a good man—the mate was a cruel man; he was a brute—I cannot say much for the captain—the ship might not have had a captain at all—he did not give the men any satisfaction—it looked as if the mate could do just as he pleased.
GUISIPPI ASCOLESI . I was a seaman on the Norwood—the prisoner was in my watch—he and the mate did not agree from the first day—the mate called the prisoner all the worst names that can be called to a dog—I have seen him hit him every day—the prisoner had to scrub the deck with sand and water after twenty hours on duty—on the night the mate was stabbed, at 7.50, he called the prisoner to do something to the fore upper topsail—the prisoner protested, as it is well known that one man cannot work the roping—it requires two or three men—the mate coming on deck saw the work had not been carried out as he wished, and he commenced to call the prisoner all sorts of names—he followed him up aloft to the yard and there hit him—at 12 o'clock the mate came up on deck—he saw the prisoner working and said, "What are you doing there?"—the prisoner said, "I am doing the work I have been ordered to"—then we had to put the vessel about—the mate abused the prisoner—I was not far from him, by one of the masts, gathering up the loose ropes—I saw the mate hit him several times, calling him a bastard, and saying," I will kill you to-night"—he got a belaying pin and the prisoner flew for his life—from the first day the mate hit me, and broke my bead, and treated me as a negro all along—three times I went to the captain to complain, but he never gave me any satisfaction.
Cross-examined. The mate specially ill-treated the Phillipinos—he broke part of the prisoner's ear, and he had it sore for three weeks—the mate was very cruel against the crew in general—I never heard him say that he had lost a ship before through the Phillipinos—the only satisfaction he used to give anyone was always with his fists—I saw the prisoner often being kicked—a Portuguese on board was drowned on account of him—I do not know his name—when he kicked the prisoner he had on a heavy pair of boots from the American Army; not his sea boots—he would pick up anything that came to his hands—he often hit him with his fists or picked up a belaying pin—the prisoner constantly complained that the deceased threatened to loll him—the prisoner had often complained to the captain, who gave him no satisfaction, although he saw what was happening all around with the crew.
MICHAEL MCLOUGHTON . I am an A. B. on the Norwood—up to the night that the mate was stabbed he had been behaving cruelly and badly to the prisoner—on the day he was stabbed, between 6 and 8 p.m. he sent the prisoner to loose the fore topsail and overhaul the bunt lines—he went up—the mate holloed out to him to overhaul the bunt lines—he shouted to him a dozen times and then said, "I will show the black bastard how to overhaul them"—he went up—I did not see what happened; it was too dark—at 10 o'clock I saw the prisoner scrubbing the deck house—he showed me a cut on his head, and said the mate had done it when he was aloft—it was bleeding—I said, u Could not you put your hand up to keep him from giving you a clout like that; he might have knocked you down?"—he said he had not got a knife.
Cross-examined. I saw a good deal of the prisoner—I found him a willing, obliging, quiet and peaceable man—he never quarrelled with anybody—he never answered the mate; he knew better than to do that—the
mate treated the Phillipinos worse than the others—the Italian chap (Ascolesi) used to clout the prisoner.
JOSEPH HOWE . I am the master of the Norwood—I shipped the prisoner at Manilla as an A.B.—I had to reduce him afterwards to a boy's rating because he was not capable of doing his duty as an A.B.—up to October 10th there had been no complaint to me that the prisoner had been badly treated—Ascolesi complained to me that the mate had hit him—I expostulated privately with the mate about it, and said I did not allow anything of the sort on board the ship—on October 11th I had just left the deck when the mate called me—I attended to his wound as well as I could—I laid him down—I found a stab in his stomach, about midway between the pit of the stomach and the navel—it was one and a quarter to one and a half inches in length—it was bleeding considerably—I dressed it—it seemed to be getting better—the bleeding seemed to stop, as far as I could tell—I gave orders for the prisoner to be looked for—we could not find him at the time—for some days the mate seemed to be progressing fairly well, but he died on the 15th—the prisoner turned up on the 14th—I have no doubt that the deceased died from the effects of the wound—I found a knife sheath and belt at the break of the forecastle, some little distance from where the mate was stabbed—the knife was never found, to my knowledge—I cannot swear to whom the sheath belonged—it was said it belonged to one of the Phillipinos—when the prisoner gave himself up, I had him put in irons—if my memory serves me right, next day I asked him if he cut the mate, and he said he did—he gave me no reason for doing it—we took him in irons to St. Helena—I did not take him before the Governor, but the harbour-master came on board and saw him—the prisoner told him in my presence that he cut the mate because he was abusing him and calling him out of his name—he was brought to England and given into the custody of the Thames police.
Cross-examined. I did not know my men were being knocked about in this way—the mate had no right, without my permission, to punish the prisoner badly—he had no right to put him on work for twenty hours—I did not know that he was at work for twenty hours, and I have my doubts about it now—I was on deck at night—I did not work the ship, and I left it to the mate to work the men—I did not know anything of the mate till I shipped him at Manilla—until I got to London I did not know that he had been charged with ill-treating men on board ships before, and since then I expect I have heard more than he ever heard himself—I heard for the first time this morning that his master's certificate had been taken away from him.
WILLIAM REED (Inspector Thames Police). At 4 o'clock on December 28th I boarded the Norwood while she was lying off the West India Dock in the river—I arrested the prisoner—I told him I should take him into custody for the murder of Alexander Macintyre on that ship while off the Cape of Good Hope—he said, "He plenty beat me and kick me; make me bleed plenty. Eight o'clock that night he sent me up to loose the fore upper topsail. I loosed it, and after I make up the gaskets the bunt lines got foul and I could not overhaul them, they got clear. The mate come upon the
yard and hit me on the head and nose. He called me a son of a bitch and a black bastard. I told him I was not a black bastard. He said,' I kill you." He hit me on the head and face and made me bleed and knock me down on the deck when I got there, and kicked me afterwards. I had my work with the others cleaning up the decks. At 12 o'clock all hands put the ship about, and after she came round and ropes had all been cleaned, he sent me to the mizzen top gallant brace to haul the yard round. While I was doing: it he called me a black bastard and a son of a bitch and hit me and kicked me. I then took out my sheath knife and put it in his stomach. He say he kill me."—he called attention to his head. I examined it and saw a soar on his nose and his right ear was closed—I saw no marks on his head—on the 5th of this month I made a further examination of his head, and found two scars there, and one on the second finger of his left hand.
Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the deceased—I find that he has been guilty of great brutality to seamen under him on other ships—in 1899 he had his certificate suspended—he then went away on a ship as chief officer and repeated the same conduct—on the various ships on which he has been, the report is that he has been guilty of great brutality.
GUILTY. With the strongest possible recommendation to mercy on account of the provocation. Three days' imprisonment; discharged.
NEW COURT.—Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Monday, January 11th, 12th, 13th and 16th, 1905.
Before Mr. Recorder.
MR. BODKIN and MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted; MR. WARDE and MR. HOLFORD KNIGHT appeared for Schultz, MR. WALTER STEWARD and MR. LORT-WILLIAMS for Briggs, MR. HUTTON and MR. FORDHAM for Ince, and MR. CHARLES MATHEWS and MR. BOHN for Hyman.
HENRY JOHN MANSELL . I am a wholesale stationer, and carry on business in the name of Coutts & Co., at 57 and 59, Golden Lane, E.C.—I have two factories, one called the New Factory at Great Arthur Street in the same neighbourhood, and the other called the Old Factory in Golden Lane, which practically abuts on to the New Factory—in the manufacture of boxes we use a large quantity of these straw boards (Produced), which are manufactured in Holland for me—I send specifications for 1,000 or 1,500 tons to be made at a time, and they are delivered over a specified period—in my specifications I name the quantities and sizes, which I require, which are almost exclusively twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twenty-five inches by forty inches, and thirty inches by forty inches—these sizes are most uncommon in the trade and are not to be got, as a rule—I also have them rolled less than the ordinary strawboard on the market, and I manipulate them in my own factories—this is a piece (Produced) to which we have added white paper on one side, and this is
another piece to which we have added white paper on both sides—they are delivered unlined and always in bundles of £ 1/2 cwt. each, the number in each bundle varying according to the weight, some being ten ounce, twelve ounce, and fourteen ounce boards, it is based on twenty-two inches and thirty-two inches—ordering thirty inches by forty inches, we should say thirty inches by forty inches as ten ounces twenty-two inches by thirty-two inches—in ordering I also give instructions for a shipping mark to be put on, which is invariably a number in a diamond; sometimes in actual practice the diamond becomes a rectangular figure—the number I use is invariably the number of the page upon which the order happens to be written in my order book—the outside board of each bundle is marked with this shipping mark, the size and the weight—there is no means of identifying the inner boards—I do not know of anybody else who uses this shipping mark, but it is common in the trade to have the outside board marked with a shipping mark—the goods I have ordered are landed in quantities of from 50 to 100 tons at a time at the Gun, Shot & Griffin Wharf, and are warehoused there—I have never less than 350 tons warehoused there, and as much as 500 tons, and at the factory I keep not less than from 120 to 150 tons—Briggs keeps the stock at the factory and when the machine minder has used up, say, two or three tons Briggs would send a note into the counting-house and one of the clerks would send an order down to Gun & Shot Wharf to replenish the stock—Briggs would therefore know and give information to the clerk as to what strawboards were wanted; he would mention the size also—the order would be sent by post to the wharf, specifying the size, weight, and shipping mark—it would be the duty of the people at the wharf to take out from the stock the quantity we desired, and despatch it by carman to us—I have known Schultz for some years as a carman of the Wharves Co., who frequently delivered the goods to us—this is one of the orders my clerk sent to the wharf (Ex. N.), which orders 160 bundles, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, seventy-six in a diamond, ex. Teal—the carman from the wharf would have his book in which are entered the quantities of the goods he is delivering, but not their description, and it would be the duty of Briggs at the New Factory, and Woodhouse at the Old Factory, to sign the book when these goods are received, and it would then be taken back to the wharf by the carman—the carman is also entrusted with a delivery note, which it is his duty to give to Briggs or Woodhouse, as the case may be, and it is their duty to hand such delivery note into the counting-house in the evening—there would sometimes be several deliveries in one day, and it is the clerk's duty, on receiving this blue docket or delivery note to compare it with the landing note and to write the goods off, in order that we may know what is left at the wharf, so that if a consignment is not delivered it would be discovered at once by this delivery note not having been forwarded into the counting house—the amount of strawboards that we use is on an average fifty tons a week—if the carmen's books were not signed, the wharf people would know the goods had not been delivered—we have from twelve to fourteen tons per week of waste, which we sell to paper mills in England,
to be repulped, and some of which goes to the Continent—unless it were a very large amount of strawboards missing, we should not notice it, except perhaps by there being a shortage in the profits; it would be impossible for us to keep a check upon goods—the market price of these strawboards in London is from £4 7s. 6d. to £4 15s. per ton free domicile, subject to a trade discount of 2 1/2 per cent, cash in a month—the price does not vary much—the first news I had of the robbery was Sergeant Laing coming to me on October 3rd with some strawboards marked seventy-six in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, and which I identified as mine—I then went with him to Bracht & Friedlaender's, where I saw 160 bundles, four tons in weight, each bundle bearing the 76 in a diamond mark and the same size and weight—on turning to page 76 of my order book (Produced) I found that those were a portion of the goods I ordered on July 18th, 1904, having ordered five tons, or 200 bundles, and I see that my clerk has marked it off as having been delivered at the wharf—the date of the invoice is July 26th and the goods are generally delivered about two weeks after—this is an order (Ex. N.) to the wharf, dated September 28th, to deliver to us 160 bundles, thirty by forty inches, fourteen ounces; and this is the delivery note (Ex. O.), for those 160 bundles, which was sent by the wharf people in accordance with their ordinary practice, and given to Briggs, and duly lodged by him at the counting-house, as though the goods had been delivered—in this carman's delivery book (Produced) is the entry for those 160 bundles, signed by Briggs, whose handwriting I know, as having been delivered—I returned with Laing and Inspector Kyd from Bracht & Friedlaender's to my factory, and saw Schultz delivering some strawboards, which Briggs was taking in—I gave Schultz into the custody of Laing, and went with Kyd into the basement, where I gave Briggs into custody—Schultz made some remark that if he had delivered the goods, they would be signed for, and Briggs, as far as I heard, said he knew nothing at all about it—previous to this Hyman was arrested—I was not present when Ince was arrested—I charged Briggs and Schultz at 10 a.m. at the City Road police station, and all the prisoners were brought up before the Magistrate on October 5th—after the first hearing at the Police Court, I went to Schmaltz's, a wholesale stationer at 213, Featherstone Street, and found there ninety-four bundles of strawboards, twenty-four of them being marked with eighteen in a diamond, sixty-four marked eighty in a diamond and six marked ninety-four in a diamond—those marked eighteen in a diamond were part of an order which had been given on May 10th, 1904, for twelve tons of thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces; the eighty in a diamond were part of an order for twelve tons, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, given on July 26th, 1904, and the ninety-four in a diamond were part of an order for ten tons, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, given on August 15th—I had not sold any of the straw-boards obtained from those three orders—either that day or the next I went to the premises of Munt & Sons, wholesale stationers, of Cross Street. Hatton Garden, where I found 119 bundles, which I identified in the same way—they all bore numbers and sizes corresponding with
orders I had given at various dates—I then went to the premises of Mrs. Arnold, a strawboard liner, of 1. Dufferin Avenue, St. Luke's, whore I found ninety-five bundles of my strawboards bearing my shipping marks, corresponding with orders I had given at various times—I am prepared to refer to each order, if desired—from there I went to Dredge & Co.'s premises at 62, Pitfield Street—on their declining to allow us to search, we obtained a search warrant from the Magistrate at Worship Street Police Court, and on returning I found 256 bundles, which I identified in a similar manner—from there I went to Pillivant's premises, where I identified 491 bundles—on September 29th, a messenger came from them bringing a sample strawboard, twenty-five inched by Forty inches, in consequence of which I had an interview with Pillivant—in the result I bought from him ten and a half tons, twenty-five inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, at the rate of £3 17s. 6d. a ton, which were delivered on my premises on December 29th or 30th—I was not present when they arrived—after Laing came on October 3rd, I examined these 420 bundles and found they were my own property, the outside strawboard of each bundle bearing my shipping mark, without which I should not been have able to identify them—no bundle of strawboards is ever sold in the trade without the shipping mark, the size and the weight marked upon it, for without such distinguishing mark it would be impossible to sort them at the wharf; several different consignments to different people coming in the same ship—if a man offered me an unmarked bundle, it would arouse my suspicions; and I never buy broken bundles—they are not even sold in auctions rooms unmarked.
By the JURY. As Briggs saw the stock diminishing from the lining department he would send in a voucher to the counting house—the clerk would not know if the stock ordered had not been sent to the lining department, as they might use perhaps, four or five tons one day of one size and only one ton the next day—99 per cent of the strawboards are passed through machines and lose their identity—it is Briggs' duty to see that the amount of strawboards does not get below 120 to 180 tons.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. I simply told Schultz that a gentleman wanted to speak to him, and I then left him with Sergeant Laing—it is very likely that I said to him, "I have always looked upon you as a respectable man"—I had always regarded him as such—I did not know at the time that he was in a small way of business for himself—we sell very few straw boards, and when we do so they are despatched straight from the wharf to the customer; they do not reach my premises at all—when Schultz delivered strawboards they would be sent down a shute to Briggs—I per cent, of them would be made into boxes as they were, without any manipulation—Schultz said something to the effect that the delivery books would show what goods had been delivered, but that was in answer to a question put to him by Laing—very likely he said that the books at the Gun & Shot Wharf would show what goods had been ordered from there.
Cross-examined by MR. LORT-WILLIAMS. I employ over 100 people at my factory, of which seven are in the basement besides Briggs—it is the duty
of my manager to shut up the factory at night—Briggs does not give the shipping marks when sending in a requisition, as he would not know them—I believe there are three other carmen besides Schultz who deliver goods from the wharf.
Cross-examined by MR. FORDHAM. Nobody not connected with the trade would know what were the common sizes of the trade, and what were the sizes peculiar to myself—the waste cuttings are very largely dealt in—they pass through the hands of dealers before being repulped—I inspect everything that comes into the factory, so I should have eventually discovered that I had purchased my own property from Pillivant—in all the bundles that I identified as my own, in the possession of whomever it was, none of the marks had been tampered with.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The last time I took stock was in December, 1904, but the figures will not actually come out till February of this year—in a bundle of twelve-ounce strawboards, which is the general weight, twenty-two inches by thirty-two inches, there would be seventy-five boards, and in a sixteen-ounce bundle there would be fifty-six boards—if the outside board bearing the shipping mark had been removed, or the mark had been tampered with, I could not have sworn that the inner boards were mine—I was present at Bracht and Fried-bender's when Hyman was arrested—he mentioned, amongst other persons to whom he had sold strawboards, the name of Schmaltz, but I do not think he gave Schmaltz's address; he may have given it to the sergeant—I said to him, "You are the gentleman I have been looking for for some time"—he gave Pillivant's name, but not his address—I have nothing to say against the respectability of Schmaltz—the only purchase of strawboards I made last year under standard price, besides that from Pillivant, was a purchase I made in February from Schroeder's, which I sold to Darwin, as they were odd sites, of which I could make no use—I can furnish you with a list of the deliveries, and the price which I bought and sold them at; there was only one transaction—I sold them under standard price—the first I heard of the Schmaltz transaction was from Hyman—he also gave the names of Munt, and a firm of bookbinders in Clerkenwell of the name of Wright.
Re-examined. I am acquainted with every firm dealing in strawboards of any note in London, of whom there are perhaps twenty—I went to a large number of places with the police that Hyman had not mentioned—with a police authority it would not be a difficult thing for me to search through the trade to discover who had my strawboards—Schroeder, whom I have known for a very long time, offered me the strawboards cheaply because they had been made of American site for the American market, but owing to a prohibitory tariff being put on them as the result of a combine, they were dumped in England from Holland, where they were made,—Pillivant in offering the strawboards to me, said they were of a site not suitable for him—I have known him for several years as a respectable man the New Factory has never been broken into, and it would not be possible to remove van loads of strawboards in the night without leaving some trace.
ROBERT KNIGHT . I am a foreman at the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf, Tooley Street, and it is part of my duty to superintend the unloading of ships—I was present at the unloading of the steamship Teal on August 10th, from which were landed 685 bundles of straw boards—they were marked seventy-six in a diamond, and of them 200 were thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces—on September 29th I received this order (Ex. N) from Coutts & Company for 160 bundles of thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, seventy-six in a diamond, and I despatched the 160 bundles from the 200 unloaded—I was present when they were loaded on to Schultz's van—I gave him this delivery note (Ex. 0.) which is in my own writing, and this carman's delivery receipt book, in which I entered the 160 bundles, which afterwards came back signed "J. Briggs"—I think it was between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. that I dispatched Schultz with the goods—on September 2nd I loaded up Schultz's van with 120 bundles marked eighteen in a diamond, together with some other goods to be delivered to Coutts—on September 5th I loaded on his van forty more bundles with the same shipping mark, and on September 7th twenty more, and twenty more on the same date.
ALBERT STEPHEN OATES . I am a foreman at the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf, and I was present at the unloading of the steamship Falcon on June 15th, 1904—twelve tons of strawboards, marked eighteen in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, were unloaded from her, which were stored to the order of Coutts & Company—I was also present at the unloading of the steamship Groningen on September 5th, from which were unloaded ten tons of strawboards marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve-ounce.
WILLIAM MABS . I am a carman in the service of Mr. Travers—on September 3rd I took up a load of eighty bundles of strawboards, marked eighteen in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, at the Gun & Shot k Griffin Wharf, and this is the delivery note I had with them (Produced)—I took them to Coutts & Company, and obtained the receipt of the foreman, signed "J. Briggs."
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. I let them down the shute—I saw Briggs, who took them—I have taken goods there on eight or nine other occasions.
THOMAS DANIELS . I am a carman, employed by the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharves Company, and I also work for myself—on September 15th. 1904, I took sixty bundles of strawboards, marked eighteen in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, from the wharf, to the Old Factory of Coutts & Co., at Golden Lane—I handed them to Woodhouse—on September 22nd I took another load there of twenty., bundles, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, and they were again signed for by Woodhouse—on September 23rd I took twenty-four bundles, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, to the New Factory, where they were received by Briggs and this is his signature for them (Produced)—on September 12th I took twenty bundles, marked ninety-seven in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, with some
other goods, which I delivered to the Old Factory and Woodhouse signed for them—on September 13th I delivered sixty bundles, marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, and they were signed for by Briggs.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDS. The goods go down a shute at both factories.
HENRY ERNEST ELLAM . I am a carman in the employ of the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf—on September 7th I took sixty bundles of strawboards, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, to the New Factory; on September 10th, twenty bundles marked in the same way; on September 24th sixty bundles, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces; on September 26th, sixty bundles with the same mark; and on September 13th, twenty bundles, marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, and they were signed for by Briggs on each occasion—on September 19th I took twenty bundles, marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, and on the same day another lot of sixty bundles with the same mark, and on September 22nd a further lot of sixty bundles, marked in the same way, to the Old Factory, where each lot was signed for by Woodhouse.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. In delivering at the New Factory I sent the goods sometimes down the shute in the front and sometimes through the skylight—I generally pulled up into a blind court—the skylight was only used for the time being.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. There used to be a great number of carts there when I delivered—I have been delivering there sometimes twice a week, on and off, for three years—to the best of my knowledge, Briggs was always there when I delivered—I could see him at the bottom of the shute, and I can see everything that goes on there.
GEORGE MURPHY . I am a carman in the employ of the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf—on September 9th I took a load of sixty bundles of strawboards, marked eighteen in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, to the New Factory of Coutts & Co., and they were signed for by Briggs—on September 12th I took eighty bundles, marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, to the Old Factory, where they were signed for by Woodhouse.
CHARLES POLLARD . I am foreman in the employ of the Netherland, Steamboat Co.—I was present at the unloading of the Batavier on August 30th, when there were landed from her 200 bundles of strawboards, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces—I ware-house them to the order of Coutts & Co.
HENRY EDWIN REECE . I am a carman in the employ of Henry Evans & Sons—on September 9th I took fifty-four bundles of strawboards from the Netherland Steamboat Co.'s warehouse, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty-inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, to Coutts & Co.'s warehouses, half to the Old Factory, and half to the New Factory—they were, signed for by A. Gould.
GEORGE DREW . I am a carman in the employ of Henry Evans & Sons—on October 5th I and a fellow carman named Harris took a load of strawboards from the Netherland Steamboat Co.'s warehouse to Coutts & Co.'s warehouse at Great Arthur Street, and they were signed for by a clerk of their's named Dilk—among them were sixty-eight bundles, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces.
JOSEPH GOOD . I am a carman in the employ of Henry Evans & Sons—on September 13th I took a load of seventy-eight bundles of strawboards, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, from the Netherland Steamboat Co.'s warehouse to Coutts & Co.'s New Factory at Golden Lane, where they were signed for by Briggs.
WALTER OLIVER . I am a foreman at the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf—on September 16th, 1904, I was present at the unloading of the steamship Leuwarden, when there were landed from her 280 bundles of strawboards, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces—on September 21st I loaded twelve bundles of that lot on to Schultz's van, and on September 22nd I loaded eighty more on to his van—on September 19th I loaded on to his van eighty bundles, marked ninety-four in a diamond, twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twelve ounces, which by this book (carman's receipt book produced) purport to have been received by Briggs—Woodhouse signed for the twelve bundles on September 21st.
SAMUEL CAMBRIDGE . I am a foreman at the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf—on September 26th I loaded sixteen bundles of strawboards on to Schultz's van, marked eighty in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces—this is Briggs' signature for them in the carman's receipt-book.
CHARLES BRACHT . am a member of the firm of Bracht & Friedlaender, dealers in strawboards, of 47, Old Street, St. Luke's—on September 26th my clerk handed me this card (Ex. B.), on which there is "Richard Hyman, 34, High Street, Islington, Paper, Metal, and General Merchant"—in consequence of what my clerk told me I made some enquiries—about noon of the same day Hyman called and saw me—he said that he had some strawboards, which he had got in exchange for waste paper, to sell—I asked him about the price, and he said £3 15s. per ton free delivery—then I asked him about the sizes, and if he could supply them from the wharf to save cartage, and he said he could only supply twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, thirty inches by forty inches, and twenty-five inches by forty inches, which sizes I put down at the time on this piece of paper; (Ex. C.) in his presence—he also said that he could only supply unlined boards, and could not sell them at the wharf as the wharf people could not sort the goods properly he would have to supervise the sorting himself—it is the custom in the trade when buying from dealers to buy them at the wharf and instruct the wharf people to forward them on to the customer, thus saving cartage—I asked him to let me have a sample board, and he said the next time his
v n was coming round my way he would bring a bundle for my inspection—after his departure I communicated with Scotland Yard—the next day I wrote him a letter (Ex. D.) saying that we could do with three tons of wenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, ten ounces, unlined, at £3 15s. per ton, less five per cent, for cash on delivery, and would he deliver them on the morrow—on the next day, the 28th, we received the following letter (Ex. E.), "Dear Sirs,—Replying to your favour of yesterday's date, I have a quantity of the goods for which you are enquiring lying on wharf, but I am unable to obtain delivery just at present; if, however, you would let the order remain open for a short period, I would promise you delivery in a few days. I must at the same time point out to you that the price quoted to you will not allow of a discount of more than two and a half per cent. Yours truly, R. Hyman"—the same day I wrote (Ex. F.) to him saying. "Dear Sir,—In reply to your memo, we cannot understand why you should ask us £3 15s. less two and a half per cent, for the same strawboard that you were selling to boxmakers at £3 5s. per ton net. If the board suits us and your deliveries are satisfactory, we might take the whole quantity you have to sell, if we can come to terms regarding prices"—we knew from a traveller of ours that he had been selling to boxmakers at £3 5s. per ton—"he called the next day, the 29th, "with a reply to the letter—It must have been in the morning, as I saw the detective afterwards—he repeated what he had said, and offered me at the same time thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, of which he said he had four tons, and he said that if I could make that size do, he would let me have them at £3 12a. 6d. a ton instead of £3 15s.—he said that he had never sold at £3 Ps. to any boxmaker, but had supplied on a dealer at £3 10s.—I said he could send in the four tons, and he promised to do so the next day—shortly after he had left I saw Detective-Sergeant Laing—the next day, the 30th, the four tons were delivered on a van, on which Was the name of Stephens, with a delivery note (Ex. G.), "Please receive from Richard Hyman, 34, High Street, Islington, 160 bundles unlined strawboards, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, to Bracht & Friedlaender, Old Street," and at the same time an invoice (Ex. H.) for four tons strawboards thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, at £3 12s. 6d., £14 10s.; less two-and-a-half per cent. 7s. 3d. £14 2s. 9d.—three or four hours after the delivery of the goods, whilst going home, Hyman stopped me and asked me for a cheque—I said I had not bought them for cash on delivery—he there upon showed me my memo, of September 27th, in which I had said five per cent cash for delivery, but. I told him that that memo, did not refer to the parcel he had delivered—I did not give him a cheque, and said he could have the four tons back if he could not trust us for a month, which is the usual term—he said he would fetch them on the morrow morning, but as that was on a Saturday 1 said he must do so the next week, and so we parted—before I left the office I took three of the top boards of the bundles off so that they might be given to Laing—this board, marked seventy-six in a diamond, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces (Produced), is one of them, and all the 160 bundles were marked in the same way—as a matter of business I was in the wrong, but I kept it up—in consequence of a letter I wrote to him
on October 3rd, he came to our office on the 4th and offered to accept my terms in that letter—I had been acting throughout this matter more or less with the police—the 160 bundles were identified by Mr. Mansell as his own—the market price of strawboards at that time was £4 15s. free domicile, less two and a half per cent, for one month—being delivered as they were at my warehouse, it would have cost me 2s. 6d. a ton to cart them to my customer—the thirty-inch by forty-inch and twenty five by forty-inch sizes are fairly common sizes in the trade, but not twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches—Hyman at one interview said he could supply from five to six tons a week.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. The strawboards came in two vans—I do not know Schultz by sight—I would not necessarily see him if he delivered stuff at my place.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I have never seen Ince in my life.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I should think that Hyman was with me about ten minutes on September 29th—I passed the yard and saw the vans there when I came from lunch; they were open vans—he specially mentioned that he had not sold strawboards for less than £3 10s. to dealers; it would mean more to boxmakers; I remember that as well as I remember anything—I do not remember saying at the Police Court that he said box-makers; my statement was not read over to me at all—the market price last year varied from about 5s. to 7s. 6d. per ton—I do not think we sold a single ton at £4 7s. 6d.—I only know Schmaltz by name as being in he same line as myself.
WILLIAM JULIUS SCHMALTZ . I am a wholesale stationer, of 213, Feather-stone Street, City Road, and I deal in strawboards—in June, 1903, Hyman, whom I had not seen before, called upon me, and described himself as a general dealer—he offered me some strawboards, which he said were landed at some quay—he said they had been meant for the American market, but had been thrown on the maker's hands owing to a prohibitive tariff put upon them—he also told me that he was in the habit of shipping waste cuttings to the Dutch mills, and that he got strawboards in exchange, which enabled him to sell them a little cheaper—I forget the sizes he said he had got, but I know all I bought of him were thirty inches by forty inches, twenty-five inches by forty inches, and twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, and all unlined—thirty inches by forty inches, and twenty-five inches by forty inches are very common sizes, but twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches is not very common—I bought altogether about 245 tons, some at £3 12s. 61., some at £3 10s., and some at £3 7s. 6d., and I think about five or six tons at £3, which I think were damaged—he had to deliver them to my place at that price—the market price at that time was about £4—I paid him altogether about £845—I continued dealing with him up to the time of his arrest—on October 5th Mr. Mansell came to my premises with the police, and I showed him ninety-four bundles which were remaining—they had all kinds of shipping marks on them, and I cannot say whether they were all the same; the only thing I looked at was the size and weight—I partly
line the strawboards over with paper and then sell them—I am not a box maker—I produce eight invoices from Hyman from September 1st to September 30th.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. There are a good many deliveries in my yard—I can see the carman—I have never noticed Schultz in my yard.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I do not cut the strawboards my-self; the box makers do that.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I have had twenty-two years experience as a stationer—twenty-two inches by thirty-two inches, twenty-two inches by thirty inches and twenty-five inches by thirty inches are all standard sizes—the market price of £4 in June, 1903, has dropped since—there was not much of a drop in 1904—the lowest price I have bought from a mill is at £3 17s. per ton—at the time when the strawboards were shipped over here in consequence of their not being sent to America the price dropped owing to the overstocking of the market—there are always bargains going—I considered I was paying a fair and reasonable price—upon every occasion Hyman came frankly and openly—the market stiffened about the time of his last consignment to me at the end of September, and he therefore asked me an extra 2s. 6d. a ton, which I gave him—£3 103. was the price I offered him in the first instance—in nearly every case I paid him by cheque payable to himself.
Re-examined. I never went to his address—it did not dawn on me that there was anything wrong—I would not ask him such a question as to what mills he was getting them from—the £3 17s., the price I paid to the mill, would be added to by 2s. a ton cartage from the wharf to my premises—the market price is about £4 4s., less 2 1/2 per cent, for a month—I got 2 1/2 per cent, reduction from Hyman for cash.
HARRY GEORGE MUNT . I am a partner in the firm of Munt & Son, wholesale stationers and box makers, of Cross Street, Hatton Garden, in which business we purchase strawboards—on May 29th, 1904, Hyman called and said that he had a consignment of strawboards which had been rejected owing to a late delivery and had come into his hands for sale cheap—I understood they were his—he wanted £3 15s. a ton free domicile for them—on looking at the invoices we had from him (Produced) I see the sizes that we bought were twenty-five inches by forty inches, thirty inches by forty inches, and twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, most of them being fourteen ounces, some being ten ounces and twelve ounces—they were not the sizes we stocked, but as the price was lower than the ordinary market value, which was from £4 5s. to £4 10s. per ton, we said we would try a few and see how we got on with them—the first purchase was 135 bundles at £3 15s., the next being two tons fourteen cwt. on June 20th, at the same price, and the next being two tons on June 26th, at the same price—I produce the delivery notes—he then called on us and said that as the County Council had ordered that the place where he kept his strawboards should be whitewashed he would let us have some at £3 12s. 6d., to get rid of them, and we ordered three and a half tons at that price, which were delivered the same day—he was constantly calling on us—on
July 8th we ordered another two tons, and on August 7th one and a half tons, at the same price, which constituted the lot—we paid in each case by cheque, the highest price being £3 15s., the lowest £3 12s. 6d., subject to a discount of 2 1/2 per cent., which was increased to 5 percent.—on October 5th, Mr. Mansell came to our premises with the police, and we produced 121 bundles, the quantity we had left—so far as I know, all the bundles in each consignment were marked with a number in a diamond or a brick, but the size and weight is what we took the most interest in.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I have been twenty-eight years in the business—it may have been that he asked £4 a ton in the first instance, and that we said they were worth only £3 15s. a ton to us—every rule of business was preserved in the transactions, and I considered them all straightforward.
Re-examined. I have not come across the sizes before.
By the COURT. We found that they worked all right.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDS. I have never seen Schultz, and to my I knowledge he has never been in my yard.
FREDERICK THOMAS PILLIVANT . I am a maker of fancy boxes, of 31a, Old Street, E.C.—in my business I use quantities of strawboards—early in 1204 Hyman came to me and wanted to buy my waste, but as I was under contract I could not sell any to him—he said that at various times he had strawboards to sell, and asked if he could offer some to me when he next had some, and I said he could—I think this was about April—the price agreed at was £3 10s. a ton—between April 11th and September 7th I bought about forty-seven tons from him, paying in all £166—I have produced he invoices—strawboards becoming so cheap on the market I said that as I did not particularly want them I could only offer £3 7s. 6d., which sum he accepted—they were mostly thirty inches by forty inches and twenty-five inches by forty inches, with a ton or two, perhaps, of twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches—thirty inches by forty inches is my usual size, but twenty-five inches by forty inches is not, although I believe it is a size on the market—at the end of September I had got about ten and a half tons of twenty-five inches by forty inches on my hands, and I went to Mr. Mansell, offering them to him at £4 or £4 5s.—he offered me £3 17s. 6d, which I accepted—I delivered them to him on September 30th and October 1st—they were all I had left of what I had bought of Hyman—I understood from him that the strawboards with which he supplied me were obtained by him in exchange for waste.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. I did not know Schultz before these proceedings, and he has never been in my yard.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I have been in the business for thirty-two years—he may have asked me £3 15s. or £4 a ton at first; the £3 10s. would probably have been fixed by me—I looked upon them as cheap, but I considered it a fair price owing to the state of the market and that he did not want them—I paid either by cheque or a bill for three months—the market price certainly did not stiffen at the end of September; my recollection is that there was a fall—I was buying boards at £4 7s. 6d. by contract, 2£ per cent, discount for a month's credit; I
could order any size or quantity I liked from the mill in Holland—Mr. Mansell, in the first instance, offered me £3 15s.
ELIZABETH ARNOLD . I am married, and carry on business as a strawboard liner, at Dufferin Avenue, St. Luke's, and sometimes for Dredge & Co.—On October 5th or 6th Mr. Mansell and the police came to my premises, and Mr. Mansell identified ninety-five bundles of strawboards which Dredge & Co. had sent me to be lined.
GEORGE GIBBS . I am a foreman buyer to Dredge & Co., box manufacturers, of 62, Pitfield Street—I have purchased strawboards from a representative of Ince—I have seen Ince himself—I made one payment and Mr. Dredge another—as near as I can remember, the only sizes that we purchased were twenty inches by forty inches, twenty-five inches by forty inches, and twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches—these are the invoices of the different lots we purchased—I bought altogether between August 10th and September 22nd 14 tons, 15 cwt., the total price, at £3 10s. a ton, with no discount, being £51, terms cash in a month—Ince told me, as did his traveller, that he had got the strawboards in lieu of waste cuttings he had sent across to Holland—some of these strawboards were sent on to Mrs. Arnold to be lined—after the arrest of the prisoners Mr. Mansell came round with the police to our premises and wanted to search but we would not let him do so—he then went away, and returned with a search warrant on which we allowed him and the police to see the bundles—I do not think Mr. Dredge was there at the time.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. The first time I saw Ince's traveler was early in August, or late in September, 1904—he told me that he came from Ince, and gave us Ince's card, on which he called himself a strawboard dealer—the invoices and the cheques were made out to Ince—everything that took place was perfectly open in every way.
FREDERICK DREDGE . I am the general manager of Dredge & Co., 62, Pitfield Street—the purchases were negotiated by Gibbs, and one payment was made by me to Ince—on October 8th I saw Mr. Mansell and the police on my premises—on their asking me to let them search, I refused to allow them to do so—on their obtaining a search warrant, I produced 256 bundles, the quantity left of those purchased from Ince—I have never looked at the shipping mark on them—Mr. Mansell identified them.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. These goods were delivered in the day time, and everything was perfectly open.
Re-examined. Of course we should not take delivery of goods in the middle of the night.
ALFRED LEFRED GEORGE WRIGHT . I am a member, with my brother, of the firm of Wright Bros., box manufacturers, of 64, Pollards Road, Bethnal Green—in February, 1904, he said he had a job line of strawboards to offer—I asked him the price, and I think he said about £3 15s. a ton—I cannot remember what sizes he mentioned, but I know they were sizes we did not often use—I said they were not any good to us at that price—ultimately we bought 2 tons 19 cwt., at £2 17s. 6d. a ton—I asked him why he was able to sell them so cheaply, and he said he supplied the
mills with raw material waste for making boards from, and that he took in exchange strawboards, whatever size they might send—he said he made no profit as far as I was concerned, but that he wanted ready money—he also mentioned some of the names of the witnesses who have been called to-day as having supplied strawboards to them—there was to be no discount—my first invoice from him (Produced) is "2 tons, 9 cwts. unlined strawboards, at £2 17s. 6d. per ton, £8 9s., then there is a discount of 2s. 6d.—there seems to be a few shillings knocked off in a few cases—I believe we were buying from the mill direct at that time at £4 5s., less 2 1/2 per cent., free delivery—he called many times—I said, "I will come round and see your place first," and I went round to his place at Hackney Road—I saw there a pretty lofty warehouse, with some stables at the side—over the door he had "F. Ince, Strawboard and Leather Dealer"—the place was quite full of strawboards, and I should reckon there were about 200 tons there—I cannot remember whether the first time I went there was before the second transaction, but I went there four or five times—during May and July I continued buying a few tons at a time, at £2 17s. 6d.—on July 22nd the price went down to £2 15s. a ton, as we said we did not want any more, whereupon he reduced the price, saying that he wanted the money—I said to him on one occasion," I think it is very funny; are you quite sure everything is perfectly straight?"—he repeated his explanation, saving that he had a lot of money owing to him—it did not seem possible to me at the time that a man could steal 200 or 300 tons—he said I was the only one he was selling the stuff to at less than market value—I had altogether from him 86 tons, 7 1/2 cwt., for which I paid him in all about £233—on September 23rd I went down to his place, and he offered me some strawboards for which I had no room, so I paid him £25 on account, asking him to keep the stuff at his place till I was ready for them—I produced the receipt for that £25 at the Police Court—five or six years prior to February, 1904, I knew him as a waste dealer, and he used to clear the cuttings from my place—the sizes that we had from him were twenty-five inches by thirty-four inches, twenty-five inches by forty inches, and thirty inches by forty inches—when Mr. Mansell came with the police my brother produced to him 491 bundles, the quantity we Had left, all of which were marked with a number in a diamond.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Ince told me in the first instance that they were odd sizes which he could not dispose of—he was almost offended at my asking him whether he had come by them in a straight-forward way—everything was transacted in a perfectly open way—we have bought odd lines occasionally from city firms—I saw about eight or nine men working at his place, and there was a horse and van there.
Re-examined. I have never before come across a firm that could supply me with job lines month after month.
ROBERT GEORGE MORTON . I am a carman employed by Mr. Stevens—I have from time to time carted goods from Ince's place, which is a small warehouse in Goldsmith's Row—on September 20th I took from there two tons of strawboards to Bracht and Friedlaender's, in Old Street—a mate of mine took two more tons at the same time to the same place—
on the same day I took two more tons from there to Schmaltz's place—on September 28th I also took two loads of two tons each to Schmaltz's—on August 22nd, I took two tons from Ince's to Pillivant's place—I got a receipt on each occasion, which I took back to Ince's shop at Hackney Road, and handed them to a man behind the counter—I have seen Ince himself several times—I only know Hyman by seeing him at Schmaltz's place when delivering goods there—I gave receipts to Hyman on two occasions.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDS. I have never seen Schultz at Ince's place.
JAMES GREEN . I am a carman in the employ of Mr. Stevens—on June 20th I collected two tons, five cwt. of strawboards from Ince's premises in Goldsmith's Row, and took them to Munts', at Cross Street, Hatton Garden.
WILLIAM HIRONS . I am a carman in the employ of Mr. Stevens—on June 30th I collected three and a half tons of strawboards from Ince's place, and took them to Munts', of Cross Street, Hatton Garden—Hyman was standing outside when I arrived, and Ince's man gave him the receipt I had obtained for the goods—on July 9th I collected two tons from the same place, which I also delivered to Munts'.
GEORGE MORGAN . I am a carman in the employ of Mr. Stevens—on August 8th I collected one and a half tons of strawboards from Ince's place, which I delivered at Munts' place, in Cross Street, Hatton Garden.
EDWARD HAYNES . I am a carman in the employ of Mr. Stevens—on August 11th I collected two tons of strawboards at Ince's stables, which I delivered to Pillivant's—on August 16th and 26th I collected two tons and delivered them to Pillivant on each occasion—I handed the receipts to Ince's man.
CHARLES WILLIAM GOODMAN . I am carman in the employ of Mr. Stevens—on August 9th I collected two tons of strawboards at Ince's place, in Goldsmith's Row, and delivered them to Pillivant at Old Street—on several other occasions I have taken strawboards from there to Pillivant—I always got a receipt, which I sometimes gave to Ince, and which on two occasions Hyman, whom I saw at Pillivant's, took from me—I have never seen Hyman anywhere else but there.
Cross-examined by MR. STEWART. The usual load in this class of stuff is two tons.
ANNIE PEARCE . I live at 1, Oakford Place, Goldsmith's Row—my husband is a boot-laster—Ince's place, which was once a stable, is right opposite my door—I have seen Schultz drive up there with a two horse van once a day and sometimes twice a day—his van used to be loaded up
with cardboard, like this (Strawboard produced) which sometimes was in rolls and sometimes in squares—he used to take it into the stables, and as soon as his van was empty another van would come and take it away as quickly as possible—I noticed it very much, because Schultz had a trouble-some horse, and I would have to fetch in my little boy every time, for fear of him being kicked—I have never seen inside the stables.
By the COURT. The van that used to fetch it away was a one-horse van, which had no name on it—ten families live in my street in ten different houses—they have all got children—most of them are at school and run about like my little boy.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. It was during last summer that I used to see Schultz—I cannot say how many times he came altogether, but he is the only man I saw bring the stuff up—he used to come at twelve a.m. and sometimes at tea time—I know some of Stevens" carmen by sight, but I have never spoken to them—I cannot tell you the colour of Schultz's van, or the colour of the horses—I never noticed any name on the van; it had sides to it, and there was a single seat for the driver up in front—I have seen sometimes a tarpaulin across the straw boards, but I cannot say the colour of it—I do not remember saying at the Police Court that Sergeant Laing came to me before I identified Schultz and told me all about the matter; he only asked me if I knew him—Schultz used to holloa out, "Mother, take your little boy in"—I have lived opposite Ince's place for nine years—I have noticed about two loads of bags of rags delivered there in the last six months, since Ince came there.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. There are only about ten houses in Oakford Place; it is a blind alley—I have never seen Schultz before he used to come there—I looked for a tall man with a slight moustache when I identified him—I picked him out of eight or nine men at once—five or six of them had beards—Ince was mostly always there, because he used to help Schultz with the cardboard—I could have walked into the stables if I had liked—Ince seemed to be doing a good business there.
Re-examined. There is no traffic in Oakford Place, except these vans I never saw anybody but Schultz bring these strawboards.
JAMES LAINO (Detective-Sergeant G.) On September 29th I received a communication from Bracht—on September 20th I watched outside his premises, when at 4 p.m. a van drove up—one was unloading when I got there, and the second van had just drawn up—they had "H. Stevens, 421, Hackney Road "on them—after the vans were unloaded, Hyman, whom I had seen waiting outside, went into the premises and immediately came out again—he waited about an hour at the entrance to the yard leading to the premises until Bracht came out and spoke to him—after Hyman had departed I spoke to Bracht and went back to his premises, where I obtained samples of the strawboards—I took them to various persons in the trade, and eventually to Coutts & Company, on October 3rd, when Mr. Mansell identified them—at 4 p.m. Inspector Kyd and myself went to Bracht's premises, where we saw Hyman—I told him who we were, and that I had been making enquiries about the four tons of strawboards that he had sold to Bracht, and that I had found they had been stolen on the 29th from Coutts & Company, in Golden Lane—he said, "You are making a
mistake"—I said, "Where did you get the boards?"—he said, "I refuse to say in the presence of Mr. Bracht from where I got the boards, but I will write down the name of the person from whom I got the boards, and hand it to you at once, because if Mr. Bracht knew from where I got the boards he could go and get them"—he wrote down the name and address on the back of his card (Ex. A.) "F. Ince, 406b, Hackney Road"—I asked him for his name and address, and he pointed to the card and said, "That is it"—on his card was "Richard Hyman, Paper Merchant and Metal Dealer, 349, High Street, Islington"—I said, "You do not live there," and he then gave me his address as 17, Park Court, Clapham—then Mr. Mansell came in—I told Hyman that I knew the person whose name he had given on the back of the card, and he said, "I have dealt with Ince for the past eighteen months in strawboards and ochre glazed paper. I have sold the boards to numerous customers, including Schmaltz, 21, Feather-stone Street; Pillivant, 31a, Old Street; H. Cordell, 5, City Garden Row; Messrs. Smith, 219, City Road; Messrs. Wright & Sons, Great Sutton Street; Messrs. Moses & Julius, 32, Heneage Street, E.C.; Mr. Kamlish, 72, Cannon Street, E. The whole of the ochre glazed paper I sold to Mr. E. T. Pillivant. I have also sold strawboards to Mr. Thorburn, St. Bride Street, City, and to Messrs. Berry & Roberts, also of St. Bride Street, City. I have no place of business, and I keep no books"—he offered to give me any information I wanted—he was taken to the station—next morning, on being charged, he made no reply—on the same afternoon, about 5 p.m., I went to the New Factory of Coutts & Company, where Schultz was given into my custody by Mr. Mansell—I told him who I was and I said, "The four tons you carted from the wharf on September 29th have been stolen; where did you deliver them to?"—he said, "If I carted them, I deliver them here to Briggs. If I saw the books, I could tell you"—he was taken to the station and the next morning he was shown the carman's receipt book, and he said, "I cannot remember"—when Hyman was searched there were found the letters from Bracht (Ex. D. and F.) and three receipts for strawboards delivered to Pillivant's (Ex. 55)—I afterwards went round with Mr. Mansell to the different places and saw him identify quantities of strawboards—when taking Schultz to the station, Kyd was walking in front with Briggs in custody and I was about ten yards behind, when Briggs made a desperate attempt to get away—I left my prisoner and caught hold of Briggs by the hand, and we secured him—while struggling he said, "It is you that has got this up for me because you know me."
Cross-examined by MR. WARDS. Schultz made no attempt to escape when I left him for Briggs.
Cross-examined by MR. STEWARD. I only went to the New Factory—anybody sending stuff down the shute would be able to see anyone at the bottom—I have seen Briggs there—I have never been rough with a prisoner—Kyd was not rough with Briggs on this occasion.
ANDREW KYD (Detective Inspector G.) On the afternoon of October 4th Briggs was given into my custody at Mr. Mansell's New Factory—I said to him, "I am a police officer, and I am taking you into custody for being concerned with a carman, Schultz, in stealing four tons of strawboards,
the property of your master, on Thursday last; the part you have taken is to sign Schultz's deliveries, although the goods were not brought in"—he said, "I only sign for things that are brought in; I know nothing about it"—on the way to the station he tried to get away—when charged he said nothing—on the evening of that day I went to Baring Street, Islington, where Ince keeps a shop—I was with another police officer at the time, and I said to him, "We are police officers, and I am going to take you into custody for receiving four tons of strawboards on Thursday last, with a man named Hyman, who says he got them from you"—he said, "I know nothing about it. If he got it from me, what did he pay me?"—there were no strawboards on the premises—he was taken to the station, and when charged he said nothing.
JULIUS SAMUEL ELLIS . I live at 12, Allington Crescent, Maida Vale—I also have a flat at 17, Park Court, Clapham, and I spend my time between the two—Hyman, whom I have known some years, shares my flat with me at Clapham—I have got a tailor's business at 34 and 36, High Street, Islington, and at two other addresses—the premises at High Street, Islington, are large ones, and I have several sub-tenants—Hyman has no office or warehouse there, but letters have been coming there for him for some time—I used to live there with him, and during that time he started in business for himself; I allowed him to use the address for business letters, and he continued to do so when he ceased living there.
Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. Nobody called there for him—I should not have stopped anyone coming to see him there.
Re-examined. We have ceased living there for three years.
HENRY JOHN MANSELL (Further cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS). I produce an account of the transaction I had with Schroeder—I bought from him, 3,736 bundles of strawboards, of 50 lbs. each, which is the American custom, for which I paid £236 odd, at £2 17s. 6d. and £3 a ton—there are two invoices, dated March 21st and April 2nd (Produced)—when Schroeder offered them to me he said they were rejected by an American firm owing to the tariff question—I have never known a similar case of American boards being offered on the market at such a low rate—they were sold by me at £271 8s. 11d., being at £3 5s. per ton—they were delivered to my customers from the wharf direct.
Cross-examined by MR. STEWART. My waste is removed about the tea half-hour, 5 to 5.30 p.m., every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—everyone in the factory goes to tea at the same time—there was no necessity for Briggs to be present at the removal of the waste; he has nothing to do with it—it is placed in a shed in a yard between the Old Factory and the New Factory—the Midland Railway Co., who take it away, weigh it, and give us a docket, by which we charge the waste to the dealer to whom the railway deliver it—my manager has the keys of the New Factory; it is left to his discretion as to whom he shall instruct to lock up at night, which is sometimes 6.30 p.m. in the busy season—no vans come to the premises after 5.30 p.m., except from the Gun & Shot Wharf, which I allow to send till 7.30 p.m.—I do not see why suspicion
should be aroused by a van being there after 7.30 p.m.—I should say Briggs got from 20s. to 21s. a week.
Re-examined. March, 1904, was the climax; the American combine, which was late in 1903, had forced strawboards up £2 or £3 a ton, which allowed Dutch boards to get in under the tariff; the Americans then manipulated the tariff so that they should not get in—I have no knowledge of anything of the kind in June, 1903.
By the COURT. Strawboards are not made in England at all—the idea of a firm supplying job-lines of this kind, month after month, would be too ridiculous to think of.
Schultz, in his defence on oath, said that he was a carman, and had carted goods for the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharves for six years; that he had delivered the 160 bundles of strawboards to the New Factory about 4 p.m. on September 29th; that Briggs, to whom he had delivered them through a window, had signed for them in his receipt book, and had taken the delivery note; that he had also delivered a letter to the counting-house from the wharf people to Coutts & Co., of which he did not know the contents; and that Mrs. Pierce was mistaken in saying she saw him at Ince's warehouse in Oakford Place, as he had never been there, and had never seen Ince before.
Evidence in Reply.
WILLIAM STUBBS . I am a clerk in the employ of the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharves Company—I remember giving Schultz a duplicate delivery note to deliver to Coutts & Co. who had asked for it, but I do not remember on what date; it may have been September 29th—it was taken from the end of this book (Produced)—we heard nothing more of it.
Cross-examined by MR. WARDE. I made it out myself and called it "Copy"—the request for it was sent in two or three days previously—I think it would be on September 29th—I asked him to take it up, at he was going to Coutts & Co.
By the COURT. Schultz asked me what letter it was that he had delivered, and I said, "It is a proof of some boards that we had delivered to Coutts & Co."—he said, "Did they have any reference to any boards that I have been taken up for?" and I said, "No, nothing at all; it had to do with some boards that had been delivered previously."
HENRY JOHN MANSELL (Re-examined). I very seldom got letters from the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf—I produce all letters received from them during 1904, one dated January 16th, two June 13th, and one each on December 1st, 16th, 17th, and 29th—my clerks cannot find any letters between June and December.
MINNIE GOULD . I am a clerk to Mr. Mansell, and sit in the order and enquiry office—any letters brought by hand from the Gun & Shot & Griffin Wharf would reach me directly, or after a lapse of time—I have no recollection of receiving a letter from Schultz, whom I know by sight, on September 29th.
tons of strawboards were delivered through that window, two tons of thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, and two tons of thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, by Schultz from a pair-horse van—I am in a position to say what is delivered through that window—neither on September 29th nor during that week did four tons of straw boards thirty inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, and thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, come through that window—I cannot say as to the shute.
Cross-examined by MR. STEWART. I am not always by my machine—it is very uncommon that goods should be delivered through that window; I do not suppose it has happened a dozen times altogether—I cannot say what was going on in the yard, as I was at my work—I saw Schultz about twice in September—I went to tea for half an hour at 5 p.m., and left the machine—I cannot say positively that it was September 29th that I saw Schultz delivering; I saw him twice in September.
Re-examined. It is not usual when four tons are delivered that they should all be of the same size and weight; there are generally 100 bundles of one size, and sixty of another—on this occasion the boards were of the two sizes.
Briggs, in his defence on oath, said that on September 29th he had taken in the 160 bundles of strawboards from Schultz through the window, and piled them in three piles in the basement, after which he knew nothing more of them and had no knowledge of their being stolen; that carts used to come at all times for the waste, which was placed outside this window, and that everyone on the premises would have access to it; that on occasions he did not have time to check the quantity coming in; and that previous to these proceedings he had never seen Ince or Hyman.
Ince, in his defence on oath, said that he was a general dealer of 46b, Hackney Road; that early last year he took some stables in Goldsmith's Row for warehousing and stabling purposes; that subject to a few transactions he first started dealing in strawboards in February, 1904, when he started buying from a man named S. Goldburg, of 8 or 80, Devons Road, Bromley, who obtained them from Holland in exchange for waste; that altogether he bought about 140 tons, paying at the rate of £2 7s. 6d. to £2 10s. per ton; that he had no idea that they were stolen property; that he sold them openly to the trade, including Hyman, whom he had known for some years, and to whom he sold about half; that he did not alter the shipping marks at all, which was an easy thing to do; that he never said to Dredge he himself had obtained the goods in exchange for waste, nor had he authorised Hyman to say so, nor that he (Hyman) could supply five or six tons a week; that he had not seen his relative Toms for six years; that he never had a stable in Tyndal Place; that Goldburg sold him four tons of strawboards, thirty inches by forty inches, fourteen ounces, and twenty-five inches by forty inches, twelve ounces, on the morning of September 30th, which he delivered to Bracht & Friedlaender, the same day as Hyman had said that he (Hyman) had sold that quantity to them; and that he had never seen Schultz or Briggs before; that he had tried, and failed to find Goldburg, and that he could not produce any paper whatever relating to the transactions he had had with him.
Hyman, in his defence on oath, said that since March, 1904, he had been selling strawboards which he had bought on an average at £3 a ton from Ince, making a profit for himself of about 6s. 9d. per ton; that he had not the remotest suspicion that he was dealing with stolen property, believing that Ince got them from Holland in exchange for waste; that he told Schmaltz that that was how they were obtained, not that he himself had exchanged the waste; that he disposed of altogether about 160 tons at an average of five tons per week, selling them to the trade, including Schmaltz, Bracht and Friedlaender and others, whose names he had given, in a perfectly open manner; that on one occasion he took a sample board to Mr. Mansell, out did not succeed in selling any; that Ince was mistaken in saying that he (Hyman) had only had sixty tons from him, and that he did not tell Ince on September 30th that he had sold 160 bundles, but that he asked him whether he had got them of the size he named; that in 1903 for about nine months he had bought strawboards from Toms, the greater quantity of which he sold to Schmaltz; that he did not ask where Toms had obtained them from, nor was he in partnership with him; that he never told Bracht that the strawboards could not be properly sorted at the wharf, and that he said that his premises had to be whitewashed because he wanted to get rid of some stuff cheaply, using that as an excuse.
SCHULTZ recommended to mercy by the Jury. He received a good character— Six months' hard labour. BRIGGS PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at the North London Sessions on August 4th, 1897. Several previous convictions were proved against him— Three years' penal servitude. INCE— Four years' penal servitude. HYMAN— Twelve months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, January 11th, 1906.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
MR. ROCH Prosecuted; MR. BURNIE Defended.
JOSEPH CIPPS (282 A.) At 1.45 a.m. on December 20th I was in Old Pye Street, Westminster—I heard shouts of "Help" and "Police" from the direction of St. Ann's Lane, which is a long narrow passage—there is a
lamp at each end—it is between eighty and ninety yards long—I went there and saw the prisoner and another man holding a man down and rifling his pockets—I gave chase and shouted for help—they both ran out of the passage into Great Peter Street—they parted there—as I got to the top of the passage another constable caught the prisoner and handed him over to me—I took him back to the prosecutor and asked him what they had done—he said, "They have knocked me down and robbed me"—I said, "Of how much?"—he said, "£2 10s."—I asked him if he would charge the prisoner—he said, "No"—as the prosecutor was drunk I took them both to the police station and charged them, one with robbing and the other with being drunk—next day they came before the Magistrate, when the prosecutor gave evidence—I have not seen him here to-day.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor was drunk, but he knew what he was about—the prisoner was not trying to help him up—I was thirty-five yards away at first—the prisoner was not out of my sight for more than a minute as he turned the corner.
GEORGE BUCKHAM (300 A.) I arrested the prisoner about 1.45 a.m. on December 20th as he was running out of St. Ann's Lane—I held him until Cripps came—Cripps said, "That is one of them"—I told him to hold the prisoner while I went after the other man, but lost him.
GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Newington Sessions on May 18th, 1904, in the name of John Edwards. One other conviction was proved against him. The police gave him a very bad character, stating that he belonged to some of the worst characters in London.
Three years' penal servitude.
MR. HERBERT-SMITH Prosecuted.
GEORGE THOMAS CLARK . I am a provision merchant, and live at 6, Palmeston Road, High Street, Walthamstow—about 7 p.m. on December 6th I was in Warner Street, Clerkenwell—I turned into a doorway to make water—I was sober—I was wearing a watch—I turned round when the male prisoner came to me—the woman stood about a yard off, with another man—the male prisoner said, "You seem a decent old toff"—I suspected he wanted to steal something—I said, "You have got the advantage of me"—he said, "No, I have not"—he then put both his arms round me; he drew my arms up, and took my watch and gave it to the other man—I pinned him against the wall, and said "You vagabond" and called, "Police," when the woman put her arm round my neck—I had to leave go of the man, as he was using violence to me in my privates—a policeman then took him to the station.
Cross-examined by Patrick O'Neil. I caught hold of you as you went across the road.
Cross-examined by Amy O'Neil. I did not knock up against you—you put your arm round my neck and said, "Let go, you b—"
By the COURT. The male prisoner struggled as I pinned him against the wall—at the station he came at me like a wild beast, and it took three constables to hold him.
ALBERT BENHAM (439 E.) On December 6th at 7 p.m. I was in Warner Street, and saw the two prisoners there—I heard a police whistle a few minutes after, and ran back and found Maddison with the prosecutor and the male prisoner—the prosecutor had the prisoner against a wall by the throat, and the woman was trying to pull him back—the male prisoner was taken to the police station, the woman following—the male prisoner was very violent at the station.
WILLIAM MADDISON (49 E.) On December 6th, about 7 p.m., I was in Warner Street—I saw both the prisoners there—I found the prosecutor struggling with the male prisoner—he seized him by the coat collar and said, "This man has stolen my watch"—I did not see the woman had hold of the prosecutor; she was close by—the male prisoner said, "I have not taken the watch; you have made a mistake"—they were both taken to the station, the female prisoner following—they were both charged there.
Cross-examined by Patrick O'Neil. I did not say before the Magistrate that you; wife was arrested in the street—seeing her condition I did not have her arrested in the street as she was following to the station.
By the COURT. The prosecutor was not intoxicated.
Patrick O'Neil, in his defence on oath, said that he went to make water when the prosecutor got hold of him and accused him of taking his watch, but that he never took it, and that the female prisoner was not his wife.
Amy O'Neil, in her defence on oath, stated that she had been ill for over a week and went out to find her husband, when she found the prosecutor had hold of him; that the prosecutor said the male prisoner had taken his watch, that she followed to the station, when she was charged, but what for she did not know.
PATRICK O'NEIL, GUILTY . AMY O'NEIL,
NOT GUILTY . Patrick O'Neil then PLEADED GUILTY> to a conviction of felony at this Court on October 5th, 1898. A large number of convictions were proved against him.
The police gave him a very bad character. Five years' penal servitude.
OLD COURT.—Thursday, Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, January 12th, 13th, 16th and 17th, 1905.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
(For the case of Henry Robert Jones, tried on these days, see Surrey Cases.)
FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, January 12th, and Friday, January 13th.
THIRD COURT, Saturday, January 14th, 1905.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
Second count, feloniously embezzling the same.
MR. BIRON Prosecuted; MR. WATT Defended.
ALBERT EDWARD SMITHSON . I am an acting overseer in the foreign section of the General Post Office—the prisoner has been employed as a porter in the foreign section for some time past and has clearing duties—on December 26th I was on duty in the foreign section, where the prisoner was employed—that is where newspapers are dealt with which are going to foreign countries—the newspapers are brought in in bags or baskets and are turned out on the general sorting table which contains divisions into which the newspapers are sorted for the various countries to which they are going—the prisoner had nothing to do with the sorting—it is not the duty of a porter to sort or to select anything—if a packet had got from the general sorting table to the "Italian road," he would be exceeding his duty to interfere with it in any way—I saw the prisoner at work on the day in question—when the incident occurred he had been on duty about three-and-a-half hours—this was about 8.30 a.m.—he says he was up all Christmas night drinking, but I had no cause to speak to him in any way.
Cross-examined. I had about 120 men under my charge—I had no occasion to watch the prisoner—his duty is to carry newspapers from the general table to the Italian table—the packet in question would not have been given to the prisoner; he would collect it from the Italian box—if it had been in the Italian box it would have been missorted there—if he discovered that he was carrying a packet amongst the newspapers it would not be his duty to call attention to it, it would have nothing whatever to do with him—it would be the duty of the road overseer to reject the packet—prior to this incident the prisoner was under suspicion—his wages were 24s. a week.
Re-examined. The prisoner was under observation—there is a special sorter for each road who would notice the package being there and would put it into what we term a "blind box" or "missort box."
WILLIAM BROEN . I am a sorter in the foreign section of the General Post Office—I was on duty as a sorter on December 26th—the prisoner was on duty there—I remember seeing him about 8.30 go to the general sorting table—I was at the foreign table at the time, which is known as the "Italian road"—in consequence of information, I watched the prisoner—I saw him collect correspondence from the general sorting table for the "Italian road"—he came with it and placed it all on the table with the exception of this small packet, which I saw him place in his left-hand trousers pocket—I immediately reported the fact to my superior officers—immediately afterwards he pulled 5d. out of the other pocket
and said to me, "This is all I have, 5d."—there was nothing whatever to lead up to that—he then went back to the general sorting table—my duty was to sort the newspapers, and I should have seen that this packet was there improperly—there was no correspondence on the "Italian road" at the time, it was perfectly clear until the newspapers were brought in by the prisoner—it is not true that he stood there talking—he was there about three-quarters of a minute.
Cross-examined. I saw him approaching with the newspapers—there were about twenty—at the time he was coming to the table he had the packet in his hand—he was not looking about him; he walked straight on—he wore an apron at the time, he pulled it up first—he was trying to keep the packet from the view of anybody else—I should say he was not aware I was looking.
Re-examined. When the prisoner came to the Italian table he turned on one side, but did not move any distance.
ARTHUR JONAS WATTS . I am a clerk in the Secretary's office at the General Post Office—the prisoner has been about five years in the Post Office as a porter—since the beginning of October he has been suspected of dishonesty—in consequence, special observation was kept upon him—he was brought before me—I said to him, "At 8.30 this morning you were seen to place a packet in your pocket; you were spoken to by Mr. Tanner and you produced the packet from your left-hand trousers pocket; what explanation have you to offer of your possession of the packet?"—he replied, "I cannot say what made me do it."
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he found the packet amongst the newspapers and put it in his pocket to take it back; that the previous night he had been drinking a good deal and was muddled, so that he forgot he had the packet in his pocket; and that he had no intention of stealing it.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury. Judgment respited.
137. GEORGE COLLINSON (23), GEORGE BAILEY (53), FREDERICK MILLS (23), and NORAH DRISCOLL (41) , Robbery with violence on Henry Frederick Charles, and stealing from him £2 10s., his money. MILLS PLEADED GUILTY to simple robbery.
MR. CUNDY Prosecuted; MR. BUNIE Defended Mills and Driscoll.
HENRY FREDERICK CHARLES . I live at 55, Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel Road, and am a clerk—shortly after midnight on Saturday December 17th, I was in Commercial Street, where I met Driscoll—she spoke to me and I stopped to listen to her for two or three minutes, when two men came up, joined by a third one—she went to speak to them—the three men then disappeared and the woman came back to me—she then spoke about my tie being untidy and said, "Come round the corner here and I will put it right for you"—I went two or three yards and then said to her, "I must be going home"—she asked me if I was going to give her anything for detaining her—I said, "Yes, I will give you something"—I put my hand in my pocket to pull out some money—as I did so two men
pounced on me, dragging me to the ground; a third rushed at me in front and caught hold of me—I struggled and got away two or three yards, when they got me down again—at the time one man was holding me by the throat, I could feel the others' hands in my pocket—they were pulling me about, when three or four other men came up, who turned out to be police officers—one of the latter said, "I have been watching this, I have seen him"—I let go of the man and he was taken to the station—I do not identify any of the male prisoners—I had about £2 10s. on me—I do not know what became of it—I heard jingling of money as we went to the station.
Cross-examined by Bailey. I do not identify you—I was not with the woman in the Whitechapel Road—I lost my hat in the struggle—I had my hat before you or the three men I am speaking about came up.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I met Driscoll in Commercial Street—I was not speaking to her for two minutes before the men came up the first time—I waited there perhaps five minutes—the men were speaking to her for about a minute—the woman did not assault me—I did not see her take any part in the robbery—I had had a little drink, but I knew what I was doing.
Re-examined. I do not know the names of the streets about there, but I know High Street, Whitechapel, and Commercial Street.
FRANK DENNIS (277 H.) About 12.30 a.m. on December 18th I was in company with three other officers in plain clothes, when I saw the prosecutor with Driscoll in High Street, Whitechapel—the woman was putting his tie straight and brushing him down in front—they stood for a few minutes in the doorway of the Art Gallery—they went down High Street, down Osborn Street, into Wentworth Street, where they stopped—they were there a few minutes when the male prisoners spoke to her—Collinson and Bailey went a little way, while Mills stood at the corner—the woman did not move—they then came back and said something else to the woman—they went back again—as the prosecutor came round the corner they came rushing at him, Bailey hanging on his coat sleeve—the prosecutor broke away from him and got about six yards down Wentworth Street when Collinson and Bailey caught hold of the prosecutor and threw him on his back—as soon as they did that Mills looked round and, seeing nobody about, ran up—I caught hold of Bailey, but he got away—I followed him for about 100 yards and caught him—Mills ran in the same direction—I blew my whistle—on the way to the station Bailey said, "I don't know those two men; never see them before"—at the station he said to the prosecutor, "Did you see me in your company this night?"—the prosecutor replied, "I cannot recognise any of you; all I know is that three men robbed me in Wentworth Street"—we were watching about twenty yards away, concealed in a gateway—I did not hear any money fall, because I was running after Bailey.
Cross-examined by Bailey. I saw the prosecutor first in High Street, Whitechapel—he had not his hat on then—I should say he had been drinking—I first saw you at the corner of Wentworth Street—I say you had hold of him.
Cross-examined by Collinson. I saw you first at the corner of Wentworth Street in company with the others—I have not made a mistake.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. The prosecutor was the worse for drink—I do not know whether he said before the Magistrate that he was sober—he was not drunk and incapable, but he had had enough—the men first spoke to Driscoll in Osborn Street, at the corner of Wentworth Street.
Re-examined. I arrested Bailey and Mills.
JOHN STEVENS (321 H.) On December 18th about midnight I was in plain clothes on duty in High Street, Whitechapel, in company with three other officers—I saw the female prisoner with the prosecutor standing in the doorway of the Art Gallery—she appeared to be stroking his waistcoat or something—she had got her hands down the front of him—they stood there some few minutes—they went up Osborn Street and stood at the corner of Wentworth Street, where they were met by Collinson and Bailey and another—the woman went and spoke to the three male prisoners—she then came back again to where the prosecutor stood and Bailey and Collinson went round the corner into Wentworth Street—Driscoll and the prosecutor then went round the corner after them—Mills stood at the corner—then the prosecutor came rushing across Brick Lane, with Bailey holding his coat—Bailey pulled him back into Went-worth Street, where Collinson ran up and the two threw him down on the pavement—Mills then ran down from the corner where he had been standing—we rushed out of our place of concealment—Bailey and Mills ran away—I arrested Collinson—the prosecutor still had hold of his coat tail—we were watching about twenty to twenty-five yards away—Collinson had 3s. 6d. and two halfpennies on him—some money fell in the road at the time of the arrest.
Cross-examined by Bailey. I first saw you with the other two male prisoners at the corner of Wentworth Street—I did not notice that the prosecutor had a hat on—I did not see you with the woman, nor with the other two prisoners, in High Street, Whitechapel—I have seen you before with Collinson, but not with Mills—I have not made a mistake—I saw you at the corner previous to the robbery.
Cross-examined by Collinson. I first saw you at the corner of Went-worth Street—when I arrested you you were not going up Brick Lane—the prosecutor had hold of your coat.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I did not see the first meeting of the prosecutor and the woman—I should say the prosecutor was in the woman's company about five to ten minutes before the men came up—it would not be right to say twenty minutes.
JOSEPH HAYNES (63 H.) On December 18th, soon after midnight, I was with other constables in High Street, Whitechapel—I saw Driscoll speaking to the prosecutor—she was brushing down his coat and placing his tie straight—she then walked with him till they came to the corner of Wentworth Street—they then stood against a shop a little way down the street, talking—the male prisoners stood near—Driscoll went and spoke
to them—Bailey and Collinson went down Went worth Street, and Mills stood at the corner—in two or three minutes the prosecutor came running up Osborn Street, with Bailey clinging to his arm—I ran up and saw that Stevens had hold of Collinson; Dennis had gone after Bailey and Mills, and I arrested the woman—she said, "This is all right, isn't it?"—she said nothing in answer to the charge.
Cross-examined by Bailey. I did not say at the Police Court that you followed the woman up Osborn Street and passed her and joined the two men.
Cross-examined by Collinson. I saw you first at the corner of Osborn Street and Wentworth Street with Bailey and Mills—I have made no mistake.
Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I saw the prosecutor and Driscoll first in High Street, Whitechapel—I should think they walked about 200 yards before the men were spoken to—I should think it was about 300 yards to where the assault took place—it would not be correct to say twenty minutes elapsed from the time the prosecutor met the woman till the men were spoken to.
Bailey's statement before the Magistrate: "The woman, Annie Wrights, can prove I just left her."
Driscoll, in her defence on oath, stated that she met the prosecutor and walked a little way with him; that she straightened his tie and brushed the juice of an orange which he was eating off his clothes; that he left her, as he felt sick; that she heard a noise, and, turning round, she saw two or three men round him; and that she did not see the assault, or take any part in it.
Bailey, in his defence, stated that he was an innocent man; that he did not know Collinson or Mills; that at the time the robbery took place he was in Wentworth Street with another woman; that as he came round the comer he came face to face with the constable, who arrested him.
Collinson's defence: "I was going up Brick Lane, 70 yards away from the affair, when the two men came and pounced upon me. I am innocent of this."
JOSEPH HAYNES (Re-examined). I arrested the woman on the spot just after the robbery took place—she walked up Osborn Street about seven yards—when I came up the man had the prosecutor down—she was then standing by while they had him down.
Each GUILTY . Collinson then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on May 5th, 1903, in the name of William James Moss; Bailey to a conviction of felony at Newington on May 12th, 1900; and Mills to a conviction of felony at West Ham on June 12th, 1903, Mills was given a bad character by the police. One summary conviction was proved against Collinson. A large number of convictions were proved against Bailey. COLLINSON, MILLS, and BAILEY— Twelve months' hard labour each ; DRISCOLL— One month hard labour.
MR. JENKINS Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
JOHN BUCK . I live at the Coach and Horses stables, attached to the Coach and Horses public-house, Stonebridge, and am a contractor—about 7.30 p.m. on January 6th, 1904, I was in the saloon bar of the Coach and Horses—when I went in the prisoner was there, another man, named Kirby, since convicted, a man not in custody, named Bray, and the manager of the house—about fifteen or twenty minutes after, the manager went to have his supper—a Mr. Parker came into the bar—a boy came in with a paper and told Mr. Parker that he was wanted up home at once—Mr. Parker then went out—the three men in the bar then set about me, striking me on my jaw and ear—the prisoner was there—I became unconscious—I lost my watch and chain and a Kruger coin—I cannot say who took them.
Cross-examined. I had never seen the three before—the prisoner followed Parker to the door—I cannot say whether he went out or not; perhaps he did.
Re-examined. The moment Parker left I was assaulted.
JOSEPH PARKER . I live at Stonebridge, and am a horse-keeper—about 8 p.m. on January 6th, 1904, I was in the saloon bar of the Coach and Horses—there were three men there whom I did not know, Mr. Buck, and the manager—I was not able to identify the prisoner—I was called away in a few moments to go home—I went, but found I was not wanted—I returned to the Coach and Hones and saw Kirby on top of the prosecutor—I met on my way back to the house one of the two other men—I do not know which.
Cross-examined. I left three men in the bar, but only found two there when I came back.
ROBERT WALKER . I live at 116, Kemp Road, and am a public-house manager—on January 6th, 1904, I was the manager of the Coach and Horses, Stonebridge—I remember that date—about 8 p.m. I was in the saloon bar when the prosecutor came in—the prisoner and two other men were there and Mr. Parker when I went to supper—I have known the prisoner for five years or more—he and the two other men were together, but I did not notice whether they spoke to one another—while at supper I felt a bit dizzy—I had had some beer in the bar about ten minutes before—I came back to the bar, but it was empty—I did not hear any disturbance—there were about five people in the bar when I went in to supper—I had not seen the prisoner with Kirby before that occasion.
Cross-examined. I had seen the prisoner at Stonebridge once or twice before—I have known him mostly in the neighbourhood of Harrow Road, where I managed a public-house for some years.
EDWARD JULIAN . I used to be barman at the Coach and Horses—I remember January 6th, 1904, about 8 p.m.—I saw something dropped by Kirby in Mr. Walker's beer—I attached no importance to it at the time—when Mr. Walker went to supper, there were in the bar the prosecutor, Mr. Parker, the prisoner and two others—I had known the prisoner before by sight, but not Kirby or Bray—I did not see Mr. Parker leave
the bar—I think when he left, there were two men there—I cannot say when the third left, because I was running about the bar serving.
Cross-examined. I heard a noise, and on looking round I saw Kirby and Bray knocking the prosecutor about—I did not notice anybody else—Bray and Kirby were both strangers to me in January, 1904—I now know their names.
LOUISA CLYDE . I am the daughter of Mr. Thomas Clyde, licensee of the Junction Arms, Willesden—I have since heard there was a robbery on January 6th, 1904, at the Coach and Horses—I recognise the prisoner as one of our customers—I saw him with two other men examining a coin or a gilded medal—I did not know the other two—it was on January 6th, 1904, between 9 and 10—I remember going to tell my father, thinking it looked suspicious.
Cross-examined. I do not always go and tell my father when I see people looking at a coin—I do when I think it suspicious—it does not often occur—I did not give evidence against Kirby; I was ill in bed—I have known the prisoner as a customer at our house.
Re-examined. I remember Kirby being charged—nobody came to me about giving evidence.
---- GRAVES. I am a registered medical practitioner—I examined the prosecutor on January 10th, 1904—I found contusions on his face and mouth, and four teeth knocked out—he seemed to have been pretty severely knocked about.
ERNEST SPENCER (Detective-Sergeant X.) I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest on January 13th, 1904—I arrested him at Wakefield on December 17th last—I read the warrant to him—he said, "I was not there when it was done, and did not have any of the proceeds"—I brought him to London, where he was charged—he made no reply when the charge was read over to him—afterwards he said, "If you catch Bray, lock him up and throw the key away. If it had not been for him I should not have been in it."
Cross-examined. He was charged with being concerned with others in robbing Mr. Buck—the others were mentioned by name, Kirby and Bray—the warrant was read over to him at Wakefield.
EDWIN POLLARD (Detective-Inspector X.) I met Spencer and the prisoner in London on December 17th—the prisoner knew me—he said, "Goodevening, Mr. Pollard"—I said, "Good-evening, Price; we have got you safe at list after all this long time"—he replied, "Yes, I fell soft or else you would not have had me. I was dragged on the railway station at Newcastle and you sent there for the police, told the Magistrates there about this job, but you have not got another man, Jack Bray, yet"—I said "No, I wish we had"—he replied, "I was a mug to have gone with them to Stonebridge Park; I ought to have gone anywhere but there"—on the way from Euston to Willesden he said, "I did not clear out of London directly after in consequence of the alarm, and was near the Old Bailey when the kid got his time" (the kid being Kirby) "and I read about the job in the papers, but I wish I had given myself up instead of running away. I was a mug; I did not hit the old man, neither did I
have the 6s. 8d. which they say I had. Neither did I touch or put anything in the drinks or see it done, but Jack was wicked enough for anything. I was outside the boozer when they touched Buck, and we were coming away when the hid came running after us. I said, 'What are you running for?' He said, 'Nothing,' and I said no more, and we all came away. I heard Bob Walker had supper and became ill, but Jack is wicked enough for anything; catch him and lock him up safe and throw the key away. How shall I get on? I expect I shall get more with my brief, but if you get Jack they may do him to rights. He deserves to be double-punished; I wish I never had seen him"—I said, "I don't know what you will get, but I expect you will be committed for trial at the Old Bailey"—"Well," he said, "I must put up with it. I was a mug to have gone with them"—he was charged, but made no reply.
Cross-examined. The word "brief" is slang for history—the prisoner goes about race-courses—he has had three months for gambling and three months for loitering—prior to that he was a respectable costermonger for years—he has never been charged with felony before—I have known Bray for nineteen years—I should like to see him—I should like to lock him up and throw the key away—he is one of the worst ruffians there is that follow race meetings—he is a very different man to the prisoner—I never saw Kirby before he was arrested.
GUILTY . Six month's hard labour.
139. PERCY THEO (38) , Unlawfully attempting to break and enter the shop of the Cabins, Limited, with intent to steal goods and moneys therein. Second count, unlawfully being in possession of an implement for house breaking.
MR. P. GRAIN Prosecuted.
CHARLES HENRY OWEN . I am housekeeper at 6, Old Jewry—the basement there is occupied by the Cabins Restaurant—there is a staircase from there communicating with the ground—on Saturday, December 24th, at 8.55 p.m., I was coming out of the premises, when I saw the prisoner coming up the basement stairs—he walked across to Church Court—I followed him—when he got there he ran through the Court—I ran to the bottom of Old Jewry to Ironmonger Lane to see if I could see him—I did not see him—I came back and saw him again come up the steps of 6, Old Jewry, but on the other side of the house—he went through Dove Court—I saw him come out into Poultry—I told a constable, who caught him and brought him back to Old Jewry—the constable put his hand into the prisoner's pocket and took out a spanner—he said to the prisoner, "What have you done with the padlock?"—he said, "I never took the padlock off; my mate done that"—he was taken to the station—I had seen that the Cabins door was locked at 7 o'clock.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I saw nobody else there but yourself.
CHARLES HOSLETT (687 City). On Saturday, December 24th, about 9 p.m., I was in Old Jewry—I saw the prisoner standing at the corner—from information I received I went to the prisoner and took him back to 6 Old Jewry, to the basement door of the Cabins Restaurant—I asked
him if he knew anything about the padlock and hasp—he said, No, 1 know nothing about it"—the padlock and hasp had gone—I felt in his coat pocket and took out this spanner—I said, "What is this?"—he said, "That is nothing"—I said, "What account do you give about the padlock and hasp?"—he said, "My pal took that off"—I asked him where his pal was—he said he did not know—I compared marks on the door with the spanner, and they corresponded—I took him to the station—on the way there he said his pal took it off.
NELLIE MAYGOOD . I am cashier at the Cabins Restaurant, 6, Old Jewry—I was told about somebody having tried to break in—I found nothing missing—there was no money kept there—the place was safely locked up.
The prisoner, in his defence, slated that he had to meet a gentleman who owed him money, at the Restaurant; that he did not come; that he (the prisoner) went to a public-house for a drink, and there met a man who told him to wait; that he loitered about waiting for him; and that he picked up the spanner in the street.
GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court on January 5th, 1900. Nine other convictions and eight summary convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.
MR. PICKERSGILL Prosecuted; MR. GREENFIELD Appeared for Cohen.
MR. TODD for Rodsky, and MR. HUTTON and MR. JENKINS for Silverhamer.
BARNETT KEMPINSKY . I am a merchant carrying on business with two others at 36, Duke Street, Aldgate—we have a warehouse there of three floors—it is secured by a padlock on the front door—I left the premises secure on the night of December 22nd—on December 23rd I was the first person to go there, and found the door broken—I found that nearly all the lace boxes were empty—we missed ninety-six gross of cottons, 169 lbs. of thread, thirteen boxes of button hole twist and a large quantity of other articles, of the value of about £320—I communicated with the police—I next saw some of the missing property on December 28th at the police station—it was in sacks, and I identified the goods belonging to me—there is still about £140 worth missing—the goods at our warehouse are never kept in sacks.
SAMUEL KRANTZ . I live at 51, Upper North Street, Poplar, and am a traveller in silk ribbon—on December 28th I saw the prisoners—I saw Rodsky and Silverhamer first in a public-house—I do not know the name of it or the street where it is situate—I know Blythe Street—the public-house is about twelve or fifteen minutes' walk from there—a man brought them in—I think his name is Morris—I asked them who was the boss or
governor of the stuff, and they said to me, "There is no difference, anyone ran speak with you as to it anyone can give you an answer about the stuff."—we then had a drink, and went to Blythe Street. Bethnal Green—we went into a house there and went upstairs, where they showed me the stuff—Cohen was in bed there—there was no one else in the room—I noticed bags full of stuff—I asked them what they had got in there, and Rodsky told me they had so many collarettes, so much lace, and so much cotton—I asked him the price for it and he told me £100—I said there was not £100 worth there and I could do nothing with the cottons—I said, "You can sell me the lace and the collarettes; how much do you want for it?"—Rodsky sail £75—I bought the stuff for £40—I gave Rodsky £2 in postal orders as a deposit—I had offered them £36 and Silverhamer and Rodsky said they could hot take the price for it, because they cost them more than that—during this time both were talking to me, but Rodsky was the principal speaker—when I gave the deposit, I said, I am going to take a van to come for the stuff"—when I went away I went to the prosecutor and told him that I had bought the stuff—we went to the police station to Inspector Pentin and shortly after went with a van to the house—when we got there I went upstairs—I was there five or six minutes when the constable came after me and took the stuff away.
Cross-examined by MR. GREENFIELD. I went into the first floor room—I do not know whether Cohen rented the whole house or simply three rooms—he was lying on a bed—I do not think he took any part in the bargaining—I do not think he said a word.
Cross-examined by MR. TODD. I am a Russian—I have been five years in this country—this is the first time I have been a police agent—I had not seen any of the prisoners before—I did not offer them the £40 after seeing the police.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. I had not the £40 in my pocket ready to give for the stuff—I knew where to get it; that is from the same place I got the two postal orders, namely, the prosecutors'—they offered me £15 if I could get the property back—I am a traveller—I am not employed by anyone—I do not do a little police work in my spare time—I never did any police work in Russia—I said at the Police court. "I did not hear Silverhamer offer to sell anything: Rodsky did the principal part of the bargaining"—Rodsky did not say to Silverhamer, "I have some goods to sell and this man," pointing to me, "wants to buy them"—he did not say to Silverhamer, "Perhaps you would care for the cotton," which is used in the furrier trade.
ARTHUR PENTIN (Detective Inspector, City). On December 28th, with other officers, I was keeping watch on 29, Blythe Street, Bethnal Green—about 2.45 p.m. I saw a van drive up, with Krantz in it—I saw Krantz go into the house—two or three minutes after I followed him—two other officers were with me, Lawrence and Beechy—in the first floor front room I saw the three prisoners and Krantz, and there were there ten sacks similar to these in Court—they all had their mouths open—I said to the three men, "We are police officers; I want to make some inquiries respecting these sacks and their contents"—I cautioned them—I then asked who
was the occupier of the room—I repeated the question, and Cohen said, "I am"—I said, "How do you account for these bags being in your room?"—he said, "This man," pointing to Rodsky, "brought them into this place about half-past four yesterday afternoon; he said he had bought a job lot and he asked me to keep them until he could dispose of them"—I said to Rodsky, "You hear what Cohen has said; what have you got to say about these goods?—he said, "All I have to say is I am guilty"—I said, "I did not ask you that; what I want to know is how do you account for the possession of these sacks?"—he said, "On Monday I met a man in a Jewish Club and he showed me some samples of lace collarettes and asked me if I would buy them; he wanted 12s. a dozen for them. I told him they were not in my line; I knew nothing about the value of them. I paid him £5 deposit"—I asked him if he knew the man—I pressed him to tell me the man who he bought them off—he said he was quite a stranger to him and he did not know; the man told him he was going to America and he must get rid of his stock—I kept on asking him to tell me the man who sold him these goods and he said several times he paid £5 deposit, and he said he had to give £35 for them—I then turned to Silverhamer and asked him what he had to do with it—he said, "I know nothing about it: I met this man," pointing to Rodsky, "this morning and he told me he had got a lot of stuff for sale; I am a traveller and I came up here to see it"—I took all three to Bishopsgate Police Station with the goods—when they were charged, neither Rodsky nor Cohen made any reply, but Silverhamer said, "I am innocent; I happened to be up in that room and unfortunately you came up.
Cross-examined by MR. GREENFIELD. Cohen rents three rooms only—I do not know whether he lets the room occasionally where the goods were found—one of his rooms he uses as a workroom, another is a living room, and in this room there was only a bedstead and bed besides these goods—Cohen was standing alongside some of these sacks, in fact he had got hold of some of the goods in his hands when we went in—I do not think I have said this before—I know nothing against Cohen of any kind—I know he has been working on and off for five years—I know there are witnesses here in his favour.
Cross-examined by MR. TODD. There is nothing against Rodsky—Cohen said when I went in, "This is my room"—Krantz was there—it came to my knowledge that Rodsky, who was known by another name, had got a quantity of this stuff and I asked the prosecutors if they could find somebody they could put forward as a buyer, and they found Krantz—when these men were charged they all gave correct addresses—Rodsky is a licensed pedlar and a respectable man, as far as we know.
Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Silverhamer does not live in that house at all.
WILLIAM LAWRENCE (Detective, City). I first saw Silverhamer and Rodsky on December 28th about 1.10 p.m.—I saw them leave 31. Hunt Street, Bethnal Green—I followed them to a public-house in Club Row; the saloon bar, where they met Krantz—when they left I saw them a little way along the Bethnal Green Road—I accompanied Detective Pentin to the
room at 29, Blythe Road, about 3.15—in the room Rodsky handed me two postal orders, saying, "This is part of the deposit I received from Krantz"—I saw Cohen beside one of the sacks of collarett s—he was showing them to Krantz as we went in—he had a bundle in his hand.
Cross-examined by Mr. GREENFIELD. I know now that Cohen was in the habit of letting one of the rooms he occupied—there was a ticket in the window of "To Let"—that would be the room where the goods were—Cohen is a tailor and has a workroom in the house—he has a good character—I know there are witnesses here for him.
Cohen, in his defence on oath, stated that he was a tailor; that on December 27th Rodsky came to him about 2 p.m. with a man named Harris; that he brought with him some stuff for an overcoat; that he (Rodsky) told him that Harris had got some stuff wanted to sell to him, but that he had no room to put it and asked him (Cohen) to let him a room, which he did, it being the one where the goods were found; that he was to pay 5s. for it; than he paid 2s. deposit; that Harris came the same day with a van load of goods and put them in the room, but that he (Cohen) did not touch the goods.
Rodsky, in his defence on oath, stated that Harris met him on December 21th and showed him samples of the stuff, saying he was going to America; that he asked him what he wanted for them and Harris said 12s. a dozen; and that he had no idea at the time he met Harris that they were stolen goods.
Silverhamer, in his defence on oath, stated that he was a furrier and had been in business here for twenty years; that during the who's of his life there had never been a charge of any kind made against him; that he had known Rodsky for six months as a buyer of things from him; that he (Silverhamer) went to Blythe Road to look at the cotton goods, as they are useful to him in his trade; that he had never seen the stuff until he was taken up into the room; that he had nothing whatever to do with it; that he did not know it was stolen; and that he did not say to Krantz that they could not take £36 for the goods.
The prisoners were each given a good character. GUILTY . Twelve months' hard labour each. The police in the case were commended by the prosecution.
141. ERNEST COOKE (31), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing £6 10s. 8d., a Post Office order for £18 11s. 10d., and the sum of £18 11s. 10d. received by him for and on account of Stephen Erhard, his master. He was given a good character. Discharged on hit own recognisance. —And
(142.) GEORGE HUDSON REID (46) , to unlawfully, and with intent to defraud, not disclosing to the trustee administering his estate for the benefit of his creditors how he disposed of £4,160, the same not having been disposed of in the ordinary way of his trade, nor laid out in the ordinary expenses of his family; also to not delivering up to his trustee £4,160, part of his property, and within the next four months after the presentation of his bankruptcy petition, fraudulently removing property to the value of £10 and upwards and making material omissions in the statement of his affairs. [Pleaded guilty. See original trial image.] Twelve months' hard labour.
OLD COURT.—Saturday, January, 14th, 1905.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
(For the cases of Gregory and Emms, tried this day, see Essex and Surrey Cases.)
FOURTH COURT.—Monday, January 14th, 1905.
Before J. A. Rentoul. Esq., K.C.
(For the cases of John Jones and Chandra Dharma, tried this day, see Kent and Surrey Cases.)
THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, January 17th, 1905.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
MR. A. GILL, MR. LEYCESTER and MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL Prosecuted; DR. COUNSEL and Mr. NICHOLSON Defended.
(The evidence was interpreted where necessary.)
CARMAN AUBRY . I was 18 years old on December 5th, and till then lived in Paris—I had no parents living and no relatives—I had been working in a phonograph factory, but on that day I was out of work—I was on December 5th in the Boulevard Sebastopol, Paris, with another girl—she was a stranger to me—we were looking at some advertisements on a board—a man came up and spoke to me—he was of medium height—[A man here came into Court]—that is the man; he had a conversation with me—about 11 a.m. next day he came to the house where I was living—I went to a restaurant with him—the other girl was not with me—I remained with him all day—in the afternoon he sent this telegram to London—he gave me some underclothing when he called on me in the morning, and also this white shawl in the evening—I went to St. Lazare railway station to go to Dieppe about 6.30 p.m. the same evening—the man took the ticket for me—I had no luggage with me—on the way to Dieppe some ladies spoke to me—in consequence of what they said I spoke to an officer on the boat—when I arrived at Newhaven I spoke to two police officers—I then came to London, arriving at Victoria about 7.45 a.m.—I had this travelling rug and this shawl on my arm, carried in this manner—the man had told me to wear the white shawl over my arm—at the station I met the prisoner and she took me to a cab—I got into it at once with her—I saw some one get up on the box and sit beside the cabman—when we had nearly arrived at our destination the prisoner said, "That must be a police officer"—she looked out of the cab to see that no other cab was following—she asked me whether I had said anything in the train—I said I had spoken to nobody at all—we got to the prisoner's house, 22, Raphael Street, Knightsbridge, about 8.30 a.m.—she then made me go to bed and gave me some underclothing—the prisoner went to bed with me—I must have slept
about 2 1/2 hours when the landlady came up and asked if we wanted any coffee—she came up again, but in the meanwhile the prisoner had gone downstairs—the prisoner came up again and said the police were downstairs—we went downstairs, but before doing so she burnt several letters which she took out of her trunk—the prisoner and I went to the police station, where I made a statement—the prisoner had asked me in the room my age.
Cross-examined. I was a month without work in Paris and nearly starving—on December 5th I was drenching wet when I was met by the man—I know that the man who met me called himself "Petron"—he asked me if I was looking for a situation—I said "Yes"—he said he would take an interest in me, and would place me with a woman, and he left me saying he would come and see me—he did not say that the woman was his wife—he said it was to be as companion and servant—he said the woman I was going to could not either read or write—he did not say she had been ill for weeks in Paris before she went to London—he did not mention wages—he conducted himself properly with me—I was wet and required a change of clothing—during the whole time the prisoner was with me she did not say one improper word to me—in the cab the prisoner told me that I had come over as a servant to her—at Raphael Street the prisoner said my underclothing was dirty and I could not go to bed in them—it was then she gave me the underclothing—the prisoner made me read several letters—two I could not understand as they were in Italian—neither the prisoner nor Petron suggested that I shook! do anything wrong.
Re-examined. I have never had a situation as lady's companion.
By DR. COUNSEL. The prisoner asked me if I could sew and cook; I said I could sew but not cook.
ALEXANDER MITCHELL . I am a divisional surgeon and am a registered medical practitioner—on December 9th I made an examination of Carmen Aubry and came to the conclusion that she was an absolutely pure woman.
AUGUSTE GENTHON . I formerly kept a cafe in soho—I have seen the prisoner there once with a man named Oiseau—on the evening of December 6th I saw Oiseau at the St. Lazare Station, Paris—I spoke to him for a moment—I did not see the girl—when I got to London I was spoken to by the police and made a statement to them—I knew the prisoner for a long time when I was working at the Princes Restaurant about four or five years ago—I do not know what she has been doing.
Cross-examined. The man was called "Oiseau" because he sold "domesticated" birds—I knew the prisoner as his wife—he never said to me that she was.
ANGELINA HAYWARD . I am the wife of John Henry Hayward, of 22, Raphael Street—he is a messenger—I let furnished apartments—the prisoner came to me on Saturday, December 3rd, with a gentleman and enquired for a room—I let her a bedroom on the first floor at 10s. a week—she told me she had come from America three or four days before—she gave the name of "Madame Anna"—she said she was married and her husband was in Paris—on the Tuesday afternoon she told me she had
received a letter from Paris and that she was expecting a young lady to come over, that she was going to do dressmaking and the girl was to act as servant—she asked me to let the girl live in her room as she could not afford two rooms and then when her husband came they would make other arrangements—she asked me where she could buy a sewing machine on hire purchase and I told her—a telegram arrived the same day about 3.30 p.m. for the prisoner—she told me to open it and read it—it was this: "Leave to-night; wait at the station"—I did not know the prisoner as "Madame Petron"—the accused went to the station at 4 o'clock and waited till 9—nobody came—she went out early next morning—the same day I saw Aubry in the prisoner's bed—I went to prepare breakfast when the police called—I told the prisoner the police were there and wanted to speak to her—she said, "I cannot understand; I am an honest woman and I have done nothing wrong."
Cross-examined. The conversation about the sewing machine was before the telegram came—she said the girl was coming as servant—I am a most respectable woman, and do not take disreputable people into the house, and as a rule do not take women in—I have lived there five years.
THOMAS CLANCY (Detective, New Scotland Yard). On December 7th, from information received, I went to Victoria Station with another officer—I saw Aubry—she was wearing a shawl on her left arm—I saw the prisoner at 7.40—she and the girl got into a four-wheeled cab—I got on the box with the driver and went to Raphael Street—I waited outside till Inspector Sexton came.
CORNELIUS SEXTON (Inspector, New Scotland Yard). On December 7th, from information received, I went to 22, Raphael Street—I there saw the prisoner and the girl, whom I took to New Scotland Yard—Aubry there made a statement—I went to Bow Street and obtained a warrant—I returned to New Scotland Yard and read the warrant in French to the prisoner—she said, "If I was a prostitute I would have plenty of jewellery and money, but I have none; you would do better to look after the women of Piccadilly than after me"—she spoke in French—I went back to 22, Raphael Street, and found in the prisoner's room some burnt papers.
Cross-examined. In addition, I found post-cards and documents with New York addresses on, one dated October 21st, 1904, and another October 28th, 1904, addressed to Madame Petron.
DENNIS CASADA . I keep a refreshment shop at 23, Arthur Street, Bloomsbury—I was formerly at 57, Frith Street, Soho—the prisoner occupied a room there with her husband, who was known as "Oiseau"—it is fifteen months ago—they stayed over three months—I do not know what she did out of doors—I thought she worked at a theatre—she never brought men to my house.
---- SMITH (38 C. R.) During the whole of September, 1903, I was constantly on duty in Regent Street—I knew the prisoner—I heard her give her name at the station as Amelia Witzardi—she used to walk the streets nightly—I arrested her on September 19th, as I saw her go up to three separate gentlemen and try to catch hold of their arms and
force a conversation—she was fined 10s. or seven days—I am quite sure the prisoner is the same woman.
Cross-examined. She gave her address at the station—I did not go there, as there was no need—I made a note at the time.
Re-examined. I have no doubt about the prisoner—I saw her constantly during the time—my note is: "Amelia Witzardi or Vetservia, age 22; French; 25, Frith Street, Soho; common prostitute at Regent Street; time, 11.20 p.m.; 10s. or seven days. Mr. Kennedy"—that is the Magistrate.
MAURICE GUIRAUND . I am a coffee and general produce agent at Great St. Andrew Street—in March last I let a flat in old Compton Street to the prisoner and a man whom I knew as "Oiseau"—I knew her as Witzardi—"Oiseau" is Petron—I knew her as a prostitute—I have myself seen her on the streets.
Cross-examined. I never knew "Oiseau "as Petron, only as "Oiseau"—he is not the prisoner's husband, he lived with her—I have no bad feeling towards them—I come to speak the truth—I was angry with the prisoner about a furniture dispute—my furniture was put into the street—I never saw the prisoner's certificate of marriage—I did not ask to see it—I bailed her out at Bow Street.
Re-examined. She came to me in March, after I had bailed her out.
DR. COUNSEL submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury. The COURT considered that the evidence was not strong enough and directed the Jury to return a verdict of
NOT GUILTY .
MR. FORDHAM, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 18th, 1905.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
The Jury were sworn to try whether the prisoner was fit to plead. Dr. James Scott, the medical officer at Brixton Prison, was called and stated that he did not think the prisoner was in a fit state to plead, and was now insane. MR. SANDS called William Bowles, M.R.C.S., who stated that he had known the prisoner for 25 years, last having seen him in May, 1899; that he considered he was sane and not subject to delusions, but was excitable. The Jury found that the prisoner was not ft to plead at present and seemed to be insane. To be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
NEW COURT AND
THIRD COURT.—From Tuesday, January 10th, to
Tuesday, January 24th, 1905.
Before Mr. Common Serjeant.
MR. MUIR and MR. ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted; MR. BOXALL, K.C., and MR. CRANSTOUN Defended Low; MR. RAWLINSON, K.C., and MR. BODKIN
WILLIAM ROBERT BOUSFIELD , K.C. I reside at St. Swithin's, Hendon—I produce a prospectus of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, which came into my possession about March 21st, 1899, I think by post, and upon the faith of which I applied for shares in that company—it states that the capital of the company is £100,000, divided into 50,000 6 per cent, cumulative preference shares of £1 each, and 50,000 ordinary shares of £1 each, and it invites only subscriptions to the preference shares—25,000 ordinary shares are to be paid to the vendors in part payment of the purchase money and the balance of 25,000 are not to be issued for the present—it also states that the preference shares are entitled, amongst other securities, to the formation of a special dividend guarantee reserve fund of £10,000 to be separately invested, and that no debentures can be created without the sanction of at least a three-fourths majority of preference shareholders at a meeting specially convened for the purpose; the directors are James Adams Low, Malcolm Low, Herbert Bedford, and Donald Lamont, who are described as the present partners in the firm of Low, Sons & Bedford, of 101, Leadenhall Street, London, E.C., that the auditor is George Shead, F.C.A., of 18, Laurence Pountney Hill, London, E.C.; that the object of the company being formed is for family reasons to acquire, carry on, and extend the old-established and well-known merchant business of Messrs. Low, Sons & Bedford, including the Australian and African import, and export general merchants, ships' stores merchants and manufacturers, provision merchants and chocolate manufacturers, metal merchants and agents, commission agents and contractors; that the business was founded in 1856, and carried on by Mr. Walter Low until 1891, and since managed by the present partners; that the properties have been valued by Mr. George B. Small piece, a Fellow of the Surveyors' Institute, whose valuation is given in the prospectus—the prospectus then shows a list of assets which will belong to the company, including some working capital for 1898, the total assets up to 1899 being £78,103 1s. 9d.—the first item is, "The freehold and leasehold properties., with the plant, machinery fixtures and fittings and appliances therein, the trade marks of the well-known 'Pyn-ka' metal polishes, and the goodwill of the whole, valued by George B. Small piece, £35,500 2s. 10d."—that is taken from the valuation—the second item is, "The cash at bankers and in hand, bills receivable, book debts, and stock-in-trade, guaranteed by the vendors as on 31st December, 1897, after discharging the outstanding
liabilities of the business, at the sum net of £10,200 (but so that any surplus beyond this guaranteed sum shall be handed over to the vendors)"—then there is, "The net profits for 1898 guaranteed by the vendors at not less than £9,500 (less income tax, interest on capital, and discount on bills in that year)"—on the next page is this statement with regard to profits, "The business is a steadily progressive one, as will be seen by the following certificate of the profits from George Shead, F.C.A."—then follows his certificate, dated March 1, 1899, which shows the profits for 1894 as £3,846 15s. 2d.; 1895, £4,213 9s. 4d.; 1896, £6,063 5s. 10d., and 1897, £8,485 16s., and it states, "The figures for the year 1897 include a gum of £1,361 19s. 6d. in respect of an interest in a manufacturing business acquired during that year, such amount being based upon profits up to the time of acquirement"—I read those figures, and in connection with the next paragraph I regard them as the most material thing in the whole prospectus: "The purchase price includes the profits of the business made during 1898, the account of which cannot be completed pending the arrival of returns from Australia and Africa for outstanding shipments, but the vendors, with the knowledge of the increased amount of business done, and of the results obtained, are able to estimate the profit earned, and they therefore guarantee the net profit for the year 1898 on the same basis as above shall amount to not less than £9,500. The net profit for 1897 as certified, amounts to £8,485 16s. To pay 6 per cent, dividend on 50,000 preference shares requires £3,000; to pay 10 percent. dividend on 25,000 ordinary shares requires £2,500, the total £5,500 leaving a surplus for reserve account of £2,985 16s., without taking any account of the increased profit of 1898, or of any profit to be earned by the employment of the £20,000 additional working capital"—I was impressed by that paragraph; it was by those figures of the income over a series of years with reference to the capital of the company, together with the figures of the purchase price in connection with the assets, which induced me to apply for preference shares in the company—I observed that the net profit in 1897 was nearly three times as much as the dividend on the preference shares—this paragraph is material in reference to the statement as to the assets: "The purchase price to be paid for the business and assets as above mentioned has been fixed by the vendors, Messrs. Low, Sons & Bedford, who are the promoters at £55,000, payable as to £25,000 in fully-paid ordinary shares of the company, and the balance in cash out of which they will pay all expenses connected with the formation of the company up to allotment, except the registration fees and stamp duties"—on the faith of the statements con-tained in that prospectus I applied for 500 preference shares on March 21st, 1899—my cheques are produced for £62 10s., the application money, £186 10s. on allotment on March 24th, and the balance of £250 on May 1st—I think I received four dividends—the first was in March, 1900—I also received the report and balance sheet of the directors dated June 27th, 1900 (Produced)—I attended the meeting of the shareholders when it was presented—it shows a net profit of £9,135 9s. 1d.—among the assets stated are, "By cash at bankers, in hand, and bills receivable, £3,985 11s. 2d." "Freehold and leasehold properties, with plant and machinery and the
'Pyn-ka' trade marks, goodwill and valuations, together with additions of machinery since made, £38,181 7s. 7d. 'Sundry debtors, £7,078 12s. 2d.,"—I was greatly struck by the 15 per cent, dividend paid the first year, and the fact that in addition to that a large sum was stated to be carried forward to the reserve fund, and I purchased further preference shares upon the market—the asterisk refers to sundry creditors and sundry debtors, and the notice on the next page states that the amount set aside for depreciation and all possible debts is ample for the purpose—the auditors certificate is dated June 27th, 1900—I looked upon that as showing that the business was very flourishing for the preference shareholders, and on November 24th I made a further purchase—my cheque (Produced) for £205 is dated November 27th, and includes the payment for 80 shares at 16s.—the note on the back of the cheque is a copy of my counterfoil—I think I had a dividend upon my second purchase—I think I had four dividends altogether, and those I received on the dates at which they became due—I have not received anything more for my capital, and since then the company has gone into liquidation.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. The company was voluntarily wound up in July, 1901—I will take the figures from you—I attended the meeting of the company when the resolution was passed to wind up the company voluntarily; I think I either proposed or supported a resolution for a compulsory winding up, but that was not carried, and the resolution for winding up voluntarily was carried against me—I had been on some committee before that, but after that I had nothing more to do with the company—after the resolution was passed I was put upon some other committee, but I declined to serve—I only know that by a letter I had from Mr. Watkins, the voluntary liquidator—I had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Watkins; I saw him several times, when the consideration was whether the company was to be wound up voluntarily—I cannot recollect when Mr. Watkins was appointed—he may have acted for eighteen months—I cannot speak as to his absconding with £6,000, as I took no further interest in the matter, except with regard to my shares—I never ascertained what they realised—I heard that Mr. Watkins absconded with £6,000—I believe Mr. Evans, a member of a committee, called upon me, and, excepting seeing Mr. Evans, whom I got rid of as quickly as I could, I do not think I saw anybody in connection with the company—I saw Mr. Peterson—I am trying to recollect—do you refer to someone who was a former clerk of the company and was convicted of embezzlement?—I do not think I saw him after the date of the resolution—Mr. Peterson wrote to me when I was a member of the first committee, and said he could give me important information, and I took what information he could give, so that I saw him on one or two occasions, but to the best of my recollection after the date of the resolution I did not see Mr. Peterson again—I went into the figures with Watkins before the resolution—I am sorry I cannot help you but I have no knowledge of the facts referred to in the prospectus—I will take them and the dates from you—I know nothing about Mr. Smallpeice—I am not making a complaint—I have only complained that the business was represented as flourishing when it all tumbled to pieces—I cannot criticize it upon your summary of
facts—I controvert your proposition that the business was steadily progreesive when there was a lose in any year—I should have thought that the profit and loss account for the series of years from 1894 to 1897 would hardly apply at all to this case—I do not think I had the books before me; all that was brought to my notice when I served on a committee was Mr. Watkins' statement of assets and liabilities—I can tell you what took place at the meeting, and the questions we had to decide—I have seen books, but not their contents—what was put before the committee were figures derived from them, but the books themselves were not gone into; a subsequent committee very likely did go into the books—I did not arrive at any definite figures, but only the general conclusion that there was a very large margin to pay the dividends on the preference shares applied for—I do not remember seeing the contracts with the company—I do not think I knew of anything unless I gathered it from the balance sheet and the report—I did not know of the debts of the vendors, but it would be equally important to make allowance for debts whether they occurred in one year or the year before, or at any time, provided they were not statute barred—I was aware that any surplus over the £10,000 would have to be paid to the company and any deficit made up—the Report dated June 27th was read at the meeting on July 6th—before I bought my second lot of shares and paid my £80 cheque I read a broker's circular pointing out an extraordinary dividend—I have not got it—I do not know where it is—I think the broker's name was Jenkins on—about the same time I got another offer of preference shares at 16s.—I have not got that circular, but I have a letter in reply to mine which fixes the date as November 24th.
By the COURT. I think I had two years' dividend at 6 per cent.
Re-examined. I took the figures in the prospectus as gross figures, and subject to deduction, but from the statements I assumed deduction would not be necessary, that the old firm had taken bills and discounted them, so that the discount had to be allowed for, but that there was sufficient to cover all deductions, and that they would not apply to future years—I have since heard that the vendors have been adjudged bankrupt—I have no knowledge of anything having been recovered under the guarantee in the prospectus.
JULIUS ADOLPHUS EHRENEEST . I reside at St. Dorothy, Barnes, and am a chemical merchant in West Smithfield—in March, 1899, I received a prospectus similar to the one produced, of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited—I read the statements in it with regard to the assets the company would acquire and the assets and alleged earnings of the old firm—after studying those statements very carefully I subscribed for fifty preference shares and sent the application money, a cheque of March 23rd, for £18 15s. for the second instalment, and on April 23rd a cheque of £25 for the third instalment—in July, 1900,1 received a copy of the report and accounts issued by the directors—except dividends I have received nothing for my capital since the company has fen in liquidation.
in the company which was formed from that firm of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, after reading the prospectus—fifty shares were allotted to me at the beginning of the first allotment—I did not trouble much about the prospectus; I trusted to my knowledge of the firm—I also received and read the printed report of the company in 1900 and understood the company was prosperous—I attended the meeting of July 6th, 1900—this report in the Financial News (Produced) correctly represents, according to my recollection, what was said—Mr. James Low was in the chair—I have no recollection of any allusion to the issue of preference shares—I remember the chairman saying that the business had been steadily maintained, in fact, steadily increasing, after which a Mr. Evans made some criticisms with regard to the auditor's report, and I made the observations reported, including the remark that I understood the preference shares were offered at 15s. 6d. and that I would be glad to take 500 at that price—the report was adopted unanimously—about twenty days afterwards I took 205 of those shares at 14s. 6d., I am told, according to the books, from some one unconnected with the company.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I recollect the directors paid a dividend of 15 per cent, on all shares—that was declared at the meeting—they also carried £1,500 to a reserve fund.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLISON. I remember the chairman made a long speech about the company generally, and referred to the "Pyn-ka" trade marks, but I have no recollection of his stating that one department had not got on so well as the rest and that one of the directors had made himself responsible for that department—there was a discussion between me and Mr. Evans.
Re-examined. I did not hear anything about a loss on the confectionery department—everything was said to be in a flourishing condition—I handed to Mr. Fox some of my accounts current—I was a depositor with the old firm and had been for many years—my deposits remained after the company was formed—I received the accounts current from time to time and acknowledged them.
PHILLIP HENRY GEORGE . I am a clerk in the winding up department at Bankruptcy Buildings—I produce the Court file of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, in liquidation—I find that on March 4th, 1903, a petition was presented for the compulsory winding up of the company by the Court—and an order in pursuance of that petition was made on March 17th, when the Official Receiver became the Provisional Liquidator—upon the file is a statement of the affairs of the company, signed by the directors and dated July 1st—this is a copy (Produced), which I have taken from the original—the directors' statement is partly printed and filled in in writing and is signed by the directors and the secretary, Ernest George Brindle—the document was subsequently issued to the Receiver and, I believe, to the contributors—the directors file the statement, the Official Receiver examines it, makes observations at the end, and sends a copy to the contributors—the directors' signatures at the end are James Low, Herbert Bedford, and Malcolm Low—it purports to show the condition of the company on July 12th, 1901, the date of the voluntary
liquidation—the assets are shown—the estimated amount to meet u n secured creditors, subject, of course, to liquidation, is £59,554 4s. 3d.—the liabilities as £45,728 1s. 5d., except preferential creditors, showing an estimated surplus after meeting liabilities and subject to liquidation, of £13,626 2s. 9 1/2, that would be the amount if the statement were correct which would be available for distribution among the shareholders—the share capital issued was stated to be £75,000, so that, deducting the £13,626 available for shareholders, there would be a deficiency of £61,373 17s. 2d.—bad debts to the company we shown at £12,229 11s. 5d. and there are doubtful debts to the amount of £5,818 11s. 6d—the figures show what is given as book debts, £49,892 18s. 7d.—there is a schedule of the good book debts, including Herbert Bedford, £7,504 4s. 4 1/2 d.; Lamont, £7,501 4s. 4 1/2 d.; J. A. Low, £9,848 13s. 11 1/4 d; M. Low, £9,824 3e. 4 1/4 d.; and D. Lamont, £10,044 5s. 3 1/4 d.—their total is £37,218 6s. 11d.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. No doubt some one would be responsible for the details of the statement of affairs—Mr. Nearney may have prepared it—Mr. Watkins had possession of the books for a considerable period, but Mr. Fox can state particulars of the state of affairs, as I am unable to understand them—this statement is only one out of thousands that we have to deal with—I have read that Mr. Watkins absconded and that he was convicted in August, 1903.
ALBERT EDWARD HOLE . I am a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, at Somerset House—I produce the file of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, which was registered on March 20th, 1899, with a nominal capital of a £100,000—£50,000 of preference shares and £50,000 of ordinary shares, and the memorandum of association states that the company is formed to take over the business of Low, Sons & Bedford, General Merchants and Manufacturers—by Article 69 the first directors are James Adams Low, Malcolm Low, Herbert Bedford, and Donald Lamont—Article 104 says that the first auditor or auditors shall be appointed by the directors and the subsequent auditors at an ordinary meeting each year—and that the auditors' remuneration shall be fixed in general meeting—Article 126 indemnifies the directors, auditors, and other officers of the company for the time being—there is also upon the file an agreement dated March 18th, 1899, executed between the four directors and Ernest George Brindle as trustee of the company to be formed, by which the vendors transfer to Brindle the goodwill of the business of Low, Sons, & Bedford, the freehold and leasehold properties and proprietary articles mentioned in the schedule and the plant, machinery, book debts, books, bills receivable, cash in hand, and stock in trade of the vendors on December 31st, 1897, valued at £10,200, and the full benefit of all securities, and so on—on July 12th, 1901, a resolution is recorded for voluntary liquidation of the company—that confirms a resolution of June 25th, 1901—those resolutions are signed by James A. Low, and by Mr. Brindle as secretary—Herbert Waterline was appointed voluntary liquidator—I also find upon the file the order of the Court of March 17th, 1903, for the compulsory winding up of the company.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE . I am a messenger of the London Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file of the bankruptcy of James Adam Low, of 101, Leadenhall Street, E.C., adjudicated bankrupt on November 19th 1901—the liabilities as stated by him are £6,083 0s. 6d., and the assets as "none"—the liabilities include one to the company of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, of £5,872 17s.—thc-e was no dividend—I also produce the file in the bankruptcy of Herbert Bedford, of 17, Marlborough Place. St. John's Wood, adjudicated bankrupt on October 21st, 1902—his liabilities are stated by him as £24,494 5s. lid., and his assets as £45—his liabilities include £7,616 14s. 3d. due to the company of Low, Sons & Bedford.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. Low's trade debts are, roughly, £130 3s. 6d., as stated by him—that includes the debt to the trustee of Fisher's estate—he was suspended for two years from May 2nd, 1902.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. Bedford was suspended for three years by an order made on August 10th, 1904.
Third Court, Wednesday, January 11th, 1905.
JOHN MCDONALD HENDERSON . I am a chartered accountant practicing at 2, Moorgate Street Buildings, City—I was appointed voluntary liquidator of Gordon k Dilworth, Limited, in March, 1898—I produce a copy of my letter as such liquidator to Low, Sons & Bedford, of September 23rd, 1899, and notice of that date to produce all letters between September 1st, 1898, and November 13th, 1901, including the acknowledgment and the further correspondence (Produced)—in result £750 was admitted as Gordon & Dilworth's liability to Low & Company—Gordon & Company's assets were put at £250 and their liabilities at £4,500—the dividend was 5d. in the £—Low & Company's claim was ultimately settled at £1,750.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. Gordon & Dilworth were manufacturers of catsup and tinned goods—there is an American firm of that name—a Mr. Fordham was about to finance the company to be formed when the London firm was wound up—I was nominated liquidator by Mr. Jessurun on Mr. Fordham's introduction—Mr. Jessurun was managing director of the London firm—Low & Company's claim was reduced, because they were held to be joint adventurers in respect of some items of their claim.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. I believe Jessurun was connected with the American firm—I saw him last about a fortnight ago—he is difficult to find—I advised the company to arrange with him—I have not seen and do not know of any agreement between Jessurun and Low & Company—I have seen the name of "The Dilworth Bottle Company" on a door, but I know nothing about that company—Low & Company's claim was the largest (£4,463 4s. 7d.), and the object of the arrangement with them was to pay a bigger dividend to the smaller creditors, but I did not know that Jessurun made a separate settlement or I would have struck the claim out—my complaint against jessurun was that he did not wind his company up at the proper time, but spent the money in paying pressing
creditors and left others in the cold—Gordon & Dilworth's transaction was nine months before the winding up—Fordham got 9,000 shares in the Catsup Company—the company was wound up nine months too late—my object was to shift as many customers from Gordon Dilworth, Limited, as I could; I thought the creditors who were ruined ought to get as much as they could—the amount settled to be due to Low, Sons & Bedford at 5s. in the £ was £1,750, but the actual money was £36 9s. 2d.—I did not fall out with Mr. Low; I only saw him on two or three occasions, and the whole thing was treated as a matter of business—Fordham advanced £4,000, took 8,000 shares, and held another 1,000 for another advance; since that time the Catsup Company never paid a dividend, and as a shareholder myself I should have been willing to sell the shares for very little—if the Catsup Company had been successful, and the shares had gone at par, there would have been a margin to pay a further dividend to the creditors, but they have never been of any value—I asked Jeesurun to make a settlement with all the creditors, because I thought he had not treated them fairly at the time, as he ought to have wound up the company earlier, and divided the money equally, and not have paid it away as it became due when the creditors pressed, letting others stand over—when he had enough money to pay dividends he went on speculating on the chance of the thing turning out better, and so got rid of the assets he had—the liquidation was in March, 1898; the 8,000 shares were obtained in 1897—my complaint is that Jeesurun used that money to meet pressing claims when he ought to have wound up straight away.
Re-examined. If Low, Sons & Bedford were shareholders they had only a small holding—none of the firm were directors, Mr. Jeesurun was managing director—when Gordon Dilworth had sold the Catsup part of the business no substantial part was left—Low, Sons & Bedford had stock handed over to them—there was nothing left but the remnant of stock before the final winding up Jessurun offered me certain trade marks, which I tried to sell for £55, but I could not bring the business to a success—when Gordon had parted with the Catsup part of the business the new company had nothing substantially left, and my view was that the proper thing to do was to wind up the company straight away, but there was nothing done at that time—I did not think Jeesurun was solvent or I should have "gone for him"—I did not think he was worth powder and shot, and I made that suggestion to the liquidator of Low, Sons & Bedford—I believe the Dilworth Bottle Company is wound up, also the Monarch Motor Company—I saw that in the newspaper or heard it from Low, Sons & Bedford, or from Jessurun, but Jeesurun never told me anything about the shares that were given—Low, Sons k Bedford either realised their security or they still have it—if Jeesurun undertook to pay the debt he certainly is still the debtor—I understand the suggestion is that he agreed to pay the £4,400 odd in full—I saw him or his book-keeper—the result of my investigation was that Gordon Dilworth, Limited, were joint adventurers with Low, Sons k Bedford in respect to the particular transaction as to which there was an agreement which was produced to mo by
Low, Sons & Bedford, and is referred to in a letter—in my opinion £750 was the sum that Low, Sons k Bedford were entitled to—that was after I was shown the accounts which my head clerk attended to for weeks—personally I did not mind whether it was £2,000 or 2d.; I had not the slightest personal feeling in the matter.
JOHN WILSON SMITH . I am manager of the City Office of the Norwich Union Insurance Society, 72, King William Street, E.C.—on March 23rd, 1900, Mr. Herbert Bedford called upon me, accompanied by Mr. Rayner, and discussed a loan to be made by the society—this written proposal for the loan was produced (Produced)—possibly I had received the proposal some days before; it was not written out at that interview—it is a proposal for a loan on 20,000 fully-paid-up preference shares, and the personal security of the directors of the borrower, Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, of 101, Leadenhall Street—one answer to the questions put is that the loan was required to assist in carrying out a contract just accepted by the company in British South Africa—the sureties are James Adams Low and Malcolm Low, Herbert Bedford, and Donald Lamont, directors—the proposal is dated March 20th, 1900, it being in the name of the company—I told Mr. Bedford that I did not consider it advisable to carry through the loan as submitted, but it might be done in another form—we do not care to lend to companies—I told him so, and suggested that they should take the loan upon personal security—another form of proposal was prepared, dated March 23rd, after several interviews, at one of which all the directors were present, viz., James Low, Malcolm Low, Herbert Bedford and Donald Lamont—in that proposal the borrower is Donald Lamont and the loan is described as for business purposes—it was first proposed to be issued to James Adams Low, secondly to Malcolm Low, and thirdly to Herbert Bedford—I said I thought it was better for Mr. Low, senior, to join in the covenant for the loan—that is. Mr. Walter Low, and I think that name was added as the fourth surety—there was some difficulty in getting him to consent to become a guarantor—I knew he was Low's father, but that he was unconnected with the firm—I produce a copy of the letter I wrote on the matter, and the further correspondence with reference to it—after negotiation, the four directors were added as sureties, including the defendants, James Low and Bedford, and this cheque was drawn for £9,509 7s. 6d., payable to Donald Lamont or order; it is endorsed by him, and it has been paid into the City Branch of Lloyd's Bank in Lombard Street—the difference between that sum and the £10,000 borrowed, viz., £490 12s. 6d., represents premiums and legal expenses, but no interest; the interest is not payable in advance—it is a premium on the life insurance, or in connection with it, of Donald Lamont, and of the other directors—I think they were all insured—the words" Payees discharge direct" are added by the bank.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLISON. I should say the writing in the proposal is that of the agent who introduced the business to us—the insurance of the four directors was coupled by other ample security—we had the security of Walter Low as a guarantee and some shares in the limited company of Low, Sons & Bedford, I think 20,000 preference shares,
and the covenants of the directors—we made enquiries about the directors' financial position—I see "Stubbs" is mentioned in the correspondence—I told Bedford that our society would not lend to a limited company—the money which I paid to Lamont was repaid by Walter Low, and some one else, but not a penny by the limited company, to my knowledge.
Re-examined. The deed of Mr. Wilson. Smith, the original security, would be returned to the borrower when the money was paid off, or at all events to the person who paid it—special policies were taken out by the other directors, but the borrower was Donald Lamont, At my suggestion, because he was the youngest life, and the insurance was cheaper—Lamont was insured for £10,000, and the other directors for £3,300—Walter Low's life was not insured—the loan was repayable by five installments of £2,000 each—it was paid off before all the installments were due.
WILLIAM PRATCHARD PULLEY . I live at 7, Adelaide Road, Brockley, and am assistant manager at the London Office of the Norwich Union Life Assurance Society—in the absence of Mr. Smith in March and April, 1900, I had some interviews with the directors of Low, Sons A, Bedford, Limited, in reference to a loan—I produce the correspondence, the first; letter being dated April 24th—I saw James A. Low, also Bedford, who introduced me to Mr. Walter Low, and the loan for £10,000 was discussed.
JOHN MACKNIGHT . I am cashier at the Fenchurch Street Branch of Lloyd's Bank, where Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, have an account, which was opened in August, 1899—I produce a copy of that account between May 17th and June 2nd, 1900—I have examined it with the bank books and it is correct—on May 18th I find a credit of £9,509 7s. 6d.—I produce the Norwich Union cheque, which agrees with that amount; also the payingin slip relating to the cheque, which I tike to be in Bedford's writing—there is no payment out at or about May 31st of £490 12s. 6d.—I do not find any discounting on or about May 19th of three bills for £800 each, nor any bills for that sum.
HERBERT WATKINS . I live at 19, Winchester Terrace, Twickenham—I was appointed voluntary liquidator of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, in July, 1901—in going into the claims against the company I saw James Low in the summer of 1902—he stated that his wife had a claim against the company too, but the books did not disclose that, and I told him that he should support his claim by his statutory declaration, or by an affidavit—subsequently a formal notice was sent by the solicitor to the company to Mrs. Low to put in a claim—Mr. Tippetts was acting as my solicitor—on August 19th, 1902, Mr. and Mrs. Low called upon me, when the claim was put in writing in the shape of a statutory declaration jointly made by them as to two claims of Mrs. Low—I handed it to Mr. Tippetts—I have no record of its being returned—when the compulsory winding up order was made, the books and documents in my possession were handed over to the Official Receiver—I have now no papers of the company, and I should say that document is lost.
liquidator of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, in the summer of 1902—on August 22nd of that year he handed me a statutory declaration which I read—it purported to be made by Mr. and Mrs. Low—to the best of my recollection I returned it to Mr. Watkins—I have searched for it, and cannot find it—before August, 1902, I had had conversations with Mr. James Low, I think in June, and at the end of July, or the beginning of August, in reference to claims being put forward by Mrs. Low against the estate of Low, Sons & Bedford—he gave me particulars, the general purport of which was that his wife had a claim against the company of between four and five thousand pounds, divided into one claim for, I think, £3,500 in respect of money she had paid to Mr. Walter Low, and a further sum of I think, about £800 odd in respect of money which she claimed to be due as her deposit with the company—he explained that she had guaranteed Mr. Walter Low for a sum of four or five thousand pounds, which she had paid to the Norwich Union under a guarantee—I am unable to differentiate between the information I got from Mr. and Mrs. Low and the documents—the claim was against the liquidator of the company—I told them they must put in a statutory declaration—it was after that that I saw the documents.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I told Mr. Low that the claim was one that could not be substantiated—I afterwards advised that it should be rejected, and it was rejected as not being a claim against the company.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLISON. Watkins absconded with, I think, about £6,000 in January or February, 1903—I know nothing of my own knowledge of his subsequent arrest, but I was told he went to Amsterdam—all the papers I had I handed to the Official Receiver—I went into one or two of the depositor's accounts—the claim should have been against the old firm—there were two or three depositors; I forgot the amounts.
EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX . I am examiner of accounts at the Board of Trade and have had charge of the liquidation of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, since the winding up order—I went to Mr. Watkins' office and saw the papers, which were removed to the Official Receiver's office in Carey Street under my instructions—I searched the papers, but I have not been able to find the statutory declaration made by James and Mrs. Low—the yellow document (Produced) was produced at the Guildhall by Mr. Bryden, who is in Court, and who was acting for James Low—I had seen it in the course of examining the claims against the company.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I have never seen the original document of which this yellow paper purports to be a copy—I should think I had thousands of documents from Watkins' office—they are in large and small bundles—I looked them through with my assistant.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. I had some difficulties in getting the books—there are about 583 papers and documents, and roughly about thirty or forty bundles, not all of the same size—I produce two documents from this bundle of 229, but some of the papers refer to of her matters; to Higgs' Dairy Farm & London Co-operative papers, the Maltine Company, the London Industrial Company and the Grenmere—the papers were in several rooms and in one strong room they were all over the floor.
Re-examined. My assistant has searched for the original of the yellow paper—it would be his duty to report if he found it.
H. WATKINS (Re-examined). The Exhibit 61 (Produced) purports to be a press copy of the claim put in by Mrs. Low in the form of a statutory declaration made by herself and her husband jointly, and it is the document I referred to in my previous evidence—it is dated, in pencil, August 18th, which was about the date of the original—it was given to me at the interview on August 19th, 1902. (The document was put in and read, and stated that no satisfaction had been given for the turns advanced to pay off the Norwich Union claim.)
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I have no papers belonging to the company—I did not deal with the statutory declaration.
W. J. B. TIPPETTS (Re-examined). I have read Exhibit 61—as far as I can say, it is a copy of the declaration.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I have no recollection about it.
H. WATKINS (Further cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON). I went into the papers carefully during the eighteen months I was liquidator—I made a return to the Income Tax Commissioners in March, 1602—I think it was drawn up by one of my managing clerks for the purpose of getting the claim for income tax struck out—£4,600 appeared in the books in reference to Captain Cutler—this is a copy of accounts sent in to the Income Tax Commissioners—I was an accountant at that time—I knew the Government would act upon my certificate—the £4,500 appears on one side of the account and not on the other, unless it is included in the statement, "Bad debts, £8,900"—speaking from memory, the company sold their rights to Captain Cutler's Syndicate for £4,500, and if that syndicate had not paid the £4,500 it would certainly be recorded amongst the bad debts—according to the books, the money was not received—my clerk, I should think, would furnish me with a list of the moneys making up the £9,500—in the cash book is the record of sale to Captain Cutler's Syndicate for £4,500 on July 13th, and on the other side is the record of a payment partly by bills, but the question arises, were those bills met, and there is an entry of £2,100 cash—that is prima facie evidence that the money was paid—that being so, I have taken it as a profit, and income tax has been charged—there were no profits.
Re-examined. This is the Profit and Loss Account from January 1st, 1898, to July 12th, 1901, made out for the purpose of the income tax—the total is £620,823 1s. 10d.—the loss on trading is £54,163 10s. 11d.—the sum which balances the account is £163 10s. 11d.—that is the account for the three years.
C. C. J. C. GARDENER (Re-examined). These are some of the documents I handed to Mr. Fox—other accounts current were rendered to me—I preserved one lot till I received the next account, and then I destroyed them for the former six months—the last account would be up to the time of the failure, but that and the one previous is not here; I mean, up to the time of the company stopping payment—I handed the accounts to Mr. Fox's assistant—with the exception I have named, the documents are all there.
E. V. Fox (Re-examined). When the books and documents came into my possession under the order for the compulsory winding up of the company in March, 1903, they were registered and handed to an accountant (Mr. Walter Nearney, I think), who was instructed by the directors to prepare a statement of affairs—that was put in in July, when I found I had not all the books—I received other books in November—I missed Ledger H, a private ledger which was afterwards found in a vault which had been rented by Mr. Watkins in the City, and there were a large number of other books referring to this company and to other cases in that vault or coal cellar—private Ledger H was necessary to complete my investigation—among the other books that came into my possession was the directors' minute book, from which I find that the first meeting of the company was held on March 20th, 1899, and those minutes show that James Low, Herbert Bedford, Malcolm Low and Donald Lamont attended, and there were two resolutions that the agreement of that date between those gentlemen and the old firm should be executed, that they should become directors, and that George Shead should be appointed auditor and S. Brindle secretary—those minutes are signed by James A. Low as chairman—they were confirmed on March 23rd, when all the four directors were present, James Low being in the chair—applications for shares were considered at that meeting—Shead's certificate that the books and accounts for the three years 1895 to 1897, inclusive, were correct is dated June 18th, 1898—that certificate is identical with the ones for the years ending April, 1888, and March, 1894 and 1899—I think it is in Shead's writing—the words, "To the directors of Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited," and "I am, Yours faithfully, are in pencil—the figures and profits for 1896 and 1897 are the same—among the documents handed to me by Inspector Willis are the letters written by Bedford and Shead between July, 1898, and July, 1900, on the company's business, and some minute books of the company (Produced)—I also find amongst the documents copies of the directors, report and balance sheet, agenda papers, and other papers in Shead's writing—I find that a preference dividend was paid in September, 1900, and in March, 1901—the profits of 1896 and 1897 are stated to be £6,063 5s. 10d. and £8,485 16s. as certified by Shead.
Third Court, Thursday, January 12th, 1905.
EDWARD VAUGHN FOX (Further examined). Amongst the documents that came from Watkins I find a detailed profit and loss account for those two years showing those profits—this document produced by the police shows the same figures and that some figures have been erased—some of the items are in Bedford's writing—the figures £8,546 19s. 4d. as profits have been crossed out and £8,596 19s. 4d. copied below it—the sum of £8,485 16s. has been substituted for £8,546 19s. 4d. and there are other alterations—from examination of the accounts I find there was a loss on the confectionery part of the business in 1896 of £806 19s. 8d.—it was carried on by the firm at 89 and 90, Bermondsey Street, the premises mentioned in the schedule—that business was transferred
to the company in December, 1895—it was acquired from Radcliffe, Hoskins & Co.—that loss was not taken into account in arriving at the profit in 1896, as shown on the prospectus—in 1897 there was a further loss of about £3,046 8s. 8d., which was not taken into account in arriving at the profit for 1897—the loss continued in 1898 and 1899—the lose on that business in 1898 was £2,057 16s. 1d.; in 1899, £1,939 6s. 11d., or £3,997 odd for those two periods—I find an entry in the books of a bill for £1,939—the total loss from that business from 1896 was over £7,000—it was going on all the time—the balance sheet to December 31st, 1897, when the old business was taken over by the old firm by the company, is in Shead's writing—I find this entry, "Lees Confectionery Establishment Account, £3,594 19s. 2d."—that is the debit balance on the confectionery trading account at the end of 1897, including a balance brought forward from 1896—it is deducted from capital and not charged to revenue as it should be—I see no reason why those losses should be disregarded in the profits shown in the prospectus—before arriving at the definite balance on the account in 1896, which was £500 odd in the ledger, the actual loss was £800 and a proportion is written off, £270, I think from recollection, to capital account, towards the end of 1896, so that you have to add that to the debit balance—these sums are treated as a deduction from capital, leaving out £500 odd of the loss shown on the account—I have examined the books with regard to the cash at bankers, bills receivable, and so on, put at £10,200, and find that the total gross assets from that source comes to £53,234 14s. 10d., without any deduction; and Exhibit 30 shows the particulars of that, viz., book debts as per separate list which I have made out, and which amount to £30,583 2s. 8d. as shown in Exhibit 31—Exhibit 32 is a list of the outstanding liabilities, which amount to £50,817 0s. 11d.—deducting that from the assets it leaves £2,517 13s. 11d., assuming that all the book debts are good, instead of the £10,200, as appears in the prospectus—in the book debts I include the item from the suspense account of £3,239 4s. 5d.—since I made that calculation I have come to the conclusion from the books that credit should not be given for that amount—if that credit be deducted the whole surplus disappears, and instead of a balance of £10,200 there would be a deficit of £721 10s. 6d.—Exhibit 95 shows how the £10,200 was arrived at—it is in the writing of Pillinger, Shead's clerk, and is a balance sheet from March 31st, 1900, drafted from journal entries—in Journal J I find corresponding entries—this is fifteen months after the company had been formed—the cash at bankers and in hand is put at £1,112 14s. 9d.; bills receivable, £1,296 5s. 7d.; and stock in trade, £20,204 7s. 9d., &c, adding up to £59,600 8s.; but some sundry debtors are left out and sundry creditors are put down as £16,054 5s. 1d.; bills payable, £17,956 2s. lid.; and Parr's Bank, £15,390—there was a loan by Parr's Bank—the total is £49,400 8s.—that sum is left out of the surplus shown in the prospectus—this document is the purchase price account of Low, Sons & Bedford; the vendors' account, as per regiestered contract, March 8th, 1899—in arriving at the surplus of £10,200 in the prospectus the sundry creditors are taken at £16,054 5s. 1d. or 4s. 1d. in another document, which does not agree with my figure, which comes
out at £50,000—I find out how the £16,000 is arrived at by Exhibit 33, which is in Shead's writing, the ink part of it, and is headed, "Creditors to December 31st, 1897"—at the bottom of that document the £16,054 5s. 1d. appears in red ink and in pencil—the figure is arrived at by excluding certain creditors in the list which I have included in my list—those excluded are bracketed—they are: C. J. Gardener, £580 10s. 5d.; Mrs. Low, £506 5s.; Mrs. Blacklock, £27112s. 6d.; Mrs. Colville, £48115s.; Donald Lamont, £3,008 12s. 7d.; Ellis Bedford, £1,027; Brown & Brown, £700; Miss Marrison, £310 5s.; Mrs. Brindle, £2,017 10s.; and J. T. Bedford, £4,520 5s. 6d.—except Lamont, I have included those in my figures, and the total is £13,421 12s.; but Lamont should have been taken into account in arriving at the £10,200—in my list is another liability to Fisher of £5,353 14s. 10d.—that is the largest liability—that is not included in the list—adding that sum brings the total up to £15,766 14s. 3d. which has been improperly disregarded—looking at the balance sheet of December 31st, 1897, I find this entry on the left hand side: "The deposit accounts to be paid off by the partners and provided for in the agreement of sale, £13,421 12s."—the word "and" has been altered from something else—it is all in pencil—most of it is in Shead's writing, but some of the words are in Bedford's hand—the figure is the same as the total of the deposit accounts in the bracket, but excepting Fisher and including Lamont—that sum was not paid off by the partners—I find no provision in the agreement providing for it—after the formation of the company the accounts were continued in the firm's books and were carried on as the company's accounts in those books—the deposits appear as liabilities of the company and payments were made to the depositors for interest from time to time and there were repayments—some depositors had been paid out of the company's assets, including Brown k Brown on January 18th, 1899, and, I think, Miss Marrison, before the formation of the company in March, 1899, for taking over the business from January, 1897—there are payments of interest to Miss "Marrison in April and July, 1899—the trustees of Mrs. Walter Low were paid off in April, 1899—none of those payments were debited to the vendors—there is one journal entry in March, 1901, debiting four sums to the vendors in the transfer accounts—in Journal J there is a debit to Major Gardner of £39 4s. and J. B. Macdonald £90 9s. 6d.; and credits to Miss Marrison, £345; Mrs. Brindle, £1,320; J. T. Bedford, £5,307 18s. 6d.; and Fisher, £2,178 16s. 7d.—the difference between the credits and debits is £9,022 1s. 7d.—some of these accounts had been cancelled by amounts previously standing to their credit being credited to the vendors before the date of the balance sheet and after the date of the balance sheet (1900) they were written back again and the depositors appear as creditors of the company instead of creditors of the vendors—they were old deposits which had been transferred from the credit of individual people to the credit of Low, Sons & Bedford transfer account in March, 1900—the deposit accounts were improperly excluded in arriving at the £10,200—that account was carried on in the books of the company as a liability of the company—there is a note on Exhibit 35, "Deposit Account"—
James Adams Low was a trustee in respect of Mr. Fisher's amount—H?. Fisher died before the formation of the company, and the amount was due to the executors or the trustees of the marriage settlement—this is the contract (Produced) made by James Adams Low for the company in the winding up, dated February 19th, 1904, with regard to the deposit account—the £106 8s. 2d. relates to the balance of Fisher's account in the J ledger, the rest having been paid off—I did not deal with the claim, but I understand that on the ground of Low being a trustee he could not claim it—two sums were paid off in March, 1900, of £1,650 and £1,3 50 and there was another payment made on May 18th, 1900, of £2,062—that is all after the formation of the company, and appears as paid off out of the company's assets and by the company's cheques—apart from the suspense account I treated all the debts as good—the £4,407 13s. 11d. due from Gordon Dilworth & Company, and appearing in the bought ledger, is not shown in the list of creditors—£3,225 10s. appears in that ledger as a balance—if that £4,407 13s. 11d. was a bad debt it would swell the debits—5d. in the £ was paid on £1,750 and on £55—Jeasurun's name does not appear in the books-as a debtor of the company, nor in the directors' statement of affairs in the winding up—nothing has been paid by him in respect of his debt—I know of no contract with him guaranteeing anything with regard to that debt—the Monarch Motor Company, Limited, and the Dilworth Safety Bottle Company were in compulsory liquidation before Low, Sons & Bedford became a company, the winding up orders being in December and June, 1902—there is a debt of Ratcliffe Hoskins & Company, of £7,363 18s. 5d., in respect of which nothing was recovered—the list of book debts includes £785 3s. 1d., a very old-standing debt—I have not gone back to 1892 in this ledger—there was an old Ledger J—this begins in 1894, with a balance of £14,000 2s. 3d.—on December 31st there is, "By draft transferred from account Watson, £8,215 4s. 2d." and there are some trifling debits, one in December, 1894, of £932 7s. 6d. for sundries; another for interest, £514 2s. 10d.; and in December there are two credits, the £8,215 4s. 2d. and sundries, £5,549 9s. 3d.; and a balance due from Inglis on January 1st, 1895, of £1,686 15s. 10d.—the £14,000 debited in January, 1894, is cleared off in December, 1894, except £1,686 18s. 4d.—that is slightly increased in 1895—the bills payable are: May, £53312s.; June, £714; July, £77319s.; and there are these debits: cash, £150; cables re Scottish Australian Bank, £163; and sundries, £260. on the other side are amounts of cash in January and July, 1895, of £102, and £81; and sundries, £146; and then we go on to 1897—all the debits' of the £1,686 belong to 1896, and not to 1895, except the debit for sundries of £29 15s. 4d. for bills receivable, cash, and so on, and then there are credits which may be 1895 or 1896, it does not state—in January, 1897, there is a debt due from Inglis of £3,146 0s. 7d. on the other side of the account—on January 1st, 1896, there is: "By sundries, £1,213 0s. 5d.," again on the debit side, and there i# a second balance of £1,94316s.—"Inglis, £385 3s. 1d," is in my list—in 1897 there are two credits, one from Inglis (Scottish Bank), of £86 15s. 6d., and "Service, £163 13s. 8d.,"which brings down the balance to January 1st, 1898, to £1,785 3s. 1d.—as Official
Receiver I tried to communicate with Inglis, but could not find him—we made enquiries through our Australian agents—formal application was made for the debt, though not by me—another debt of £1,511 2s. 4d. is due from Oldham in that list, from Watson of £872 9s. 5d., of which nothing has been received—in the report of the directors the balance due to them is stated to be £9,135 9s. lid., during the period of fifteen months' trading—I think the real amount of the confectionery loss was rather more than £1,939 6s. 11d., part of the amount being debited to Malcolm Low—the real lose was £2,034 19s. 5d.—I find according to the books that he gave his bill for that amount on December 12th, 1900—that bill was cancelled—it is in Brindle's writing—that loss was not taken into account—in the profits there has been included in the profit and loss account £6,552 11s. 3d. from the "Pyn-ka" trade marks—I get that from Ledger J 3, folio 167—that profit includes a special item of £4,500 for profit made on the sale of trade rights of Captain Cutler's Razor Reviver—turning to the trading account ii the ledger I find under date March 31st, 1900, that the account is credited with an entry, "Captain Cutler's Razor Reviver, £4,500"—on the same date there is an account opened called "the Captain Cutler Account"—I do not know when it was opened, but February 11th is the last date covered by the balance sheet in the profit and loss account, and the Captain Cutler account is debited on March 31st, "To Trade Mark and Trading Rights, Captain Cutler's Razor Reviver £4,500"—bills are credited on the other side, to become due in June, October, and February, 1901, to the total amount of £2,400, leaving a balance on March 31st, as due, of £2,100, so that according to the accounts the position on March 31st, 1900, in respect of this transaction, was that the company held three bills for £800 each, none of which had matured, and that a balance of £2,100 was due from whoever had purchased the Trade Marks and the Trading Rights described as Captain Cutler's—there is a further entry of a payment on May 19th, by cash, of £2,100, the balance—on the credit side under date February 11th the bill due and the folio "7"and the figures "72"have been written over an erasure, but not the "1900"—the word "by" is not over an erasure, but I think the words "bills due" are—then there is another erasure where the figure "8 "has been written in in the "800" in the first line—turning to the bills received book I produce Exhibit 43, where I find entries corresponding to those I have mentioned as the amounts received from Captain Cutler's Syndicate—February 12th, 1900, is said to be the date of one bill, but there is no date when it was received—the bills are drawn on Captain Cutler's Syndicate—the date has been altered from February 11th to February 12th—the first bill is due on June 15th, the second on October 15th, and the third on February 15th 1901, and they are each for £800—in the column to be filled in "When and how disposed of, "there is an erasure—"3s. 4d." is scratched out and "19th May" substituted, and similar entries are made with regard to the second and third bills, but there has been no scratching out on the third, only on the first and second—the date of the previous bill "H. H. S. Budget," is March 30th—from my examination of the books I should say the three bills with regard to Captain Cutler's Syndicate must have been
drawn on or after March 30th, because they come after the bill of that date, and the pages are headed "March, 1900"—I produce the cash book known as "Lloyd's Cash Book"—that purports to show monies received by the company and paid into Lloyd's Bank and accounts relating to that bank—in Exhibit 45 are entries on May 19th and 31st, 1900—it shows the cash receipts and payments, accounts which ought to appear in the company's pass book—the bank, I think, is in Fenchurch Avenue; the original office of the firm, I believe, was in Billiter Street, and the bank originally in Leadenhall Street—it is called the City Branch—the account purports to show under date of May 19th the receipt of three sums, making a total of £10,000 as received by the company—two items are of £2,400 bills receivable, and £2,200 Captain Cutler's, corresponding with the figures already given, with respect to which £4,500 as to Captain Cutler's Syndicate was paid—there is another item of £5,500 received from Low, Sons & Bedford, the vendors, who were credited with that sum in the Flotation Account—I find no entry of any discount charges for those bills, nor the bills themselves, nor any information about them, except what I have given—the pass book shows that a sum was paid into the bank, but we have no record of any cheque—in the cash book of May 31st, 1900, I find an entry of £490 12s. 6d. to Low, Sons & Bedford, but there appears to be no cheque drawn for that amount—the result is that the £4,500 was paid out of the Norwich Union cheque—I find a letter of April 12th, 1900, from James Low to his father Walter Low. [This asked Waiter Low to become a surety for the loan from the Norwich Union Society.] proof was received from Walter Low, attached to which was the bill (Ex. 46), dated May 18th, 1900, drawn by Donald Lamont on the company, accepted by the company, and signed by James Low, Herbert Bedford, and Malcolm Low, for the payment of £5,000 on demand—I do not see the secretary's name—it appears to have been presented for payment—there is a paying-in slip, but there is no entry in the books of the company of that liability—apart from the transaction with the Norwich Union, I can discover no consideration for that bill—the notaries form is filled in by James Low—the proof is by the wife of James Low, for £5,000, and is a liability which is not shown in the books of the company—apart from the Norwich Union transaction, I cannot suggest anything to which it relates—the company carried on the Captain Cutler Razor Reviver business after March 31st, 1900, and a trading account was opened, called the Trading Account of Captain Cutler in the first place, but it has been altered to "The Captain, Cutler Syndicate"—the distinction is important because it looks as if it was a trading account of the company, but the title has been altered so as to make it a personal account due from the Captain Cutler Syndicate—it is in private Ledger J, under date March 31st, 1900, to 1901—I have called it the private ledger because it has a lock on it—in the course of that trading, money was required from time to time for the purchase of material, advertisements, and so on, the orders for which were paid out of the company's money—there is a letter of July 5th, 1900, in the "Pyn-ka" letter book of an order given by Herbert Bedford on behalf of the company, to Scott & Sons, Limited, of Carlisle, asking for a quotation for angular tin
boxes—that is signed, "For Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited," by Herbert Bedford—Exhibits 48 and 49 are contracts with "The Trades and Commerce Exhibition Syndicate, "dated April 15th, 1901, and October 3rd, 1900—I can discover nothing more from the books as to the Captain Cutler Syndicate, excluding, of course, the verbal statements made to me, and there is a letter from a Mr. Vandyke, of May 24th, 1900, and other letters relating to it—the Razor Reviver is the Pyn-ka ground into dust and sold in angular boxes like those produced, which have the company's address on them—in arriving at £9,135 9s. 11d. profit in the director's report, it is alleged that £800 is to be set aside as a reserve for possible bad debts, but they amounted to £15,000 in July, 1900, including Gordon Dilworth's, Ratcliffe Hoskins, Oldham's and Watson's—Oldham's and Watson's had been outstanding since 1897—£9,135 9s. 11d. appears in the balance sheet, as if on the asset side something had been written off for bad debts owing to the company, and so diminishing the balance—if debts had been ascertained to be bad they should have been written off the profit and loss account—in the balance sheet is an item of £9,385, and included in it are the three bills in regard to the Captain Cutler transaction, amounting to £2,000—there is also an item for sundry debtors, amounting to £70,078 12s. 2d.—a large proportion of that, according to the books, is a liability by the vendors, and an asterisk refers to a sum of £28,044 3s. 8d.—the confectionery loss of £7,000 came into that figure—those losses were previous to the time when Malcolm Low took over £1,900, the liability for one year—they are included in the debt to the vendors—they appear in the £44,000—the figure debited to the vendors is £5,652 15s. 3d.—the debt shown from Captain Cutler is £2,100—that comes into the £70,078 12s. 2d. in Ledger J, folio 418, £795 15s. 10d. appears as the value of the "Pyn-ka" trade mark on December 31st, 1897, and on January 1st, 1898—that is carried to the debit of the vendors and appears as an asset in the £38,177 8s. 7d.—it is included in the £70,000—that is not justifiable—it is brought in to make up the £38,000—there is an earlier valuation of Pyn-ka of £7,763 163.—all the directors were vendors—the original of Exhibit 62 is in pencil—the items appear in the ledger—there are three items of goods: £30, £13. and £6 odd—the other items is bills—one item is a professional fee—the last date is August 23rd, 1900, when a balance is struck by Shead to the company, of £932 19s. 10d.—the dates do not agree with the dates in the ledger—the last date in the ledger is March 31st, 1901—Shead was a creditor for about £300—taking into account the bills he had given, that has been settled—the balance carried forward into the ledger is £6,932 13s. 10d.—according to the books, Shead's amount is still owing—this correspondence (Produced) is between Shead and Bedford and Low as to the bills dated from February, 1900, to April, 1901.
Third Court, Friday, January 13th, 1905.
C. C. J. C. GARDENER (Re-examined). I produce two more current accounts dated January 19th, 1905, and June 7th, 1901.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. I was a member of the committee to assist Mr. Fox—I had deposit accounts with the firm many years—I claimed in the liquidation—nothing was rejected—I know nothing of the firm's books.
EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX (Re-examined). I do not recognise the writing on these documents—I do not know Watkins' writing—these are not in his clerk Hayward's writing, which I know—the net result of the realization of the estate of this company, after paying off the mortgage for—3,000, which was necessary to realise it, is—3,074 10s. 6d.—the amount admitted and proofs undischarged is—33,847 15s.—there are claims for large amounts not yet dealt with—these are proofs of creditors against the company, and do not include the preference shareholders—I think after admitted proofs and those which have to be admitted, and the costs, the creditors,' dividend will work out to about 10d. in the £, but that will depend upon what is done with the other proofs—my interviews with Shead were on May 18th and December 14th, 1903, and January 5th, 1904—I produce my notes of those interviews—on May 18th he said he gave the certificate in the prospectus and audited the company's balance sheet of 1900 of Ratcliffe Hoskins, Limited, for Mr. Bedford—he said the figures on which the certificate was based was prepared by his clerk, Mr. Pillinger, who took his papers away connected with examining and auditing the accounts of the firm and of the company generally in connection with Low, Sons & Bedford—he did not disclose any of those papers—he said that Lamont and he were directors of Ratcliffe Hoskins—(The material parts of witness's notes of the interviews were read.)
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. Watkins was appointed voluntary liquidator in July, 1901—the order appointing me is dated March 17th, 1903—Watkins got in all he could—I cannot say whether he realised to advantage—the sum mentioned was about—6,000, but, crediting him with his remuneration, it was—4,921—I should not like to bind myself that he realised—17,000—the realisation is not a true measure of the assets of a going concern-there must have been some sacrifice—I have taken nothing from Watkins—the London business was formed about 1854—it was carried on by James Low and the other defendants till 1885, as described in the prospectus—in 1885 Walter Low took his sons James and Malcolm into partnership, if your date is right—Walter Low was a man of high standing in the City, and a Common Councillor—he retired with considerable means and was able to pay his guarantee, which came into the company's hands—in 1891 Bedford joined—he brought capital into the firm—Lamont joined in 1898 and brought in about—4,000, James Low having married his sister—I cannot say if the turnover in 1898 was—160,000—ther was considerable business and 4,000 customers, or a very large number—the business was earned on with the Cape and Australia—one debt ran back to 1891—that was a running account of something like—14,000—James was manager of the canned goods and import and colonial department—there was considerable home trade—James told me he had nothing to do with the hooks. Brindle was the book keeper and secretary—he had been a clerk in the firm many years—Malcolm managed the ships' stores—he gave his hill for losses on the confectionery business, as I am informed, and at the
time was manager of it—Lamont managed the Amsterdam and indent business—the price for the business was £30,000 in cash and £25,000 in shares—no cash was paid—the defendants took preference shares instead—every penny realised on those shares went to the credit of the company—the defendants have had nothing except their dividends—they had no fixed salaries, but they drew money out of the company—I believe they gave their personal guarantees for debts incurred by the company and for monies advanced to it—sometimes all the directors and sometimes individually—Low was made a bankrupt on the petition of Mr. Owles. Who had advanced money to the company which he had guaranteed the repayment of—his personal debts were only £24 or £25 to trades people—he had a trust claim of £100—I do not suppose he will ever get it—his wife hid to pay between £3,000, and £4,000, of her private money over the guarantee to the Norwich Union—through the formation of the company Low has parted with his interest in the firm—he has been made a bankrupt and is earning his living as the manager of a canned goods department in the City—the partners (the vendors) were liable to pay the debts of the firm to December 31st, 1897—if the assets were under £10,200 they were liable to make up the amount, and if over that sum to keep them—that was the guarantee—they would have to wait eighteen months before the accounts could be settled—the sale of the business to the company was carried out in March, 1899—the books were constantly altering between December, 1897, and March, 1899—the exact balance would take some time to ascertain as regards the profit and loss account—the adjustment would run into a good many months—the firm's books were continued by the company—the company not being able to pay £30,000 in cash caused further difficulty, as the vendors had to take shares—many of the vendors, friends had deposited money in the business in that sum of £13,473, which was bracketed as the deposit account—the firm was regarded as a wellknown solvent firm—Major Gardener was a friend of the senior partner—I regarded the deposits as different in character to the ordinary debts of the firm; they were money lent—I put them down as trade debts—I had many interviews with the company's officials in the winding up—I did not examine them in Court—I asked them for explanations where I needed them—the Official Receiver's report, which I had drafted in support of the application for an order for public examination, was ready to be filed, but the facts had been reported to the Board of Trade, which issued a report stating there was a prima jade case for criminal proceedings, and in those cases the practice has been not to publicly examine—the exclusion of the deposit accounts went on to March, 1900, when matters were approaching adjustment—by the guarantee those liabilities must be met by the vendors—in 1897 they simply went on in the books—on March 31, 1900, they were credited to the transfer, and the books showed them to be a liability of the vendors—the company continued to pay the interest on them—the £693 17s. 7d. shown in Journal J is interest on deposit and on various bills—the £344 10s. 10d. in Ledger J, one of the items marked with a cross, refers to interest on deposits and bills payable shown in the journal—the £8 5s. 4d. is a bill account—the names of the depositors are given in the ledger—the
ticks do not show that the interest has been passed to the vendors—I have made a mistake, the interest here is charged to the vendors—I still say the deposits were not treated in the books differently from trade matters, and as a personal liability all through—I cannot contradict the statements about the war, and so on; I know nothing about that—no doubt there had been trade depression and commercial difficulties—the balance sheet of December 31st, 1897, was prepared apparently for the contemplated sale to the company—on one side is, "Deposit accounts to be paid, £13,421 12s."—under that is a note in Bedford's writing, "To be paid off by the partners and provided for in the agreement of sale"—the deposit account is not mentioned in that agreement—Mr. Tippetts advised Watkins that the depositors had no claim against the company—I do not know whether he was wrong; I only know what is on the books—the profits in 1896 and 1897 are wrongly stated—I do not complain of that, but my evidence supports the statement—I should not be surprised if nothing was paid for the confectionery business, it was taken over from Jessurun or from Gordon Dilworth, and the stock was valued by Smallpeice, there was nothing for the good will—I did not ascertain that it was a venture of Malcolm Low's—towards the end of 1900 I understood that he managed it, but not all the time—he gave a bill for the lees—I knew that the business was sold before the voluntary liquidation, I think in 1901—I do not know about adverse circumstances, but I know the business was making a loss, and it was sold for a small amount, dependent on the profits, but it did not realise £6,000—£6,042 is the amount mentioned in the agreement, but £3,000 was never realised, and cannot be—it was sold to Mr. Budget for about half that—I have reason to believe he was not solvent; he was my employer in 1692, and he was made bankrupt—an accountant stated there were no profits—the business was formed by Budget into a limited liability company; it went into voluntary liquidation; and nothing remained—here is the agreement with the company; the purchase price was £2,500—Budget paid £3,000 in cash to the company—they were not liable for loss or bad debts, but if there were profits they were to have half of them—I did not mention about the stock being sold at a sacrifice, because I was not asked; I was asked about the losses—proper establishment charges would be put down to capital-—here the £3,590 is put in the company's books as a debt due from the vendors—the sale to the company took place very long after that—at the date of the sale from the firm to the company, the, losses made on starting the business were treated as establishment charges, and therefore as part of the capital provided by the vendors, who were made responsible for that sum of £3,590, as appears in the books—the transaction ought to have been put to profit and lose account—I do not say it was properly treated—£4,500, was received by the company from the Captain Cutler Syndicate—Mr. Low's father made it good after the company got it—they gave nothing for it except the right to use the razor paste, and sell it by the syndicate—the whole of the £9,500 came in solid money to the company upon time guarantee of the directors and Walter Low—whatever profit was made the Company got—the company accepted bills for £5,000,
and credited the vendors in the accounts for another £5,000—the claim in respect of the sister's account has never been dealt with; it has been held over—no dividend has been paid, because there is a claim against the brother—with regard to the £800 reserved for bad debts, a list was not made out of bad debts between December 31st, 1898, and the middle of March, 1900—I have no such list—I say £800 was not sufficient, because the company had taken over a number of debts which they had not ascertained to be bad at the time of the balance sheet—one was the debt due from Gordon Dilworth—I do not say all the bad debts were incurred during the period of the fifteen months—the Board of Trade invited Shead to give information—we can enforce attendance by summons by section 15 of the Act, but that is not the practice unless the person omits to comply with our request.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. In Bedford's bankruptcy there was no private debt—his debts were in connection with liabilities which he had personally incurred on behalf of the limited company—the £10,200 wrong, Among other reasons, because of the debts which were taken as due to the old firm at that time—the list (Ex. 30) shows them to be about £30,000—in the suspense account I have given you the benefit of too much—that would bring the figure down to £27,000—I take that figure from the books—in Exhibit 34, handed to us by the police from Shead's possession, the debts are shown as £41,572, "as per list" (Ex. 100)—I probably checked that list with mine—the figures, except two balances, are at the end of the Bought Ledger and General Transfer Account—they are the same as mine, of £27,000—I have taken the balance in the Bought Ledger and General Transfer Account, which are the sums of the Bought and Sold Ledgers, as one balance—those are debts of the old firm—I was told by Bedford and Low that in selling these book debts, if they were sold to the company, the firm charged £5,000 less than their face value, £41,572, so as to make an allowance for the bad debts—in the books I found that had been done, but the amount is £36,000 instead of £41.000—the amount allowed for bad debts in the ledger is £5,582 3s. 11d.—there is no entry showing this £36,000 until the end of March, 1900—the amount could be arrived at at the close of the year—I do not know that the £5,582 was taken off before the guarantee—I discovered how the £10,200 was made up from the journal—I saw Piliinger's draft (Ex. 95) dated March 31st, 1900—to the £3,239 in the suspense account should be added £1,785—that leaves the debts that ought to have been known to be bad at £8,700 up to December 31st, 1897—the figure is not £13,700, less £5,000, because you have the large debt of Ratcliffe Hoskins—taking the debts which turned out to be bad since December, 1897, of the £8,700 £4,400, rather more than half, is the debt of Gordon Dilworth, or £4 500—I do not agree that you were only wrong in your estimate by £32,000—there is a definite statement that the assets exceed the liabilities by £10,200—as far as the debts are concerned, your estimate is only wrong to the extent of £30,000—I was told that the Monarch Motor Cur Company and the Bottle Company had deposited shares with Vandyke, Gordon Dilworth and others—I saw that on the minutes of the company after the
notice to produce—Jessurun deposited shares which were transferred into the names of one of the Lows or two or three of the directors, as the case might be—I was told in May, 1903, that security was given for £4,400 by shares in two separate companies, and in the books I found an entry of 200 shares in each of those companies standing in the names of each of two directors, or 400 shares in each company—shares were pledged to Vandyke, I do not know to what amount; he was not approached, as he has not brought in a claim—we have had some claims for bills which were originally issued by Vandyke—he advanced money to the company, and shares were given as security—I asked him for, a statement, but he has not sent one—it is new to me if he has made a statement—some Dilworth shares are in the hands of Vandyke at Amsterdam for an advance; about 400, I think—the shares are quite worthless—the companies were not wound up till 1902—if the companies were wound up prior to June, 1891, that would be material to the prosecution—I do not say that you ought to return all Gordon Dilworth's debts as bad—£3,239 is in the suspense account for bad debts—the fact that the company paid the interest to the depositors seems to support the view that the deposits were the company's debts—in the confectionery losses the years in question are 1896, 1897—the profits shown in the prospectus are subject to the deductions named there for income tax and so forth—they were £8,000 odd in 1897 and £6,000 odd in 1896, but they should be reduced, as regards 1896, by £800, which would make the profits in 1896 £5,000 odd, and the profits in 1897 should be reduced by £3,000 odd, making them £6,000 odd—I do not suggest that any bad debts should be deducted for 1896—so far as 1896 is concerned, the difference between us is £806—the valuation of the confectionery business at £1,763 16s. was included in the valuation of £7,763 for the Pyn-ka and confectionery business together, by Mr. Smallpeice, who is dead—that excludes any value for stock or goodwill—the company did not get the goodwill for nothing, because Mr. Smallpeice valued the whole business at three years' profit, but the defendants have left out the losses—the object being to produce a more valuable business, it would defend on what you spend the money on whether they can be called establishment expenses; money spent on advertisements and commissions are establishment expenses, but not simply purchases of goods—extra labour would, if it is for the purpose of working up business—money spent in the first year you put down as an asset—I did not notice that there were extra travellers, and so forth, but there are charges with regard to the trade in South Africa, which would involve travellers' expenses and so forth—in the confectionery business there was a loss in the fifteen months of £1,900, and Malcolm Low gave his bill for £1,900 odd in June, 1900; it became due in December 1900, and it was cancelled on March 19th, 1901—it appears to have been carried to the debit of Malcolm Low—that did not finish the transaction; I have read the entry, "To bill cancelled"—it only appears in the ledger in his own account—I have never seen the bill—the document ceased as a negotiable instrument, but the entry is against Malcolm, who has never been made a bankrupt—the bill was given because of the confectionery loss—it was found that Captain Cutler's Pyn-ka polish, powdered up,
could be used as a razor reviver, so I have been told, but I have not tried it, and samples were sold to all sorts of traders; afterwards the syndicate was formed, and agents were appointed to sell it for the wholesale business—the confectionery business was mostly chocolate, I believe—that was wholesale, but separate from the Pyn-ka—the trade mark of Pyn-ka or Pun-ka was taken out to prevent anybody adopting the word "Pun-ka" end the public confusing it with Pyn-ka—Low, Sons and Bedford acted as the distributing agents, and the triangular box was registered in the name not of the limited company, but in the name of James Adams Low—the trading account, which was headed "Captain Cutler," has been altered to "Captain Cutler's Syndicate"—that account shows the purchases, end so forth—the account is for the purchase of materials and for advertisements, but I do not think for any sales—this is the Pyn-ka agreement—on it I can see pencil marks and brackets as if it had been used as a model.
New Court, Saturday, January 14th, 1905.
EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX (Further cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON) The Pyn-ka agreement is dated June 18th, 1894—I find an entry of three bills of £800 each, one dated February 12th and the other two February 11th—there is a further entry, showing a debit of £2,100, making up £4,500, on February 11th or 12th—a balance has been struck, and there is properly credited in April £3,056 17s. 9d.—the entries come in their proper order, April 2nd, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 28th—it appears to me the analysis of six months are written up at once—the £4,500 appears to have been paid by bills and by part of the Norwich Union cheque, according to the books, to the earlier syndicate—the Norwich Union cheque for £9,500 was paid into the company on May 18th—there would be discount charges on the bills, the cost of the agreement to act as agents, and so on to be adjusted—the prospectus was issued to the public on March 20th, 1899—Shead has had the opportunity of going through our papers and the books—the company was to have paid to the vendors £25,000 in ordinary shares and £30,000 in cash—the 25,000 ordinary shares still remain—for the £30,000 the vendors had to take preference shares, which realized £5,549, payable to them or to their nominees—the £5,549 was carried to the transfer account on account of their indebtedness—I do not know that 1901, when the company was wound up, was an exceedingly bad time for commercial companies having trade with the Colonies and general trade—the war was coming to a close, but I do not know anything about the trade—I believe things were pretty bad in 1901 and 1902—when the company went into voluntary liquidation in July, 1901, Watkins realised about £17,000—he absconded with between £5,000 and £6,000, but he had to pay out a large sum to realise that amount—I realized £3,000 in round figures—practically Watkins walked off with the whole of the net receipts—the Treasury made a communication to the Board of Trade, but I cannot say the date—at some date or other Watkins sent to the Treasury a printed report—the Board of Trade took proceedings against him in 1902—they never got anything from him—our department
came upon the scene in March, 1903—I worked upon the accounts and in August, 1904, the defendants were arrested upon a warrant.
Cross-examined by Shead. You applied for fifty preference shares in the company—I have seen the shareholders, minute book, but I cannot fix the date—as a rule I prepared my minutes of our interview the day you were present—where my initials are on the note or the copy, I am responsible—I see now that on May 18th the first copy is initialled in pencil, and the others are not initialled, and that I have made two alterations—your statement was to the effect that you did not know anything about the books of the company—I asked you for the address of the man who did the work—you said that it was your clerk, Mr. Pillinger, and I found that to be correct—the notes were not prepared for use against anyone, but only for my own information—I obtained my information from Pillinger because you said you knew nothing about the accounts—he is also a chartered accountant.'
Re-examined. In the prospectus the profits are shown for 1896 at £6,000 odd, less due on the confectionery business £800—that £800 has not been deducted from the profits for that year—in 1897 the same thing occurred with regard to a larger sum, the profits are put at £8,465, less on the confectionery business £3,000, which has not been deducted—from the books I find those losses were incurred in purchasing goods, in salaries and in rent, as compared with receipts—in my opinion they could not be treated as establishment expenses, but must be treated as losses—they are treated as establishment expenses because they are put in as an asset—in the books of the company they are put in as a debt due to the vendors, and therefore as an asset—in the list of assets in the prospectus which are to be taken over by the company they are not included—they must be treated either as assets or as losses, and they are treated as assets—they are not so treated in the prospectus; they are left out altogether and ignored—the losses on the confectionery business which Malcolm Low took over has nothing to do with anything before January, 1899, so that debiting him with losses has nothing to do with the period referred to—the £10,200 is wrong because the deposits were ignored, including Mr. Fisher's deposit, and because that bad debts are ignored—roughly, about £15,000 was due to depositors, including Fisher—the dates given in the prospectus are to the end of 1897—some of the debts had then been paid off, but the bulk of them Were still due—the vendors were debited with interest to the amount of £344 in March, 1900, but without that entry, the company is debited with those items for a period of twelve months after they had been in existence, and at a date at which they are preparing to issue a "balance sheet to the shareholders—the entries marked with the red cross are from March, 1899, to March, 1900—none of those items for interest are debited to the vendors so far as I can see—they are, not marked with the red cross or included in the £344—the company paid those sums when they continued the business from January let, 1398, and the vendors are not debited with any of them—in 1899 there is a payment of principal to the trustees of Mrs. Walter Low, of £100—that is not debited to the vendors—principal sum of £375 is paid to the estate
of Walter Low (deceased) in April, 1899—that is after the company is in possession—I do not find that the vendors are debited with that—the interest paid was 5 per cent, on the principal that was due—if the debts which have turned out to be bad had been taken into consideration the £10,200 would have disappeared altogether and a deficit of over £7,000 would have taken its place, because the debts at that time which have turned out to be bad amount to £17,570—allowing for the £5,582, there still remains £11,988 for bad debts, so that the £10,200 would have been wiped out and there would have been a deficit even if that deduction were made—among the items making up the £17,570 11s. 6d. are Ratcliffe Hoskins, £7,263; Gordon Dilworth, £4,407; Imperial Crown Labels, £371; Fairman, £358; Inglis, £17,085; Oldham, £15,011; and Watson, £18,072; leaving out the shillings and pence—the £5,582 comes first into the books in March, 1900—that sum had been deducted so as to arrive at the total, tat not put in the books till the end of 1899 or the beginning of 1900, when it comes in J 349 only—in the general transfer account the figure credited to the purchase price for the amount of book debts is £36,986 19s. 11d.—that is different from the £42,569 3s. 11d.—there is a draft journal entry which agrees with that book—at the period of the balance sheet of 1900 the bad debts which turned out to be bad existed at the same figure—there is a slight deduction, but the sum reserved for writing off is not sufficient whether it refers to debts incurred within that period of fifteen months or before it—the profit set out in the report and balance sheet in the profit and loss account with regard to the Captain Cutler's Syndicate is £9,135, but that is reduced by one half, and the £4,500 was paid to the company out of the Norwich Union cheque—the books show that—the bank column shows that £5,500 was paid into the Bank by Low, Sons & Bedford; the other column shows the ledger page to which it is posted, but the cash book does not show one cheque of £9,600 as paid into the bank—in order to make up the total of £10,000,£490 12s. 6d. is represented to be paid to Low, Sons A Bedford—it is not a real payment—there are two journal entries with regard to that, and that transaction is completed on May 18th, 1900—it was a borrowing by Mr. Lamont, one of the partners and vendors, with the other partners as sureties, and additional sureties, of £10,000 from the Norwich Union, and the cheque was paid into the account of the company the same day, or on May 19th—on May 18th, 1900, there is a bill accepted by the company given to Mr. Lamont—it is endorsed by Lamont and "Mr. Walter Low, so that the company immediately made themselves liable for £5,000 of the money borrowed—the £4,500 balance of the £10,000 was claimed by Mrs. James Low from the company as a debt due by the company—in one place she only claimed £3,000, but she put in another claim for £5,000—the proof was supported by the statutory declaration of Mr. James Low—if the company were liable to anybody they never got a farthing profit out of that £4,500—Mrs. James Low's proof has not been rejected, but Mr. James Low's has to the extent of £106 2s.—Mrs. James Low claimed through Lamont, who owed money to the father, and one debt was set against the other—the directors drew money out of the bank during 1898, 1899, and 1900—during 1898 James
Low drew out £758 4s., or for the fifteen months down to March, 1899, £919 10s. 9d., and the next year £719; Bedford drew out during the first fifteen months £1,096 10s. 8d., and the next year £932 5s. 9d.—Malcolm Low for the first fifteen months drew out £944 4s. 10d., and for the twelve months £591 11s. 11d.—he does not come into the first year, but for the first three months of 1899 he drew out £213 19s. 10d., and the next year £794 7s. 6d.—the total is £6,211, and the total for the first year of the formation of the company is £3,027—the directors were not entitled to draw any of those sums during that period according to the articles of association, so that they were increasing their debt during that time.
Third Court, Monday, January 16th, 1905.
EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX (Further re-examined). I cannot find that the vendors were debited with any part of the principal due to the depositors—I have examined the entries with regard to the payment of principal from January 1st, 1898, to the end of the books, that is, to the end of the balance sheet, March 31st, 1900—I have given evidence of a debit entry after that date in connection with the £9,000 odd from the Norwich Union-there is no date, simply the balance the vendors received to credit £13,000—it includes some old depositors—the debit of £9,000, I think, acknowledges that to the extent of £9,000—the first entry with regard to credit in respect of depositors with Low, Sons & Bedford is in the transfer account, folio 438, "March 80th, 1900. By sundries, £13,143 14s. 5d. "at page 4 of the journal; that is made up of, H. Bedford (B Account) £3,843 16s. 4d., that is not an old deposit account which appears on January 1st, 1898—then Gardener, £925 16s. 2d.; Marrison, £345; Mrs. Brindle, £2,000; J.T. Bedford, £6,029 1s. 11d.—with the exception of H. Bedford, the first named, they are all old deposit accounts which existed on January 1st, 1898, and they represent the interest account on March 31st, 1900—I cannot find any Justification for the credit entry to the vendors—my experience in accounts has been since 1888—I have been a chartered accountant a year and a half—since then I have been in one situation as a bookkeeper—I have had experience not only in accounts but in accounts that have got into a muddle—the debit entry "To sundries, £9,022 1s. 7d." cancels the credit entry of £13,143 14s. 5d. to the extent of £9,022 1s. 7d., the amount of all the depositors existing on March 31st, 1891, except Bedford—up to March 31st, 1900, the old depositors appeared as creditors of the company; after that date as vendors, but in March, 1891, the depositors are brought back as creditors, so that the state of the books is brought back to where they existed in 1898 and 1899, allowing for the payments off—in May 18th, 1900, when a bill of exchange for £5,000 was given by the company to Lamont, he was indebted to the company for drawings for two years and a quarter, so that there was no reason why the company should give him a bill—I find no consideration for that bill except the Norwich Union matter—£5,009 12s. 6d. is the net effect of the credit and the debit—it is money received from the Norwich Union—the flotation account on May 19th, 1900, is credited by cash £5,500, and the company is debited in the receipt of £5,009 12s. 6d., and the vendors are debited with £4,909 12s. 6d.—the company has assumed responsibility or given credit for the whole £10,000—
the bill is not in the company's hooks—I found it out by its being produced to me by the creditor who held it, Mr. Walter Low—Lamont transferred it to Walter Low, who guaranteed the Norwich Union loan—I see no provision by the company for the £4,500 for the Captain Cutler Syndicate—I questioned the defendants as to items in the books—on December 15th I called Bedford's attention to the losses shown in the confectionery trading for 1896 and 1897, and to the fact that they were omitted from the profit and loss account certified by Shead—he explained that Malcolm Low had undertaken to run the business, and to make good any lose—he said nothing about establishment expenses.
By the COURT. The Captain Cutler Syndicate sold the Pyn-ka invention to the company—they could not sell to another person unless they reserved their right to do so—if they did sell, that would be considered as profit arising in that year.
By MR. RAWLINSON. The smallness of the sum of £344 debited to the vendors excited my suspicion, and I examined the books carefully, and on Saturday afternoon I looked through the books again and find, in addition, entries to J. T. Bedford of £100, £62 10s., £239 3s. 4d., and £9 3s. 7d., and E. Bedford £2 11s. 6d., and £1 5s., with contra entries in an account called "Interest L.S. & B.," but I have not found that any of those are interest on deposits, except the £62 10s. and the £229 3s. 4d., in that period between January, 1899, and March, 1900—I have not stated that fact before now because I forgot it, and all along I have said that no interest was charged to vendors for 1898, and that is what I tried to find out on Saturday—the £344 refers to the same period as the two excepted items—in consultation with counsel on Saturday afternoon I said I was sorry I had made that mistake about the interest and we passed on—I said the whole of the interest for 1899 and 1900 had been debited to the vendors, when I thought £344 was the whole—those debits show the vendors were liable—in 1898 the company took those liabilities over for good or evil with the books of the firm—the amounts carried on are not opening entries, they are as the account stands at the end of the year, and the account is not carried out as an adjustment; the debit balance has been brought into the book debts as an asset, which cannot be right, because it is not £15,700 due on January, 1898, but an amount due in March, 1899 or 1900, including Fisher—if you exclude Fisher, the deposits on January 1st, 1898, were, roughly, £9,000—since 1898 some of the principal has been paid off—that £15,700 would be the amount, less what was paid off and plus what was received—it ought to have been credited to an adjustment account—instead of that I find a smaller sum credited to the vendors—a considerable amount was paid of Fisher's debt, but we may credit him with the £10,000 as the amount due on January 1st, 1898—the sums are to be treated as concerning the vendors and not as concerning the company—that applies to the further payments off of deposits to March, 1900—the interest to March, 1898,1899, and 1900, is debited to the vendors—I have traced it into the profit and Joss account—the payments of interest come in under the guarantee of £95,000 in the prospectus, with the qualification that I have traced into the profit and loss account of 1898, two items of £3,819 6s. 8d. and £7,896 and
mother figure is substituted for £6,166 16s. 10d., which is a derided calculation, so that I do not check that account—Lamont's bill was drawn for £1,008 in round figures—the company was liable to pay the vendors interest at 5 per cent, from January 1st, 1898, till the date of completion, which was the end of March, 1899—the amount credited to the vendors in their interest account is £3,437 10s.—that was due in March, 1899, under the agreement—Lamont was not entitled to anything, he already had credit in the Low, Sons & Bedford account, the drawings were in March 1900—if you say Lamont was separately entitled to £800 for interest, then I suggest he was separately indebted in a further large sum, and that is a transferred sum—he was credited with interest; he could not be separated from his co-vendors; they were all entitled to interest to March, 1899, and in March, 1900, they had been credited with the full amount—Lamont drew £1,008 during the year, from March, 1899, to March, 1900—in 1900 he drew £794 9s. 6d.—I do not think he was individually entitled to £800 for interest, but the vendors as a body were entitled to credit as interest—there would have been a set-off of £200—the accounts were not to be adjusted till June, 1900—the confectionery was a wholesale business, but I do not know that special travellers were employed in working it up—in Ledger J I find entries for travellers, for expenses, of £134, £198, £174 15s. 9d., and £119 3s. 9d. for the six months, apparently—the travellers' salaries and factory wages come to £1,107 2s., but I have not worked out the proportion to travellers—I have said the losses were from purchases, salaries and rent—the commissions to travellers amount to £65 15s. 9d. for three months, and for the next three months £52 5s. 4d.; then there is £47 2s. 9d. and £104 12s. 4d., or for the year about £258:1 have not added shillings and pence—here is a special exception, "Less on Exhibition Account, £12 3s. 1d."—hat would not be a special establishment charge; some firms exhibit every year—the discount is not special; the amount is £149 odd, nearly £150—there is a transfer in "E. Loder" of a payment to Graetz of £433 12s. 2d.—I think Graetz was manager—there are charges for machinery which go to another account in 1897, and there are various items of expenditure for fixtures carried to another account; one is £39 3s. 8d., and there is transferred in that year £399 0s. 7d.—that is carried out as a trading account—it is not included in the trading account, but it is carried out—it does not go to swell the losses—a debt of £400 was incurred in December of 1897, but the removal occurred before that—there is a balance brought forward from the confectionery account every month, headed "General Purchases,—the account headed "Purchases" in the ledger is the total of the invoice—to ascertain establishment charges you have to analyse those figures; I have not had time to do that, and it is difficult to know where the material exists, but I think I am entitled to assume these are purchases for sale—I have not said that nothing could be charged as, establishment charges, but, taking the account as a whole, the items do not appear to be establishment charges—special expenses in working up the business are establishment charges—Mr. Muir put in a further list of bad debts to an amount of over £7,000—that included Ratcliffe Hoskins—I did not give Ratcliffe Hoskins as a bad debt before the Magistrate—I think the list put to me
did not include that—it is included in the Bought Ledger balance—when you first crow-examined me the bad debts came out at £3 000—I do not think the debt of £726 3s. of Ratcliffe Hoskins was then known to be bad, or I did not appreciate the question—it was in the list of debts, including good and bad—I have been in the witness box four or five days, and it is difficult to recollect, I think the directors should have known if the debt was bad in March, 1899 and 1900, but the difficulty was they had shares in the limited company of Hoskins as against their debt—it depended upon whether the business was good or bad—I did not inquire whether the business was good or bad—I did not inquire whether the directors had dock warrants as security amounting to almost £1,000—they received a deposit of 21,000 shares in Ratcliffe Hoskins—I think they were credited with dividends on those shares in 1898, that is, they debited Ratcliffe Hoskins in an account—the dividend did not go against the old debt; it went into the current account of the limited company—the shares were held as security—they held them still in 1901—I do not think they were formally transferred, but they were in the hands of nominees, clerks, and so on—in 1901 the company deposited their 2,100 shares in Hoskins & Co. with three different people for an advance: Vandyke of Amsterdam, Bruce & Co., and Major Gardener; I do not know the amounts—with regard to Gardener it was only part of the security—Hoskins& Co. are not in liquidation; the case is complicated; they had no money, and if Low, Sons & Bedford failed, their business stopped—I am speaking of before the voluntary liquidation of Low, Sons & Bedford—Hoskins & Co. were solvent as long as Low, Sons & Bedford were solvent—I do not think I put Hoskins & Co. among the bad debts—the debt has turned out to be bad—Lamont's loan from the Norwich Union was £10,000 on the security of the directors as directors and that of Walter Low; the company were not liable—as it was paid by a cheque for £5,900, the entry is £1,000, less debit against directors £409, but that is a different date to the credit—the debit is on the 19th and the other on the 31st—the £9,500 odd were paid in to the credit of the company's account at the bank absolutely—the company have never repaid it, and they were under no liability to repay the Norwich Union—£4,500 of that is dealt with by wiping out from the Captain Cutler's Syndicate £4,500—the entries are in proper order to effect that purpose—the balance is the same, but they are journal entries—the bill for £5,500 is subsequent—besides the bill the company give consideration; they knock off £5,000 of the indebtedness of the vendors to them—Hodgkinson was the solicitor who advised the company's directors, and Walter Low had the bill of costs; Hodgkinson was one of the Middlesex Coroners—he is dead—that bill of costs includes these items as to the Norwich Union, on June 19th, 1900: "Attending Mr. W. Low, conferring and advising as to whether he could in the event of the company at any time going into liquidation claim as a creditor, and explaining that in my opinion he could not, as the transaction was not with the company, but with Mr. Lamont, who had advanced to the company, and suggesting that Mr. Lamont should draw on the company and endorse the bill to Mr. W. Low, who desired me to see the directors
thereon"—the bill is, "Messrs. Low, Sons & Bedford to A. Hodgkinson"—then on the 22nd is "Writing Mr. W. Low, acknowledging £5,000 bill accepted by the company and endorsed to him by Mr. Lamont, which he had sent to me to copy with other documents"—the date on the bill is May 18th—I do not see anything in the company's minutes about it—I sent to Mr. Patterson and he came and made a statement about it, and handed me documents—I have not seen him here.
Further re-examined. On March 31st, 1900, the vendors were entitled to £.3,437 10s. for interest, from January 1st, 1898—they had drawn from the business and the company £6,211—the losses could not be establishment charges unless they are shown to be exceptional expenses, which I do not think has been shown yet—the ledger debit balance from the trading account to January 1st, 1898, is £3,594 1s. 2d.—to get the profits and losses you have to take off the amount with which the account started, £548 10s. 6d.—with regard to Hodgkinson's bill of costs, I find he acted for Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, throughout, and the bill is made out to the company and not to Lamont or other people—I find in that bill of costs this further entry of April 17th: "Attending Mr. James A. Low, conferring and advising as to Mr. Walter Low being asked to be guarantor for a proposed loan of £10,000 from the Norwich Union Life Insurance Society to the directors of the company for business purposes, and pointing out the difficulties which would arise in the event of Mr. Walter Low's death before the loan was paid off by reason of his estate remaining liable/, so that the loan was to the directors of the company for business purposes—there are other attendances in the bill which is charged against Low, Sons & Bedford, Limited, after the Captain Cutler payment was supposed to be complete, showing that the company would be liable for the £10,000.
CHARLES PILLINGER/ I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants—I live at Mountain Villa, New Barnet—I was employed by Shead from 1885 to 1901—I received his instructions to attend the office of Low, Sons & Bedford several months before the formation of the company, on March 20th, 1899, to examine the books and accounts—I looked at the profit and lose account for 1896 and 1897 in Moore's writing; he was a clerk—these are copies in his writing—the original (EX. 21) is in Bedford's writing—the profit balance for 1896 is £6,363 5s. 10d., as in Exhibit 36—I ticked the items in the ledgers—I checked a previous draft which Bedford showed me with directors' alterations—I had made no draft—the profit balance in 1897 is £8,485 16s., as in Exhibit 67—I know of no confectionery losses—I have no recollection of them—the list of depositors included in a bracket is in Shead, writing—I added the words, "Capital and Deposit Account," and in red ink, £16,054 5s. 1d."—Shead and another clerk have added note to those I made—the £16,054 5e. Id. is the amount of deposit creditors, excluding those in the bracket—this draft balance sheet, dated December 31st, 1897, is in Shead's writing—it was made out before the commencement of the company—there are notes in Bedford's writing on it—this is his writing, "Deposit accounts to be paid off by the partners and to be provided for in the agreement of sale"—£34,412 12s. is the total
amount in the brackets—I know nothing of the confectionery accounts—I have seen the document at the Official Receiver's office—I had nothing to do with the calculation upon which the £10,200 assets in the prospectus was arrived at—the journal entries are in Atkinson's writing; he was a clerk—I wrote Exhibit 95 (A draft statement of account from journal entries) before the audit of the accounts up to the end of March, published in July, 1900, and after agreeing the figures in the books with those in the prospectus—I got the material from the prospectus—adjustment entries had to be made to make the books agree and test the accounts—I did that to oblige the secretary, Mr. Brindle—Exhibits 96 and 97 (Rough notes on the accounts) are in Shead's writing—there are pencil notes in Bedford's writing—on Shead's instructions I again attended the company's office at the expiration of the period from March to July—I had the assistance of Moore and Pavey—I carried out the audit in the usual way by checking the items right through—the secretary produced the trial balance sheet which I checked and made notes upon and compared with the ledger—I made notes of questions that arose in a note book published by "G. H." which I left at Shead's office with the papers. [This was called for and not produced.]
New Court, January 17th to 20th, and January 23rd and 24th, 1905.
ARTHUR THORP (Detective-Sergeant, City). I served notice to produce in this case dated Thursday, January 5th, 1905, at the office of the solicitor for she ad, in Chancery Lane—it refers to a note book known as "Audit Note Book," used by Pillager, acting for the vendors. The note book was last seen by Charles Edward Pillinger in Shead's office. [Shead stated that he had not seen the notice, but raised no objection.]
CHARLES EDWARD PILLINGER (Re-examined). I last saw the note book in which I made my entries in Shead's possession—I do not remember anything that was said about it—I did not discuss with any person the points in the book—I suppose it was Shead's duty to determine those points—I left the book at his office after the audit was complete—it would be before the date of the certificate and before the balance sheet of March 31st, 1900—the notes were in reference to the preparation of that balance sheet—Shead's certificate was given after the balance sheet was prepared—I do not know that Shead referred to any entries in the book—the list of balances put in (Ex. 98) was prepared by Brindle—I went through that list with Bedford—I found in it the item "Captain Cutler, £2,100" as a, balance due to the company on March 31st, 1900—I do not remember having a conversation with Bedford about it—I remember that I mentioned to Shead that I thought it was a transaction which was out of the ordinary run of their business; I ban not be bound to words, but that is the effect in my mind—my tick is against the item, which indicates that it agrees with the balance' on the ledger—I do not remember whether he replied or not; nor whether he spoke to me about it at a later date—I went through the items of the Various accounts with Bedford—another document was prepared from it which I left in Shead's office—this draft balance sheet
for March 31st, 1900, is in my writing—it is in the same from as the published accounts except one item, where I see Low, Sons & Bedford as a creditor on the left hand side—they are debtors to the amount of £272,446 3s. 8d., so that in the balance sheet prepared by Shead and me a large proportion of the assets of the company consisted of book debts from Low, Sons & Bedford, the vendors—the £272,353 is corrected into £273,446, in my writing—in the ledger is £70,078 2s. 2d.—the liability of the vendors to the directors is included in that figure—on the face of the accounts published there is nothing to show anything due from the venders except the foot note at the bottom: "These figures include certain debtor and credit items in account with the vendors to be adjusted at the expiration of the specified period in accordance with the agreement for the sale of the business and assets"—this Exhibit 102 appears to be the final draft from which the balance sheet to March 31st, 1900, was made out in Shead's clerk, Atkinson's writing—there are various notes by Shead and Bedford, and pencil notes of my own on it—the £1,230 0s. 6d. is in Bedford's writing-in Shead's writing there is, "Sundry debtors, £7,07812s. 2d." and"£800 set aside," then that is crossed out—that is under "Sundry debtors, £7,078 12s. 2d.—Exhibit 100 appears to be a draft of the report of the directors which is Exhibit 11, and it is in Shead's writing—the alteration in the figures is in Bedford's writing—a profit of £6,663 9s. 3d. is to be distributed after the preference dividend is paid—the words, "It will be seen from the accounts that the net profit for the period under revision has been £9,135 1s. 4d." is Shead's writing—it has been altered by me from the original figure, £8,953 19s. 11d.—the endorsement of the draft is in Shead's writing and the body of the summary is in Bedford's—in the balance sheet to March 31st, 1900 (Ex. 101) the Auditor's certificate and some other writing at the bottom of the report is mine—it is Shead's certificate, but it is not signed by him—I believe I copied it from the original which Shead signed—I do not recognise the red ink alterations—I left all the papers at Shead's office—he was my principal.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. I am a chartered accountant—I was admitted in 1896—I left Shead's office in 1901—I am employed in another firm of position and respectability—neither they nor I would lend ourselves to anything shabby, improper, or dishonest—I went care-fully through the books—I drew up several balance sheets as far as I remember—I told the manager that I was told by Bedford at the time that the loss on the confectionery would be covered by a bill given by Malcolm Low, a director—therefore I put the figure £9,135 in the balance sheet—all the points I had raised had been settled, and there was nothing improper in that figure that I had discovered at that period—I saw nothing dishonest or improper in the balance sheet which was sent out—what I meant in my note as to Captain Cutler that it was outside the usual trading was that the company were South African or Australian merchants, and I did not think it came within the range of their business—I had never heard of such an exceptional profit, therefore I queried it; but I never suspected it indicated anything of fraud—I copied Shead's certificate to the balance sheet after my queries had been settled—
preliminary expenses are generally charged to capital—they are written off in the course of years—it is not the custom to write all off in one year's profit, but to write off so much a year for a series of years—as to the amounts bracketed it appears to me that those deposit accounts were to be carried to the capital account of the vendors, and were, therefore, not taken over by the company—looking at Exhibit 34, the pencil balance sheet, I see "Deposit accounts to be paid off by the partners as provided for in the agreement of sale"—that £13,421 12s. is the same figure as the total of those bracketed—so that in the list of creditors making out the £13,421 12s. I have written the words in blue pencil, "Capital and Deposit Account/, which would indicate to me that it was going to be taken over by the vendors, and in the deposit account I see in Bedford's writing, "To be paid off by the vendors, and provided for in the agreement of sale"—that would be thoroughly consistent with my blue pencil note, "Capital and Deposit Account"—the draft balance for December, 1897, is clearly in Shead's writing—to the best of my recollection I had not seen that in 1899—I have never seen anything fraudulent or improper in the prospectus from first to last—there would be a list of debtors drawn up, as the memorandum is, "Debtors as per list"—that figure is £41,000 odd—I remember an allowance being made of £5,500 odd out of that £41,000 odd—the first entry, "Sundry Debtors, £36,986 18s. 11d.," is my writing—that was arrived at by me—it is my writing, and it was prepared by me—in the purchase price as per registered contract, dated 18th March, I find the heading, "Sundry Debtors, £36,986 18s. 11d.,—that figure is arrived at from the list showing the total debts at £42,000, or thereabouts, and deducting the £5,500 odd—as far as I remember, that figure was arrived at as stated in the prospectus, the figure being guaranteed at a certain sum—I mean the £41,000 odd was in the list of debtors to the firm on 31st December, 1897—in my document (Ex. 95) that figure appears as £36,986—the £5,500 for possible bad debts is the difference between the two—it was reduced, but under what circumstances I do not remember—I understood the directors had guaranteed the reduced amount—the balance sheet (Ex. 34) corroborated my view that the vendors were to take over that liability to the depositors—the £800 reserved for possible bad debts would refer to that year 1900, because the directors guaranteed the other—I have no doubt about that—I do not think it was for the fifteen months.
Cross-examined by Shead. I was associated with you for sixteen years—during the whole of that time I had absolute confidence in you—on many occasions I have been out and done duty for you without supervision—you have taken work upon my assurance that it was correct—you relied upon me entirely—on your showing me a letter and a balance sheet I undertook the whole business of investigation and audit—you never went through the books with me—whatever I placed before you I placed before you as absolutely correct—when you signed anything it was upon my assurance that you did so—I left the papers in your office—I do not remember calling your attention to anything in the note book—it was a first audit, and my note book was a special publication.
Re-examined. I prepared the documents I submitted to Shead originally from the books of the company—they agreed with there books—I certainly exercised some discretion as to what went into the balance sheet—I did not know the losses on the confectionery business, but Bedford told me that Mr. Malcolm had taken them over, and that he would give a bill—I did not discuss the matter with Bedford that I remember, but I can come to the conclusion that I got that knowledge from him when I was going through the list of balances with him; what I am saying now is to the best of my recollection, but it is six or seven years ago; well, five—very likely that bill was one of the queries I made in this audit note book—I believe Shead decided what should be done with them—he did not decide the questions to be put in the book; I put the questions I thought fit to raise. [The jury complained of someone making signs to the witness.]—I have not seen any gentleman, and do not know of any gentleman making signs to me in Court—I queried certain items as I went through the books—that is the ordinary duty of a person who is going through books, to find out if the figures are correct—the object of making the queries was to draw the attention of my principal to them—I do not remember discussing them with Shead afterwards, or with anyone—I did not decide them—I do not remember what queries I put in—I was an accountant and working auditor, and my duties were three of laving information before the person who was the auditor, for him to deal with—I was not responsible; I merely laid the facts before Shead, as was my duty—among other items, I remember that of Captain Cutler—I did not know that in 1896 there was a loss on the confectionery business of £806, or in 1897 of upward of £3,000—supposing those were preliminary expenses, a proportion of three should be written off each year—that is the general practice—I understood the question as to my discretion was a general question as to my several duties; I do not think Shead bad seen the figures until I brought them to him for his signature—my information was obtained primarily from the books, therefore I assumed the books were right; if it was not in the books I could not bring it in—I was not aware from the books of a bill given by the company, accepted by the company, in favour of Lamont, of between £4,000 and £5,000; I have heard of the transaction, but that was of later date than the audit—it does not appear—the sale to Captain Cutler's Syndicate does, appear—as far as I recollect, that was returned as a book debt due to the company; he had not paid that—I began after March or some time in April, and carried on the work up to the time the accounts went to the printer.
JOHN WILLIS (Detective-Inspector, City). On August 16th, 1904, I saw James Low in the City—I told him I had a warrant for his arrest—I read it to him—he replied. "It is absurd, and absolutely without foundation"—I took him to Old Jewry, where I saw Bedford and Shead detained—they were all three taken to Bishopsgate Street Police Station—on being formally charged Low repeated, "it is false, and absolutely without foundation"—Bedford said, "I deny both charges completely"—Shead said, "Certainly not; I never issued a false statement at all, and deny the charges"—I asked Shead if he had any papers connected with this case
—he said yes, he had, at his private house—he gave me a note to his wife, I went to his address, and she gave me the bundle of papers—I produce a list of those which have been made exhibits in this case—a number of them have been put in evidence.
Cross-examined by MR. BOXALL. I had instructions to execute the warrant against the three—I had no difficulty in finding Low—I was told he was connected with a firm in the City—I knew his residence, where he always resided with his family—I heard something to the effect that he had been in attendance upon the Official Liquidator shortly before his arrest—he was taken on "warrant, and kept in custody for a night.
Cross-examined by MR. RAWLINSON. The same questions apply to Bedford; he was in gaol for a night at the same police station.
Cross-examined by Shead. You gave every facility to obtain information.
The prisoners' statements before the Magistrates: Low said, "I never contemplated making any fraudulent statements, nor do I believe any were ever made. From first to last we were advised professionally at every step. I had been connected with the business all my life, and had confidence in it up to the last moment. I have lost every shilling of my own money, and have been made bankrupt through giving personal guarantees to the company's creditors. My wife also has lost over £4,000 of her own money in this business; I never received any money as a vendor. I never drew any salary or director's fees, and all the money I received by the sale of preference shares I paid straight over to the company."
BEDFORD said, "I am not guilty. I have not intentionally deceived anybody, and I have lost everything I had by the failing of the company. I was connected with the business from 1884 onwards, and when it was turned into a company the cash part of the purchase price would have gone chiefly to the depositors and in payment of the cost of flotation; from first to last I acted in the interest of the company, and in good faith. I have complete answers to the charges, and I have a cause to fear the ultimate issue."
SHEAD said, "I am not guilty, and reserve my defence."
Low, in his defence on oath, said that the company was formed to extend the business of the old firm; that he had nothing to do with the books; that, trusting the accountant, he believed the statements in the prospectus and in the subsequent directors report and balance sheet were correct; that the statements he made at the company's meeting on July 6th, 1900, were made in good faith, as he then believed the business was steadily increasing; that he attributed the company's failure to the South African War and the Australian drought, which delayed payments from the colonies and caused more bad debts than the directors anticipated; that when the company was voluntarily wound up, the liquidator absconded with about £6,000, the result being that he had become a bankrupt, lost all his money, and had taken a situation as manager of a canned goods department of the City firm where he was arrested.
Bedford, in his defence on oath, said that when the partners decided upon the formation of the company the business was solvent and was expected to be increased, especially by the addition of an agency in Sydney, and though he
was not an accountant he went carefully into the figures in the books with Mr. Brindle, and estimated the possible debts, doubling the amount to ensure a safe, margin; that the depositors were creditors of the vendors, who were liable, and not the company; that the Norwich Union loan was obtained to pay them off, of well as to increase the business; and that other items complained of were establishment charges, and therefore not to be charged against profits; that the war in South Africa and the drought in Australia had increased the bad debts, and the dishonesty of the voluntary liquidator had brought about failure, but at the time the company was formed from the old partnership the business was not only solvent, but steadily progressing, as stated in the prospectus; that he believed all those statements were true; and that he was no party to any fraud or conspiracy.
Shead, in his defence on oath, said that Messrs. Low, Son & Bedford requested him to examine their books in 1898 and he employed his clerk, Pillinger, who is also a chartered accountant, to do so; that he himself never saw them till the company was in liquidation; that all his knowledge of them was derived from Pillinger; that he signed his certificate of June, 1898, on Pillinger's assurances; that in 1900 Pillinger did the whole of the audit; and that he believed then, and now, that Pillinger did his work thoroughly and efficiently. Low and Bedford received excellent characters. Each GUILTY . Six months' imprisonment each in the Second Division,
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
MR. JENKINS Prosecuted.
LOUISA SMITH . I live at 1, Lavender Grove, Leytonstone, and have been there now close on eighteen months—I remember the prisoner coming to live at No. 5 in March of last year—with her was Mr. Edmunds and five children and a baby—one of the children was named Alfred Joseph Beachey, being the child of Mrs. Laura Peachey, the prisoner's daughter—Mrs. Beachey came there also, but left after some weeks—while she stopped there her boy was a fine bonny boy; it was between five and six months old—when she left the child began to gradually waste and pine and cried a great deal—I used to ask the prisoner occasionally how the child was going on, and she said it had got diarrhoea and sickness—I did not speak to her about taking it to the hospital—on and off I fed it Severity times, when it ate ravenously—the last time I fed it was on November 5th when I gave it some gravy and rice and mashed potatoes—on that day I saw the prisoner standing with the child at the top of the court—I spoke to her, and she said she was going to take it to the hospital, as it was very bad—I asked her where its mother was, and she said that she did not know—later in the day she told me she had taken the child to the hospital, and it was later on that day that I fed it with the other children—they all seemed to be neglected more or less—the prisoner drank a trend deal.
By the JURY. I am no relation to the prisoner.
ELIZABETH GOODCHILD . I live at 4, Lavender Grove, Leytonstone—I identified the deceased at No. 5, Lavender Grove, where he used to live in the prisoner's charge—the first time I saw him he was in a very poor and weak condition—Mrs. Beachey was not living there at the time and the prisoner had the care of the child, but Kate, the eldest girl, of about twelve or thirteen years of age, used to look after him—I saw him occasionally—the prisoner told me she could not understand why it used to moan so during the night and day—I spoke to her about taking it to a doctor, and she said she would take it up, and eventually she did so—about two months before she was arrested it was certainly very dirty—I remember Edmunds and the prisoner being turned out of the house—they used then to live in streets in the day time and get into the house at night with the children—the furniture was put oat in the yard—I have seen her the worse for drink often—all the children were dirty and verminous.
By the COURT. Edmunds, who used to do painting and that kind of thing, was an habitual drunkard.
THOMAS BRUNNING . I am an Inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and live at 491, Rom ford Road, Forest Gate—about 11 a.m. on November 22nd I went to 5, Lavender Grove, where the prisoner used to live at that time—the floors were very dirty, and there were workmen painting the walls and ceilings—I saw five children there, which were dirty, verminous and insufficiently clothed—the prisoner was not there—shortly after while at the police station the prisoner, the worse for drink, came in carrying the deceased child—she claimed the other children which had been taken to the station—the deceased child was dirty, verminous, and appeared ill—she said that she had been turned out of 5, Lavender Grove, on the Thursday, and she had gone back and slept in the empty house at night till that time—I charged her with neglecting all the children, including the deceased, which were taken to the workhouse.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. You told me on November 22nd that you were going to the hospital with it.
By the COURT. I have made enquiries, and find the deceased was taken to the West Ham Hospital on October 25th, November 5th, 9th, and 16th.
GEORGE NOEL (j. 326) On November 22nd I went with Brunning to 5, Lavender Grove, where I saw five children which were very dirty and hungry—I took them to the station—whilst there the prisoner came in with the deceased child—I said to her, "What do you want?—You have been drinking"—she said, "Yes, I had a drink at the Woodhouse Tavern with a lady friend of mine"—the deceased's head was wrapped in a shawl—it was taken to the workhouse—the prisoner said to the Coroner that she was taking it to the hospital on that day, but having lost the card she was going back again to get it when she met a lady friend, who took her to the Woodhouse Tavern to get a drink.
JOHN SANTESTER GREIG . I am a registered medical practitioner—Alfred Joseph Beachey was admitted to the hospital on November 22nd, and I examined him—he was in a filthy, dirty condition, not having been
washed for many days—his head was covered with a shawl, and his clothes were verminous, dirty, and evil-smelling—his head contained vermin and was covered with sores and small abscesses—he weighed only 12 lbs., when he should have weighed 20 lbs.—the temperature was 102 degrees—he was given some milk, which he took ravenously, and after three days in hospital he gained seven ounces in weight, but the lungs did not improve—he was very ill and died from ricketts and bronchial pneumonia, which were accelerated by neglect—I cannot say for how long he had had pneumonia—I should say the child had been neglected for some weeks at least—he was very much wasted, and evidently he had not has sufficient food.
The prisoner, in her defence, said that her daughter, the child's mother, used to go away for weeks at a time and leave her to take care of her baby; that the had done all she could for the child, taking it to the hospital several times; and that she had not neglected it in any way.
GUILTY . A previous conviction was proved against her for neglecting all the children. Three months' hard labour.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
MR. HINDE Prosecuted; MR. WARDE Defended.
THOMAS HUGHES . I live at 30, Huddleston Road, Forest Gate, and am employed by Mr. Younger—I am a window man—I have known the prisoner about six or seven months—on December 8th he was serving two or three customers, among them his son—the prisoner gave the boy a bag of eggs, about 1 1/2 lb. of bacon, a rabbit, about 3 to 3 1/2 lbs., and some butter—the retail price of those things would be 4s. 6d. to 5s.—the boy took them away—I went into the shop and saw on the cash register the figures 1s. 10d.—I had seen the boy several times—on December 13th I arrived at the shop about 8.5—I did not on that morning see a half-crown on the counter.
Cross-examined. I did not see the boy there that morning—I do not know what all the other customers bought—if any money had been put in before the 1s. 10d., it would have disappeared from the figures on the register—I have not bought in the shop since doing so was forbidden—other people connected with the firm have not, to my knowledge, bought goods there during the last nine months—my employer did not mention anything about the families of employees dealing at the shop.
Re-examined. My employer said we were to get our goods elsewhere—our shop is not very crowded of a morning.
FRANK GEORGE WAYLETT (176 K.) I produce a plan of the prosecutor's shop—it is twelve feet from the cash register to the butter stand and twenty-nine feet from the cash register to the window marked "A" on the plan.
WILLIAM BROWN (Detective-Sergeant K.) About 8 a.m. on December 13th I saw a little boy come out of the prosecutor's shop carrying a bag—I followed him and spoke to him—I took him back to the shop—Mr. Charles Younger brought the prisoner into the office—I said to the prisoner, "This lad has just brought some goods from here; he said he does not know how much they come to; he says he has not given you any money for them; he has also said that he gave you half a-crown"—the prisoner Said, "Yes, that is my son; he gave me half-a-crown, I think"—I said, "Where is the money?"—the prisoner said, "In the till"—I said, "It is not in the till and the purchase has not been registered"—the prisoner said, "I must have put it on the counter and one of the shopmen has picked it up"—I told him I should take him into custody for stealing the goods—he said, "All right"—in reply to the charge he said, "To prove it, you should have got the half-crown marked'—on December 28th I told him he would be further charged with stealing goods on the 8th and the 10th—he said, "All right"—it is an easy matter for a man serving behind the counter to get to the cash register to put the money in.
Cross-examined. I have been in the shop three times to make purchases—I have made inquiries about the prisoner and find he has borne a first-class character.
WALTER YOUNGER . I am a provision merchant carrying on business at Stratford—the prisoner was employed by me as manager at £2 5s. a week—I had a personal character with him when he came—he was told by me the first day he came that I did not allow any of the employees to deal at the shop—I had the prisoner watched and on December 10th I communicated with the police—the prisoner was the manager of the shop and could always have assistants to help him—it is not true that the cash register was so far away from where he was serving that if busy he could not find time to put the money into the till—on the 13th there were nine customers—5s. 3d. was the total amount in the till that morning—I never heard until yesterday that cash was allowed to accumulate on the counter and then checks were made out haphazard when the cashier arrived.
Cross-examined. The man who serves has not, as a rule, to cut bacon—he has to write the amount on a little slip, go to the end of the counter, put it on the file, open the till and put the money in—I should be surprised if he did not do that—he has to serve a customer and do what I have said before serving another one—the cashier does not arrive till 9.30 as she stays late—I do not think I mentioned anything about the families of the assistants dealing at the shop—I have never heard that assistants have dealt at the shop—if I heard of it, the man would be discharged immediately for disobeying instructions.
CHARLES YOUNGER . I am the last witness's brother and employed by him—I have been there eight years—on December 13th last Detective Brown came to my office, bringing the prisoner's son with him—the prisoner was there—Brown asked him if he had served the boy—he said, "Yes"—Brown said, "What did you serve him with?"—he said, "Oh, he had some goods, some butter and some bacon"—Brown said he had asked the
boy how much he paid for them and the boy had said half-a-crown—the prisoner said he had taken half-a-crown from the boy—Brown said, "Where is it?"—the prisoner said, "In the till"—I said, "It is not in the till, because it is not here, and I showed him the amount which was there, which was 3s. 9d. in coppers and 1s. 6d. in silver—on the 13th, amongst the payments in is the sum of 3s. 4 1/2 d.—I know who paid that—it was not the prisoner or anybody connected with him.
Cross-examined. The prisoner said he served the boy with ten eggs for a shilling, they were not penny ones—I have warned the assistants against a woman who comes in, but I have not put her down as a thief—it is alleged that the boy put the half-crown on the counter, and that somebody picked it up—I do not know that the assistant takes the money and makes it up in two or three amounts at a time.
Re-examined. If he did so, he would not be doing his duty—whether the goods sold to the boy came to half-a-crown or not, the firm has not had the money and it was not put into the cash register.
JOSEPH SPINK . I am and have been for five years an assistant to Mr. Younger—I am not married—I have never seen assistants dealing at the shop—there are orders for it not to be done, which were given last February—I saw the prisoner there on December 10th and 13th—I was not close enough to see what he got—I did not see any half crown lying on the counter after he had gone away—I did not take any notice whether there was a half crown lying there or not.
GEORGE DIXON . I live at 35, Ward Road, West Ham, and am an assistant to Mr. Younger—on December 13th last. I got to the shop at 7.30 and saw the boy there just before eight—I know him—he was standing in front of the counter—I asked him what I could get for him—the boy said he wanted three quarter lbs. of butter—I was going to get it when the prisoner stepped forward and served him—I saw no money pass—I did not see a half crown lying on the counter.
Cross-examined. Sometimes I have taken the money in the morning—I draw a check and put the money in the wooden till.
Re-examined. The wooden till is used in the morning up till about nine o'clock—no one gave me instructions to use that wooden till—the prisoner took the money out of the wooden till and put it in the cash register.
By MR. WARDE. The prisoner was late one morning, and I took the money till he came, and put it in the wooden till—I cannot say when it was—it is six nee we had the cash register.
By MR. HINDE. I have never put money into the cash register—I had no instructions to use it—I made out the tickets.
last, about 8 a.m., I was scrubbing the counter—I did not see the prisoner's son—I did not see any half-crown on the counter—I should have seen it if it was there.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I plead not guilty and reserve my defence and call no witnesses here."
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he had been twenty-four years in the provision line of business; that no charge had ever been brought against Him before; that when he was engaged by Mr. Younger he had no instructions as to the dealing of the assistants or their families at the shop; that Mr. Younger said to him; "We do not like to serve assistants"; that he (the prisoner) had allowed his family to deal at the shop, as he thought it was a manager's privilege; that he served his son with half-a-crown's worth of goods and received from him half-a-crown, which he put on the counter; that it must have been picked up by some one, and that the whole of this affair was made up out of revenge.
THOMAS HUGHES (Re-examined). I did not feel comfortable while the prisoner was employed at the shop—I am quite certain a rabbit was given to the toy on the 8th—the prisoner asked me that morning if I had missed any rabbits—there were nine missing.
The prisoner received a good character.
NOT GUILTY .
(See next case.)
MR. HINDE, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
MR. P. GRAIN Prosecuted.
ELLEN GAGER . I keep a lodging-house at 22, Rivett Street, Tidal Basin—on December 17th last I had two men named Regan and Wilson lodging with me—the prisoner was working for me—I sent her upstairs for 2s. belonging to Wilson—she came down and said it was not there—I sent here up again to be sure, saying, "Nonsense, it must be there"—she got very excited and drew my attention to a shilling on the floor—I did not see it drop, but she said it dropped from me—I told her she would have to clear out of the place—she got so excited that said, "I will go upstairs and see for myself"—I had always found her honest, so that I wanted to be sure—when I came down, the affair in question had happened—Regan had his hand to his face—Wilson said he had been struck, but I do not know any more.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I did not hear Regan say you had got it and that you had stolen another shilling, or that you should be
kicked out of the house, or that you were always robbing me—I never found you out in any dishonesty.
DANIEL REGAN . On December 17th I was lodging at 22, Rivett Street—I was present when the prisoner was sent to fetch the money mentioned—she had a few words with the last witness, and I saw the prisoner drop a shilling—I drew Mrs. Gager's attention to it—she told her to leave—Mrs. Gager went upstairs to see if she could find the money—the prisoner left the room, came back and hit me with a sharp instrument., a knife, I think—I think she said it was my fault, or something like that, and that she would do for me—I bled as soon as I was struck—I met a policeman and told him what had happened—he stopped the bleeding very much and took me to the police station—I did not see any more of the prisoner after I was struck—the wound is very painful now—the prisoner was not drunk.
Cross-examined. I did not see you drunk.
The prisoner. I struck him with a sugar tin, not a knife, for calling me a b—cow for robbing Mrs. Gager of a shilling and saying I ought to be thrown out.
ARTHUR KITCHERSIDE (873 K.) About 12.45 p.m. on December 17th I was in the Victoria Dock Road, when Regan came up to me—he was bleeding a great deal from his forehead—he made a statement to me—I took him to the station and bandaged up his head—at the station he saw Dr. Hay.
EDMUND HAY . I am a medical practitioner at Victoria Dock Road—on December 17th, about 1.15, I was called to the Canning Town Police Station and saw Regan there—he was suffering from a wound over his left temple about 1 1/2 inches long, extending in its middle part right down to the bone—the temple artery was cut and required to be tied—I stitched up the wound and sent harm home—it was a wound that was likely to be dangerous from the hamorrhage, which was considerable, and there were complications—it was a clean cut wound that could have been caused by a table knife—a sugar tin certainly would not have caused it.
Cross-examined. If it were done by a square biscuit tin, the tin would have to be very sharp.
GEORGE AYRES (Sergt. 78 K.) About 2 p.m. on December 17th I arrested the prisoner—I said to her, "Tilly, I want you"—I knew her by name—she said, "All right, I know what you want me for; don't handle me or I will turn up rough; the dirty I—s—, is he dead? I done it with a table knife"—the knife could not be found—she had been drinking.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am perfectly innocent of stabbing him. I hit him with a sugar tin. He called me a b—cow because I would not get his breakfast.
The prisoner, in her defence, repeated that statement. GUILTY . She then PLEADED GUILTY. to a conviction of felony at West Earn Borough Sessions on December 11th, 1903. A large number of convictions were proved against her.— Six months', hard labour.
Before Mr. Recorder.
151. THOMAS ROLAND BROOKS (37), PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining from Francis Ells Woodbridge six pairs of drawers sad other articles, and 18s. 6d. by false pretences and with intent to defraud; also to forging and uttering an undertaking for the payment of £5 with intent to defraud. The police stated that there was a charge against him at Grays, in Essex. Judgment respited.
MR. ROCHE Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.
The prisoner stated that he would PLEADED GUILTY to unlawful wounding, and the Jury returned a verdict to that effect. Nine months, hard labour.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq., K.C.
153. JOHN JONES, Unlawfully making and concurring in making certain false entries in a book belonging to George Alexander Oakley, his employer, with intent to defraud. Other counts, unlawfully omitting and concurring in omitting certain material particulars from a book belonging to his employer.
MR. DRAKE Prosecuted; MR. HUGHES Defended.
GEORGE ALEXANDER OAKLEY . I am a greengrocer and fruiterer, at 232, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich—I am unable to read or write except to sign my name to cheques—I keep a banking account—on February 2nd, 1904, I employed the prisoner to manage my business at 232, Trafalgar Road—it was a new business started by me—he was paid 35s. a week, had a house to live in and free vegetables, fruit and gas—his duties were to receive the takings of the shop, obtain goods and pay for them—out of the takings he was to take his own wages and was to pay out of the takings into the bank a fixed sum, £3 weekly for the gas and rent and the horse and van—any balance was also to be paid into the bank—he was to keep the books—I started the business with £28 9s. worth of stock—I also handed him a cheque for £20, also 5s. worth of change—I occasionally went to the shop—he continued in the business till October 24th—during that time I handed him further cheques for £4 15s.—on October 24th I spoke to him about the goods he was buying, and said if he could not lay the money out better than that, he had better give me the balance and I would try what I could do—he put his hat on and walked out, saying, "Good-morning, governor"—this book is in his writing and shows that during the last week he was there there was an expenditure of £8 3s. 0 1/2 d.—there is a balance carried forward of £13 10s. from the previous week, so that, according to that, he should have had in hand
about £6 15s.—he did not give me this money—I got three books in all when he left and employed an accountant to go into them—I asked the prisoner whilst he was there about what profit he was making—he said that things were very bad and he could not make any profit, but that it would be better presently—upon investigation of the accounts I found he had been receiving large sums of money—when he had gone I received accounts from people for goods supplied to the shop—the accounts, according to the prisoner's book, were paid.
Cross-examined. These three books represent the book-keeping of the business—I do not keep a day book or a ledger or a book specially marked for the trade done at the market—at times I took these books away to look at—I think he had one book by him to enter things into—I am not a buyer of businesses to work up and sell again—I have no other businesses than the one in question—I have had several—I was not a novice in the prisoner's hands—he was recommended to me as manager—according to the accounts, I have made no profit from the business, so my accountant informs me—all the information the accountant has had has been from these three books—the prisoner has not been asked to give any explanation of the accounts—he gave me no time; he walked out of the place before I could ask him anything about it—I asked for a warrant at the Police Court against him, but it was refused—I brought him up the next day and he was discharged—he brought an action against me for false imprisonment—I then brought this prosecution—I can understand figures, but I am no scholar.
Re-examined. I accepted the prisoner's statement that the business was not paying, and that is why I made no profit—shortly after that bills were delivered to me amounting to £22 10s. for goods that are entered by him as having been paid for—when he left there is in the books, in his own figures, an amount of £8 3s. 0 1/2 d. as having been paid on that date—the actual amount is about £118s.
By MR. HUGHES. He may have said when he left that there was money due at the market; I almost forget—there was no other place where he could book it but in these books.
JOHN FREDERICK WATSON . I am a salesman to Walter Ford of the Borough Market—I know the prisoner as being employed by the prosecutor—on October 18th I sold him apples for 7s. 6d.—on October 19th I sold him beets for 6s.—the money has not been paid—on October 22nd I sold him potatoes for £l 15s.—that has not been paid—also on October 18th potatoes for £1 10s.; the 19th for £3 11s. 6d.; 21st, £1 15s.; 1st, apples for £1 2s. 3d.—these were all bought by the prisoner, but not paid for. [Mr. Drake pointed out that in the book they were entered as paid.]
Cross-examined. I have not seen those books before—I have given the prisoner credit—the account was generally paid in the middle of the following week after the account was sent in—I cannot say where he got the money from.
and apples for £1 2s. 6d.—he did not pay for them—on October 21st I sold him onions for £1 10s.—he did not pay for those. [Mr. Drake pointed out they were entered in the book as paid.] I have made a claim against the prosecutor for these amounts.
RICHARD NICHOLLS . I am a salesman in the Borough Market—on September 8th I sold the prisoner some pears for 10s.—on September 13th, onions for 5s.; on September 19th, onions for £3 5s.; on September 29th, berries for 4s. and a lot of other things—he has paid £4 on account—they were not paid for on the day of purchase. [Mr. Drake pointed out that they were entered in the book as paid for.] I have known the prosecutor for many years—I do not think he knew that there was a running account with us.
Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate that he knew in October—that is true—the prisoner paid for the goods on account, the balance being brought forward every week.
HARRY WADLEY . I am a salesman in the Borough Market—on October 10th I sold the prisoner tomatoes for 14s. he did not pay for them on that day—on October 11th he bought potatoes for £1 12s. 6d.; on the 13th, for £2 8s. 6d.; and on the 15th, for £1 2s. 6d.—I have not yet been paid.
Cross-examined. About a fortnight after the prisoner left the prosecutor's employment he asked me to send in my account to the prosecutor—he did not ask me to so arrange the account as to falsify anything—he simply said that he was leaving Mr. Oakley and that we were to send the bill to him—I have had many transactions with the prisoner, and he has always paid during the following week.
Re-examined. The last three items in the account of October 10th have not been paid for.
ROBERT AUSTIN . I am a salesman employed by my father—on October 3rd I sold to the prisoner some carrots for 12s. 6d.—on the 12th another lot for 12e. 6d., which were not paid for then. [Mr. Drake pointed out that these were entered as paid.]
Cross-examined. I remember the prisoner offered to pay, and I said, "Never mind, let it go on the account"—I remember the prosecutor coming to see my father, introducing the prisoner, and saying that we could give him up to £100 credit, if it was not paid, then to write to his private address, which he gave us at the time—I have come here quite willingly to give evidence.
Re-examined. I did not hear the prosecutor give evidence at the Police Court.
WILLIAM BLACKBURN . I am a salesman in the Borough Market—on October 24th I sold the prisoner grapes for £1 7s., and turnips for 9s.—he did not pay for them—I sent the bill to the prosecutor, and he has refused to pay. [Mr. Drake pointed out they were entered in the book as having been paid.]
Cross-examined. Up to the time I mentioned we had always been paid.
[Mr. Drake pointed out that they wire entered as paid in the book]—we have sent our claim to the prosecutor, but have not been paid.
Cross-examined. Up to this time we were always paid by the prisoner—it is the custom with a good many people to pay for goods in the following week.
JOHN LEVY . I am a salesman in the Borough Market—on October 24th I sold the prisoner onions for 17s., chestnuts for 10s., and other articles, amounting in all to £2 1s. 6d.—the prisoner did not pay for these things—on the 24th he paid me £3 9s. for things he had the week before—we have sent our account to the prosecutor.
Cross-examined. The prosecutor has not refused to pay—the prisoner used to pay, when he came, for the things he had had the previous time that he had been to us.
GEORGE ALDRIDGE . I am a salesman to Mr. Arthur Watson, of the Borough Market—on October 13th I sold the prisoner goods amounting to £2 Is.—he did not pay for them. [Mr. Drake pointed out they were entered in the book as having been paid.]
GEORGE ELLERTON MCCANLIS . I am an accountant at 10, New Road, Woolwich—I have had those three books handed to me—I have extracted from them copies of the items in question—the cash purchases at the market from February 20th to October 22nd amount to £1754 4s. 5d.—the expenses in monthly totals taken from the books amount to £251 9s. 4d,—the credit purchases amount to £465 1s. 3d., being a total outlay of £1,460 14s. 11d.—the takings taken from the books for that period amount to £2,863 2s. 3d.—the payments into the bank by the prisoner are £425 15s. 5d.—the cheques paid to him by the prosecutor amount to £415—the deficiency amounts to £164 5s. 11d.—I find accounts have been sent to the prosecutor amounting to £22 10s—some of the items making up that amount appear in these books as having been paid—the total deficiency is therefore £186 15s. 11d.—on October 24th here was a balance at the bank of £109 15s. 5d.
Cross-examined.—I have not had the prosecutor's assistance in getting out these figures—he does not know very much about the books—he informed me that this book represented the amounts he had paid on the dates put down here—it is not a satisfactory method of book-keeping—I do not think I should like to take the responsibility of a criminal prosecution on these documents—if I could be shown that there were other payments made by the prisoner, it would reduce the deficiency—I was not instructed to credit the prosecutor with the stock left at the end—that was left open.
Re-examined. These books are a daily record of the takings from the dates I have mentioned.
Cross-examined. I served, the summons in this case and was present at the Police Court during the hearing—the prosecutor was in Court on every occasion—the Magistrate said, as far as I recollect, that it was a case that would be far better brought in the County Court—he released the prisoner on his own bail.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that the arrangement the prosecutor made with him was wages 35s. a week and house free, but no arrangement as to the £3 a week; that he put into the bank all the takings, leaving a balance at the end of £109 15s. 5d.; that he used to buy in the market, and it might sometimes be two days before he entered the items up; that he entered the items before paying the amounts, as he paid the following week to receiving the goods that he never represented that the items meant he had paid on the day they were entered: and that he was now working at a rival business nearly opposite the prosecutor's.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. DRAKE for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.
NOT GUILTY .
Before Mr. Recorder.
Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K.C.
MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.
OTTILIE HELDEN . I am the wife of Albert Helden, baker, at 182, Lower Road, Rotherhithe—I was in the shop on Friday, December 16th—a Mrs. Stothard, a neighbour, was there—the prisoner came in about 7.30, and asked for twopenny worth of scones—he put 2s. on the counter—I picked it up and took 1s. 10d. change in my hand—as I looked at it I thought it looked good—I tried it and broke a piece off the top of it—I said, "You have given me a bad one"—he said, "Why did you break it; I could have taken that back again? Why don't you give it back to me now?"—I gave him the two pieces back—he went out—he had given me another 2s. piece, a good one—about 9.55 the same evening I was asked to go to the police station to identify the prisoner—I saw a number of men—I picked him out.
Cross-examined by the prisoner. I recognised you at once—afterwards I said, "I think that is the man.'
WILLIAM EDWARD TALBOT ROSE . I am a registered medical practitioner and divisional surgeon of police—I went yesterday to 293, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, and there saw Jane Elizabeth Southward—she was in bed, having been confined on Saturday last—it would be dangerous for her to travel.
ROLAND THORNELL (Detective-Sergeant). I was present at the South wark Police Court on December 21et, when the prisoner was charged—I heard Mrs. Stothard give her evidence and saw her sign the depositions
The deposition was then real, and stated that she saw the prisoner come into Mrs. Heldon's shop and ask for the scones and tender a bad florin in payment.
ELLEN COOPER . I am the wife of Joseph Cooper, tobacconist, of 274, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, which is about fifty houses away from Mrs. Heldon's—I was in the shop on December 16th, when the prisoner came in about eight, and asked for a packet of "Woodbine" cigarettes—he put down a shilling, which I tested and found to be bad—I told him so—he said, "Give it me back,"—I said, "No, I shall not give it to you back."—he said, "There is another one, "and threw down another shilling—he asked me for his change—he did not mind losing the bad one—I said, "No, you wait a minute"—I sent for a policeman, who came—I gave him the bad shilling.
Cross-examined. When you opened the door I thought you were a regular customer and that made me look at you all the more.
GEORGE BURGESS (M. R. 11.) I was called to the last witness's shop on December 16th—I saw the prisoner there—the lady told me he had given her a bad shilling—the prisoner said to me, "How do I know it is a bad one?" I gave her a shilling, I don't know if it is the same one"—he said to the lady "I will give you another one for it"—Mrs. Cooper then gave the bad one to me—I searched the prisoner, and found 1/2 d. on him besides the 11d, which the lady had given him as change for the good one—he was taken to the station and detained, and later on identified—he was then charged—he said in reply, "I never went into this lady's shop," meaning Mrs. Holden's.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I had only been in one shop, Mrs. Cooper's."
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he went into the tobacconist's and tendered a shilling, but did not know whether the one produced was the one he tendered or not; and that as to the other cote he knew nothing.
Eight convictions of felony and four summary convictions were proved against him. Twelve months' hard labour.
Before J. A. Rentoul, Esq. K.C.
MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.
NOT GUILTY .
MR. HUTTON Prosecuted; MR. COMPTON SMITH Defended.
MR. COMPTON SMITH applied for the indictment to be quashed on the ground that the offence being charged as committed on July 15th, 1904, proceedings were now being taken more than three months after the offence, contrary to the
provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1895, and that the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, on which the Prosecution also relied, did not come into force until October 1st, 1904, although it received the Royal Assent upon August 15th, 1904, and that the latter Act could not be held to be retrospective. (The Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Company, Law Reports, 11, Chancery Division; Moon v. Durden, 2 Exchequer Reports; Queen v. Griffiths, 1901, 2 Queen's Bench.) The COURT refused to quash the indictment.
MR. SMITH then asked the COURT to state a case for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, to which the COURT agreed. Judgment respited.
MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted; MR. SANDS and MR. COSTELLO Defended.
ROBERT MITCHELL . I live at 59, London Street, Fitzroy Square—in November last I was living in Great Dover Street—I was unemployed—I advertised for a situation in the "Daily Chronicle," offering a bonus of £5—I subsequently received a letter in the name of White from 22, Kingston Road, Wimbledon [Offering the advertiser a situation in coffee rooms in London at wages of 15s. to £1]—that is dated November 5th, 1904—on that day I went to Tooting Railway Station—I had the letter with me—I there met the prisoner—she asked me if my name was Mitchell—I said, "Yes"—she said, "Have you come with reference to my letter?"—I said, "Yes"—we then went to the waiting room—she asked me to meet her at Plaistow Station the following Monday morning at 10 o'clock, and she would show me the business that she was taking, which was coffee and dining rooms in Queen's Road, Plaistow—she said they belonged to her, but she wanted somebody to manage them—she said the terms were £I a week with board, washing, lodging, etc.—I handed her £1, part of the £5 bonus—I quite believed she had the dining rooms—she gave me a receipt for the £1—on the 7th I went to Plaistow Station at 9.55—I waited there till 12 o'clock I saw nothing of the prisoner—I then tried to find the dining rooms in Queen's Road—I found some dining rooms and saw there a Mr. Cherry—I spoke to him and came back to London—on November 10th I went to Wimbledon and ascertained that the prisoner was at the Free Library—I saw her and spoke to her and said, "You thoroughly understand, Mrs. White, that this appears to be a fraud on me. If you care to return me the £1 I gave you I will let this matter drop, otherwise I shall take the necessary steps against you"—she said, "Don't start shouting here, showing me up"—I said, "I don't want to show you up; if you will come round the corner I will speak to you quietly"—she walked out with me—I asked her if she could return me the £1—she said no, she could not, she had no money on her—I said, "Very well, I will give you till 1 o'clock, but wherever you go I shall come with you"—she said, "Oh, you can trust me"—I said, "No, you have got no residence; I understand that you are living in a lodging house. You cannot object to me keeping you company during the morning till you can raise that amount"—I followed
her on to Wimbledon Downs, where she went into a garden and spoke to a gardener—she stood talking for some time—when she came out she abused me—she walked away and I followed till a policeman came in sight—I called him over and said, "I wish to give this woman in charge"—she ran into a garden—we overtook her and she was arrested—just before her arrest she took some papers from her breast and threw them over a wall—I told the constable this and he, I think, found them.
Cross-examined. My memory is quite clear as to what occurred at Tooting—the prisoner did not say she was in possession of the coffee house at Plaistow; she said she was the owner—when I handed her the £1 I was suspicious of her, but I did not think it was a bogus affair.
Re-examined. 22, Kingston Road, Wimbledon, was a barber's shop where letters were addressed.
ALFRED CHERRY . I live at 154, Queen's Road, Plaistow, and am a plumber—on November 2nd I advertised some dining rooms at 34, Queen's Road, Plaistow, for sale, price £6 for fixtures, rent 10s. 6d.—on November 3rd I received a letter, which I did not keep, from Mrs. White, Hope Coffee Tavern, Merton, Wimbledon, asking for particulars—I replied to the letter—I never saw the prisoner at Plaistow—I asked for a deposit and said the business would be sold to the first applicant—I received no reply—I wrote to her on the 4th, saying I had disposed of it—on the 7th I saw the last witness at Plaistow.
Cross-examined. I should say 40s. would have been a reasonable deposit—the landlord would have to accept the incoming tenant.
Re-examined. I should have wanted the remainder of the purchase money before handing over possession.
DAVID SOUTHERN (471 V.) I was on duty at Wimbledon on the afternoon of November 10th—I saw the prosecutor and the prisoner there—he came up to me—the prisoner ran away—he made a communication to me and we overtook her in a road called "The Downs"—in the prisoner's hearing he said, "I shall give this woman into custody for obtaining £1 from me by fraud at Tooting Station in November"—I said to her, "You hear what is said?"—she said, "Yes; if he had waited till 5 o'clock, till Mr. Eley came home, I would have paid him"—I took her to the station—she was there charged—she replied, "It is not a fraud; if he had waited till 5 o'clock I would have paid him"—as she was running away towards the Downs I saw her throw a bundle of papers into a garden—at the station she was searched—after being charged I went and found the small parcel she had thrown away—I took it to the station and opened it—it contained two papers. [These were read: one stated that Mrs. White, being without work, earnestly asks for help: the other stated that the bearer would be glad of the smallest contribution to help her, as she was out of work and her son had done nothing for twelve weeks.]—she was told of the finding of the parcel—she made no reply.
West Hampstead—on September 23rd I advertised for a situation in the "Daily Chronicle"—on the 24th I received a letter—I think it is lost—it was signed "White"—it made an appointment for a meeting at Tooting—the address of the writer was 197, Merton Road, Wimbledon—I went to Tooting, but saw nothing of the prisoner—I wrote her a letter—she replied, making an appointment to meet me on the 27th, at the Charing Cross Post Office, at 12.30—I met her—she said that she had a business at Tooting, a coffee shop that she wished to put me into as manager if I accepted the terms—she said the dining rooms were facing the Public Library and that her present manager and manageress wanted to leave—she offered me £1 a week and all found—I was to pay her a bonus of £5 down for finding me the situation, and £10 security on entering on the engagement—I paid he the £5—I believed her statement—she said she wee the owner of the Tooting Dining Rooms—she gave me a receipt for the £5—at the same interview she said that she required another man to take charge of a boarding-house at Brighton, and I told her I had a friend who would be pleased to meet her—I mentioned the matter to my friend, Mr. Muir—she made an appointment to meet me and Mr. Muir—we went, but did not see her—I wrote her several letters—on October 23rd I received a letter from her [Stating that the writer must decline the witness's services and that she would instruct her lawyer to return the £5]—I have never received any of the £5 back.
Cross-examined. I am quite certain she said she was going to put me into the Tooting Dining Rooms—that was before I parted with my £5—I did not care where I went—all I wanted was a situation—from her letters I gathered that she was trying to put me into a better situation—I got tired of waiting—I made no attempt to ask the prisoner for the £5.
Re-examined. My friend's wife went to Brighton and got information from there—we then communicated with the Wimbledon police.
SARAH JANE SALTER . I reside with my husband at 6, Library Parade, Mitcham Road, Tooting—my husband has dining rooms opposite the Library there—we went into possession on September 23rd last—I know nothing of the prisoner and never saw her at our dining rooms—we moved there from 3, Rookstone Terrace, Mitcham Road, where we had dining rooms.
Cross-examined. 3, Rookstone Terrace, was unoccupied when we left, but I cannot say for how long—some few weeks, I think.
WILFRED PICKEN . I reside at 4, Rookstone Terrace, Mitcham Road, Tooting—Mr. Salter left No. 3 on September 29th—the place was known as the Tooting Dining Rooms—when he left the house was closed for a short period—the landlord then offered it to me and I took possession about November 16th—I never had any communication with the prisoner, and know nothing of her.
Cross-examined. No. 3 was vacant from September 29th till about November 11th—the place was advertised to be let and several people came—I never saw the prisoner there; she may or may not have come.
WILLIAM MUIR . I live at 61, Witbourne Buildings, Euston Road, and am an electrician—Mr. Dauncey is a friend of mine—in September last I required a situation, and he made a communication to me—I went with
him to Charing Cross, to meet the prisoner by appointment—I did not see her—I subsequently wrote her a letter [Asking for an interview]—she replied, asking my wife to meet her as I could not, and that she could arrange a situation for me at Brighton, wages £110s. a week and all found, and that she would require £15 security—my wife saw her—on October 17th I saw her at the Charing Cross Post Office—she asked me had my wife told me about the situation—I said yes, I was quite willing to accept the terms and I would make the deposit and give notice at the situation I was then in—I paid her £2 on account of the £15—she gave me a receipt—she told me she had the boarding house at Brighton, and my wife and I were to manage it—I gave notice at my situation—the prisoner and I had further correspondence about my furniture, and I arranged to have it stored because the boarding house was furnished—on October 23rd I received this letter [Stating that the writer was sorry to tell the witness that the must refuse his services, and that she had written to her lawyer to return his £2]—I have never received the money.
Cross-examined. I accepted what the prisoner said as being all right—I had no suspicions—she described the situation to me herself—I did not get all the information from my wife.
Re-examined. My wife went to Brighton, and on her return I communicated with the police at Wimbledon.
WALTER MORLEY . I live at 34, Camelford Street, Brighton—I have rented tint house since May 16th last—I carry on a lodging house and boarding house—I advertised the place for sale in the "Daily Chronicle" for £110, or it would be let at a monthly rental of £6—I received this letter in answer to the advertisement from a Mrs. White [Stating that she would call on Sunday morning]—I had a long correspondence with her about the place but I never saw her at Brighton—I never saw her till she was in custody.
Cross-examined. Mr. Soho was my agent at Brighton—it was a very good business—I wished to dispose of it through the illness of my wife—that was the only reason—I should have been glad to turn out as soon as somebody else came in, provided I got my price.
ROBERT WILLIAMSON (Detective-Constable V.) I searched the prisoner's lodgings at the Hope Coffee Tavern, Merton, and found 63 letters and papers belonging to her—three are some of them—I found letters from Messrs, Mitchell, Dauncey, Muir, Morley, and Seehof, all in her room—some of them were addressed to 197, Merton Road, which is a tobacconist's, where letters are received, and 24, Kingston Road, which is similar.
The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I don't consider it is false pretences, as if I had known the coffee house had been sold on Friday I would not have taken the £1 from Mr. Mitchell. I did not get the letter till Monday morning. I would not have dismissed Dauncey and Muir, only I received the letter from Brighton. Dauncey knew he could not go into the place. I went to a lawyer's office on Saturday morning to see about Dauncey's matter, but he war away and would not return till Monday night. The papers of mine which have been found were prepared for the purpose of being taken to a lawyer."
The prisoner, in her defence on oath, stated that she was desirous of carrying
on an eating house business and went to Tooting to look at one, but decided not to take it; that she saw the Plaistow business advertised and wrote for particulars, which she received, and then was told the place was sold, having in the meantime seen Mr. Mitchell; that as soon as she heard the Plaistow business was sold she wired to him not to meet her; that if things had gone straight she was prepared to take the Brighton boarding house at £6 a month; that she told the prosecutors she was taking places; that she went to see a gentleman to get some money, but he was away; and that she could have paid Mr. Mitchell at 5 o'clock as she had said; and that she had no intention of defrauding. GUILTY . She then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of obtaining money by false pretences at Newington on September 14th, 1898, in the name of Albina White Drummond. One other conviction was proved against her. The police stated that she had carried on a similar system of fraud for many years. Twenty-one months, hard labour.
Before Mr. Justice Darling.
MR. MOYSES and MR. FITCH Defended.
HENRY CHARLES MANDY . I now live at 158, Merton Road, Wands worth—in 1898 I entered the prisoner's employ as clerk—I had had experience as a solicitor's clerk—I have been in three solicitors' offices and the P. & O. Company's office—the prisoner's office was then at 4, Church Row, Wandsworth—I was the only clerk—I got 30s. a week wages—it was his practice to attend at the office from Monday to Friday or Saturday, and then go to Brighton from Saturday to Monday—I remained in his employment until the end of June, 1903—I made up my mind one evening to leave, and I went own to tell him so—there were several unpleasant matters; some money had been received and not handed over—I told him I was going to leave, he made no charge or accusation against me—I told him why I was going—when I first went there there were no books kept except the usual diary of a solicitor—there were no ledgers or cash books or account books—there was a letter book, but it was not used much after I left—letters were copied on loose sheets of copying paper—the business was principally local—the prisoner practised in the County Court, and occasionally there was High Court business, but that was sent up to the London agents—the prisoner gave his personal attention to the business—in January, 1901, I remember his being appointed to art for the Assessment Committee—that was the first quinquennial period while I was there—the revision took place in 1900, and the appeal work, if any, comes on, I think, in January, 1901—when the prisoner was appointed to act for the Assessment Committee in some of their cases he was very pleased and said it would be a good thing, that it might be the last quinquennial he would have, and he was going to make the best of it; that all connected with it were all old friends of his, and he could do what
he liked with the Guardians, and that if any of the Guardians or the Assessment Committee winked it would be 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d—there were fourteen Battersea cases in which he acted for the respondents, the Assessment Committee, and eleven others—the fourteen cases were cases in which the Battersea Borough Council were the appellants, the respondents being the prisoner's clients—there were thirteen public houses and one theatre—he acted for the appellants in the cases of the Wandsworth Gas Company—in the fourteen cases the first thing done was to give notice of intention to defend, and after that to obtain the copies of the appellants' cases—Mr. Boyle, K.C., and Mr. Henderson were retained—Mr. Henderson I knew as super-intending registrar of births, deaths, and marriages—he had his office and residence in Wandsworth—I made out the retainers—they consisted of the usual half sheet of foolscap with the name of the case, the name of the counsel and the fee, £1 1s., which amounted to £1 3s. 6d. 2s. 6d. being added for a clerk—there were twenty-eight in all—the prisoner delivered the retainers to counsel—I did not have anything to do with the retainers—in course of time instructions were given to prepare the respondents' cases—Mr. Henderson had them all—the respondents, cases were prepared and printed-the prisoner went to Mr. Hunnard in Tanfield Court, Temple, and saw to them—some surveyors were appointed: Mr. Flowery, and afterwards Mr. Morgan and others—later on something was said about a view and the prisoner said he would engage a trap, and they would all go together and inspect the thirteen public-houses—a private omnibus came, and the surveyors came to the prisoner's office, and they started from there—it was all done in about four hours—a little later on something was said about the cases being in the list—I believe the prisoner went up once to look at the list—he told me he was going to—the lists were at the Quarter Sessions—he said he must see about instructing counsel and that he had not any time for the briefs, and told me to make twenty-eight back sheets; fourteen for Mr. Henderson and fourteen for Mr. Boyle—they would have on them the name of the case, Wandsworth and Battersea Borough Council against the Assessment Committee, the name of the Sessions, the number of the case and the fee, the name of the counsel, under the name of Mr. Boyle, "with you, Mr. Henderson," and the name of the solicitor—in one or two of the briefs the appellants' and the respondents' cases were copied on sheets of brief paper, which were attached to the front of the back sheet, and formed the whole of the written portion of the brief—in the cases where I did not copy the appellants and the respondents cases the outside wrapper enclosed the printed notices of appeal, the printed cases and some shorthand notes which had been taken sometime before—they were borrowed from one of the reporters, I believe—in the two cases in which the appellants, and respondents' cases were copied, the prints of the same cases accompanied them—I delivered the brief to Mr. Boyle, and the prisoner took the other to Mr. Henderson—in none of the fourteen cases were there then any observations drawn in the usual way—there were some back sheets endorsed, "Instructions to advise on evidence," and the name and number and fee, £2 2s.—the prisoner said he should lay them before Mr. Henderson—there were no proofs in these briefs—I prepared fourteen "cases to advise,"
with Mr. Henderson's name on them, with the fee, £2 2s.—there were no observations in the papers setting out what the points are or which advice was wanted, simply the back sheets endorsed in that way—I gave them to the prisoner—I did not see them again—they disappeared in a most mysterious way, except one, which I found amongst some papers on the prisoner's table—on February 28th these cases came into the list, the prisoner and myself went up to the Sessions—I cannot say positively if we met both our counsel there—I do not think Mr. Henderson was there, only Mr. Boyle—there was a hurried conversation for about ten minutes, but I did not hear much about it—the surveyors attended it, and Mr. Boyle and the prisoner—the four surveyors were each written to—the appeals were adjourned till March 12th—I should think that, allowing a margin, one and a half hours would cover the time we were at the Sessions on February 28th—in the interval an arrangement was come to between the parties—no further instructions or figures had been sent to either counsel—on March 12th all the appeals were dismissed by consent—I was not present on that day—they had agreed to figures on my first attendance at the Sessions—I saw the prisoner with two half-crowns in his hand, and I judged they were for the policeman—I did not see him give any money to anyone—very shortly after March 12th the prisoner said to me, "Now, Mandy, we must drag out these briefs; Sally Brass wants £20 out of it"—he called his wife "Sally Brass"—she used to assist in the office work, but not for some years—recently she did some copying; she writes a very good hand—she had been formerly his clerk, and that is why he called her "Sally Brass"—he said, "Sally Brass want £20 out of it, and I want bills which must come to £150 or £160, in fact they must come to it; I want £150 or £160 out of the bills"—he went into his room, brought back a law report, and called my attention to a case as to tied public-houses, which had gone to the Court of Appeal—he said he wanted it copied, leaving out the judge's name, because he wanted the observations to appear as if he had drawn them—it was a very long case—I forget the name—I was to copy the notice of appeal, the appellants and respondent's cases, and several other things—he gave me the surveyor's reports, and said, "Copy them into the body"—I prepared a copy of the reported case, and he took it to Brighton—the judge had begun "I am of opinion that," but I copied it as, "It is apprehended that the law on this subject is as follows," and then I copied the case—twenty-eight copies of it were made—the prisoner made some slight alterations—he took it to Brighton to have the copies made—he brought them back to the office—he gave them tome as Mrs. Jones finished them—they were all in her writing; each was 68 folios—I did some of the additional copying, and a brother-in-law of mine did some—the fourteen copies came to 2,117 folios—on the average each proof was about 150 folios—the back sheets were obtained from counsel, as the bills of costs were being taxed and fees paid, and then the parts copied by Mrs. Jones and myself were put inside the back sheets got from course, who signed the lists of fees and the briefs as well—for the first copy I made of the lists of fees there was a charge entered to Mr. Henderson for advising on evidence, and the prisoner struck it out—the next thing to be done was to make up bills of costs—
the prisoner told me to look at the Battersea case, No. 1419, and to make a rough draft—I took the papers and put them in order—he gave me a book containing a precedent, Beal's "Practice of Assessment, "an old copy, and said, "You will start there and work it all in"—I made a rough draft, and copied it up to the item "Previous to attending Court with minutes"—the prisoner came into the office next morning, and said, "How are you getting on with the costs? what do they amount to?"—I laid, "I cannot tell yet; there are some items which you must settle, and I do not know the length of the briefs"—he said, "Even with the proof it does not come to 150 folios, but I am going to have a heap of attendance; I will see to that," and he took it away—I had not finished copying from the precedent book, and next day he brought it in and said, "You have not finished it; copy it all to the end"—I did not copy it then, but I put in the margin of the bill "Copy page so and so, Beal"—he did not have the skeleton draft, because we went through the skeleton and a fair copy, and he dictated the items to me in the fair copy—he dictated the items from the book—I do not think I quite finished the skeleton draft—when he said, "Put all the items in, "I said, "Don't you dunk, old fellow, we are skating over thin ice"—he said he had friends in Court who would help him, and that nothing had been looked at—the payments to the police was one of the items queried—he told me 7s. 6d. was to go down—it was put in and he increased it to 10s.; it was for the hire of the consultation room at the Court—I queried the coach hire item—I said, "How about' this coach hire"—I did not know what had been paid then—he said, "Well, I will see"—he took his pen from his book and made a calculation, and said, "17s."—I think that item he put in the skeleton bill himself—when we went through the draft bill with the skeleton I had made, we checked the items, and when we came to the "Advice on evidence," which had been crossed through by him in the skeleton draft, he said, "I had a good deal of trouble in this case, the Francis case, and I am going to charge this "—he was sitting at the side table—he said, "Put them in" and he dictated, "Instructions to advise on evidence, £2 4s. 6d.," and I inserted it as counsel's fee, and 6s. 8d. for perusing it—it was altered in green ink—when I made the copies of the draft bill, everything was repeated as in the first bill—I made thirteen fair copies—no one attended to the taxing of the fourteen Battersea appeal cases, the prisoner took the papers up for the purpose of lodging them at the office of the Clerk of the Peace—the only paper which did not go was the advice on evidence, because I could not find it—I never had anything to do with that taxing except with the first case, which was not a Battersea case—the first of the fourteen cases was in June, 1901—I think they went up to August or September, 1902—they were taken up two or three at a time in case Sir Richard Wyatt looked at the briefs—these observations, being part of the briefs, were charged thirteen times for—the official at Sir Richard Wyatt's office who looked after the taxing matters was a Mr. Smith—that is who the prisoner meant by saying a friend in Court who would not look at anything and pass the lot—on two or three occasions I spoke to him about it, and more than once he said, "What the devil are you worrying about? everything will be passed; it does not matte what is sent up"—once there were three very large bills, amounting to
about £600, to be taxed—the Derby was close handy, and the prisoner came in one morning waving some papers and said, "I am going to ask Smith to go to the races, and Bill Morgan, and we can have a good day of it, and I think it is a great stroke of diplomacy, what do you think?" I said I did not know anything about it—he said, "Pitch in these three heavy bills"—they went in soon after the Derby—I did not see Smith with the prisoner in the trap, which started, I believe, from the Eagle, but the prisoner told me next day he had been with him, and they had enjoyed themselves—there were three bills—the railway bill and Thorne's Brewery bill were copies of each other—they went in and were taxed—I had a friend or connection, a Mr. Ladd—I employed him to assist me to copy some of the briefs in the Gas Company's cases and the Battersea appeals—the prisoner said something about getting Ladd to go to the Shakespeare Theatre, to find out the number of people there—I was to go with him—the prisoner brought a half sheet of draft with some items: "Attending the surveyor, who thought his work should be checked; attending Mr. Henderson, who agreed with him"—neither Ladd nor I ever went to the theatre for that purpose—we made no report to the prisoner—we did not go, because everything was over except the costs—I first heard of something being said about going to the theatre after the appeals were settled—when the prisoner and I got to the item in the costs for Ladd's payment, the prisoner said, "Oh, just write me out a receipt for Ladd's money"—I thought for a moment—I was rather misled, but I did it, although it was a stupid thing to do—I said, "Are you going to pay Ladd?"—he said, "Yes"—I signed it, "E. Ladd, per H.C. M."—I said, "What are you going to pay Ladd?"—I gave him the receipt—some few weeks afterwards I said, "What about that receipt for Ladd," because I had thought it over, and I wanted to see what had become of it—he said, "Never mind about that; don't you trouble about it"—I asked him a second time—I made up my mind the receipt should not go to the taxing master, and it did not go—this is it—(Produced)—it is entirely in my writing, "To charge to attending at Shakespeare Theatre counting house, &c., March 12th; attending at Sessions House, Clerkenwell, as agreed, £3 3s. Ladd, November 20th, 1901, £1 3s., pp. H. C. M."—I suppose I was receiving it for Ladd—I could not make out what the prisoner wanted it for, and I cannot now—from the time I wrote it till I was at the Police Court I never saw it—it was produced there by the prisoner—I remained in the prisoner's employ till June or July, 1903—when I left I went to St. Joseph's Home at Hove—while I was there I wrote certain letters to the Town Clerks of Wands worth and Battersea, and to the Local Government Board—I did not then know of Messrs. Ward—those letters were disclosures of the matters I have been telling you of—I also wrote some letters to the prisoner in the summer of 1903—in March, 1904, I recollect an inquiry before Mr. Burd—I attended and gave evidence on oath—he is the inspector to the Local Government Board—Ladd was also present and gave evidence—I have since lost sight of him—I have made every effort to find him, but have been unable to do so—the prisoner was not present at that inquiry.
Cross-examined. I cannot fix the exact date when I left the prisoner's employ—I think it was the end of June, 1903—I had a complaint against him then I was dissatisfied altogether with him, and had been for about six months from the time I went into his office, which was in October or November, 1898—I had been dissatisfied since the spring of 1899—I did not take any steps to manifest my dissatisfaction; I could not, I was tied by the leg—I think I am the prisoner's second cousin—I have been acquainted with him since about 1853 or 1854—I do not know if he has been a solicitor during the whole of that time, or that for thirty-eight years he has been practising as a solicitor at Wandsworth; he has for some years, but I cannot say the number—I know that for a number of years she was the most prominent solicitor at the County Court—I believe he had eighteen or twenty cases a day frequently—he sometimes acted as deputy registrar; I think on two occasions while I was his clerk—very often for the whole of the working day he was absent from the office, and sometimes for two or three days together, or a week—I was then left in charge of the papers and books and was the person who saw anybody who called—I believe he was very well known in Wandsworth for many years—I do not know if he had a great many friends and a great many enemies—I am not aware that there was any rivalry between him and any other firm on solicitors—I am not aware that he was associated with any other Board or municipal body—when I began to be dissatisfied I tried to find another situation, and if I could have done so I should have walked out of his office without a word—he called me "Old Fellow" up to the end and praised me—I did not take any papers away from the office when I began to feel dissatisfied—I never tore a few leaves out of a book—the steps I took to prevent Ladd's receipt from going before the taxing master, were only searching for it among some other receipts—Ladd is my brother-in-law—I asked him if he would like to do some copying—I am seventy-three years old—the prisoner asked me Ladd's name—I mentioned the name, because some time previously I tried to obtain a situation for him in the Gas Company, and I asked the prisoner if he could aid me—I did not tell him I had paid Ladd the £3 3s.—I could not pay a man who had never been engaged—I last met Ladd about a couple of months ago at Victoria Station by accident—that was after he had given evidence on one of these inquiries—we wanted him, and I went round to all the Rowton houses and different places—this receipt was concocted at the time the prisoner sent in the bill for the theatre appeal—it must have been shortly after the figures were settled for the assessment—there was no occasion for me to keep any memoranda or diary—if the receipt stamp has November 20th, 1901, that, I suppose, would be the date it actually came into existence—the whole of that document is a forgery as regards the money paid to Ladd, and it was made expressly to back up the prisoner's attendances, which were brought to me to put into the draft bill—I did not do it to assist him to defraud other people—he asked me for it and I gave it to him, knowing it was no use to him—of course it was a lie—it was simply to back up his mythical charges, which he had got on half sheets of paper—I gave him the receipt after I had been dissatisfied with him for over two years—I knew it was
useless and I could not make out what he wanted it for—I was not made a tool of in any way, because I told him over and over again he was skating over thin ice—I had had considerable experience when I went to him in the drawing of costs—I did the principal part in making out the costs, but he settled everything—I would not take any responsibility—it is not an invention on my part that he told me to write out the extracts from the law book—it was not my own idea to take the observations from the book—taking the prisoner all round, he was rather irritable and bombastical—I left simply because he did not carry out his promise to give me £2 a week after I had made myself acquainted with the County Court practice—before I went to him I met him in Chancery Lane—he asked me what I was doing—I said I was not satisfied, although I was making good money; it was night work—I had made £6 in a week, and sometimes £1 a day, and that if I was single handed I would take a situation at £1 a week, if it was in the country, as the doctor had said my daughter should go into the country—he said, "You are worth £2 a week"—I went to Wandsworth—he said, "I have a berth for you"—I said, "What is the screw?"—he said, "£1"—I said, "No"—he said, "25s."—I said, "No"—he said, "30s." and I said, "In two or three months, when I get into the County Court practice, I expect £2 a week—he said, "All right"—I do not think I earned £5 in the two years for copying, except for copying the briefs—in September, 1897, I wrote to him, saying I was trying to obtain a situation in a solicitor's office, and could assist in the common law and could make out costs—that was at that time one of my special abilities, because I had had so much practice—the skill in making out costs is to make them out fairly—that is not what I did in these cases, because the prisoner dictated them and altered them as the skeleton bill was going on—the morning I left him I said, "I will try and have this Treasury money cleared up, and if you get into trouble about it you will say it is my fault"—the Treasury money he had misappropriated four years before—I gave the prisoner an hour to pay the money into Court—a woman was sued by a bailiff for assault; she was fined £5 and costs by the judge—the prisoner, to get his money, said to me—"You will see the woman and tell her if she will pay the costs I will give her time to pay the money"—I told the woman and she was pleased about it—the prisoner said, "Don't pay it into Court"—she was to pay so much a month—I gave the money to the prisoner—I gave the woman a receipt for the £1 she paid me—the prisoner was acting as solicitor for the high bailiff—he sent a bill to the high bailiff for £4 and said he was going to stick to the money—I knew something dishonest was going on in the office before 1899; that is the reason I wanted to leave—I wrote letters to the different bodies to get the whole matter ventilated—I had to get the two councils together, the Wandsworth and Battersea Councils—they were at loggerheads—I wanted them to do something—I never thought of blackmail when I wrote the letters—I wrote to Alexander Pope, Esq., on July 23rd, 1903—this is a passage from the letter: "I then sent a copy of the letter to the Guardians, and tell him that if they give me £500 I will show them how the taxation can be reopened on
good grounds, for a certainty, and I think I can get that undertaking to pay me this if I knock off £1,000 from the £4,000, and more, sent in to the Guardians"—I thought any sensible person would give me £500 if I got them £1,000 and did not want the money until they got the money themselves—I went to Hove and then came to London for the Local Government Board—since the beginning of these proceedings I have been paid something by the accountant at Battersea—I forget his name—I have not been in the regular employ of the Borough Council—I have been paid £1 a week since just before the information was laid, about September, 1904—I was without money—I have been copying for one Borough and making inquiries for the other—I have been about all over London—I was nearly a week looking for Ladd—they did not ask for any references as to my character before they took me into their employment—I wrote this letter with the memorandum, "An old and tried friend of mine is coming to see me on Monday next and will return to London and see that a letter (below) is delivered in the proper quarter." [This was written by the witness and stated that the prisoner had, he believed, for some years returned his income at £300, but that he received £682 from various people, and from the Assessment Committee over £2,000 in 1892, giving the different items paid.]—he only kept his diaries to act as cost book and ledger—I swear that before I left the office I did not tear a lot of leaves out of an old cost book—there was an old ledger prepared by me for my own guidance, because if I had to make out a cash account I had to wade through perhaps ten years, and it took a long time—I could refer and tell the prisoner how he stood—I told him the sums he received for the Treasury business—the items in the letter were given purely from my memory—I know that besides the quinquennial assessment the prisoner had in the previous assessment acted for the same committee—I do not know if I wrote that letter from Hove or where—the home at Hove was a Catholic home for aged people—at the Police Court I said how I got possession of the figures—the prisoner first of all sent in a list of the cases with the amounts charged by the surveyors and for the particulars, giving credit as £250 which he had paid—that was sent to Mr. Piper, and one evening just as I was leaving he asked me to make two copies of this particular account—it was just 4 o'clock—I said, "I am going to tea; won't it do to-morrow?"—he said, "No"—I said, "I will take it home and copy it"—I took it home and made two copies, left this draft behind me and rushed down the town and gave it to him—I went back and found I had left the draft behind me—I put it in a precedent book and put it on the cupboard, and did not think any more about it—the day after, I think it was a Saturday, I discovered this, and I got a piece of string and tied that book and two others together and put the draft on the top—I thought to myself, "This may be useful, I will make a copy of the document"—I took the original draft back, but I kept a copy, and that is how I got possession of the sums and the appeals—the day I took it down must have been the day after I left his service—it was about September, 1902, that I took the list home in the precedent book—it was about the time of the second statement of account—I had three precedent
books—they went to and fro between the office and my home—one was Prideaux—if the prisoner wanted to make a long draft where he was going to charge by folios, I took the old book home—I did most of the appeal work at home—I must have had the precedent book in my possession for two or three months—I took a copy of the lists for my own purposes because I told the prisoner I should expose the whole affair, particularly if he did not settle up about the Treasury—I would not chance it being thrown on me—I also said in that letter, "Sir George Wyatt, Newington Sessions, taxed the bills under the following circumstances; this I omit here. Jones also receives a large sum through his London agent, Mr. Alexander Pope, solicitor, 1, Devereux Court. Pope sends account yearly to Jones. Now you caused my wife to be in ill-health through not offering me more money weekly; you have broken up my home all through your damned meanness"—that is true—I wrote that from a religious home, why not?—I wrote that to compel him to refund the money he robbed the parishioners of—his letters are suppressed, and these produce—I tried all I possibly could to induce him to go to the Guardians—"I have written Mr. Henderson as he will perhaps lose his billet"—he was a barrister employed in the appeals—I thought he took the fees in four cases, but I found out afterwards he did not—the letter means that he had been doing something very wrong, and that is what I thought—I thought he had received £22 4s. 6d. for advising on evidence when I knew advice had never been given—all four bills are copies of each other—I took the briefs to the leader, Sir Edward Boyle—I think they were marked twenty guineas each—I say they were excessive fees—there was nothing in them except the back sheets—I do not say Sir Edward Boyle did anything wrong, because a barrister would be a fool if he did not take the fee—Mr. Henderson was paid fees in some cases, and fees were charged which he did not get—Sir Edward Boyle was paid the twenty guineas on each of the briefs—he is a specialist in rating; that is the reason it was given to him—the settlement was all done in about ten minutes—if the cases had been fought Sir Edward Boyle would have had to fight them—I did not put the 17s. and the £2 6s. 6d. for 'bus hire in the bill; I left it blank; and if the skeleton draft could be produced it would be seen that the prisoner put the 17s. in in his own writing—there were fourteen bills—I believe £2 12s. 6d. was paid, which is about 4s. apiece, but really 17s. apiece was charged—it was not my constant practice to make a profit for the prisoner—I was not at that time intending to have something to hold over the prisoner until this unfortunate Treasury business cropped up, and then I decided to expose him in every way, and if he had put me free from suspicion I very likely should not have taken the steps I have; but he laughed at me—the only wonder is that I did not give him a most unmerciful hiding—when one has been on the diggings in Australia for twenty-five years one does not stand any nonsense—I found my wife was suffering in health, and I would not stand what he was doing—if I left there was a chance of his being found out by the auditors who came from the County Court, and then the receipts would have been produced
against me—he would have kept the diaries back, the same as he does now and is ashamed to produce them, because it verifies every word I have said—in my letter I said, "I shall have an affidavit by another person, and prove to the hilt that the briefs were got up after cases settled," and so they were. Ladd has made a declaration, which is before the Local Government Board, and there was not a single folio copied until after March 12th, when everything was settled—Ladd made a declaration at the request of the Local Government Board, "I shall ask the Committee to guarantee me £500 if I knock off a certain amount, and then my friend will be in touch with Paul Caudwell"—he is solicitor to the Borough Council—"my friend" is the prisoner, I suppose—on July 23rd, 1903, I wrote to Mr. Pope, "I have received a letter from a friend at Wandsworth, and hear that Jones has been referring to the past, and stating what he could do. The letter contains facts, and only Jones knew the circumstances. I intended to leave him alone; in fact, I helped him. You could not advance the money for him, so I borrowed it, and got the dates of the receipts"—that refers to the dates of the receipts that Mrs. whatever her name is, paid in—she paid £1, £1, etc.—I told the prisoner I had got the dates, and gave him an hour to pay them in—I do not know if it was the morning that I regretted I had not given him a hiding—I went down the night before to do it—it was a wet night—I could not find him, or I would have mopped the streets with him—I had had three glasses of whiskey hot to make me do it—I went down to tell him I would not stop with him any longer—of course I left on my own accord—why did he ask me to come back?—it is not a fact that I went to the office suffering from the effects of drink—three whiskies and water at the public house do not make you suffer, except want to recover—I was speaking in a loud voice—I got the receipts from the rough ledger about the Treasury matter—the morning I left, before he came to the office, I made a rough copy from the rough ledger of the sums and the dates this woman had paid—"I stated I should be away from Wandsworth. I offered Jones to put two bills of costs right, but he put it off until the Wednesday, the day I left, and I could not do them; his usual style. I shall hope to be in London in about three weeks and teach Jones such a lesson he never had before. As I told you, he caused my wife to go without food, that I and the little one could be well provided for. I found it out the night before I walked out of his office"—that was the night I had three glasses of whiskey—"Some time ago I earned money after 4 o'clock, but had to discontinue doing so for several reasons. When I reach London I shall hand Henderson, late clerk to the Wandsworth Guardians, and who held the back sheets of the appeal cases, a letter, asking him (1) To repay the Guardians the money he had for consultation in all the cases, (2) The fee marked on the briefs in small cases which were settled before he got his briefs, (3) The fees marked on the back sheets, as he did not attend at all, (4) The fees charged by Jones for advice on evidence. Henderson did not advise on any case"—only one of those charges is wrong, the small cases were not paid, but the other charges I thought he and the prisoner would
come to an understanding about, because he did not attend Court at al—I thought then that there were three charges in respect of which Mr. Henderson ought to be made to pay back, but I have considered it since and I withdraw them because the Guardians expressly wished Mr. Henderson retained—"I then send a copy of the letter to the Guardians, and tell him that if they give me £500 I will show them how the taxation can be re-opened, on good grounds, for a certainty, and I think I can get that undertaking to pay me this if I knock off £1,000 from the £4,000, and more, sent in to the Guardians. All the drawing and copying items come off; Mr. Jones made over twenty copies of what I copied from a case in the "Law Times," so it is clear the railway case was copied from "Hodges on Railways," so drawing, etc., comes off. Back sheets only were given to counsel and briefs completed afterwards; there are many other items which speak for themselves, which I shall embody in an affidavit and the order for taxation must go. Jones is under the impression the bills can't be taxed. As he has been the means of breaking up my home, the money I have received I have devoted for my little one to receive a good education, and she will be provided for. I intend to punish him. I shall interview the Income Tax Commissioners"—I told him I should see the Income Tax Commissioners, because he returned his income at £300 when he made £2,000—he allowed himself to be summoned each time—he said, "It is worth while to pay 1s. for the summons, because it looks like poverty"—"He has returned his income at £300 yearly. He received £500 from the Gas Company's appeal and £4,000 from the Guardians. Five years ago he received a large sum for appeals. His diary gives yearly balance sheets, and other demands will place him in an unenviable position with the authorities. There are several other matters to ventilate, but the foregoing are enough to go on with. I worked hard for him, but he did not recompense me. Had it not been for me he would have lost money on several occasions. I was told by tradesmen in Wandsworth that he was the meanest man going, and I found it so. As Jones may not have given you the letter I left at his office, I give the dates of the receipts: 1899, October 23rd, £1; November 20th, 10s.; November 27th, 10s.; December 15th, 10s.; 1900, January 22nd, 5s.; February 5th, 5s.; March 17th, 15s.; July 31st, 5s.; October 4th, 5s."—that is Treasury money—it was his duty to pay it into Court—"The Gas Company could get an order to retax; at all events if the nature of the items is laid before them there will be a bother. There was not a single folio drawn. A report of a surveyor twisted and turned, which I could make the directors understand in five minutes. I would not do this but for his raking up the past, and by the living God I'll do it. Yours very truly, H. C. Mandy"—he made 6,000 folios at 1s. and there was not a folio drawn—I was not in a vindictive frame of mind when I wrote that, only that he laughed at me—"This place is reached by the train from Brighton to Hove, and is about ten minutes walk from the station. It is of no use Jones trying to see me, as I would not speak to him. With all his boast I could twist him round my finger"—I had a thorough contempt for the man for the way he conducted his business, and his desire for money—he did not care what he did as long as
he got it, keeping clients' money back—I remember being in Mr. Pope's office a few days after I left the prisoner—I think I said then, "Jones, I have got him like this!" and so I had—I knew dishonest things had been going on—the prisoner kept £40 belonging to Mr. Hollingsworth—"But all the people call me a fool in Wandsworth for making him money and receiving 30s. per week for it and a day or two for a holiday in five years"—he would not give me a holiday because he said he would have to mind the office—an old friend had come down to see me—I had got out as well as I could the total amount which had been wrongly charged, and I thought if Mr. Pope saw the items and saw how I made it up, he would persuade the prisoner to take a cheque to the Guardians—I knew the greatest punishment would be to put his hand in his pocket and pay money—I wrote this letter to Mr. Pope on July 29th, 1903, from St. Joseph's Home: "Dear Sir,—I have written Jones that a letter will be sent to the Income Tax Commissioners by me on Monday next, proving that Jones received over £4,000 in the year 1901. Five years before about that sum in one year, and also proving that he receives rent per year £50, £50, £50, £52, and £39, trades about £500 a year at least through his business; they can be proved up to the hilt"—when tenants pay rent they deduct income tax—I do not know why I piled it on—I did not mind so long as I got him to pay the money—that is what I am trying to make him do now—"Before sending the letter I think it would be wise on the part of Jones to ask you to see me here early on Monday. If you agree I will wait in as it is an out day here, and I will defer gathering shells by the sea-beach shore"—I used to go to the sea-beach shore—I wanted to see Mr. Pope so that he could understand about the items and try to get him to square up in some way—I was not still open to a little persuasion—I was not such a fool as to believe I should get anything—I wanted to prove to Mr. Pope that if the costs were re-taxed at least so much must come back—"Jones is skating over thin ice and seems callous. I know he is pig-headed, but I thought that when matters affected his pocket he would bob up serenely from his lethargy. That is rather a good expression"—I thought the only way to get at him was to do something to frighten him—I had written a letter to him at Rottingdean—I had received an anonymous letter, saying he was going to send his wife to get me out of the place—I had never seen Mrs. Jones, but I recognised her coming into the grounds from a photograph—I wrote a letter to the prisoner, giving him advice—I have not written a great many anonymous letters—I may have written a joking letter to a friend—"He has divided his profits with a non-professional man"—that was a man named Coe—I think I have written to Coe—I was not a servant using the whole of my time getting that information to betray my master—this letter was written after I had left his office: "He has divided his profits with a non-professional man, and for some years allowed him to use his name. Keep the plant notes; take money out of the Court, and then Jones received half. Jones says he is legally entitled to do so, but I think the Law Society will take a different view—I have made no communication to the Law Society, except making out a short application to get him struck off the rolls—I told him I should
give information to the Income Tax Commissioners—I told him all these things before I left the office—he said, "What can you do; you will have to starve if you leave my office?"—there is no step to punish him that I have not taken, and if there were 100 more I should take them—although I primed myself with whiskey to give him a thrashing. I never did it—I never had the chance—when I was in the office I had quieted down a bit, but if I had got him the night before—"I have written to Mr. Henderson, the late clerk to the Guardians"—I think I wrote to him from Brighton—I cannot tell how many times—"Now a barrister and registrar of marriages at Lavender Hill. Counsel stated he could not find his chambers. No wonder"—I was sorry for Mr. Henderson—"Henderson's billet is in jeopardy when the Assessment Committee find he did little and received much, particularly in the cases (4) which the appellant withdrew; after which Jones got up four briefs and Henderson received the fees. In short, Henderson received £15 on back sheets in twenty cases. I shall have an affidavit by a man who copied a large portion of each brief after the cases at Newington"—that was Ladd—"were settled, and I hold his receipts for money paid him"—I do not hold Ladd's receipts—I am just thinking what that means—I ought to know—I should not write a line at all—I can hardly tell you what is the meaning of that expression—Ladd got more money than anybody—I got very little apart from the Gas Company's briefs—I got receipts for money I paid Ladd, and then I took them to the office, and they were put into the assessment appeals, which were kept in one box and the Gas Company's in the other—I handed them to the prisoner—he entered them in his book and handed me a cheque—I gave him a receipt every week for the folios copied by me and Ladd—when I wrote that passage the prisoner must have had the receipts—I did not have any receipts at all at Hove—I have not got them now—I have got the receipts that Ladd gave me—"There was only one attendance, but he has charged the same money in twenty cases; he has charged £1 for twenty orders, none drawn up; he has charged 'paid police 7s. 6d.' twenty times over; he has turned letters into attendant; advice on evidence, two, nine, six, twenty times. No advice in any case, etc., etc.—If you decide to come, write me and take a 1 1/2 d. ticket from Brighton to Hove and it is ten minutes' walk. The more I think of what I did for him the more surprised I am that he did not value my services at more than the paltry 30s. per week. But money is his god. I shall write to Messrs. Young & Ward and the Assessment Committee, stating that if they guarantee me £500 I will let them have affidavits and the order for taxation must go. The bills will be reduced half, apart from Jones losing the next lot of appeals. Best wishes. Yours very truly, H. C. Mandy-Gardener at St. Joseph's House. Hallelujah"—I assisted in sweeping up some loose leaves, to kill time, and did a little bit of hoeing round the front garden—I was not successful—these letters were coining from a fool or a knave, whichever you like—I wrote them as farcical, stupid letters—all that nonsense about Hallelujah I thought would make him laugh—I also wrote some letters to Jones, to get him to settle up—"Memorandum for H. R. Jones"—I meant by that that the memorandum was to be
handed to the prisoner's clerk next time he called—"You can just rest assured that I shall not be a party to any criminal proceedings against you." I do not quite understand that—"and you have to thank the women"—that is it; she asked me not to go against him "whom your selfish nature caused to fall into a bad state of health by going without food to enable myself and child to obtain sufficient"—she (the witness's wife) did not wish me to take proceedings—"I hope you have paid the money into Court which belonged to the Treasury. They are aware that you retained it wrongfully. The Commissioners of Income Tax know whit your income is from rents agency, and that you received £3,000 odd in one year from the assessment appeals, and returned your income it £300. The Wandsworth and Clapham Assessments Committee know that you have charged for money (fees) which you did not pay and that the briefs were prepared after the cases came on. Others are aware of it. This will doubtless touch your pocket, as it is your god. It will serve you right for interfering with my private affairs. I heard a deal of your boasting, and left you to your remedy and defied you." I was a Common Law clerk and certain events took place which he heard of and I heard he had been chatting about it in public houses—I spoke to him about it and said, "If you do that again you and I will have row"—he must hare done it again, because I got an anonymous letter, saying he had done it—"Take my advice, (1) Don't skate over thin ice, (2) Leave the religion of other people alone"—and to read Huxley—he called me a damned fool, and I told him to go to hell—I am a Roman Catholic—I was received into the Church about three years ago—I thought if Huxley was in hell they could discuss the book between them—"(3) Cease talking of 'Sally Brass,' people think little of a man who does not pay proper respect to his wife. Bear in mind you owe much to her in the past. Burn Huxley's works. Every man can go to hell his own way, but you are putting on extra steam to get there"—I thought it was very good advice—"Bear in mind you lie when you say I got drunk in your office—I admit to twice"—twice that he had had occasion to complain, but he had not—after I left Mr. Pope's office I met with an accident, in fact I am suffering from it now—I was told that I ought to lay up for varicose ulcers—I talked to a friend about it—he said, "You get an order to go into the workhouse and they will transfer you to the infirmary"—and they put me right as far as they could—then they put me into the office, and I had a very cosy time of it—I was fined 6d. by Mr. Plowden—I thought some rum and water hot would be good for me, but I found I made a mistake—I was taken to the station and was kept there till 12 o'clock, and then had to walk home—I got there about 5 a.m.—I met Mr. Plowden at the Marylebone Police Court—"The last time I did so purposely and you may thank your lucky stare I did not carry out what I intended to do. H.C. Mandy. I have omitted to say that I shall not make any affidavit to put before the Law Society. The whole affair of the excesses in your bills is now exposed, and I hope you will have to return what you will be made to do if you persist in going on in your own pig-headed style"—it is not a fact that shortly before I left the office I was in bed drunk o
had been on the spree for three days—I sent my wife down to the office—I did not ask the prisoner to let me go back—I did not go down on my knees and offer to kiss his feet—I should not have gone through such a legal pantomime—I sent my wife to the office, to tell the prisoner I was unwell, because I had not got home till 5 a.m.—I spoke in my letter of overcharges, but I regarded it as fraud and collusion between the prisoner and the clerk to the taxing master—Sir Richard Wyatt was humbugged by his clerk—the next letter is "7th March, 1904, memorandum for H. R. Jones: "As I find you followed up sending Mrs. Jones to St. Joseph's House to try and do me an injury by writing a letter to the Assessment Committee stating that I tried to get money out of you the same as I did them, I now give you notice that I withdraw that part of my memorandum sent to you at Rottingdean shortly after Mrs. Jones paid the visit (I recognised her from the photo I had seen at your office), which related to the Law Institution"—I had never seen Mrs. Jones at that time except in a photograph—"unless you write a full apology for the statement in the letter. The Court saw on Monday that you wrote the letter solely to throw the blame on me, and now your letter is not believed"—that was the Local Government Board Court—"You deserve all you got for your damnable meanness and fooling me, but I should have let you alone had you not written as you did to the Assessment Committee, of course thinking I should never see the letter. I know why I did not receive a reply from two Government offices in London"—I had written to the Treasury—"but I can write again and take care the letters reach the quarter I want them to. When the report of the Local Government officer is made if you have got any sense left you had better draw a cheque for an amount to be agreed upon, and get out of the trouble. I should think £1,000 would be enough; you will have to do it sooner or later. Now once more I warn you to Jet my name alone. I have been posted since July last as to all that has taken place since I left, and you cannot do a single thing in Wandsworth but what I know. This is no idle boast, as you will know sooner or later who my correspondents have been"—I think I wrote that when I was in the home at Brighton—"I will only add that you must be an infernal fool if you think you can do as you please with me. It is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but all brought about by your avarice, and letting others go to the wall so long as you could swim"—that is true—"A pretty beauty you are to talk of drunkenness; a nice figure you cut on the common on a moonlight night rolling about the furze bushes until picked up by a policeman and brought home at two in the morning (this occasion was when Young's solicitors managing clerk came to see you in West's action)"—the prisoner undertook to see a gentleman home—I do not know how Young's name came there; it ought to have been Levoy—I do not know how long that was after I left the prisoner—"I made up my mind to have nothing more to do with you the night before I left, and, knowing your character so well, I took an extract from the rough ledger made of the monies you misappropriated belonging to the Treasury, so that you should not say by-and-bye that I received the money and not yourself, although they are entered in your diary—as to
having a list of the costs I explained that to the Local Government Board"—the next letter is, "Memorandum; I made an appointment last night with Simmons to see you this morning, but I do not see the necessity for our meeting—please give Mr. Pope the enclosed when you see him, and he will tell you what took place as regards the dates in the letter I have written to him"—Simmons is the husband of the caretaker at Jones' office—I told Simmons that I was going down to the office—that was after I had left the prisoner—when I went down I saw a boy—I was at the Police Court at each hearing of the oases, which lasted from September until just before Christmas—I heard Simmons say that I had admitted to him that I had taken some leaves out of a book—Exhibit H. is a letter written by me, addressed—to Mr. Pope—"On Saturday I posted the "South-Western Star" of the 18th inst. to you, and you will see the Local Government Board inquiry has disclosed a state of affairs which has astonished the Parish of Wandsworth ratepayers. I know you will say 'Damn Mandy and Jones; why should I be bothered?' but I write as you are an old friend of Jones, and a word or two of advice from you may bring him to his senses; if he acts in a manly manner he may be in a better position. I sent him a memorandum on Saturday, and suggested that he should-try and settle matters by offering a cheque for £1,000, which is about the amount overcharged and for which the ratepayers have suffered. I know Jones rests on the fact of taxation payment and twelve months having elapsed he told me so long ago, and laughed then I referred to special circumstances giving the Court power to open the taxation. Now he has tried all his low cunning to injure me; he sent Mrs. Jones to Hove (where I was staying) and I recognised her by a photo in his office. I have been kept well posted as to his boasts of what he could do, and I left him to his remedy and defied him. His object failed at Hove as did his letter to the Assessment Committee that I had tried to blackmail him, and he dismissed me for drunkenness"—I had received letters saying what the prisoner had been about, but they did not disclose their names—"I only called one witness to refute the latter charge, but others were forthcoming if required (memorandum, I shall call if I issue a writ against him). Letters written by me I believe were intercepted; anyway, I have a strong fact in my favour, and I can write or see the Government officials on the subject matter of my letter"—I think two persons were giving me information—I tore their letters Up as anonymous, because there was no use in keeping them—I was not paid anything at the home—I was there as an inmate—it is not for inebriates, it is for infirm people—I did not pay anything for being there—"Jones did not appear on the Inquiry, but sent a letter. I am informed that he was suffering from gout, and had instructed you to appear. I knew where he was and also knew he did not dare appear and produce the papers. My object was to make him punished through his pocket, money being his god, and I told him in my memorandum that if he apologised now that his wretched letter is looked upon as a lie to cover what he had done, I would stay my hand; it rests with him now"—I meant I would not go any further with it if he sent a cheque for £1,000 and repaid the monies he had obtained and apologised to the Assessment Committee saying I was drunk—"The evening before I left I made up my mind to
have done with him for good reasons, and the next morning at the office I took a memorandum of the dates when he received the money from a woman who was fined for assaulting a bailiff of the Court. As I told you, he would not pay the amount into Court, as he was bound to do under the rules, but stated he should 'stick to it' as it would repay him an amount which the registrar had deducted from a prior bill Jones had against him personally, and you took a note of this when I called on you. My object in taking this memorandum was to compel him to pay the money into Court so that he could not say that I was responsible for the money. As to taking a list of the bills he had against the Assessment Committee, I had a draft list from which I had made a copy for him one evening at home. I took this draft to his office the day after I left him; also two or three precedent books I had used for drafting documents for him at home, but kept a copy of the draft, as after the way he had served me I had made up my mind to use it, but not blackmail him. I left the Court with the clean sheet, and, as I have said, he tried to make out a very different state of things and failed. I hope when you see him he will see his position. I did not want money from him; I wished to make him pay others. Apologising for troubling you, Yours very truly, H. C. Mandy"—among those books there was not one which contained a precedent of Mr. Beat's for formulating bills of costs—I had had the precedent book at home for some two or three months—I was only paid 30s. a week; never 35s.—I took the book home to copy the precedent—Ladd has now been found—he came to the Court last night, and from my description of him the detective served him with a subpoena—Exhibit I. is another letter from me to Mr. Pope—"I send you a copy of the paper I spoke of yesterday. I consider I am fully justified in acting as I have. I am positive you would have done the same had you been in my shoes. It is useless to argue. I was told again to-day at the Spread Eagle, of Jones' boasting threats, but I leave him to his remedy, and defy him. In the interests of Mr. Jones, I again say he ought to make an offer, say £1,500, and get his Masonic friends to try and help him"—I think he is a mason—I do not know how his friends were to help him—I thought he would be able to raise money—"As you are aware, if the Committee entertain the application they fix a day and the applicants have to forward to him and the Registrar, the documents on which they rely within seven days after lodging the application. It is well that he should not try to imitate the ostrich. As I told you, all the copies of Mrs. Jones' sixty-eight folios are not destroyed"—a document was produced to me which was not opened—"she may recollect writing to me as to the copying. I mention this as a warning."—she did write to me—I did not mean to convey that I had a letter in my possession which I could use if I wanted to—I am going to Rottingdean on Sunday, and if they fool Ward's clerk, they cannot fool yours truly, H. C. Mandy"—they" must mean Mr. and Mrs. Jones and those in the office—I got this cheque of the prisoners, dated February 9th, 1901, for £4 16s.; 3d.—it is endorsed by me, and this one of February Kith, 1901, for £6 7s., also £6 17s., February 23rd; and £11 14s. on March 2nd; and £12, but there is nothing to show the date of that; it is partly torn off—the amount altogether is £41 14s.,—the whole
of these cheques were paid to me before March 12th, 1901—they are outside my wages of 30s. a week—they were for writing at home or in my time which were not office hours—they represent some thousands of folios at 1 1/2 d. per folio—it works out at £6 5s. a thousand—not a penny of that money was paid for the copying in connection with these fourteen appeals; it was for the Gas Company's appeals—if the prisoner produces his diary it is entered for the Gas Company's appeals—I think they were all heard at the same Sessions—I do not know if they were in the same list—the Gas Company's appeals were settled—the bills were not taxed or sent in—there is t letter dated the 12th July, 1903, from me to the prisoner—"I have two days to spare before I leave"—that is for Brighton—"if I can run through the costs for you, I will do so on Tuesday, but let me know as soon as possible, as my time is precious"—I had left him on June 26th or 27th—there was no limit to the amount of contempt, or something worse, in which I held him—I wrote that letter because on the Monday I met him and a Mr. Pincher—the prisoner said, "You are putting me to a lot of trouble staying away from the office"—I said, "Serve you right; I am glad of it"—in the evening I met him again—he said, "Look here, Mandy, how much longer are you going to fool about; you promised to get out Durdon's costs for me. When are you coming back?—I said, "I told you I had had enough of you and I had left you"—he said, "You promised to do it"—I said, "I will see about it, as I promised to do it for you"—I afterwards thought I would go and 'do it—he made an appointment to meet me next morning—in the evening I had arranged to go into the country, so I did not go—he charged £25 for his costs in an executorship account where only £4 was due—he told me to make a memorandum on the costs; "these costs to be £25"—he said he would dictate the items to me to make up the £25, which he charged, and he got the executor to swear to it that he had paid the £25, and the executor swore to the account—I did not write that letter because I desired to get back to him—he invited me to go back—he wrote to the Assessment Committee, saying he had dismissed me for drunkenness, and that is what annoyed me—he thought I should never see the letter—I showed him the amount of his profits—that was a hint to him, and to show him the dishonest things he was doing—I think it was about twelve months after I went there—that is how the income tax business cropped up—I said at the Police Court, "I am under the impression that Mr. Jones gave a policeman 5s."—I was under the impression he was jangling them about, and I thought it was for the old gentleman at the door—I got out all the bills, but left them for him to settle—he was so afraid of losing 6s. 8d. that he went through every bill three or four times—Mr. Smith was undoubtedly guilty of collusion with the prisoner—I never saw any money paid by the prisoner to Smith—I think I saw Smith once at the taxing office, and once afterwards, when I tried to get an allocator put right—the auditors would not pass one of the bills, and the prisoner sent me up to get Smith to put it right—on the occasion we taxed the bill I had two pints of Burton with Smith—I never gave him any money, and he never gave me any—I spoke of him to the prisoner as "smith"—there is no doubt that the prisoner took him to the Derby to
pass the duplicate bills—one bill of costs was from one of Mr. Beal's precedent books; it was copied—I did not use the precedent from beginning to end; I stopped at the item "Attending counsel for briefs"—I wrote two letters to Mr. Coe; one is dated July, 1903, written from Hove—Coe was not a solicitor—I do not know what he was—I think I said something to the law Society about Coe, because the prisoner contended that he was entitled to share money with a layman—a Mr. Donogan had made a statement to me that I had been provided for, and that he had put something away for me, and that I had a legacy under his will—I tried to get the money, but was not successful—he had told me he had put by to the value of £2,000 for me—I was to have a life interest, and the rest was to be put by for my child—before I went to Brighton I was not a lodge keeper at a Wandsworth institution—between leaving the prisoner and going to Brighton I was unfortunately kicking about Wands worth—it was the talk of the town about my leaving—everybody wanted to know what it was about Jones—I wrote to the "daily Telegraph" with reference to the prisoner's statement that he had dismissed me for drunkenness; they did not publish the letter—I lost some of the letters in the case coming up this morning—from September last I was staying in a house in Merton Road of which the prisoner was landlord—a fire occurred while I was there—the insurance company refused to pay anything to the landlord for the damage done—I do not know their reasons—I have not heard it suggested that I had something to do with its being caused—the insurance company refused at first to pay, because they said they had received no application—they found out their mistake and apologised—I am not the person who got Smith to get Sir Richard Wyatt's signature to the allocator which was altered—I did not suggest to Smith how the allocator should be signed—I saw Smith, and he said he would get in great disgrace for having acted as he did—this paper is in my writing (Produced), but it is not a suggestion as to how Sir Richard Wyatt's signature should be signed (Read)"Try Piper. The auditor won't take the allocator unless signed by Wyatt. Shall I see Smith on Monday and get him to stamp the signature?"—Piper was the clerk to the Guardians—I never suggested to anybody that I should approach Smith on the question—the prisoner sent me up—I wrote this because the auditor would not pass the item because it was signed by the clerk, and I looked upon it as a strange thing for the clerk to do, to strike out a principals allocator and then write an increased one—the prisoner said, "For God's sake go and see Smith"—Smith said, "I shall not have anything to do with it," and the prisoner went up and saw him—I thought if Smith stamped the allocator it would save time—the stamp was "R. H. Wyatt"—sometimes it was signed and sometimes stamped—I wrote to Coe on June 13th, 1904, and to Simmons—I said to him, "If I hear any more of your threats it will act to your prejudice"—Simmons was a policeman living on his pension, I believe—when the prisoner was giving evidence at the Police Court he referred to a great many alterations by me in a bill of costs—there is another item of 17s. in red; it is coach hire for 7s., which the prisoner put here, and I altered it in red to 17s., because it was altered in the draft, and I made a mistake in copying it—they were the prisoners figures—he made some calculation and said, "Oh, charge 17s."—whatever
alteration or increase I made in the figures was at the express direction of the prisoner—he knew perfectly well every item of the bill, and checked it with me.
By the COURT. If I had made these alterations without instruction or out false items in it would have made no difference to me—I cannot suggest how I should have got anything for it if I had altered the 7s. into 17s.
Re-examined. I was paid 30s. a week and extra for copying—beyond that I had no interest in the prisoner's business—I never had any commission on any work he received or did—when the prisoner had settled a skeleton bill he told me to make a copy of it so that it should be copied again for the other cases, and for use at taxing—there was not a draft bill in each of the fourteen cases, because the copy was used for the others—when I left the office the draft bill was there—on one or two occasions I saw the prisoner write the cheques which he gave me for copying in the gas Company's appeals—I do not know if he made a note on the counterfoil as to what they were for, but I think he did in his diary on each occasion—the diary was in the office when I left—there was no other book in which entries were made by the prisoner—it was day book, ledger and everything else—the fire in Merton Road was at No. 39, which is a coffee shop—I had nothing to do with those premises catching fire—until to-day I never heard it suggested—people lived in the house at the time of the fire—this document (Produced) looks like an extract from the "South-Western Star."
ALFRED NICHOL HENDERSON . I am a member of the Bar and was formerly Clerk to the Guardians of the Wandsworth Union and to the Assessment Committee—I am now superintending registrar of births, deaths and marriages for the Wandsworth registration district—I was called in 1396—I was then Clerk to the Guardians—the Benchers knew it—it was before any regulation to the contrary was passed—I belong to Grays Inn—I practised while I held the position of superintending registrar—I did not know there was anything irregular in doing it—I have not practised since these cases—I resigned my office as Clerk to the Guardians and Assessment Committee about December, 1899—I heard that I was to be junior counsel in the assessment appeals of the Battersea Borough Council about January 15th, 1901—I do not think I knew anything of it before the prisoner came to me—the first thing that happened in regard to my being instructed as counsel was that the prisoner sent me fourteen retainers—he probably brought them himself, one in each case—the retainer was is the usual form, with the fee of £1 1s. marked on the outside of it—he said I had to sign the papers—they were the first retainers I had had, and I signed them—he showed me whereabouts to sign them—it was somewhere near the fee, I suppose—that is where I did sign them—he did not tell me why I had to sign them there—I signed them because I thought I was merely confirming the fact that I was being retained in the cases—he did not pay any fee at that time on any of them—I was a barrister then—I had no chambers; I have now—I had clerks, but no barrister's clerk—I knew I was being retained, but I did not know I was signing a receipt—I did not know much about the scale of fees—the prisoner brought them to my office at Lavender Gardens, where I carry on the business of superintending
registrar—I having signed them, the prisoner took them away—I did not know it was usual to keep a retainer until the case came on, I have had very great experience in rating matters, and that is why I was employed, but I knew very little about these fees—I had had no previous experience—I know now that a retainer is a document which entitles a barrister to demand a brief if he has received it, and that it keeps him off the other side, but I never thought about it then—I thought this was the usual procedure—it never occurred to me that there was anything unusual in it—I knew that if the Battersea people had come to me and said, "Mr. Henderson, I want you to take a retainer from me; I want you to take a brief," I could not take it—if they had said "Show me your retainer," I should have said Mr. Jones had taken it away—I should have spoken the truth—I should have had nothing to show that I was retained—I trusted everybody—the next thing that happened with regard to the cases was that the prisoner instructed me to prepare the respondents' case—he brought a sort of back sheet marked, "Instructions to prepare respondent" case"—I did so—there were fourteen cases and two were standing orders, so did not require the respondents' case to be prepared, because they were under a certain amount, so I prepared twelve—he brought me twelve papers, instructions to settle the respondents' case—those were the cases which were subsequently printed—after that the prisoner said I should be briefed in one of the cases, that of Francis & Son—it was not one of the fourteen—he put the evidence before me and asked me to advice on the evidence—I did advise in the case of Francis & Son—then he gave me instructions to advise on evidence in the fourteen cases—the instructions were on a back sheet, marked, "Instructions to advise on evidence" and my name and the number of the appeal, the number of the Quarter Sessions and the fee of £2 2s. on each—I do not remember anything besides the back sheet—the prisoner brought the back sheets to me—they were put on my table—I think they were there perhaps a day or two—he had to come and see me on other business—he was always seeing me and he saw these papers on my table and said, "You will have to sign them"—I said, "Is that all you want me to do?" and he said, "Yes"—I signed each of them near the fee—I did not know at that time that such a signature under the fee operates as the usual receipt for it—when the prisoner came to retain me he brought a fee list—I did not know the signature was the ordinary voucher for a taxing officer in allowing fees on briefs—I thought the regular brief was the voucher—the prisoner took them away with that signature upon them—before he did so I did not write anything upon any one of the cases in the shape of advice on evidence, so there was nothing for him to peruse when he got them home—the briefs were delivered on February 28th, I think, because the cases were going to be in the list on the 28th—I did not attend the Court on the 28th—I was not well enough to go—the briefs were complete briefs; the same as I had received in other cases—as far as I can remember, they consisted of a back sheet and a lot of other sheets attached to it—some were blank, but several of them were written upon, containing manuscript
copies or portions of manuscript copies of the original objection which was made before the Assessment Committee—the appellants' case, the respondents' case, and the notice to appear separately, which had been printed, and a lot of papers enclosed with them, with the shorthand notes of the proceedings which were taken before the Assessment Committee—in one or two cases there were some reports from the surveyors—I do not remember any instructions to counsel in them or anything in the nature of a disquisition on the law as to the rating of public-houses—I know the celebrated Camberwell case, in public-house rating—I do not recollect anything in the brief anything like that case; it is four years ago—I read the brief and made a lot of notes, which I have here—this was not quite my first brief—some other cases had come on—I had no brief before February and January—at that period of my career I should have read a brief if I had had one—I do not remember reading anything about the law in the Courts of Appeal—the prisoner said he had not had time to prepare the briefs—he said he was going on and that the cases had come into the list sooner than he expected—I believe I heard that the cases were adjourned on February 28th to March 12th—I am afraid I cannot recollect how soon I heard there was a prospect of their being settled without being tried—I was at the Court on March 12th, when they were disposed of—they were not dismissed; they were withdrawn by consent, each party being left to pay their own costs—the figures were to remain; the valuations were to remain the same—between February 28th and March 12th I received no further papers at all in the nature of a brief, nor did I at any time—I was paid a retainer; I have got a copy of the fee list—the prisoner brought me a fee list—I signed it and in exchange he gave me a cheque—he brought me a separate fee list in each of the fourteen appeals—I was paid the retainer fee in nine out of the fourteen—when the prisoner came to pay me in April, 1902, he said the taxing master had taken exception to the retaining in my ease and I at once struck it out and said I would not receive any fee where there was any exception to it—he had then already paid the nine—with regard to the fee for advising on evidence, which I had signed £2 2s. for, I never received that in any of the cases—it was never mentioned again—it was never included in any list of fees which the prisoner paid me—he put it on the list of fees in the case of Francis, but not of any of the fourteen—I never suggested it should be paid—the cases were settled and there was no necessity to advise on evidence.
Cross-examined. I was employed by the Committee about July, August, and September, 1900—the clerk was ill; he was knocked up and had to go away—I was not with the Committee at the time these appeals were lodged—it was the desire of the Assessment Committee that I should be instructed in these cases as junior counsel.
By the COURT. I was employed from about July to the end of September or middle of October—their clerk was ill—I was formerly clerk to the Committee—the work was very heavy; there were about 6,000 appeals received—the Committee sent for me and asked me to help them—I was paid for it—I was then a barrister—I was not practising—my connection
with the Committee had ceased months before—I became a practicing barrister in 1901—I should not have thought there was anything wrong in my taking a brief between July and September, 1900, if anybody had brought it.
By MR. MOYSES. Beside the appeals in which I was instructed by the prisoner I was instructed by Messrs. Young, Son & Ward, for some appeals, and some other solicitors—all the solicitors who had appeals in their hands instructed me—I had very few briefs: three or four or five; the prisoner had eighteen—I understood the Assessment Committee desired me to act, but I was not there—they thought I had a great knowledge of these cases—I ceased to be clerk about September—these appeals were five or six months afterwards, and I had nothing whatever to do with the Committee then—when the clerk was ill I did not want to help them, but the assistant clerk said he could not do the work—they were in great difficulties and I assisted them temporarily—I did not then know what was permissible to barristers as members of Inns of Court and counsel—as far as I can remember, the retainers were brought to me in the first instance by the prisoner—there were fourteen separate back sheets—I cannot recollect how long I had them before they were taken away; I should think perhaps a week—I cannot remember when I put my name on them; it is four years ago—it was at the time they were taken away—I put my name just under the fee; I put my full name as far as I can remember—I knew a great deal about these cases and had a good deal of knowledge and information with reference to the work I was expected to do if the appeals had been fought—between February 27th and March 12th I frequently saw the prisoner and talked matters over with him at my office—they were not regular consultations, paid for in the ordinary way—there were two official conferences; he came to my office on other business in connection with the business—I did advise in the case of Francis—I cannot say if the points and questions to be considered in that case were the same as those in the fourteen appeals—Francis's was a store with an off licence; the others were thirteen public-houses and a theatre—I do not remember if I had any conversation with the prisoner before February 27th about the probability of my being instructed—I do not remember when it was present to my mind that I was likely to be instructed as counsel in the cases—the prisoner came to pay me later on; I think about April 12th, 1901—about June 14th, 1901, there was £22; on August 15th, 1901, five cases paid for, £72 11s.; on or about January 19th, 1902, three cases paid for, £55 16s.; on or about April 19th, 1902, two paid for, £34 17s.; on or about May 12th, 1902, the theatre was paid for, £2 4s. 6d.; and May 23rd, 1902, two cases paid for, £34 17s.—I believe that is all; that comes to about £220—in each of the cases when a payment was made there was a list of fees in respect of which those amounts were paid and vouched by me—the prisoner brought lists of the fees due to me in each case and gave me a cheque when I signed the fee list—each time he brought a cheque I signed a list exactly corresponding with the amount of the cheque—there was nothing in the nature of an improper understanding between me and the prisoner—I entered the service of the
Guardians about January 8th, 1903—the prisoner was employed by them then; he was employed by the Guardians before I went there.
Re-examined. During the period from July to September, 1900, when I was acting as Clerk to the Assessment Committee, they were revising the lists and hearing objections of parties to their rating—I heard the arguments and assisted and advised the Assessment Committee as to the figures they ought to put in the valuations—any appeals from the decision of the Assessment Committee have to be notified by January 14th of the following year.
By the COURT. When I went to help the Committee their regular clerk was away ill—I took his place temporarily—I was not paid—at the end of the year there was a sum of so much voted and he gave me what he thought was fair for my services—during that time I became acquainted with the details of these appeals, how and why they were arrived at, but I did not interfere or advise them very much—if I Was asked I should give them what amount I thought would be the proper rate—I should work it out according to the rules—in most of the cases they had a valuer to value them—I was conversant with it all—at that time I was a barrister—there were objections in some of the fourteen cases—I had a good deal of information acquired in assisting the Committee, which might be useful to one side or the other; that is what the Committee thought—it never occurred to me that if the Battersea Borough Council wished for my services they could have brought me a retainer and insisted upon having them—I did not see that I might be compelled to put all my information at the disposal of the Committee's opponents—I see it now—I see now the utter impropriety of my acting as clerk, I being a barrister—the Council wanted to have me; I did not want to take the clerk's place—I see now the absolute inconsistency of the functions and duties of a barrister and those which I took upon myself upon that occasion, but it never occurred to me then.
FREDERICK JAMES CURTIS . I am the assistant clerk to the Guardians of the Wandsworth Union and also to the Assessment Committee—on January 1st, 1901, the prisoner was appointed by the Assessment Committee to act as their solicitor in the fourteen appeals—I believe they were numbered 1419 to 1,431, inclusive, and 1,468—on April 4th, 1901, on the application of the prisoner, a cheque for £2,000 was paid to him on account of costs, and in 1902 the prisoner's bills of costs were handed to the Assessment Committee and then to the Guardians for payment—the total sum of his bills of costs in those fourteen appeals came to £1,804 15s. 8d.—on September 22nd, 1902, a cheque for the balance of £967 8s. 10d. was paid to the prisoner, who gave a receipt for it.
GEORGE SUTTON . I am a livery-stable keeper, of High Road, Wandsworth—I knew the prisoner—on February 20th, 1904,1 supplied an omnibus to his order, for use on that day, and on February 27th a cab—the charge for the 'bus was £2 6s., and for the cab 6s. 6d.—that amount was paid at my office on March 1st, 1901—that was the whole of the charges that I had against him.
so acting when the appeals by the Battersea Borough Council against the Assessment Committee of the Wandsworth Union were entered and throughout the time they were pending the prisoner acted as the solicitor for the Assessment Committee—in the ordinary course the cases for the appellants and the respondents are printed, lodged with the Court and used by both sides—it is usual for the appellants' and respondents' solicitors to exchange the printed cases—the charge is made up, and if there is any difference it is usually paid afterwards—if the copy on the one side is equivalent to the copy of the other, then there is no charge—in these cases in which the prisoner was acting the printed cases were exchanged between us—there was no payment made at all by the prisoner for the copies of the appellants' Cases which we supplied to him.
Cross-examined. Fourteen cases were put into the hands of one solicitor and fourteen dealt with—if the fourteen cases had been given to fourteen solicitors a separate bill would have been chargeable by each solicitor—I am pretty familiar with the proceedings of taxation before a taxing master—solicitors often have a clerk who they send to attend to the taxing—taxing of costs is regarded as a special branch—in every firm of any standing the principals rarely go themselves, but send a clerk, and in many cases before a Master in the High Court a clerk attends on each side generally—one of the first items is "Instructions for brief"; then "Drawing brief"; and then "Copies of briefs for counsel"—the "Instructions for brief" is fixed by the taxing master at a lump sum—there is no exact process by which that sum is arrived at—bills which have to be taxed are left with the Master for a time—an opportunity is given to some representative on the other side to attend if necessary—the sum for the drawing of briefs is arrived at by charging so much per folio—I do not think that includes observations for briefs or documents—I think it is merely for the brief, which consists of so many pages of instructions and then the proofs—1s. per folio is usually allowed by a taxing master—if the Master found there had been any duplication or repetition I imagine he Would cut it out—I think the Master allows something like 4d. per folio for copies of briefs for counsel—I know what a Crown Office subpoena is—it includes three witnesses in one, upon each of whom you serve a copy—6s. 8d. is put down and allowed when you get a Crown Office subpoena—if you have eighteen witnesses to bring up you get six Crown Office subpoenas, and it is often the practise in the King's Bench and Chancery Divisions to put down 6s. 8d. for each Crown Office subpoena, but the taxing master questions it—it has never been done by my office—I think there would be an extra allowance, but not so much as that—I have never had more than one at a time—I have never given the matter a thought, but I do not think I should charge for six—I do not know that Mandy has been in any one's employ since the initiation of these proceedings—I believe he has been doing work for the Battersea Borough Council in connection with this case.
Re-examined. It is usual for a clerk who attends taxing to take with him vouchers for all payments out of pocket—I have never known payments out of pocket in a bill of costs to be allowed without a voucher—I
have never heard of an item of drawing a brief being charged in a bill of costs after the case is over.
By MR. MOYSES. In my experience, a taxing master always insists upon a voucher for everything he allows—the taxing master would always wish to see a voucher for a payment out of pocket, whether the other side agreed or not, because he might object to its being paid—I have heard of an affidavit of increase—when a voucher cannot possibly be obtained then the Master requires an affidavit of increase.
CHARLES JOSEPH PANTON . I trade as Hunnard & Co., law stationers and printers, of 2, Tanfield Court, Temple—in 1901 the prisoner employed us to print some cases in assessment appeals at the Quarter Sessions—I made separate charges for the cases, which I printed in each appeal—in appeal 1,419 my charge was 16s.; in 1,420, 16s.; and the same amounts in 1,425 to 1,431, inclusive, 16s. in each case, and also in 1,648, which was the Shakespeare Theatre, the total in these cases was £8 16s., which the prisoner paid me.
HENRY FRANCIS TREMAYNE . I am a clerk in the office of Mr. Beal, who is clerk to the Quarter Sessions at Clerkenwell in assessment work—among other appeals which were lodged in 1901, I remember a number by the Battersea Borough Council against the Assessment Committee of the Wandsworth Union—out of the fourteen mentioned in this case, thirteen related to public-houses, and one to the Shakespeare—Nos. 1,419 to 1431 and 1,468—I was not in Court, but I believe they were adjourned from February 27th or 28th, 1901. to March 12th—I produce the minute book of the Court of March 12th, and find an entry as to these fourteen appeals; "By consent, appeals dismissed," that is the only entry—nothing further was done in connection with those appeals—no order was drawn up or applied for—no money was ever paid to the Court for an order—there was no occasion for drawing minutes—there could have been no attendance for minutes—if the prisoner had attended for them they would have been drawn up—there was no payment—there were no minutes to peruse.
Cross-examined. Mr. Beal is the same gentleman who publishes a precedent of costs—the items read out appear in that precedent—the hearing of the assessment appeals extended over many months—the cases were not taken in the same order as they appear in the cause list—the cases dodge about, and it is not easy to follow when they are likely to come on—you have to come to the Court every day or search the list—I think there were 2,300 appeals.
Re-examined. From time to time the Court sent out notices to the solicitors on both sides, giving them notice which cases are likely to come into the list.
GEORGE COOPER (50 G.R.) I am permanently on duty at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell—the robing rooms and consultation rooms there are under my charge—I was on duty on February 28th and March 12th, 1901, when the Court sat for the hearing of assessment appeals—I was the only officer in charge of the consultation rooms on there days—there is no charge for the use of them by solicitors and counsel—I have never seen the prisoner to my knowledge until I saw him at the Police Court in this case—I never
received from him or any one on his behalf £6 6s. 6d. or any sum for the use of the consultation room at the Sessions House on those days.
Cross-examined. I was never offered half-a-crown—I do not know if I should have refused it if it had been offered to me—there are five or sit other policemen in the building—I did not receive a half-crown on February 27th, 1901.
Re-examined. I should not be likely to forget if I received £6 6s. 6d.
WILLIAM BRIGGS (Inspector G.) The Clerkenwell Sessions House is in my district—on February 28th and March 12th, 1901, I was on duty there—I arrange all the police duty there, and I make it a rule during the Sessions to visit at least twice a day—Cooper is the man in charge of the consultation and robing rooms—no charge is ever made for the consultation room—as far as I know, no sum was paid for the consultation room—any gratuities which Cooper may receive would go through me to the Commissioner, and they have been sometimes allowed.
CHARLES BELCHER (Detective-Sergeant V.) I received a warrant for the prisoner's arrest on August 13th, 1904, the day it was issued—I found the prisoner was out of the country and I know that proceedings for extradition were taken—on September 4th I went to Calais and received the prisoner in custody from the French police—I read the warrant to him—it charged him with obtaining from the Guardians of the Wandsworth and Clapham Union a cheque for £978 9s. 10d. with intent to defraud—he said, "Oh, they have not put the £2,000; well, you will have to arrest every solicitor if that is the case; why, I have paid £20 to come home"—I understand that was £20 to pay for his food—he lived in better style than the ordinary French prisoner—on the boat we were speaking about the case, and he said he could not understand what the offence was, as owing to the translation of the document the false pretences had become an abuse of confidence, and I explained it to him—he said, "If they press the case there will be one of the biggest scandals Wandsworth has ever seen."
Cross-examined. He told me he had paid the £20—he had been detained in prison in France for two or three weeks.
EDWARD LADD . I am a clerk, at present out of employment—I have lived at 24, Haverstock Street, City Road, since the latter part of last April—I gave evidence at the Local Government Board inquiry before Mr. Burd, the inspector, in March last year—at that time I was living at Vauxhall—I know Mandy—we are related by marriage—I knew him as clerk to the prisoner—I have never seen the prisoner until this morning—Mandy gave me some law copying work to do; he paid me—I remember, in March, 1901, I copied some briefs after the appeals were finished—I was told at the time that they were finished the appeals were respecting the Wandsworth and Battersea Councils—I cannot tell you what kind of property they were about—I know the Shakespeare, Theatre, Clapham Junction, by passing it—I have never been inside it—I was never employed by anybody to visit that theatre and count the house or to make any report upon the kind of business done there—I was never paid a fee of £3 3s., or any sum, for reporting on that theatre—I never
had any communication with the prisoner in reference to that matter at all.
Cross-examined. I have known Mandy about ten or twelve years—I did some copying for him in January, 1901, on a different matter—I only worked for him about that time, not before that year—I forget now what I was paid by Mandy in 1901; I left it entirely with him—I do any kind of writing—I was last in regular employment about eight years ago—I had no idea how much Mandy paid me—I did not go away after giving evidence before the Local Government Board inspectors; I changed my address—I have been about London seeking employment—I was never asked by Mandy to go and give evidence before the police Magistrate at the South Western Police Court—I had not seen Mandy for a long time until last evening—I never authorised him to sign my name to a receipt for £3 3s.—he never asked me to go with him to assist in the counting of a theatre—I initialed certain memorandums as receipts—I had never done any work associated with Mandy before 1901—I was then wanting some work, and I asked him if he could give me some—I had asked him for work before that, but I had Dot got it—I never saw any cheques that Mandy had—I believe the writing I had to copy was Mandy's—I came to this building last night—I wanted to see Mandy—I knew this case was on—I do not think he knew where to find me—I had not been in hiding from him—I saw him the first Sunday in November, at Victoria, and spoke to him for a few minutes—previous to that I had not seen him since last March, I think—I have seen Mrs. Mandy—they have not been living together lately—she is my sister—I came here last night to ask Mandy if he could find me some employment—I did not know his address.
BURTON WARD . I am a solicitor, and a member of Young, Son & Ward, of 24, Ely Place, now acting as solicitors for the Guardians of the Wandsworth Union—I have been acting as their solicitor in this matter from the commencement of the inquiry into the charges by the prisoner in his bill of costs—my firm also acted as solicitors to the Guardians in sixty-one of the assessment appeals in 1901—on March 14th, 1904, I attended, upon instructions of the Guardians, the inquiry which was held by Mr. Burd, the Local Government Board inspector into the allegations made by Mandy in his letters to the Assessment Committee, and to the Borough Council—I know the prisoner had notice of that inquiry—he was not present or represented by anybody—I have the letter which was received from him, dated March 13th; it says, "I am sorry to say I am suffering from the gout, and cannot come up to the inquiry to-morrow. I am instructing my London agent, Mr. A. Pope, of Grecian Chambers, Devereux Court, Temple, to look into the matter for me, and you will no doubt hear from him"—I have a letter received from the prisoner, dated September 12th, 1903—that is a reply to a letter sent to him by the Clerk to the Guardians on September 21st: "In reply to your letter for my observations upon the contents of Mandy's letters, I may state that I know little about the items in the bills of costs, as they were all drawn and engrossed by Mr. Mandy himself; in fact, he did most of the writing in connection with the appeals. Since his discharge from my service in June last for drunkenness he has threatened revenge
and endeavoured to obtain money from me upon the same grounds as he is now applying to your Committee"—I have here a letter giving him notice of the inquiry which was going to be held, dated March 4th, 1904: "I beg to inform you that Mr. Burd, Local Government Board inspector, will bold a local inquiry at the Board Room of the Guardians, St. John's Hill, on Monday, 14th March inst., at 11 o'clock a.m., with reference to your charges in connection with Assessment Appeals. The Guardians expect you to be present at such inquiry, at the time named, to furnish the inspector with all details in connection with your accounts, and it will be necessary for you to produce all papers relating to the matters charged for in bills of costs for appeal to both Special and Quarter Sessions"—at the inquiry evidence was given, and after that, in consequence of instructions, I wrote a letter to the prisoner, dated April 15th, "We are instructed by the Guardians of the Wandsworth Union to ask you to hand over to their clerk, Mr. Piper, all papers and documents relating to the Assessment Appeals in which you represented the Guardians in the year 1901, including draft briefs and copies of documents made by you and charged for in the bills of costs delivered to the Guardians, the taxed amounts of which have been paid to you. We are instructed to request that you will hand these papers to Mr. Piper at the latest by Tuesday next"—we got no reply to that—on April 20th, we wrote again, "We are surprised you have not replied to our letter of the 15th. We do not want to take proceedings in the matter unnecessarily, and we shall be glad to hear from you by return of post, whether or not you intend to hand over the papers in question"—on April 27th, we got a letter from Mr. Pope, "Mr. Jones has handed me your letters in this matter, and has instructed me to accept service of any process which your clients may wish to issue against him"—that is the only answer we got for the request of the papers, and upon receipt of it, by the instructions of the Guardians, we took out a summons against the prisoner, before the Master in Chambers, for delay of these papers—the summons was heard on May 3rd, 1904—the Master made this order on that day (Produced)—the prisoner was represented before the Master by Mr. S. G. Lushington, instructed by Mr. Pope—he opposed the making of any order, and appealed to the Judge in Chambers for that order—the appeal came before Mr. Justice Bruce on May 7th, 1904—the prisoner was represented by the same counsel and solicitor—he sought to upset the order of the Master—the appeal was dismissed by the Judge with costs, leaving the order of the Master as it was made—neither on the summons before the Master or the Judge did the prisoner suggest that the papers were destroyed or were not then in existence on May 11th—I received a letter from Mr. Pope dated May 10th. [This stated that his client, the prisoner, had ascertained from his wife that the papers has been destroyed in her spring cleaning; that affidavits as to that should he made if desired; that he had already stated the reason for his absence at (he inquiry held by the Local Government Board and the circumstances which led to Mandy, who alone was responsible for the bills of costs, making the allegations against his client, and asking for a copy of the taxed bills of costs in order that it might be ascertained whether there was any foundation for such allegations, as it was impossible without them so to do.]—in reply to that I wrote this letter on
May 11th [Stating that the witness wrote saying that before the matter could be dealt with in any way, his client must make an appointment to be served with the order]—I had attended twice at Mr. Pope's office, and my clerk several times, to endeavour to serve the order on the prisoner, but had failed to do so—I received a letter in reply from Mr. Pope on May 12th, making an appointment for 11 o'clock on the following Wednesday—I kept the appointment myself and served the order for the delivery up of the papers upon the prisoner personally—this was about May 14th—no papers were delivered up in pursuance of that order, and on July 5th I obtained a summons for attachment—I sent a clerk to Mr. Jones' office, another to wait at Clapham Junction to watch trains leaving for and coming from Brighton, and another to his residence at Rottingdean, but at no place could the summons be served upon him—consequently, on July 11th, the summons, affidavits, and exhibits were left at Mr. Pope's office—on July 13th I received a letter from Mr. Pope [Stating that his client had left for the Continent, with his family, for a month; saying he would send his address as soon as he could, and asking that the summons should be adjourned, as, not having yet heard from his client, he had no instructions]—I wrote a letter, agreeing to that—on July 14th the matter came before Mr. Justice Bucknill, and Mr. Pope, who attended, gave an undertaking to supply the prisoner's address as soon as he had ascertained it—the judge's note is as follows: "Mr. Pope under taking to give applicants his (Jones's) address as soon as known to him, adjourned for a fortnight; liberty to apply counsel's costs reserved"—on July 28th, not having heard from Mr. Pope, we wrote to him, reminding him of his undertaking, and on July 29th he replied that as yet he had not received the prisoner's address—on July 28th the summons for attachment came before Mr. Justice Phillimore, who refused to make an order for attachment, because service was not brought to the prisoner's notice—this is the judge note: "Stand over generally, liberty to serve at any time, and restore with two days' notice; liberty to issue summons to retax"—he also ordered that service on the housekeeper or on the clerk, or on Mr. Pope at Wandsworth, was to be deemed good service—on the morning of that day I received a letter from Mr. Pope dated August 3rd [Stating that he had not yet heard from his client, but was willing to accept service of the summons of attachment on himself in accordance with the instructions he had received from his client before he left, and asking for an adjournment of the application for a summons for relaxation in order that his client could be advised as to the position]—I did not consent to a further adjournment, and on August 4th the matter came before the Master in Chambers, who made an order for the bills to be retaxed—the prisoner appealed from that order and on August 9th his appeal was dismissed with costs by the judge, and leave to appeal was refused—notwithstanding that, the prisoner appealed, and the case will be in the civil paper on Monday—the prisoner was represented by the same solicitor and counsel before the Master and the Judge—I have the fourteen bills of costs as rendered to the Guardians before me (Produced)—they appear to have been taxed at different dates from October, 1901, to April, 1902—they all bear the facsimile signature of Sir Richard Wyatt, a rubber stamp, except the 14th, which is signed by him self—all the
bills of costs are drawn in practically the same form as far as the order of the items go—there are a few dates, but, generally speaking, there is only the month at the top of the page, and sometimes only the year—in each bill there is a charge made for printing the appellant's cases, making a total in the fourteen cases of £19 6s. 6d.—in each bill I find a charge made for the payment to printer for the respondent's cases, making a total amount of £20 6s.—the actual amount paid, according to Mr. Panton, is £8 16s. in each bill there is a charge made for coach hire as the amount paid in each case, with the exception of the appeal in the Shakespeare Theatre matter of 17s., making a total of £11 1s.—in the public-house appeal, in reference to the Falcon, there was also an appeal by the occupier, on the ground that the Assessment Committee had put him too high, and in that case there is a charge of 17s. for coach hire twice over, bringing up the total to £11 18s.—the sum actually paid is £2 12s. 6d.—there are different sums in each bill for rent of consultation room, making a total of £6 6s. 6d.—in each bill there is a charge made for drawing minutes, attending to settle, and settling minutes of the order of the Court, and other fees alleged to have been paid for that order, making a total in all of £17 10s.—in each bill there is a retaining fee of £1 1s., as having been paid to Mr. Henderson, and a further fee ofpounds 2 4s., 6d. for advising on evidence—in each bill there is a charge for instructions for brief, making a total of £136 10s.—a charge for drawing brief in each case, making a total of £106 7s., and a further charge of two copies of brief for counsel amounting to £70 18s.—these are the amount that have been actually allowed on taxation—there is a charge in each case for the prisoner's attendance with the valuers in visiting the various public-houses, making in all £232, excluding the case of the Falcon, where an extra guinea, was charged—there axe charges in each bill for "drawing bills of costs," "copy for committee," "copy to tax," and "copy to keep"—he would only be entitled to charge for the copy to tax; all the rest are most unusual charges—the total for drawing the bills of costs is £52 11s. 4d., of which all that he is really entitled to is ££9 14s. 8d., being for the one copy in each case, for the taxing officer—taking it generally, every letter he wrote and every attendance he made is charged fourteen times over—it is not always allowed fourteen times, for instance, in some cases a letter is reduced to 1s. 6d., and in other cases, allowed at 3s. 6d.
Cross-examined. I have had sixty-one appeals to conduct for my firm, in which I employed surveyors—the surveyors charged a separate fee for each one, and got paid—I forwarded the accounts to the union, and they dealt with them—if there had been fourteen solicitors the amount incurred for printing would be the same—I do not think the case of a surveyor charging fourteen times over for surveying houses is the same as a solicitor charging fourteen times over for the same letter, as the surveyor surveys on fourteen different houses, and charges accordingly.—I grouped my sixty-one appeals, as far as I could for instance, forty cases related to property in St. John's Road; I put all my entries relating to general circumstances, in which the work done in one was practically the same as in the others, in the bill of costs in the first case and left those charges out in the others—one of my bills, thus grouped,
related to engineering works, and another to gas works—I think if a letter were charged 3s. 6d. in the first bill, the same letter should not be charged for fourteen times over; we are not allowed to charge more than once for what we do—if it be a taxation between party and party, you make a charge for a copy of the bill of costs—I have never before, in sending a bill of costs to a client, made a charge for a taxation copy—I was concerned on behalf of the Windsworth Guardians in prosecuting Dr. Revell, who pleaded guilty at the last minute to having defrauded the Guardians for vaccination fees—sentence was postponed, in order that he should make some reparation which, amongst other things, included payment of our costs, which amounted to £562 2s. 3d.—from that amount £158 3s. 2d. was taxed off—I have been a solicitor for four years, and previously I was twenty years managing clerk for my firm—we were in friendly rivalry with the prisoner, and up to this time we had always regarded him as an honourable solicitor—my firm also instructed Mr. Henderson; he settled the cases, and, I think, he was junior counsel in three appeals—I did not know that he had acted as a member of the Assessment Committee—I knew that for some years he had been in the service of the Guardians—I only knew then that he was a superintending registrar—the item in my bill of costs against Dr. Revell of seventeen guineas for instructions for further brief represented innumerable letters and attendances, and a clerk being At the office till twelve o'clock at night for days; the usual fee for a witness one guinea—there were eighty witnesses in the case—there is an item of fifteen guineas in the same bill for instructions on brief and perusing documents, which the taxing officer increased to twenty guineas with the consent of Dr. Revell's solicitor—it was taxed as between party and party—in some cases I had Mr. Horace Avory as leader, and in other cases Mr. Boyle, as he was then—the highest fee I ever paid was ten guineas to Mr. Avory—I did not employ Mr. Balfour Browne in any case—only a few cases were fought; no fees were paid in those that were not—there were a large number of subpoenas—I do not know that we ever got them from the Crown Office in a batch—the scale fee for a subpoena is 2s. 6d.—you have first to fill up a form, then stamp it, then fill up a subpoena on a parchment form—all that has to be handed in to the Crown Office, and you get your subpoena—I do not think that we got as many as four subpoenas at one attendance at the Crown Office—I do not suppose the four subpoenas charged at 6s. 8d. each on March 11th, were all issued on that day—I cannot swear to that, but it is extremely unlikely—you cannot put more than one name on a subpoena—there was an, inquiry held in May, 1902, at which the prisoner attended—inquiry was made in to the charges made by the valuers; it was incidentally mentioned that £2,000 had been Paid to the prisoner on account of his bills of costs—only seven of the original bills of costs could be found of the fourteen that were filed at the taxing office—I know that it is a substantial amount that was taxed off by sir Richard Wyatt—I employed two of the same surveyors that the prisoner employed in his cases—I knew Smith as Sir Richard Wyatt's senior clerk—it is correct what I said with reference to the taxation of my own bills, that "I had no occasion to complain of Mr. Smith in connection
with the many cases. He exercised his own judgment and reasonable discretion. Mr. Smith always dealt with the bills after they had left the taxing master seeing to the production of the vouchers, checking folios, etc."—that would apply also to counsel's fees.
Re-examined. The Revell case took a very long time I think it was heavier than this case—it was Dr. Revell's own suggestion that he should make reparation, and he offered me my costs as between party and party—very nearly £100 of the £105 taxed off was for actual payments for counsels' fees and witnesses—Mr. Bodkin represented the Guardians at the Police Court, and his fees were taxed off, as were the sums paid to the witnesses—the taxing master expressed the opinion that it was a most reasonable bill and increased some items in several cases with the consent of the other side—the learned Recorder was at first rather alarmed at the amount, but afterwards accepted the view of the taxing master—I have examined the seven bills of costs which have been found at the office of the clerk of the peace, and not one of them bears any trace of having been taxed by Sir Richard Wyatt himself; there is not a mark of his upon them—the figures we are dealing with are the amounts which have been allowed after taxation—my bills were taxed by Sir Richard Wyatt—he always worked with a blue pencil, and in the fourteen bills which I have there is only one with reference to the Shakespeare Theatre, which has been marked in blue pencil and afterwards rubbed out—it was by the special instructions of the Guardians that I briefed Mr. Henderson—in the cases in which I instructed him I did not deliver any retainer to him, or any case to advise on evidence.
The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was admitted a solicitor in 1866, and had practised since 1870 in Wands worth; that he admitted that the Assessment Committee had been defrauded of about £100, but that it was done by Mandy from motives either of blackmail, jealousy, or revenge, he having increased the items which he (the prisoner) had dictated, and inserted other items; that as yet he had only seen one of the bills, No. 1419, and that Mandy, who had committed perjury in many instances, had altered the figures afterwards; that the only bill submitted to him was the skeleton bill; that he instructed Mr. Henderson on the instructions of the Guardians, they suggesting he should make Mr. Henderson's fees as heavy as possible in reward for services rendered hitherto; that for that reason in the cheques paid retaining fees were included; that Mr. Henderson was in error in saying that he, had asked him to sign under each fee, but that on each occasion when a cheque was paid he got him to sign a list of fees which he intended producing as vouchers on taxation, but, owing to the neglect of the taxing master, was not called upon to do so; that he did not remember instructing Mr. Henderson to advise on evidence, nor taking him twelve papers purporting to be instructions to settle the respondents' case; that he had taken him fourteen papers marked "Instructions to advise on evidence," but that it was not true that he afterwards called and took them away again, nor' did he ask him to sign under
the two guineas, which was marked in each case by Mandy, and that Mr. Henderson had received those fees; I that he did not try and influence Smith in any way; that in January, 1904, he sent all the papers to his wife at Rottingdean to check, but owing to the annoyance the scandal with reference to them had caused her, in May she told him she had burnt them, although she knew of their importance; that he meant to have attended at the inquiry on March 13th, but was prevented by an attack of gout; that the papers were then in existence at Rottingdean but that he would not have produced them owing to their bulk; and that it was due to political reasons that he had resisted the inquiry, and to the fact that the bills had already been taxed and the items allowed.
GUILTY. Recommended to mercy on account of his age. Six months in the Second Division.
MR. JUSTICE DARLING said that as regards the conduct of Mr. Henderson in the case, there was nothing to be said against him personally, but that what had happened showed plainly how inadvisable it was that practising barristers should hold situations which were incompatible with the freedom of action that it was absolutely necessary a practising barrister should have, and that he left the matter in the hands of those who were competent to suggest some remedy.
MR. MATHEWS and Mr. GRAHAM CAMPBELL Prosecuted; MR. GEORGE ELLIOT Defended.
HOWARD DOUGLAS STEWART . I am a medical practitioner practicing in South Kensington, and I am a brother of the deceased—he was fifty-six years of age and a barrister, but did not practice—he toured at times with theatrical companies—to my knowledge he was not a married man—I know the prisoner had lived with him for about thirty years, and in December last they were living at 51, Gorst Road, Wands worth, where they had been for six months—I think I saw the deceased about seven months before his death—I think he drank to excess, and he was very bad tempered.
RICHARD RUNDELL WILLIAM ORAM . I am a registered medical practitioner, of 1, Bolingbroke Grove, Wandsworth Common—I knew the deceased slightly as a patient some years ago—about 5.30 p.m. on December 21st I heard a loud knocking at my door, and the prisoner was admitted to the house—she was very excited and in great trouble—she had no hat or wrap on, and had evidently rushed out of the house in great haste—I thought she had been drinking—she said, "You must come at once, my husband is bleeding, If you do not come at once he will bleed to death."
The prisoner here stated that she was guilty and the Jury returned a verdict to that effect.
GUILTY . Six months in the Second Division.
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 1905.